personally I am against
poisoning husbands, but I will not impose
my private religious convictions on anyone
else. This is a delicate matter best
left to a woman and her family doctor.
Let's keep the government out of people's
bedrooms. Everyone knows that a woman's
body entwines with her husband's. Some
people even say they become "one flesh."
what she does with her body is her choice.
Conservatives say they want less
government - then they ask the state to
intrude in a private decision.
The religious right argues husbands have
"souls," but what scientific evidence can
they give for their humanity? Have you
observed them on super bowl sunday? From
an evolutionary perspective their behavior
is on the same level as lower primates.
The right-wingers profess to care about
husbands when they are lying on the couch
- but do they help women burdened with
them after the bowl games are over?
Instead of always opposing a woman's right
to choose, why can't religious
conservatives just relax, join the
american mainstream - and recognize
husband poisoning as a sacred right
enshrined in our
constitution?
Last edited by proLife on 11-12-04 00:40am; edited 1 time in total
|
Izzy
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 16 Oct 2004 Posts: 883 Location: Earth
Posted: 11-11-04 18:15pm
|
proLife
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 04 Nov 2004 Posts: 65 Location: Canada
Poll Posted: 11-12-04 00:53am
I have encountered various opinions on
what makes a person a person. It is
based upon these that I have constructed
this poll. Of course, not all opinions
can be represented in such a poll, and
it's more than likely that many will
believe that it is a combination of the
options provided that define a person as a
person.
|
Izzy
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 16 Oct 2004 Posts: 883 Location: Earth
Posted: 11-12-04 08:46am
I voted soul because it is my belife but I
believe that chormosones also make it a
human being and a person
|
bd1012
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 31 May 2004 Posts: 1998
Posted: 11-12-04 22:03pm
What is so hard to understand?
.A.L.L. .B.O.R.N .P.E.O.P.L.E.
.H.A.V.E. .A. .R.I.G..H.T. .T.O.
.L.I.F.E.
.T.H.E..R.F.O.R.E. .I.T. .I.S.
.I.L.L.E.G.A.L. .T.O. K.I.L.L. T.H.E.M.
Unborn do not have this right. It is my
opinion though that once you kill someone
out of malice.. Than you give up your
right to life. Just to clarify my stance
and it also probably the governments or
there wouldn't be capital punishment.
It's not rocket science people!
|
proLife
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 04 Nov 2004 Posts: 65 Location: Canada
Posted: 11-12-04 23:48pm
bd1012
wrote:
what is so hard to
understand?
.A.L.L. .B.O.R.N .P.E.O.P.L.E.
.H.A.V.E. .A. .R.I.G..H.T.
.T.O. .L.I.F.E.
.T.H.E..R.F.O.R.E. .I.T. .I.S.
.I.L.L.E.G.A.L. .T.O.
K.I.L.L. T.H.E.M.
Unborn do not have this right. It is
my opinion though that once you kill
someone out of malice.. Than you give
up your right to life. Just to
clarify my stance and it also probably the
governments or there wouldn't be capital
punishment.
It's not rocket science
people!
malice = the intent, without just cause or
reason, to commit a wrongful act that will
result in harm to another.
I assume that you do not consider an
unborn child to be 'another' as stated in
the definition provided above - but since
you've based your argument upon the law
(using the term 'illegal'), let's see what
the law has to say.
The law says that an unborn child is a
person if it is killed by the father, and
a non-person if it is killed by the mother
- yet we're supposed to trust the law?
|
bd1012
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 31 May 2004 Posts: 1998
Posted: 11-13-04 07:20am
I knew you all would have a feild day with
that one.. He was found guilty of
homicide of the fetus because at the time
the fetus was viable meaning it could
survive outside the womb.
I am not sure if the law would have found
him guilty had the woman been about 5
weeks pregnant and if it did.. Than I
would not agree with it. I am not saying
I agree with all laws.. I am agreeing
with the constitution. That is not
always the law unfortunatly..
Take for example.. Prostitution from what
I know is illegal. I don't agree with
that because if people want to buy and
sell each other than that is their
business.. No skin off my back, to me
having prostitution illegal is a violation
of the right to pursuit of happiness.
Had someone else's right be infringed
because of prostitution, than I would
disagree with it.. But it's not illegal
because of that.. It's illegal because of
"moral values" and if it's not illegal
because of that, than why is it?
Anyway.. It is not the law I am stating
to you necessarily.. It is the
constitution and in this case the law just
happens to be on my side.
|
Izzy
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 16 Oct 2004 Posts: 883 Location: Earth
Posted: 11-13-04 09:20am
Thats just it bd your not sure!
Surely the decision needs to be giving to
preserve life rather than to convienience!
|
bd1012
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 31 May 2004 Posts: 1998
Posted: 11-13-04 10:55am
Omg.. You are such a person. Stop
taking what I say out of a context.. It's
getting pathetic. There are more than
convienence issues when someone aborts and
if there isn't.. It's still their choice.
There are times when a woman has wanted
her child but it's brain was growing
outside it's skull or it's kidney was
missing and had many other health problems
that led her to believe abortion was the
best thing for the then fetus.
|
proLife
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 04 Nov 2004 Posts: 65 Location: Canada
Posted: 11-13-04 19:36pm
bd1012
wrote:
i knew you all would have a
feild day with that one.. He was
found guilty of not a nice act of the
fetus because at the time the fetus was
viable meaning it could survive outside
the womb.
I am not sure if the law would have found
him guilty had the woman been about 5
weeks pregnant and if it did..
Than I would not agree with it. I
am not saying I agree with all laws..
I am agreeing with the constitution.
That is not always the law
unfortunatly..
Take for example.. Prostitution
from what I know is illegal. I
don't agree with that because if people
want to buy and sell each other than that
is their business.. No skin off my
back, to me having prostitution illegal is
a violation of the right to pursuit of
happiness. Had someone else's
right be infringed because of
prostitution, than I would disagree with
it.. But it's not illegal because
of that.. It's illegal because of
"moral values" and if it's not illegal
because of that, than why is it?
Anyway.. It is not the law I am
stating to you necessarily.. It is
the constitution and in this case the law
just happens to be on my
side.
'we the people of the united states, in
order to form a more perfect union,
establish justice, insure domestic
tranquility, provide for the common
defence, promote the general welfare, and
secure the blessings of liberty to
ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and
establish this constitution for the united
states of america.'
- united states constitution
since justice appears in the first
statement of the constitution let's look
at it's meaning.
justice - conformity to moral
rightness in action or attitude;
righteousness.
We can see that one of the primary
purposes of the constitution is to bring
about conformity to moral rightness.
The laws are intended to uphold moral
values.
bd1012
wrote:
take for example.. Prostitution
from what I know is illegal. I
don't agree with that because if people
want to buy and sell each other than that
is their business.. No skin off my
back, to me having prostitution illegal is
a violation of the right to pursuit of
happiness
you've raised a good point here. I
don't think any of us want to see morality
legislated to the point that we are going
to jail for saying a swear word. At
the same time, the idea that morality can
be completely divorced from the law is an
illusion. You have argued that the
prostitution laws should be removed
because morality should not dictate the
law. However, you are justifying your
argument by use of your own moral values.
The underlying moral value that you've
stated is: 'we should be free to pursue
our own happiness as long as it doesn't
result in harm to others'.
Therefore, to decide that the law should
be changed, would be to say that it must
be rewritten because it does not reflect
your moral judgment.
One final thing - human rights only exist
because we have agreed that human life
should be valued. Saying 'human
life should be valued' is itself a
statement of moral values.
|
bd1012
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 31 May 2004 Posts: 1998
Posted: 11-13-04 23:38pm
"therefore, to decide that the law should
be changed, would be to say that it must
be rewritten because it does not reflect
your moral judgment."
true.. But my "morality" that I would be
"forcing" would only be one and that is to
live and let live whereas others who try
to get other people to live by their
morality comes with a whole set of morals.
It's hard to explain but you do have a
point there... I digress.
|
proLife
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 04 Nov 2004 Posts: 65 Location: Canada
Posted: 11-14-04 17:42pm
bd1012
wrote:
"therefore, to decide that
the law should be changed, would be to say
that it must be rewritten because it does
not reflect your moral judgment."
true.. But my "morality"
that I would be "forcing" would only be
one and that is to live and let live
whereas others who try to get other people
to live by their morality comes with a
whole set of morals. It's
hard to explain but you do have a point
there... I
digress.
first of all, let me express my
appreciation for your answer.
Abortion is an issue that is loaded with
emotion. It's often
difficult to suppress our tendency to
respond with emotional outbursts against
one another - you have refrained from this
- many thanks.
I think that what we are both looking for
is a reasonable representation of moral
values in the law.
Your statement of moral values - 'live and
let live'
my statement of moral values - 'love the
lord your god with all your heart, soul,
mind and strength.' and 'love your
neighbor as yourself.' (this can actually
be reduced to 'love the lord your god with
all your heart soul and mind and
strength.' because if you hold only to
this value, you will hold to the other as
a result).
Clearly, we both have only one statement
of moral values. Yet each consists
of a set of moral regulations. They
include things like 'you shouldn't steal',
'you shouldn't 'm' word', 'you shouldn't
cause physical harm' etc.
Both of our value sets share the fact that
they can be reduced into one statement,
though they encompass a broad spectrum of
behavioral limitations.
The other thing that our values have in
common is that they cannot be legislated
entirely. I phrased your
moral values statement as 'we should be
free to pursue our own happiness as long
as it doesn't result in harm to others'.
Of course, a word spoken in
anger, gossip, etc. Does
cause harm to others. So
we must agree that while our morals
represent an ideal of human behavior,
neither of them can be legislated 100%.
The funny thing about both of our value
sets, is that while they appear quite
different on the surface, they are
actually very close in their application.
My view is that every wrong
act results in undue harm to oneself or
another. So in holding to
my values, I am saying
that we should not harm one another.
Also, the underlying value in
'live and let live' is that we are to show
proper respect for each other - this is a
natural consequence of loving one another.
Of course, in my equation,
god fits in as one of the others, so I
consider it my mandate to show him proper
respect also.
Nevertheless, if I were to adopt your
moral value statement, the net result
would be the same for me.
Not everyone in our society believes in
god, and we don't all share the same moral
views - still, we have to live with each
other, and that means coming up with a law
that represents either a consensus on
morality, or a 51% agreement on morality.
In the case of abortion, if
the 51% has spoken, and abortion is not
considered by them to be gross immorality,
then legalizing it is right in terms of
democratic process (which is all we have
to work with).
Having said that, one can still look at
this as an unjust law. Even if
societies moral value statement can be
summed up as 'live and let live', which I
believe is a commonly accepted moral
standard, this value statement can still
be applied to the unborn (whose life is
being taken). That is why I
debate abortion. That is
also why I like to focus on the question
of whether or not the unborn is a person.
I could provide oodles and oodles of
support for the theory that the bible is
true. I've already pointed
the way in suggesting 'the case for
christ'. Still, this
approach would end up being the long way
around. While I am open to
such discussions, it is my hope that I
can cast enough doubt on the view that the
unborn is not a person (without citing my
strongest evidence), that I could win the
hearts and minds of the 51%, and see the
law changed.
