Did These Parents Have A Right To Kidnap Thier 21 Year Old Daughter

[pcabibi]

[quote name='CatholicCid' post='1137749' date='Dec 7 2006, 09:32 PM']
Actually, I was asking if you were pro-suicide, not making an association about it. Since the hypotheticals are containing suicide as the main point and you have been answering about that, it is a fair question to ask. So no blood yet [/quote]

ok cool

[quote name='CatholicCid' post='1137749' date='Dec 7 2006, 09:32 PM']
And what about the 2nd part of the 1st question, involving an innocent bystander who will be affect?[/quote]

again depends on the specifics surrounding the situation. I'm sure there are circumstances where I would and wouldn't.

-Edit-

[quote name='CatholicCid' post='1137749' date='Dec 7 2006, 09:32 PM']
However, since you brought it up, why would associating a pro-choice stance with a pro-suicide (a person willingly attempting to take their own life) be first blood? Wouldn't that be a fair connection?
[/quote]

absolutley not. just because you support the ability for people to make thier own choices, does not mean that you have to be a proponent for suicide.

[CatholicCid]

[quote name='JClives' post='1137766' date='Dec 7 2006, 09:53 PM']
ok cool
again depends on the specifics surrounding the situation. I'm sure there are circumstances where I would and wouldn't.

-Edit-
absolutley not. just because you support the ability for people to make thier own choices, does not mean that you have to be a proponent for suicide.
[/quote]

Could you come up with "would" and "wouldn't" examples for me?

So you support the actual ability to make a choice [b]and ability to carry out such choice[/b], not the choice itself?
If so, would it be safe to say you support the choice if it only affects that person at that time, not if it affects innocent bystanders as well? ( I suppose this goes with the first part, so if you will say it depends, could you give some examples as well? )

Thanks

Edited December 8, 2006 by CatholicCid

[pcabibi]

[quote name='CatholicCid' post='1137770' date='Dec 7 2006, 10:03 PM']
Could you come up with "would" and "wouldn't" examples for me?

So you support the actual ability to make a choice [b]and ability to carry out such choice[/b], not the choice itself?
If so, would it be safe to say you support the choice if it only affects that person at that time, not if it affects innocent bystanders as well? ( I suppose this goes with the first part, so if you will say it depends, could you give some examples as well? )

Thanks
[/quote]

What good is a choice if you can't manifest it? I'd have to think on the would and wouldn't examples... because I have to be careful with what I say (especially on this board). But this analyzation is probably going to go on forever... My standpoint would change depending on the situation.

I mean if someone was trying to commit suicide in a public area by strapping a bomb to thier chest? I'd definatley physically intervene.

[Socrates]

As I've said before, any law, by its very nature, puts limits on people's personal choice.
The law (if justly carried out) will not respect my choice to murder, maim, commit mayhem, steal, commit fraud, evade taxes, use or deal crack, drive 120 mph on a public highway while drunk, or poach, or practice medicine without a license.
If I choose to do any of these things, I face the consequences of the law.

"Freedom of choice" is a cop-out argument.

The issue with abortion is that all innocent human life should be protected by law.

[CatholicCid]

[quote name='JClives' post='1137796' date='Dec 7 2006, 10:30 PM']
What good is a choice if you can't manifest it? I'd have to think on the would and wouldn't examples... because I have to be careful with what I say (especially on this board). But this analyzation is probably going to go on forever... My standpoint would change depending on the situation.

I mean if someone was trying to commit suicide in a public area by strapping a bomb to thier chest? I'd definatley physically intervene.
[/quote]

I admit, I am an analytical person... Do I intend to change your perception of this area through these questions? Not at all. I'm more in it for the thrill of understanding why you hold your standpoint and what you hold exactly.
If you'd like to ask me questions or such, feel free. Doesn't have to be one-sided. I'll try to answer to the best of my ability

On a sidenote, this reminds me somewhat of an article I was reading the other day about the bill in South Dakota to ban abortion... It was actually a straight foward, no sides taken article... And the interesting point was that the two groups battling it out were led by two women. One had an abortion and one said she never had and would never have an abortion. Interestingly enough, the woman who had the abortion was on the side trying to pass the ban. The other woman who was anti-abortion was trying to stop the ban, because, while she hated abortion, she wanted the choice to be there. Much like your stance it seems to me (I could be wrong).

And I agree somewhat with Socrates to his post. Just because there might be a law against an issue does not mean you can't manifest your choice. Murder is illegal yet we still have murders happening every year. Just because the law says I shouldn't break into a store to steal a TV does not mean I cannot. However, the law gives me a responsibility to face with my actions.

Edited December 8, 2006 by CatholicCid

[pcabibi]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1137808' date='Dec 7 2006, 10:49 PM']
As I've said before, any law, by its very nature, puts limits on people's personal choice.
The law (if justly carried out) will not respect my choice to murder, maim, commit mayhem, steal, commit fraud, evade taxes, use or deal crack, drive 120 mph on a public highway while drunk, or poach, or practice medicine without a license.
If I choose to do any of these things, I face the consequences of the law.

"Freedom of choice" is a cop-out argument.

The issue with abortion is that all innocent human life should be protected by law.
[/quote]

We've been down this abortion road though. Saying an embryo is human isn't as easily definable as saying me and you are human. Some people, some religions, have differing opinions on this. They have freedom of religion, they should have freedom of choice.

[Socrates]

[quote name='JClives' post='1137837' date='Dec 7 2006, 11:12 PM']
We've been down this abortion road though. Saying an embryo is human isn't as easily definable as saying me and you are human. Some people, some religions, have differing opinions on this. They have freedom of religion, they should have freedom of choice.
[/quote]
If an embryo is human (rather than, say, a chicken embryo), it is human.

And, as I've pointed out in another post, some people, some religions, have differing views on whether it is acceptable to kill other people. Many religions through history have not only tolerated, but [i]demanded[/i] human sacrifice!
Should "freedom" of choice" and "freedom of religion" demand that we allow them the right to practice their beliefs and perform human sacrifice??

People have differing opinions on just about everything under the sun. (Opinions are like er, . . . armpits . . . Everyone's got one and they all stink!)
We should be concerned with what is right.

And I'd like to ask you these questions:
What makes something a human being?

Should the lives of all innocent human beings be protected?
If so, why?

[pcabibi]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1137858' date='Dec 7 2006, 11:21 PM']
If an embryo is human (rather than, say, a chicken embryo), it is human.

And, as I've pointed out in another post, some people, some religions, have differing views on whether it is acceptable to kill other people. Many religions through history have not only tolerated, but [i]demanded[/i] human sacrifice!
Should "freedom" of choice" and "freedom of religion" demand that we allow them the right to practice their beliefs and perform human sacrifice??

People have differing opinions on just about everything under the sun. (Opinions are like er, . . . armpits . . . Everyone's got one and they all stink!)
We should be concerned with what is right.

And I'd like to ask you these questions:
What makes something a human being?

Should the lives of all innocent human beings be protected?
If so, why?
[/quote]

Soc, much respect but I'm not turning this thread into another abortion thread lol. I'm tired.

[Socrates]

[quote name='JClives' post='1137861' date='Dec 7 2006, 11:23 PM']
Soc, much respect but I'm not turning this thread into another abortion thread lol. I'm tired.
[/quote]
Cool.

(But you did start in the first post by saying how this story supported your "pro-choice" views - which related it (indirectly) to the abortion issue.)

I might repeat this in another thread, though.

[got2luvjc]

I don't think the parents had to be so extreme.
They could've told her how they felt way before 24 hours before the wedding, lets day... months before.
The commandment "Honor Thy Father and Mother" doesn't apply in harmful situations. If your parents said "You can't eat! You're too fat!! You can't eat for 3 days!!!", I don't think you would have to obey that cuz it's harmful to you. And lets say the husband did abuse her... the parents could get counceling for them unstead of pulling her hair. And, she is an adult. She can make her own decisions. To further my point of view, the commandment "thou shall not steal" doesn't apply when someone's about to stab you with a knife and you manage to take the knife from them... it wasn't a bad thing that you stole the knife from them.

[quote name='JClives' post='1137861' date='Dec 7 2006, 11:23 PM']
Soc, much respect but I'm not turning this thread into another abortion thread lol. I'm tired.
[/quote]

I know really... there's already about 10 other abortion-related threads in the debate section

[BurkeFan]

Please consider reading Alasdair MacIntyre's [i]After Virtue[/i] and Fr. Servais Pinckaers' [i]Sources of Christian Ethics[/i]. Exalting sheer choice above anything else, or even to the extent of proclaiming oneself to be "pro-choice," is a confusion both of who we are and of what we are. Praise of the power of 'choice' separated from the question of what choices are being made is simply fallacious, though common. We find our freedom in choosing in accordance with the good, not simply by choosing.

[quote]We've been down this abortion road though. Saying an embryo is human isn't as easily definable as saying me and you are human. Some people, some religions, have differing opinions on this. They have freedom of religion, they should have freedom of choice.[/quote]



How can one, in all honesty, claim that an embryo isn't human? It genetically is human! Simply holding the opinion that an embryo isn't human has no bearing whatsoever on its ontological status.

[got2luvjc]

Did the article say that the boyfriend definitely abused her or was it just parental speculation?

[SanctitasDeo]

It was wrong for the parents to kidnap their daughter. Whether the man she intended to marry was abusive or not, her parents had no right under the law to stop her. She was not a minor, so there was no need for parental permission. They were wrong, and what they did is disgusting.

If we ignore the law and pretend that her parents had the legal right to kidnap her, I would still object as I agree that free will is important.

If a parent continues to make the choices for their offspring even when they are adults, it invalidates both the offspring's free will and the offspring's actions. If parents force children to do obey the commandments, and the children are unwilling, then as far as the children are concerned, they may as well have not obeyed the commandments.


"As I've said before, any law, by its very nature, puts limits on people's personal choice.
The law (if justly carried out) will not respect my choice to murder, maim, commit mayhem, steal, commit fraud, evade taxes, use or deal crack, drive 120 mph on a public highway while drunk, or poach, or practice medicine without a license.
If I choose to do any of these things, I face the consequences of the law.

"Freedom of choice" is a cop-out argument."


The law does not limit personal choice, it merely applies consequences to that choice. Free agency does not mean we can do whatever we want and get away with it. God has not limited our choices by giving us commandments, he has proscribed positive and negative consequences to certain actions. If man had no choice, it would be immoral to consign him to eternal damnation for what he does.

As far as abortion goes, there is no reason the law of the United States (or any other country) should not protect innocent human life. Making abortion illegal does not limit a woman's choice, it merely assigns consequences to it, just as the government assigns consequences to murder.

"Freedom of choice" is a cop-out argument" when one uses it to justify legalization of harm to other people. If the kind of free will that JClives seems to espouse was the founding philosophy of the United States we might not have laws at all. Now, I say that last tentatively, as I do not know the full scope of his view of agency, but it seems to be true from what I have read here.


"Praise of the power of 'choice' separated from the question of what choices are being made is simply fallacious, though common. We find our freedom in choosing in accordance with the good, not simply by choosing."

I think this is true. This quotation is also applicable: "Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself." (2 Nephi 2:27).

[got2luvjc]

yeah I agree. even if the boyfriend was abusive, they still didn't have to kidnap her. it's kind of extreme.

[SanctitasDeo]

Yeah, they should have just told her how they feel. Perhaps asked her to to go to counseling or something if the guy actually is abusive. The whole thing is really weird.