Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In your worldview, someone could stab a baby's head as it exits the womb, and since it wasn't a 'person' yet, this act shouldn't be classified as murder.
Also, your comment titles aren't witty, they only come off as condescending. Just some constructive criticism.
Well, one - In the situation you describe, it's not what I think that would determine whether the perpetrator were chargeable or not. It's what the relevant state laws have to say about the matter. Offhand, I would think that it would be murder, assuming that the pregnancy otherwise had been normal, to that point.
As for my titles - I'm writing for my own enjoyment, too. Pity if you're not amused. The chances one takes with one's literary children (as it were), letting them out into the World, & whatever reception they may receive. & one had such hopes, too ...
Well, one - In the situation you describe, it's not what I think that would determine whether the perpetrator were chargeable or not. It's what the relevant state laws have to say about the matter. Offhand, I would think that it would be murder, assuming that the pregnancy otherwise had been normal, to that point.
So, would you call yourself a subjective moralist? Meaning your morals, ebb and flow with the subjective Laws of the Land?
Quote:
Originally Posted by southwest88
As for my titles - I'm writing for my own enjoyment, too. Pity if you're not amused. The chances one takes with one's literary children (as it were), letting them out into the World, & whatever reception they may receive. & one had such hopes, too ...
So, would you call yourself a subjective moralist? Meaning your morals, ebb and flow with the subjective Laws of the Land?
Fair enough
No, I've read through Roe v. Wade. I understand the Supreme Court's reasoning, & they examined a lot of Western Civ. religious, philosophical & ethical positions along the way. They tried to satisfy all the parties - the woman (also acting for the fetus), the doctors, the state. That's why Roe has such gradations of when abortion can be freely elected, when the state can begin to control access to abortion (if the state wishes to do so), & when the state can forbid abortion (except for the life or health of the woman - & again, if the state wishes to regulate abortion in the third trimester).
I think it's a workable solution, if not perfectly acceptable to all segments of civil society. But we're a fractious lot, & it's very rare for there to be complete unanimity on these complicated moral/legal/medical issues. The voters & citizens seem to be mostly content with the law as it is; the feeling being that abortion should be available, but not unregulated throughout, nor impossible restrictions placed upon it.
Perhaps the liberal limp wrists would be well advised to take your advice and stop telling Christian bakeries to make so-called "wedding" cakes for homosexual "marriage". GO SOMEWHERE ELSE!
I actually agree with that in a way. I don’t see any legal obligation for them to serve anyone they don’t wish to. I think they’re dicks for acting like that, but there’s no legal basis to take them on, and I would not wish for the government to give itself the authority to force that kind of obligation on anyone.
As I read your post you were against any legal steps to make in-utero infanticide, aka "abortion" illegal, and, in fact, wanted to expand it even more. That was my take on it, and I did, in fact, read it. If, however, that is NOT what you meant, then scratch what I wrote.
KOA RV campgrounds. Hookups and everything.
I’m comfortable with abortion as it stands now. It’s difficult to know where to draw the line and say that this or that level of development is the cutoff. As such, I don’t have any strong feelings on moving the bar on what stage of pregnancy an abortion can be sought at. I do, however, have a much stronger feeling about wholesale legal restrictions on what someone else can and can’t do. I’ve always subscribed to the model of, “if you don’t like it, don’t do/say/buy/use it, and let others be. When it begins to cause a harm to you directly in some way, we can then entertain some legal mechanism to repair the harm.
A non-breathing human fetus lives inside a breathingHUMAN BEING.
You answered your own question, you said and I quote "human fetus lives". A human life. That misguided individuals toss aside like excrement.
Human life is considered sacred where I come from, especially the most vulnerable and most helpless. It's how you treat your most vulnerable is how ye are and have been, judged.
How do you justify any moral judgments that you may pass against another human?
Ah, so that's the point of having a rock-ribbed theology to anchor ones' judgment upon? & here I thought it had to do with a desire (a longing?) to become righteous ...
I suppose it's an Existentialist kind of ethos, working out from the individual's' moral perceptions. But it's a difficult set of ethics to expand out to a universal toolkit.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Roe tried to satisfy all the parties
