Abortion

[Illyricum]

What are you thoughts/opinions on abortion?

[Daystar]

You are just repeating the same things over and over again: "Abortion is murder!" "God says it's wrong!" "God's laws are higher!" without giving any reason why, in a secular society, we should be subjected to the laws of a theocracy. Quotes from your book don't impact at all on whether or not laws should be passed in a secular society, unless there is a good reason beyond "God said so".

[Day] Well, there are indeed laws that have been impacted by the Ten Commandments, laws concerning theft and perjury. When it comes to abortion, the 6th commandment did not influence the judges who decided Roe v. Wade. True, secular man doesn't think the courts should observe this commandment, but it is still a higher law to which man is accountable.

Abortion is not murder. You have not shown how it could be considered such in light of the arguments presented you.

[Day] I have shown where it is murder by God's standard. In his eyes, it is fully human at conception. So what do you think God thinks when he sees one of his creations being aborted? If you say it doesn't matter concerning Roe v Wade, you're right. But it is not the man-made law to which man will ultimately be held accountable. Therefore, it would behoove man to consider how God views what he creates.

I don't care what you interpret God as saying. It doesn't have any meaning in the secular court system.

[Day] Right, for the short term. For the long term, it's not good news for those who made a law that destroys what God creates. The Roe v Wade Justices were very short-sighted.

We are a secular society, therefore we need secular reasons to ban activities for everyone.

[Day] How wrong you are. We are a nation founded on Christian principles. The courts have changed America into a secular society. It's no wonder that John Jay, first Supreme Court Justice and co-author of the federalist papers, said, "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation, to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."

You will not be judged by God on the laws that society passes, only on those sins that you yourself have commited. Feel free to share your views and be the light for people in darkness, but realize that Lights are only a guide. Once you force your views on others, you are no longer a guiding light, but a shackle around the neck of society.

[Day] If you steal a car, you will not only be judged by the secular courts, but God as well, for "he will not leaves guilty sinners unpunished." (Exo. 34:6,7) Unless one confesses and repents of his sins, he will be judged for everyone.

Any person who is not in the light, is in darkness. Jesus is the light of the world and brings people out of darkness through his grace.

What law am I "forcing?" As far as shackles, those who are in darkness are the ones in shackles. Only the light will set them free.

If Jesus Christ is not your God, and you say "My God might not," you just broke the first commandment. And there is no commandment banning beef

Not a Christian commandment, but a Hindu one exists. What right do you have to legislate your religious values, and yet disallow others from doing the same?

[Day] There is a Hindu commandment that says, "You shall have no other gods before me?" I'd like to see that. Where do you see me "legislating" anything? Only the courts can legislate. What you may be objecting to is my sharing what I believe to be true, and which may be ruffling some spiritual feathers. Jesus put it this way: "This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil will not come to the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed." (John 3:19,20)

Spin it however you like, what you are proposing is to take the Western World into a Christian Theocracy.

[Day] Not so. There is no such thing as a Christian theocracy. I think many believe as you do, but is this not just a bit of paranoia? All Christians would like to see, through the lawful process, is stopping abortion and retaining the traditional definition of marriage. As you well know, the vast majority of Americans support that. So it boils down to abortion. Why would banning abortion make us a theocracy?

[mrmufin]

How wrong you are. We are a nation founded on Christian principles.

Aha! That explains all of the scriptural references in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, and the Bill of Rights! That the authors and signators of these documents may have held certain religious beliefs, does not make their works a product of those beliefs. The mere fact that these documents were created suggests that scriptural adherence alone is not enough to build a nation.

The courts have changed America into a secular society.

Which seems to be curiously consistent with the First Amendment principle of no religious bias, dontcha think?

Only the courts can legislate.

No, legislation, comes from the legislative branch of government. The courts are the judicial branch, whose responsibility is to administer justice when allegations of violation of public law are claimed. As well, the courts help to protect the general population from the pesky legislation that might occur when a sufficient majority of legislators share a similar limited worldview and feast upon the opportunity to enshrine their beliefs into laws without expiration dates.

Jesus put it this way: "This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil will not come to the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed." (John 3:19,20)

John Lennon put it this way:

"Imagine all the people, living life in peace
...
Imagine all the people, sharing all the world"

All Christians would like to see, through the lawful process, is stopping abortion and retaining the traditional definition of marriage. As you well know, the vast majority of Americans support that.

As a point of interest, I personally know individuals who identify themselves as Christian that have no interest in defining marriage for anyone other than themselves. There are also folks who identify themselves as Christian who are confident that God will deal with those who participate in abortions, therefore, allow citizens the free will that God instlled in them.

Regards,
mrmufin

[Jose]

Not so. There is no such thing as a Christian theocracy.

You may be essentially correct at present, but the actions you are advocating would create one. Once Christian doctrine is enshrined in law, despite opposition on both logical and moral grounds, we have a Christian theocracy.

All Christians would like to see, through the lawful process, is stopping abortion and retaining the traditional definition of marriage. As you well know, the vast majority of Americans support that. So it boils down to abortion. Why would banning abortion make us a theocracy?

To rephrase it, "All Christians would like to see, through the lawful process, is laws that adhere strictly to their particular beliefs, regardless of the beliefs of others." I know many Christians, all of whom support free choice by women as well as men, and none of whom are concerned about the traditional definition of marriage. For the people I know, the marriage issue is a non-issue, since it affects no one in any way, except for those who like to imagine what married gays do when no one else is looking. Why would banning abortion make us a Christian theocracy? Because the reason for banning it is explicitly Christian belief. I don't see how anyone can seriously consider it without feeling somewhat embarassed about how selfish they are, thinking that their ideology is more important than the fundamenal rights of women.

[TQWcS]

thinking that their ideology is more important than the fundamenal rights of women.

Who is to say that abortion is their fundamental right? You are acting as if you have a moral standard to compare it with. What is your moral standard, evolution? Christians have a moral standard and that moral standard tells us that life is more important that a womans right to choose. I think the choosers are being selfish.

[Gaunt]

I have shown where it is murder by God's standard. In his eyes, it is fully human at conception.

No, you have jumped around between saying "Thou shalt not kill" and "thou shalt not murder" which are entirely different statements. Abortion is not necessarily murder, even if you presume the fetus is a human from conception, as the arguments on the top of page 9 show. Abortion is definitely not murder if you go with Carl Sagan's argument that Piper Plexed linked. God never says to not kill, and in fact commands the opposite many times.

There is a Hindu commandment that says, "You shall have no other gods before me?"

No, there is a Hindu tradition against eating beef, as the cow is a sacred animal. Thus my comment on eating beef because of Hindu religious belief, and how you would not wish it to be banned.

Where do you see me "legislating" anything? What you may be objecting to is my sharing what I believe to be true, and which may be ruffling some spiritual feathers.

What I am objecting to is the fact that you are advocating legally banning an action based only on religious belief. While you yourself may not be legislating it, you are promoting this practice of religion based legislation.

What is your moral standard, evolution?

Not a moral standard but a legal one, in this case the Constitutions of various nations. Evolution has nothing to do with it.

Christians have a moral standard and that moral standard tells us that life is more important that a womans right to choose.

Great. You don't have to have one then. Allowing abortion isn't going to force anyone to have one, it simply allows the option.

[Jose]

Who is to say that abortion is their fundamental right? You are acting as if you have a moral standard to compare it with. What is your moral standard, evolution?

Evolution isn't a standard of any kind. It is simply an explanation of how the different life forms on Earth came to be related in the ways that they are. What moral standard do I use? How about "do unto others as you would have others do unto you?" I would really not like to have others dictate what I can do with my own body. I believe that is immoral. It is also unconstitutional, which gives it a certain legal value in our country. Of course, you will ask "but what if your mother had aborted you? Would that have been OK with you?" My answer, obviously, would be: "of course it would. I wouldn't have known anything about it."

That is, the existing humans on Earth have inherent rights that trump the imagined rights of imagined, potential humans.

At least, they should have such rights. It is clear that these rights are violated right and left all over the world, and that they have been throughout human history. One of the paramount reasons that these rights have been violated is people of one group claiming that their beliefs are superior to the beliefs of others, so they will impose those beliefs by force. If the others happen to die in the conflict, well, that's their problem. At least, this seems to be the logic behind the Crusades, the American Conquest, the current situation in Darfur, and the Christian Right's gunning down of MD's who perform abortions. "As long as I'm Right, I can do what I want to those who are Wrong (by my definition). I answer only to a Higher Power (who may or may not exist)."

[TQWcS]

I would really not like to have others dictate what I can do with my own body. I believe that is immoral.

It doesn't matter what you think, according to you, morality is subjective. I could say it is moral that I turn your body into sausages. You have to have a transcendent morality if you want to argue morality. If you do not then you are just reverting to moral relativity and it doens't matter what you think.

Not a moral standard but a legal one, in this case the Constitutions of various nations.

Yes, it is a legal matter. But laws are just enforced morality. To be honest I could care less about other nations.

Evolution has nothing to do with it.

Correct me if I'm wrong but you stated you believe morality comes form genetics, which was passed down through evolution. Therefore my "moral genes" tell me it is wrong to abort a baby. Your "moral genes" tell you that we have a "fundamental right" to let a woman do what she wants. This means we are both right.

[Gaunt]

But laws are just enforced morality.

I disagree. Laws are ethics coupled with reasoning. Morals do not need any reasoning, it could just "feel bad," but the law requires reasoning to back it up.

To be honest I could care less about other nations.

The question asked if it should be banned anywhere. We have been arguing it from the United States constitution mostly because that is what everyone is most familiar with, but the same arguments could be made from the rights in most western nations.

Correct me if I'm wrong but you stated you believe morality comes form genetics, which was passed down through evolution.

I don't know if you're referring to me or Jose here, but I don't think I've ever stated that on this forum.

Therefore my "moral genes" tell me it is wrong to abort a baby. Your "moral genes" tell you that we have a "fundamental right" to let a woman do what she wants.

These two views are not contradictory. You are not being forced to commit any wrong actions by abortion being legal. I think you are misusing the term "fundamental right" however. We have the fundamental right to control of our own bodies, according to most religions and constitutions, including the US one. The way you use it, it seems more like you mean "we have an obligation to let a woman do what she wants" which is a different thing entirely.

This means we are both right.

If we are both right, why is it that you are advocating your religion be legislated in favor of all others? Krishna says beef eating is bad! Ban it!

[Jose]

It doesn't matter what you think, according to you, morality is subjective. I could say it is moral that I turn your body into sausages. You have to have a transcendent morality if you want to argue morality. If you do not then you are just reverting to moral relativity and it doens't matter what you think.

This is very interesting, indeed. I'd like to know what others in this thread think of this logic. Is it really true that a "transcendent morality" is required in order to be allowed to argue for morality? Is it really true that "it doesn't matter what you think" if you don't agree with someone who claims they do have True Morality? I think this is a very dangerous viewpoint, since its basic essence is that individuals have the right to choose who isn't relevant in deciding what should be the laws governing all. All I have to do to become one of the chosen is to say "I believe in a transcendent morality," and then I can dictate to others what they may or may not do. As I say, this is very interesting, indeed.

Not a moral standard but a legal one, in this case the Constitutions of various nations.

Yes, it is a legal matter. But laws are just enforced morality. To be honest I could care less about other nations.

We agree on this point, that many laws are enforced morality. We have disagreed on the origins of the morality, though, as you have said.

I am intrigued by your statement that you could care less about other nations. This is, essentially, George Bush's argument that it's irrelevant what the rest of the world thinks, because he is guided by a higher power. It is the argument of his previous legal counsel (now Attorney General) that, because we are The USA, guided by God, international law does not apply to us. We are exempt from the Geneva Conventions. Because we have a transcendent morality, we can do as we please to whomever we please, because we are Right. The facts don't matter. So, tell me, why don't other nations matter? We are all the same species, all living on the only planet available to us, breathing the same air and the same radioactive fallout, sharing the same ecological fate. We are all cousins of greater or lesser degrees of relatedness. Why don't other people matter?

Correct me if I'm wrong but you stated you believe morality comes form genetics, which was passed down through evolution. Therefore my "moral genes" tell me it is wrong to abort a baby. Your "moral genes" tell you that we have a "fundamental right" to let a woman do what she wants. This means we are both right.

We are both right, in the sense that our own internal reasoning leads us to our own particular values. I disagree with your conclusion about women's rights, but I will defend to the death your right to that conclusion, even as I try to convince you I'm more right than you are. As long as it is in the realm of discussion and the desire to find the right thing to do, the disagreement is fine. Where I will fight against it is if you state that your view is The Right View handed down by God, that my view doesn't matter because it is different, and that you will force your view on me and on others regardless of our rights.

[TQWcS]

I don't know if you're referring to me or Jose here, but I don't think I've ever stated that on this forum.

I was not referring to you. I was referring tot he debate Jose and I had about the origin of morality or something like that.

If we are both right, why is it that you are advocating your religion be legislated in favor of all others? Krishna says beef eating is bad! Ban it!

It was sarcasm. I was arguing from the side of moral relatvism which he advocates.