Politics

JKool · 07-24-2004, 03:53 PM

Saintfan,

(b) anti-abortion folks aren\'t given permission by society or the government or God to tell someone else whether they can have an abortion or not.

If they were given PERMISSION by the government, or their traditions, or what have you, would that make preventing abortions morally ok - or even make abortions morally bad. I\'m sure you had something a bit stronger than \"permission\" by some person(s) in mind, right?

JKool · 07-24-2004, 03:57 PM

ScottyRo,

You don\'t really think that it is ok to kill abortion doctors (even while in the act of aborting) do you? I think you\'ve raised an interesting example; however, I don\'t think that is morally permissable. When is it that you have the right to take a life to save an unknown quantity (like the potential child). Would you feel safe in assuming that your wife was not aborting a child with a serious congenital defect, who may not live more than a few days in pain (consider a anencephaletic child?). I just don\'t think that the killing (of the doctor) in this case could ever be a justifiable trade off. I guess, practically speaking, I don\'t see a case where killing the doctor (who is a known human being of some moral value) and saving the child (of virtually unkown value) would ever be the case.

ScottyRo · 07-24-2004, 06:31 PM

Forgive the lack of \"leagle ease\" here, but the underlying thing for me is that regardless of whether or not humans and cows are on the same level and regardless of all the hypothetical stuff going on here the FACT remains that:

(a) when life actually begins is debatable.
...and
(b) anti-abortion folks aren\'t given permission by society or the government or God to tell someone else whether they can have an abortion or not.

***It is my opinion that those folks that think God gives \'em the right to make such decisions for other people are livin on the wrong side of the Atlantic***

Those are facts. Everything is debatable, which remains the point. One person\'s opinion of when life begins does not equal everyone else\'s. A condom prevents \"potential\" life does it not? Is preventing that life (potentialy) wrong ethically, spiritually, morally, or politicaly? And who gets to decide?

First, you don\'t need legal ease to discuss this, it just helps me explain my points sometimes.

Second, if when life begins is debateable then, you must concede that I may be correct that it begins either at conception or implantation. You cannot prove me wrong. Since it is a possibility that it is a life at that stage, why ignore this and favor killing someone that might be alive?

Third, you don\'t know that anti-abortionists aren\'t given permission by God to tell someone they cannot have an abortion. You cannot prove that God does not exist, so you cannot prove this cannot happen. The other two may or may not at some point.

Fourth, it is my opinion that you\'re missing the point. My views aren\'t intended to restrict people\'s rights as much as they are about saving what I believe are lives. The restriction of rights would be a consequence of saving them.

Lastly, the rest is so speculative that no one can decide such. Sure, Catholics (to my understanding) believe that the use of a condom is immoral for the reasons you suggest. The problem is there are so many acts that prevent the sprem from coming into contact with the egg that there\'s no way this can be debated. Is \"puling out\" the same? Is simply not having sex when you had the opportunity the same?

PS, I did not bring religion into this, you did.

ScottyRo · 07-24-2004, 07:15 PM

ScottyRo,

You don\'t really think that it is ok to kill abortion doctors (even while in the act of aborting) do you? I think you\'ve raised an interesting example; however, I don\'t think that is morally permissable. When is it that you have the right to take a life to save an unknown quantity (like the potential child). Would you feel safe in assuming that your wife was not aborting a child with a serious congenital defect, who may not live more than a few days in pain (consider a anencephaletic child?). I just don\'t think that the killing (of the doctor) in this case could ever be a justifiable trade off. I guess, practically speaking, I don\'t see a case where killing the doctor (who is a known human being of some moral value) and saving the child (of virtually unkown value) would ever be the case.

All I meant was that there is a defense of a third person justification for killing a person. Whether that is morally ok is debateable. But so long as the situation with the doctor can be considered defense of a third person, a case can be made that it is justifiable.

I clearly stated that the recent cases a people killing abortion doctors was murder.

I have to say that I strongly disagree that the unborn child is of an unknown value. My wife is pregnant now and due in september, but the pregnancy started off badly. Without getting graphic, there were signs at first that the pregnancy might self-abort. Needless to say, we were scarred stiff every week we went to the doctor\'s office to see if everything was proceeding well. Even early on we would have felt an immense loss had the baby not survived.

Just because the survival of the child is an unknown doesn\'t reduce the child\'s value.

btw JK, Where are you that you that you have to find a computer? On vacation somewhere with Loomis?

saintfan · 07-24-2004, 07:30 PM

My views aren\'t intended to restrict people\'s rights as much as they are about saving what I believe are lives.

The words \"what I beleive\" are the key words. It\'s what YOU believe...and not, for a fact, what everyone believes. Right or wrong isn\'t the issue...the issue is whether or not you or I get to make the decision for someone else based on our beliefs rather than theirs.

PS, I did not bring religion into this, you did

Not really. Why is it that you think abortion is wrong? Upon what do you draw that opinion?

ScottyRo · 07-24-2004, 11:09 PM

My views aren\'t intended to restrict people\'s rights as much as they are about saving what I believe are lives.

The words \"what I beleive\" are the key words. It\'s what YOU believe...and not, for a fact, what everyone believes. Right or wrong isn\'t the issue...the issue is whether or not you or I get to make the decision for someone else based on our beliefs rather than theirs.

There are plenty of laws that exist which restrict people\'s rights based on beliefs of people. Seatbelts save lives. Taxes are reasonable. Children of illegal aliens deserve public education. In each of these and many others the government makes the decision for people based on our beliefs - whether everyone agrees or not.

PS, I did not bring religion into this, you did

Not really. Why is it that you think abortion is wrong? Upon what do you draw that opinion?

You\'re suggesting that no one can be anti-abortion and not be religious? That the only reason I am against it is because of my religious beliefs? I don\'t think that\'s accurate but your suspicion about my belief is accurate. Maybe the religion only gives me the courage to speak out against something such as this even though I know that in the particular forum I am not in the majority.

Still, I discussed this issue in purely legal and moral terms before you mentioned religion. I am confident that WhoDat and JKool would agree to that.

WhoDat · 07-25-2004, 08:56 AM

Second, if when life begins is debateable then, you must concede that I may be correct that it begins either at conception or implantation. You cannot prove me wrong. Since it is a possibility that it is a life at that stage, why ignore this and favor killing someone that might be alive?

This is THE weak link in your argument, and the basis upon which we rest ours. You MIGHT be right. We MIGHT be right. No one knows right now. Thus, it becomes an issue of what you believe to be right or wrong. You cannot make a law preventing something that MAY injure you or another person. There has to be solid evidence. You know this Scotty. It would be like the legislature banning sugar b/c if you eat enough of it you may die.

This is exactly why it took so long for anyone to win a suit against the tobacco companies. I mean, everyone knew that they caused cancered, but the courts couldn\'t rule in favor of any plaintif until they showed a) cigarettes contained the carcinogens (easy), and b) that they carcinogens directly and on their own caused cancer in smokers (hard). In essense, the courts couldn\'t rule on what they believe MAY or even PROBABLY was true.

There are plenty of laws that exist which restrict people\'s rights based on beliefs of people. Seatbelts save lives. Taxes are reasonable. Children of illegal aliens deserve public education.

Of course - but these are based on hard evidence. They use crash tests to show that seatbelts save lives. They can easily show a government\'s ability to provide services, defense, etc. for its citizens with NO money - and in theory, the citizens have decided that these are services that they are willing to pay for. The point is that any law banning abortion would have to show where life begins - it is based on an answer to that question which does not exist. Further, from a legal standpoint, the courts have already ruled on this issue and chosen to make it legal. As a lawyer you know that the courts and legislature take cues from one another. If a court has ruled on an issue, it has set precedent which it must follow. Thus, any law the legislature makes should be cognizant of that. If it is not, the law is likely to be overturned - in the absence of some new evidence (i.e. when life actually begins).

As for the religious issue... I\'m torn. I do agree that a person can be anti-abortion without being religious. I do agree that Scotty has kept talk of religion out of this debate. However, Saintfan makes an excellent point. I would guess Scotty, that your anti-abortion beliefs are based at least in part on your religious beliefs.

I think what Saintfan may have been trying to say is this: look around, how many pro-lifers do you see fighting to ban abortion who aren\'t religious? Therein lies the problem. You live in a country in which the vast majority is Christian and because of that we hold similar moral/ethical ideals. However, that religion, and those beliefs that rely on a Christian God have NO PLACE in political issues. Don\'t mean to put word in your mouth Saintfan - I just think that is what you were getting at. I agree.

ScottyRo · 07-25-2004, 10:34 AM

that religion, and those beliefs that rely on a Christian God have NO PLACE in political issues.

I disagree. This is where we get back into \"church and state\". You want to suggest that because the first amendment says the gov can make no laws establishing a religion then it follows that I cannot propose laws and have them passed, if I can, if they reflect my religious beliefs. That may be true, if you want to ignore the passage that says \"prohibiting the free exercise thereof\".

As a Christian I believe that my actions and my government\'s actions should reflect Godly principles. Thus, I favor laws that restrict certain things. Remember, it\'s freedom of religion. Thus, to prohibit me from trying to live in a society that upholds my beliefs is to prohibit my exercise of religion.

Another problem with saying there\'s no place for God in politics is that many of the documents that brought this country into existence rely heavily on belief in God. You\'ll need to re-write the Constitution, throw out the Declaration of Independence, and burn much of the commentary on these documents written by leaders of the day because they refer to God many times.

I\'d continue this and make my argument stronger, but I \'m going to church now.

saintfan · 07-25-2004, 10:38 AM

Well I never thought I\'d have to thank you for such a thing Whodat, but thanks, cause that\'s just about what I was trying to say.

ScottyRo -- I\'m not trying to beat down your argument...not really. I\'m not attempting to say abortion is OK. I\'m pro-choice, more than anything else, because I don\'t think your wife\'s or my neighbor\'s situation is any of my business. It\'s similar to my view on gays. I don\'t care if two people are gay, and whether it\'s right or wrong isn\'t my decision. Let \'em get married. What do I care? I personally know many gay couples very devoted to their relationship...some have been together more than 20 years. Flamers turn my stomach so I try not to look.

I guess I\'m one of those \"You do your thing and I\"ll do my thing\" type folks. As long as my thing doesn\'t directly harm you, and as long as your thing doesn\'t directly harm me, then we\'re ok. In my opinion, if getting an abortion or being gay is wrong then those commiting the sin will have to deal with a higher power regarding their sin eventually. If there isn\'t a higher power then oh well...no harm, no foul...so to speak.

ScottyRo · 07-25-2004, 03:03 PM

In essense, the courts couldn\'t rule on what they believe MAY or even PROBABLY was true.

Actually, since people who do not smoke and are not regularly subjected to secondhand smoke do still get lung cancer, the court is actually guessing that there is a probability that smoking causes cancer since there is evidence that non-smokers get it too.

Most laws were developed over time based on the beliefs of the legislator or judge. It\'d probably be a shorter list for you to tell me which laws weren\'t, than for me to tell you which laws were. But, let\'s take the justified killing rule. Here\'s a rule of law based completely on people\'s belief that there are situations in which it is ok to kill another person. (Let\'s not debate the morality again.)

07-24-2004, 03:53 PM	#61
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	Politics Saintfan, (b) anti-abortion folks aren\'t given permission by society or the government or God to tell someone else whether they can have an abortion or not. If they were given PERMISSION by the government, or their traditions, or what have you, would that make preventing abortions morally ok - or even make abortions morally bad. I\'m sure you had something a bit stronger than \"permission\" by some person(s) in mind, right?

07-24-2004, 03:57 PM	#62
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	Politics ScottyRo, You don\'t really think that it is ok to kill abortion doctors (even while in the act of aborting) do you? I think you\'ve raised an interesting example; however, I don\'t think that is morally permissable. When is it that you have the right to take a life to save an unknown quantity (like the potential child). Would you feel safe in assuming that your wife was not aborting a child with a serious congenital defect, who may not live more than a few days in pain (consider a anencephaletic child?). I just don\'t think that the killing (of the doctor) in this case could ever be a justifiable trade off. I guess, practically speaking, I don\'t see a case where killing the doctor (who is a known human being of some moral value) and saving the child (of virtually unkown value) would ever be the case.
	"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

07-24-2004, 06:31 PM	#63
ScottyRo 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Williamsburg, VA (ugh, the food here) Posts: 1,704	Politics Forgive the lack of \"leagle ease\" here, but the underlying thing for me is that regardless of whether or not humans and cows are on the same level and regardless of all the hypothetical stuff going on here the FACT remains that: (a) when life actually begins is debatable. ...and (b) anti-abortion folks aren\'t given permission by society or the government or God to tell someone else whether they can have an abortion or not. *It is my opinion that those folks that think God gives \'em the right to make such decisions for other people are livin on the wrong side of the Atlantic* Those are facts. Everything is debatable, which remains the point. One person\'s opinion of when life begins does not equal everyone else\'s. A condom prevents \"potential\" life does it not? Is preventing that life (potentialy) wrong ethically, spiritually, morally, or politicaly? And who gets to decide? First, you don\'t need legal ease to discuss this, it just helps me explain my points sometimes. Second, if when life begins is debateable then, you must concede that I may be correct that it begins either at conception or implantation. You cannot prove me wrong. Since it is a possibility that it is a life at that stage, why ignore this and favor killing someone that might be alive? Third, you don\'t know that anti-abortionists aren\'t given permission by God to tell someone they cannot have an abortion. You cannot prove that God does not exist, so you cannot prove this cannot happen. The other two may or may not at some point. Fourth, it is my opinion that you\'re missing the point. My views aren\'t intended to restrict people\'s rights as much as they are about saving what I believe are lives. The restriction of rights would be a consequence of saving them. Lastly, the rest is so speculative that no one can decide such. Sure, Catholics (to my understanding) believe that the use of a condom is immoral for the reasons you suggest. The problem is there are so many acts that prevent the sprem from coming into contact with the egg that there\'s no way this can be debated. Is \"puling out\" the same? Is simply not having sex when you had the opportunity the same? PS, I did not bring religion into this, you did.

07-24-2004, 07:15 PM	#64
ScottyRo 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Williamsburg, VA (ugh, the food here) Posts: 1,704	Politics ScottyRo, You don\'t really think that it is ok to kill abortion doctors (even while in the act of aborting) do you? I think you\'ve raised an interesting example; however, I don\'t think that is morally permissable. When is it that you have the right to take a life to save an unknown quantity (like the potential child). Would you feel safe in assuming that your wife was not aborting a child with a serious congenital defect, who may not live more than a few days in pain (consider a anencephaletic child?). I just don\'t think that the killing (of the doctor) in this case could ever be a justifiable trade off. I guess, practically speaking, I don\'t see a case where killing the doctor (who is a known human being of some moral value) and saving the child (of virtually unkown value) would ever be the case. All I meant was that there is a defense of a third person justification for killing a person. Whether that is morally ok is debateable. But so long as the situation with the doctor can be considered defense of a third person, a case can be made that it is justifiable. I clearly stated that the recent cases a people killing abortion doctors was murder. I have to say that I strongly disagree that the unborn child is of an unknown value. My wife is pregnant now and due in september, but the pregnancy started off badly. Without getting graphic, there were signs at first that the pregnancy might self-abort. Needless to say, we were scarred stiff every week we went to the doctor\'s office to see if everything was proceeding well. Even early on we would have felt an immense loss had the baby not survived. Just because the survival of the child is an unknown doesn\'t reduce the child\'s value. btw JK, Where are you that you that you have to find a computer? On vacation somewhere with Loomis?

07-24-2004, 07:30 PM	#65
saintfan Donated Plasma Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 18,556 Blog Entries: 5	Politics My views aren\'t intended to restrict people\'s rights as much as they are about saving what I believe are lives. The words \"what I beleive\" are the key words. It\'s what YOU believe...and not, for a fact, what everyone believes. Right or wrong isn\'t the issue...the issue is whether or not you or I get to make the decision for someone else based on our beliefs rather than theirs. PS, I did not bring religion into this, you did Not really. Why is it that you think abortion is wrong? Upon what do you draw that opinion?

Latest Blogs
2023 New Orleans Saints: Training Camp Last Blog: 08-01-2023 By: MarchingOn Puck the Fro Browl! Last Blog: 02-05-2023 By: neugey CFP: "Just Keep Doing What You're Doing" Last Blog: 12-08-2022 By: neugey

07-24-2004, 11:09 PM	#66
ScottyRo 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Williamsburg, VA (ugh, the food here) Posts: 1,704	Politics My views aren\'t intended to restrict people\'s rights as much as they are about saving what I believe are lives. The words \"what I beleive\" are the key words. It\'s what YOU believe...and not, for a fact, what everyone believes. Right or wrong isn\'t the issue...the issue is whether or not you or I get to make the decision for someone else based on our beliefs rather than theirs. There are plenty of laws that exist which restrict people\'s rights based on beliefs of people. Seatbelts save lives. Taxes are reasonable. Children of illegal aliens deserve public education. In each of these and many others the government makes the decision for people based on our beliefs - whether everyone agrees or not. PS, I did not bring religion into this, you did Not really. Why is it that you think abortion is wrong? Upon what do you draw that opinion? You\'re suggesting that no one can be anti-abortion and not be religious? That the only reason I am against it is because of my religious beliefs? I don\'t think that\'s accurate but your suspicion about my belief is accurate. Maybe the religion only gives me the courage to speak out against something such as this even though I know that in the particular forum I am not in the majority. Still, I discussed this issue in purely legal and moral terms before you mentioned religion. I am confident that WhoDat and JKool would agree to that.

07-25-2004, 08:56 AM	#67
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	Politics Second, if when life begins is debateable then, you must concede that I may be correct that it begins either at conception or implantation. You cannot prove me wrong. Since it is a possibility that it is a life at that stage, why ignore this and favor killing someone that might be alive? This is THE weak link in your argument, and the basis upon which we rest ours. You MIGHT be right. We MIGHT be right. No one knows right now. Thus, it becomes an issue of what you believe to be right or wrong. You cannot make a law preventing something that MAY injure you or another person. There has to be solid evidence. You know this Scotty. It would be like the legislature banning sugar b/c if you eat enough of it you may die. This is exactly why it took so long for anyone to win a suit against the tobacco companies. I mean, everyone knew that they caused cancered, but the courts couldn\'t rule in favor of any plaintif until they showed a) cigarettes contained the carcinogens (easy), and b) that they carcinogens directly and on their own caused cancer in smokers (hard). In essense, the courts couldn\'t rule on what they believe MAY or even PROBABLY was true. There are plenty of laws that exist which restrict people\'s rights based on beliefs of people. Seatbelts save lives. Taxes are reasonable. Children of illegal aliens deserve public education. Of course - but these are based on hard evidence. They use crash tests to show that seatbelts save lives. They can easily show a government\'s ability to provide services, defense, etc. for its citizens with NO money - and in theory, the citizens have decided that these are services that they are willing to pay for. The point is that any law banning abortion would have to show where life begins - it is based on an answer to that question which does not exist. Further, from a legal standpoint, the courts have already ruled on this issue and chosen to make it legal. As a lawyer you know that the courts and legislature take cues from one another. If a court has ruled on an issue, it has set precedent which it must follow. Thus, any law the legislature makes should be cognizant of that. If it is not, the law is likely to be overturned - in the absence of some new evidence (i.e. when life actually begins). As for the religious issue... I\'m torn. I do agree that a person can be anti-abortion without being religious. I do agree that Scotty has kept talk of religion out of this debate. However, Saintfan makes an excellent point. I would guess Scotty, that your anti-abortion beliefs are based at least in part on your religious beliefs. I think what Saintfan may have been trying to say is this: look around, how many pro-lifers do you see fighting to ban abortion who aren\'t religious? Therein lies the problem. You live in a country in which the vast majority is Christian and because of that we hold similar moral/ethical ideals. However, that religion, and those beliefs that rely on a Christian God have NO PLACE in political issues. Don\'t mean to put word in your mouth Saintfan - I just think that is what you were getting at. I agree.
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	\"Excuses, excuses, excuses. ThatÃ¢Â€Â™s all anyone ever makes for the New Orleans SaintsÃ¢Â€Â™ organization.\" - Eric Narcisse \"Being a Saints fan is almost like being addicted to crack,\" he said.[i]\"You know you should stop, but you just can\'t.\"

07-25-2004, 10:34 AM	#68
ScottyRo 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Williamsburg, VA (ugh, the food here) Posts: 1,704	Politics that religion, and those beliefs that rely on a Christian God have NO PLACE in political issues. I disagree. This is where we get back into \"church and state\". You want to suggest that because the first amendment says the gov can make no laws establishing a religion then it follows that I cannot propose laws and have them passed, if I can, if they reflect my religious beliefs. That may be true, if you want to ignore the passage that says \"prohibiting the free exercise thereof\". As a Christian I believe that my actions and my government\'s actions should reflect Godly principles. Thus, I favor laws that restrict certain things. Remember, it\'s freedom of religion. Thus, to prohibit me from trying to live in a society that upholds my beliefs is to prohibit my exercise of religion. Another problem with saying there\'s no place for God in politics is that many of the documents that brought this country into existence rely heavily on belief in God. You\'ll need to re-write the Constitution, throw out the Declaration of Independence, and burn much of the commentary on these documents written by leaders of the day because they refer to God many times. I\'d continue this and make my argument stronger, but I \'m going to church now.

07-25-2004, 10:38 AM	#69
saintfan Donated Plasma Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 18,556 Blog Entries: 5	Politics Well I never thought I\'d have to thank you for such a thing Whodat, but thanks, cause that\'s just about what I was trying to say. ScottyRo -- I\'m not trying to beat down your argument...not really. I\'m not attempting to say abortion is OK. I\'m pro-choice, more than anything else, because I don\'t think your wife\'s or my neighbor\'s situation is any of my business. It\'s similar to my view on gays. I don\'t care if two people are gay, and whether it\'s right or wrong isn\'t my decision. Let \'em get married. What do I care? I personally know many gay couples very devoted to their relationship...some have been together more than 20 years. Flamers turn my stomach so I try not to look. I guess I\'m one of those \"You do your thing and I\"ll do my thing\" type folks. As long as my thing doesn\'t directly harm you, and as long as your thing doesn\'t directly harm me, then we\'re ok. In my opinion, if getting an abortion or being gay is wrong then those commiting the sin will have to deal with a higher power regarding their sin eventually. If there isn\'t a higher power then oh well...no harm, no foul...so to speak.
	C'mon Man...

07-25-2004, 03:03 PM	#70
ScottyRo 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Williamsburg, VA (ugh, the food here) Posts: 1,704	Politics In essense, the courts couldn\'t rule on what they believe MAY or even PROBABLY was true. Actually, since people who do not smoke and are not regularly subjected to secondhand smoke do still get lung cancer, the court is actually guessing that there is a probability that smoking causes cancer since there is evidence that non-smokers get it too. Most laws were developed over time based on the beliefs of the legislator or judge. It\'d probably be a shorter list for you to tell me which laws weren\'t, than for me to tell you which laws were. But, let\'s take the justified killing rule. Here\'s a rule of law based completely on people\'s belief that there are situations in which it is ok to kill another person. (Let\'s not debate the morality again.)