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?
The individual references to god and justifications for passing laws based on representatives' opinions of what god wants.
There was a huge Deist influence as well when this country was formed. Read a little Thomas Paine.
The individual references to god and justifications for passing laws based on representatives' opinions of what god wants.
There was a huge Deist influence as well when this country was formed. Read a little Thomas Paine.
I will go on the record here and say that as a "self-proclaimed" Christian I see the point made by BR and I find it to be an important one. There is no reason that our currency must say "In God We Trust" There is no reason the words "One Nation Under God" must be in the pledge. I believe God is bigger than that. I also believe our country does a service to the people by being secular in practice. Does that then mean that an individual has to check their beliefs in at the door when they go into work at a government job? no, it means the Government takes no official endorsement.
In places in the ME where Islam has a grip over the people through government I think it is clear why this respect for all is paramount.
I will go on the record here and say that as a "self-proclaimed" Christian I see the point made by BR and I find it to be an important one. There is no reason that our currency must say "In God We Trust" There is no reason the words "One Nation Under God" must be in the pledge. I believe God is bigger than that. I also believe our country does a service to the people by being secular in practice. Does that then mean that an individual has to check their beliefs in at the door when they go into work at a government job? no, it means the Government takes no official endorsement.
In places in the ME where Islam has a grip over the people through government I think it is clear why this respect for all is paramount.
Fellowship
Right. If a government employee wants to put up the ten commandments in his cubicle, he can go right ahead and do it. However, if he wants to stick it out in the courtyard in the form of a 5 ton statue, that crosses the line.
Right. If a government employee wants to put up the ten commandments in his cubicle, he can go right ahead and do it. However, if he wants to stick it out in the courtyard in the form of a 5 ton statue, that crosses the line.
what I am suggesting is a little role playing exorcise. Assume that we are all law makers trying to draft a bipartisan law.
BR says that one can abort before the fetus is viable; and he uses without ?medical? assistance as the demarcation line (or at least the basis of S.D. math).
First lets answer a few questions.
Why is ?viable? defined as the beginning of humanity ? Many people in nursing homes are not viable, or anyone on insulin, without medical care. What has non-medically assisted ?viability? got to do with humanity ?
You have to answer a deeper question, NOT when it is VIABLE but when it IS. We know that both life, and humanity, must begin at some point. Descartes philosophical dictum ?I think, therefore I am? might be a good place to start. We know the brain is the seat of the mind, that our humanity is not because we are faster, or stronger, or longer lived than other creatures (for on the whole, we are not) but because of mind. The brain is the mind, and ?being? is established there.
I can think of no better demarcation than when neural tissue is created and organized, when ?being? becomes possible. The fetus may be unconscious, and only dream, but humanity?s uniqueness from other life forms has been established.
I see some weakness in my argument , but I?ll throw that out.
I would go along with that, despite the affront to my beliefs. But we are attempting to come up with a framework both sides can agree upon.
Any pro-choicers want to chime in here?
I should have noted the source, but I found a semi pro-choice review of this concept (first time I ever looked for it)....its interesting:
" First, intermittent electroencephalograpic bursts in both cerebral hemispheres are first seen at 20 weeks gestation; they become sustained at 22 weeks and bilaterally synchronous at 26 to 27 weeks.
There are reasons, based on the physics of the EEG, why this has to be so. Remember, an EEG involves measuring varying electrical potential across a dipole, or separated charges. To get scalp or surface potentials from the cortex requires three things: neurons, dendrites, and axons, with synapses between them. Since these requirements are not present in the human cortex before 20-24 weeks of gestation...,"
I believe an abortion to save a mother's life would be a legally protected action where if done purly electively it should be a crime for the same reasons Murder is a crime.
Those are my thoughts.
Fellows
Fellowship: Sorry to ask so late in the thread, but does the principle you state above apply, in your view, from the moment of conception or from some later point in the pregnancy, as some of the other more recent posts suggest?
The following information is from an AMA site, summerizing the law. Apparently, "viability" is sometime after the 1st trimester and before the 3rd trimester (a vauge standard of 3 to 6 months this point). AFTER viability, an abortion can still be performed if a doctor determines that a woman's health is significantly affected, including her mental health. While States technically have retained the right to regulate medical procedures on viable babys, most of their attempts to do so have been struck down.
"The bevy of Supreme Court decisions mentioned in this report were in response to challenges to laws enacted by the states following Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton to clarify or, more often, to circumscribe these decisions. Although the Court in Roe v. Wade clearly gave the states the right, once a fetus has achieved viability, to regulate and even proscribe abortion except where appropriate medical judgment finds it necessary to preserve the life or health of the woman, the states did not need to codify the Court's guidelines in their statutes. Indeed, 10 states have no specific statutes dealing with postviability abortions.
Many, on the other hand, still have laws "on the books" that were overturned directly or de facto by the 1973 and subsequent Court decisions. For example, those OVERTURNED include:
* Three states (MI, NH and RI) have among their formal statutes laws that prohibit abortion after quickening;
* Five have laws prohibiting abortion in the third trimester (FL, GA, IA, SC and VA);
* Seven have statutes that permit abortion only when the woman's life is endangered (DE, ID, KS, MI, NH, NY and RI);
* Nine have laws prohibiting abortion after a certain number of weeks' gestation, usually 20 or 24 (CA, DE, MA, NV, NY, NC, PA, SD and UT);
* Eleven permit abortions only if the woman's life is in danger or if there is a "serious," "grave" or "irreversible" risk to her health (IN, MA, NV, NC, ND, OH, PA, TX, UT, VA and WY).
All are unconstitutional in light of the decisions mentioned earlier."
The following information is from an AMA site, summerizing the law. Apparently, "viability" is sometime after the 1st trimester and before the 3rd trimester (a vauge standard of 3 to 6 months this point). AFTER viability, an abortion can still be performed if a doctor determines that a woman's health is materially affected, including her mental health. While States technically have retained the right to regulate medical procedures on viable babys, most of their attempts to do so have been struck down.
"The bevy of Supreme Court decisions mentioned in this report were in response to challenges to laws enacted by the states following Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton to clarify or, more often, to circumscribe these decisions. Although the Court in Roe v. Wade clearly gave the states the right, once a fetus has achieved viability, to regulate and even proscribe abortion except where appropriate medical judgment finds it necessary to preserve the life or health of the woman, the states did not need to codify the Court's guidelines in their statutes. Indeed, 10 states have no specific statutes dealing with postviability abortions.
Many, on the other hand, still have laws "on the books" that were overturned directly or de facto by the 1973 and subsequent Court decisions. For example, those OVERTURNED include:
* Three states (MI, NH and RI) have among their formal statutes laws that prohibit abortion after quickening;
* Five have laws prohibiting abortion in the third trimester (FL, GA, IA, SC and VA);
* Seven have statutes that permit abortion only when the woman's life is endangered (DE, ID, KS, MI, NH, NY and RI);
* Nine have laws prohibiting abortion after a certain number of weeks' gestation, usually 20 or 24 (CA, DE, MA, NV, NY, NC, PA, SD and UT);
* Eleven permit abortions only if the woman's life is in danger or if there is a "serious," "grave" or "irreversible" risk to her health (IN, MA, NV, NC, ND, OH, PA, TX, UT, VA and WY).
All are unconstitutional in light of the decisions mentioned earlier."
I should have noted the source, but I found a semi pro-choice review of this concept (first time I ever looked for it)....its interesting:
" First, intermittent electroencephalograpic bursts in both cerebral hemispheres are first seen at 20 weeks gestation; they become sustained at 22 weeks and bilaterally synchronous at 26 to 27 weeks.
There are reasons, based on the physics of the EEG, why this has to be so. Remember, an EEG involves measuring varying electrical potential across a dipole, or separated charges. To get scalp or surface potentials from the cortex requires three things: neurons, dendrites, and axons, with synapses between them. Since these requirements are not present in the human cortex before 20-24 weeks of gestation...,"
Comments
Originally posted by NaplesX
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?
The individual references to god and justifications for passing laws based on representatives' opinions of what god wants.
There was a huge Deist influence as well when this country was formed. Read a little Thomas Paine.
Originally posted by BR
The individual references to god and justifications for passing laws based on representatives' opinions of what god wants.
There was a huge Deist influence as well when this country was formed. Read a little Thomas Paine.
I will go on the record here and say that as a "self-proclaimed" Christian I see the point made by BR and I find it to be an important one. There is no reason that our currency must say "In God We Trust" There is no reason the words "One Nation Under God" must be in the pledge. I believe God is bigger than that. I also believe our country does a service to the people by being secular in practice. Does that then mean that an individual has to check their beliefs in at the door when they go into work at a government job? no, it means the Government takes no official endorsement.
In places in the ME where Islam has a grip over the people through government I think it is clear why this respect for all is paramount.
Fellowship
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
I will go on the record here and say that as a "self-proclaimed" Christian I see the point made by BR and I find it to be an important one. There is no reason that our currency must say "In God We Trust" There is no reason the words "One Nation Under God" must be in the pledge. I believe God is bigger than that. I also believe our country does a service to the people by being secular in practice. Does that then mean that an individual has to check their beliefs in at the door when they go into work at a government job? no, it means the Government takes no official endorsement.
In places in the ME where Islam has a grip over the people through government I think it is clear why this respect for all is paramount.
Fellowship
Right. If a government employee wants to put up the ten commandments in his cubicle, he can go right ahead and do it. However, if he wants to stick it out in the courtyard in the form of a 5 ton statue, that crosses the line.
Originally posted by BR
Right. If a government employee wants to put up the ten commandments in his cubicle, he can go right ahead and do it. However, if he wants to stick it out in the courtyard in the form of a 5 ton statue, that crosses the line.
In total agreement.
Fellowship
Originally posted by NaplesX
what I am suggesting is a little role playing exorcise. Assume that we are all law makers trying to draft a bipartisan law.
BR says that one can abort before the fetus is viable; and he uses without ?medical? assistance as the demarcation line (or at least the basis of S.D. math).
First lets answer a few questions.
Why is ?viable? defined as the beginning of humanity ? Many people in nursing homes are not viable, or anyone on insulin, without medical care. What has non-medically assisted ?viability? got to do with humanity ?
You have to answer a deeper question, NOT when it is VIABLE but when it IS. We know that both life, and humanity, must begin at some point. Descartes philosophical dictum ?I think, therefore I am? might be a good place to start. We know the brain is the seat of the mind, that our humanity is not because we are faster, or stronger, or longer lived than other creatures (for on the whole, we are not) but because of mind. The brain is the mind, and ?being? is established there.
I can think of no better demarcation than when neural tissue is created and organized, when ?being? becomes possible. The fetus may be unconscious, and only dream, but humanity?s uniqueness from other life forms has been established.
I see some weakness in my argument , but I?ll throw that out.
Any pro-choicers want to chime in here?
Originally posted by NaplesX
I would go along with that, despite the affront to my beliefs. But we are attempting to come up with a framework both sides can agree upon.
Any pro-choicers want to chime in here?
I should have noted the source, but I found a semi pro-choice review of this concept (first time I ever looked for it)....its interesting:
" First, intermittent electroencephalograpic bursts in both cerebral hemispheres are first seen at 20 weeks gestation; they become sustained at 22 weeks and bilaterally synchronous at 26 to 27 weeks.
There are reasons, based on the physics of the EEG, why this has to be so. Remember, an EEG involves measuring varying electrical potential across a dipole, or separated charges. To get scalp or surface potentials from the cortex requires three things: neurons, dendrites, and axons, with synapses between them. Since these requirements are not present in the human cortex before 20-24 weeks of gestation...,"
So, I might propose 20 weeks, or 4.5 months...
Why would someone have an abortion in the examples you posted pictures of?
Originally posted by bunge
Fellowship,
Why would someone have an abortion in the examples you posted pictures of?
You tell me.
Fellowship
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
I believe an abortion to save a mother's life would be a legally protected action where if done purly electively it should be a crime for the same reasons Murder is a crime.
Those are my thoughts.
Fellows
Fellowship: Sorry to ask so late in the thread, but does the principle you state above apply, in your view, from the moment of conception or from some later point in the pregnancy, as some of the other more recent posts suggest?
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
You tell me.
Fellowship
The following information is from an AMA site, summerizing the law. Apparently, "viability" is sometime after the 1st trimester and before the 3rd trimester (a vauge standard of 3 to 6 months this point). AFTER viability, an abortion can still be performed if a doctor determines that a woman's health is significantly affected, including her mental health. While States technically have retained the right to regulate medical procedures on viable babys, most of their attempts to do so have been struck down.
"The bevy of Supreme Court decisions mentioned in this report were in response to challenges to laws enacted by the states following Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton to clarify or, more often, to circumscribe these decisions. Although the Court in Roe v. Wade clearly gave the states the right, once a fetus has achieved viability, to regulate and even proscribe abortion except where appropriate medical judgment finds it necessary to preserve the life or health of the woman, the states did not need to codify the Court's guidelines in their statutes. Indeed, 10 states have no specific statutes dealing with postviability abortions.
Many, on the other hand, still have laws "on the books" that were overturned directly or de facto by the 1973 and subsequent Court decisions. For example, those OVERTURNED include:
* Three states (MI, NH and RI) have among their formal statutes laws that prohibit abortion after quickening;
* Five have laws prohibiting abortion in the third trimester (FL, GA, IA, SC and VA);
* Seven have statutes that permit abortion only when the woman's life is endangered (DE, ID, KS, MI, NH, NY and RI);
* Nine have laws prohibiting abortion after a certain number of weeks' gestation, usually 20 or 24 (CA, DE, MA, NV, NY, NC, PA, SD and UT);
* Eleven permit abortions only if the woman's life is in danger or if there is a "serious," "grave" or "irreversible" risk to her health (IN, MA, NV, NC, ND, OH, PA, TX, UT, VA and WY).
All are unconstitutional in light of the decisions mentioned earlier."
Originally posted by MaxParrish
The following information is from an AMA site, summerizing the law. Apparently, "viability" is sometime after the 1st trimester and before the 3rd trimester (a vauge standard of 3 to 6 months this point). AFTER viability, an abortion can still be performed if a doctor determines that a woman's health is materially affected, including her mental health. While States technically have retained the right to regulate medical procedures on viable babys, most of their attempts to do so have been struck down.
"The bevy of Supreme Court decisions mentioned in this report were in response to challenges to laws enacted by the states following Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton to clarify or, more often, to circumscribe these decisions. Although the Court in Roe v. Wade clearly gave the states the right, once a fetus has achieved viability, to regulate and even proscribe abortion except where appropriate medical judgment finds it necessary to preserve the life or health of the woman, the states did not need to codify the Court's guidelines in their statutes. Indeed, 10 states have no specific statutes dealing with postviability abortions.
Many, on the other hand, still have laws "on the books" that were overturned directly or de facto by the 1973 and subsequent Court decisions. For example, those OVERTURNED include:
* Three states (MI, NH and RI) have among their formal statutes laws that prohibit abortion after quickening;
* Five have laws prohibiting abortion in the third trimester (FL, GA, IA, SC and VA);
* Seven have statutes that permit abortion only when the woman's life is endangered (DE, ID, KS, MI, NH, NY and RI);
* Nine have laws prohibiting abortion after a certain number of weeks' gestation, usually 20 or 24 (CA, DE, MA, NV, NY, NC, PA, SD and UT);
* Eleven permit abortions only if the woman's life is in danger or if there is a "serious," "grave" or "irreversible" risk to her health (IN, MA, NV, NC, ND, OH, PA, TX, UT, VA and WY).
All are unconstitutional in light of the decisions mentioned earlier."
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
You tell me.
Fellowship
You tell me.
Originally posted by MaxParrish
I should have noted the source, but I found a semi pro-choice review of this concept (first time I ever looked for it)....its interesting:
" First, intermittent electroencephalograpic bursts in both cerebral hemispheres are first seen at 20 weeks gestation; they become sustained at 22 weeks and bilaterally synchronous at 26 to 27 weeks.
There are reasons, based on the physics of the EEG, why this has to be so. Remember, an EEG involves measuring varying electrical potential across a dipole, or separated charges. To get scalp or surface potentials from the cortex requires three things: neurons, dendrites, and axons, with synapses between them. Since these requirements are not present in the human cortex before 20-24 weeks of gestation...,"
So, I might propose 20 weeks, or 4.5 months...
I'm cool with that.