Let's do something useful with this thread. We all seem to cover the spectrum of positions at play today, right.
Let's see if we can come up with the framework for a law to legalize abortion while protecting life at the same time. I would say to come up with a point when reasonably the fetus is considered viable..
We all seem pretty intelligent, and I am curious if we as a group could do better than our so called representatives.
It would seem yourself, MaxParrish and myself all agree with this notion.
So, I guess the first thing would to be try to determine when a fetus is viable. Of course I would prefer if it was viable from conception but I doubt that you would get agreement on that. I kinda like the brain-wave idea but would need more info to determine what that point was.
So, I guess the first thing would to be try to determine when a fetus is viable. Of course I would prefer if it was viable from conception but I doubt that you would get agreement on that. I kinda like the brain-wave idea but would need more info to determine what that point was.
Any thoughts.
The question you raise is not one I am in a position to answer.
The question I would ask is: Is the mothers life at risk unless an abortion is performed. That takes into account all that is really material about the situation. If her life is at risk by all means an abortion is required. In cases other than that it seems to me the procedure is more of one of elective nature and such should not be freely recognized by society as legal again for the same reasons murder is illegal.
If it can't survive outside of the container on its own, there should be nothing wrong with aborting it. If I inderstand you correctly that would then mean you would reform the laws as to include a born baby who can not survive on its own? I really doubt a born baby will live very long without the loving attention of a mother or caretaker. So if it can't "find" its own food manage on its own it should be left free to die?
I just don't follow the logic. If I do follow the logic it is really a bad day for humanity if indeed it is all about each for his or her own.
If parents want to they can just let their kids starve and have no criminal consequence? Is it a defense for a parent in a case like this example to just say.... "well those kids were old enough to fend for themselves and they just could not handle it"? Is that something you would also turn a blind eye to BR as it is "none of your business"
I am only curious. I like to follow the logic of ones philosophy.
I don't claim I know it all or anything like that I only seek to understand.
Fellows
I said find the mean age and subtract 5 standard deviations. Once a fetus reaches that age, it has human status and it can never ever be taken away.
Dude, they did feel that way. This is revisionist history you are trying to peddle.
library of books have been written on this subject and it is widely accepted that the framers based their phylosophy of government on theology. If you would like I can quote from some letters of the founding fathers.
Dude, they did feel that way. This is revisionist history you are trying to peddle.
Well, the study of history is revisionist in nature. I don't really understand where people get off using "revisionist history" in a pejorative sense. Perhaps "propaganda" or something like that is what you mean?
library of books have been written on this subject and it is widely accepted that the framers based their phylosophy of government on theology. If you would like I can quote from some letters of the founding fathers.
Yes, they were influenced by theology. They saw what a theocratic state with no freedom of religion does to a country and its people. They didn't want to make the same mistake. Yeah, I've seen the letters people like you bandy about. I'll just bring up the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 and Franklin's insistence of saying self-evident rights instead of god-given.
Of course, the founding fathers also chose the motto E Pluribus Unum. The original pledge also didn't have god in it.
Well, the study of history is revisionist in nature. I don't really understand where people get off using "revisionist history" in a pejorative sense. Perhaps "propaganda" or something like that is what you mean?
He is revising history, obfuscating and omitting facts that blatantly repudiate his ridiculous claims. Yes, history is written by the victor but any good historian at least makes an attempt to be somewhat objective. Naples or Streotypical Believer In A christian America is making laughable statements.
Yes, they were influenced by theology. They saw what a theocratic state with no freedom of religion does to a country and its people. They didn't want to make the same mistake. Yeah, I've seen the letters people like you bandy about. I'll just bring up the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 and Franklin's insistence of saying self-evident rights instead of god-given.
Of course, the founding fathers also chose the motto E Pluribus Unum. The original pledge also didn't have god in it.
Agreed, but that would require you to ignore a plethora of indications to the contrary. So to say a those few instances negate the majority is a stretch IMO. These views you quote can exist at the same time within the framework of the constitution. Freedom 'of' religion not 'from'.
Agreed, but that would require you to ignore a plethora of indications to the contrary. So to say a those few instances negate the majority is a stretch IMO. These views you quote can exist at the same time within the framework of the constitution. Freedom 'of' religion not 'from'.
I submit that as in speech, the more the better, so too with religion.
How can a representative republic work when the representatives cannot use theology based principles to govern, when the majority (overwhelmingly) of the represented are religious.
I submit that as in speech, the more the better, so too with religion.
How can a representative republic work when the representatives cannot use theology based principles to govern, when the majority (overwhelmingly) of the represented are religious.
When a decision is made based on the theology of a particular religion over all others, that is a problem.
When a decision is made based on the theology of a particular religion over all others, that is a problem.
You're right. Surprisingly, it's theologically inconsistent as well. Martin Luther argued explicitly for a separation of church and state in his treatise, "On Governmental Authority."
When a decision is made based on the theology of a particular religion over all others, that is a problem.
The country was based on a judeo Christian philosophy. That covers a wide range of religions. The basic principles are headed by all religions minus maybe Satanism or radical islam and a handful of others.
I would like to know what particularly you are opposed to? Is it the values, or morals or what?
Comments
Originally posted by NaplesX
Let's do something useful with this thread. We all seem to cover the spectrum of positions at play today, right.
Let's see if we can come up with the framework for a law to legalize abortion while protecting life at the same time. I would say to come up with a point when reasonably the fetus is considered viable..
We all seem pretty intelligent, and I am curious if we as a group could do better than our so called representatives.
It would seem yourself, MaxParrish and myself all agree with this notion.
Fellows
Any thoughts.
Originally posted by NaplesX
So, I guess the first thing would to be try to determine when a fetus is viable. Of course I would prefer if it was viable from conception but I doubt that you would get agreement on that. I kinda like the brain-wave idea but would need more info to determine what that point was.
Any thoughts.
The question you raise is not one I am in a position to answer.
The question I would ask is: Is the mothers life at risk unless an abortion is performed. That takes into account all that is really material about the situation. If her life is at risk by all means an abortion is required. In cases other than that it seems to me the procedure is more of one of elective nature and such should not be freely recognized by society as legal again for the same reasons murder is illegal.
Fellows
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
The question you raise is not one I am in a position to answer.
Fellows
what I am suggesting is a little role playing exorcise. Assume that we are all law makers trying to draft a bipartisan law.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Do you really believe this?
If it can't survive outside of the container on its own, there should be nothing wrong with aborting it. If I inderstand you correctly that would then mean you would reform the laws as to include a born baby who can not survive on its own? I really doubt a born baby will live very long without the loving attention of a mother or caretaker. So if it can't "find" its own food manage on its own it should be left free to die?
I just don't follow the logic. If I do follow the logic it is really a bad day for humanity if indeed it is all about each for his or her own.
If parents want to they can just let their kids starve and have no criminal consequence? Is it a defense for a parent in a case like this example to just say.... "well those kids were old enough to fend for themselves and they just could not handle it"? Is that something you would also turn a blind eye to BR as it is "none of your business"
I am only curious. I like to follow the logic of ones philosophy.
I don't claim I know it all or anything like that I only seek to understand.
Fellows
I said find the mean age and subtract 5 standard deviations. Once a fetus reaches that age, it has human status and it can never ever be taken away.
Originally posted by NaplesX
The framers (the term founding fathers actually offends some) did not feel that way.
Dude, they did feel that way. This is revisionist history you are trying to peddle.
Originally posted by BR
Dude, they did feel that way. This is revisionist history you are trying to peddle.
library of books have been written on this subject and it is widely accepted that the framers based their phylosophy of government on theology. If you would like I can quote from some letters of the founding fathers.
Originally posted by BR
Dude, they did feel that way. This is revisionist history you are trying to peddle.
Well, the study of history is revisionist in nature. I don't really understand where people get off using "revisionist history" in a pejorative sense. Perhaps "propaganda" or something like that is what you mean?
Originally posted by NaplesX
library of books have been written on this subject and it is widely accepted that the framers based their phylosophy of government on theology. If you would like I can quote from some letters of the founding fathers.
Yes, they were influenced by theology. They saw what a theocratic state with no freedom of religion does to a country and its people. They didn't want to make the same mistake. Yeah, I've seen the letters people like you bandy about. I'll just bring up the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 and Franklin's insistence of saying self-evident rights instead of god-given.
Of course, the founding fathers also chose the motto E Pluribus Unum. The original pledge also didn't have god in it.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Well, the study of history is revisionist in nature. I don't really understand where people get off using "revisionist history" in a pejorative sense. Perhaps "propaganda" or something like that is what you mean?
He is revising history, obfuscating and omitting facts that blatantly repudiate his ridiculous claims. Yes, history is written by the victor but any good historian at least makes an attempt to be somewhat objective. Naples or Streotypical Believer In A christian America is making laughable statements.
Originally posted by BR
Yes, they were influenced by theology. They saw what a theocratic state with no freedom of religion does to a country and its people. They didn't want to make the same mistake. Yeah, I've seen the letters people like you bandy about. I'll just bring up the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 and Franklin's insistence of saying self-evident rights instead of god-given.
Of course, the founding fathers also chose the motto E Pluribus Unum. The original pledge also didn't have god in it.
Agreed, but that would require you to ignore a plethora of indications to the contrary. So to say a those few instances negate the majority is a stretch IMO. These views you quote can exist at the same time within the framework of the constitution. Freedom 'of' religion not 'from'.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Agreed, but that would require you to ignore a plethora of indications to the contrary. So to say a those few instances negate the majority is a stretch IMO. These views you quote can exist at the same time within the framework of the constitution. Freedom 'of' religion not 'from'.
To have freedom of it you must be free from it.
Originally posted by BR
To have freedom of it you must be free from it.
Now see that is propaganda at it's finest.
So freedom of speech can only be achieved through freedom from it?
Originally posted by NaplesX
Now see that is propaganda at it's finest.
So freedom of speech can only be achieved through freedom from it?
From the government, yes. Of course, that's still comparing apples to oranges. Speech and religion are far different animals.
I find these "gotcha" questions asked by religious zealots to be old and tiresome.
Originally posted by BR
From the government, yes.
I submit that as in speech, the more the better, so too with religion.
How can a representative republic work when the representatives cannot use theology based principles to govern, when the majority (overwhelmingly) of the represented are religious.
Originally posted by BR
From the government, yes. Of course, that's still comparing apples to oranges. Speech and religion are far different animals.
I find these "gotcha" questions asked by religious zealots to be old and tiresome.
Not according to the founders both are of great importance.
By the way I am not a religious zealot. I am just trying to argue the point from a common sense POV. If x applies to y than x must also apply to z.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Not according to the founders both are of great importance.
By the way I am not a religious zealot. I am just trying to argue the point from a common sense POV. If x applies to y than x must also apply to z.
In order to get wood to shrink, cold must be applied.
In order to get water to shrink, cold must be applied.
Whoops. False.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I submit that as in speech, the more the better, so too with religion.
How can a representative republic work when the representatives cannot use theology based principles to govern, when the majority (overwhelmingly) of the represented are religious.
When a decision is made based on the theology of a particular religion over all others, that is a problem.
Originally posted by BR
When a decision is made based on the theology of a particular religion over all others, that is a problem.
You're right. Surprisingly, it's theologically inconsistent as well. Martin Luther argued explicitly for a separation of church and state in his treatise, "On Governmental Authority."
Originally posted by BR
When a decision is made based on the theology of a particular religion over all others, that is a problem.
The country was based on a judeo Christian philosophy. That covers a wide range of religions. The basic principles are headed by all religions minus maybe Satanism or radical islam and a handful of others.
I would like to know what particularly you are opposed to? Is it the values, or morals or what?