Abortion

[dairygirl4u2c]

With your logic, we need to change the Ten Commandments to be more democratic.....not based on morals.

The ten commandments are your moral perogative to hold. It is religion. What I am arguing against is requiring others to follow the ten commandments, so to speak.

[dairygirl4u2c]

That came out wrong. I had made a full length reply but it was cut off cuza computer malfunction. But my main point is that we should not impose our morals in thorny situations because that would be the true tryanny.

[dairygirl4u2c]

Here's what I'll do. I'll just post what I posted for the homosexual marriage thread. It's harder for me to debate in this thread since I am personally against the even much more terrible act of abortion. I'll just replace civil marriage with abortion:

Without a foundational philosophical ethics there can be no meaningful ground for our laws. They would become something like an arbitrary expression of the majority's opinion, or the opinion of those who assert the most power.

Someone who wants to prevent abortion etc. are the ones trying to exert their opinions by majority rule. Instead of voting what you think is moral and not moral, why not vote for what is democratic? The pro-choice people do not think they are hurting anyone, they just have different faiths. What's wrong with society catering to all faiths instead of whichever one has the majority vote, like preventing abortion would cause?

Many people on both sides try to appeal to tradition saying that this country was founded upon certain values that must not be compromised (for example fundamental human equality) but disagree on what these uncompromisable values are. Some would say God is included (one nation under God, etc) while others say that God is contrary to these values (you can't impose God or God-based principles on the masses because of freedom of belief).

You are right that this is what it comes down to, I agree. And I believe the majority should realize they have to consider other people's morals. What's wrong with society catering to all faiths instead of whichever one has the majority moral vote, like preventing abortion would cause?

Basing it on the majority's moral vote would itself be immoral when you could base it on the moral majority vote to be democratic and considerate of other faiths.

Edited February 12, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[jasJis]

The ten commandments are your moral perogative to hold. It is religion. What I am arguing against is requiring others to follow the ten commandments, so to speak.

What the heck are you babbling about??

9, of the 10 commandments are sound philosophical and sociological guidelines. They are recognized as being "right and moral" in religion, as well as secualar philosophy. Are they to be abandoned becuase they can be accepted on religious belief? Are philosophical and sociological evaluations to be dismissed because they are tainted with "religion". Even the first commandmant can be argued from the psychological benefits. (ie, Alchoholics Anonymous and other "step" programs")

You are espousing half thoughts and are not maintining a train of logic. Natural Law (morality) is relevant, wether it's recognized by religion, or science, or philosophy. It's asnine to dismiss what religion recognizes as morality because it forces moral views on others. "Right morals" is the action of the self-sacrifice of the individual for the greater good. There is no such thing as a morally abstract society, that's anarchy, so it's not a real society.

[dairygirl4u2c]

"Right morals" is the action of the self-sacrifice of the individual for the greater good. There is no such thing as a morally abstract society, that's anarchy, so it's not a real society.

That commandments thing came out wrong because it does involve many that involve how you treat other people. The only thing we should be holding is how we treat other people. I can have complete freedom as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else. That is the only moral we should hold to in a democracy. That seems pretty moral to me. And in abortion, the very question of person is disputed.

Natural Law (morality)

Nothing you said in your whole post do I disagree with. You kept it pretty vaque and made your point. But the very premise of natural law can be disputed at times and as long as it isn't hurting anyone, (or if "anyone" is disputed though I can see some limitations on abortion) I don't think we should base things on majority rule.

Homosexuals are biologically this way. That is natural. (just a side argument)

Women feel that a 3 celled baby is not a person. The Catholic Church even used to teach that babies were not persons until quickening. (when the baby kicks)

Since I too can find it somewhat understandable, I would have to hold to the moral of democratic freedom over my belief.

Edited February 13, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[IcePrincessKRS]

Women feel that a 3 celled baby is not a person. The Catholic Church even used to teach that babies were not persons until quickening. (when the baby kicks)

Actually, I don't think this was an official Church position. I know some saints held this position, but as for the Church... Idunthinkso. If you could find a source on that, that'd be cool, because I'm not 100% sure, but I'm fairly certain.

[PatrickRitaMichael]

Yeah, I think Aquinas made the argument that ensoulment happened after 40 days but if you think about how little they knew about the human body then compared to today, I'm sure Aquinas would agree with the Church's stance if he had any medical training I'll take the Church's opinion over Aquinas' (no offense St. Thomas!!! it's not your fault, you didn't know!)

Dairygirl, I think you're minimizing what democracy is way too much. We could have a dictatorship (form of government doesn't hurt anyone, govt's actions do) and that wouldn't be hurting anyone -- yet it is contradictory to what democracy is about. There are certain things in the law that are based on more than just 'don't hurt' -- including the idea that everyone is entitled to basic freedoms. This makes sense in my head, I apologize if it doesn't on this forum :)

[PatrickRitaMichael]

Women feel that a 3 celled baby is not a person. The Catholic Church even used to teach that babies were not persons until quickening. (when the baby kicks)

Since I too can find it somewhat understandable, I would have to hold to the moral of democratic freedom over my belief.

Actually, it's really hard to detect a pregnancy before 1 week and by that time the baby is more than just 3 cells. What number of cells is required in order to be considered a human being? What does it have to look like in order to be considered a human? If you look at people with really bad leprosy, they look like huge embryos b/c their bodies are just eaten away -- yet under the law they are accorded full rights and it would be murder to kill one. If the law says that there is a minimum number of cells or a certain appearance that a human organism must have in order to be considered human, what would that be? and who would decide that? To put that kind of power into the hands of humans who are inclined to prejudice and to step on those weaker than themselves is a scary idea. I think that the part of democracy is to ensure that no government or group of people would have that kind of power.

[Dave]

Something to add . . .

Although it was commonly believed by many saints and others that the baby wasn't really a baby right at conception and that abortion wouldn't be considered murder at that point, they nevertheless still considered abortion unacceptable at all times.

[jasJis]

I can have complete freedom as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else. That is the only moral we should hold to in a democracy. That seems pretty moral to me. And in abortion, the very question of person is disputed.

DING, DING, DING, DING!

But are you willing to consider how Abortion infringes upon another person? Are you going to superficially limit infringemnt to what you personally can know and understand? For example: "So what if a woman or man choose to be a prostitute? That doesn't mean I will visit them, and they're both willing participants." Do you not consider the ramifications of 'pimps' profiting off prostitution and manipulating people to become prostitutes? Do you not consider the psychological effects on the prostitute? Do you not consider the tempatation put upon another person who might otherwise be chaste in marriage or singlehood? Do you not consider the long term and larger effects on society, such as increase in crime, quality of living, quality of neighborhood, etc., etc., that are KNOWN effects and consequences of societies that allow prostitution?

But the very premise of natural law can be disputed at times and as long as it isn't hurting anyone, (or if "anyone" is disputed though I can see some limitations on abortion) I don't think we should base things on majority rule.

Again, infringement or damage might not be superficially apparent. And I can't imagine any dispute for the very premise of natural law. There is none. Different pholosophies may evaluate consequences of actions differently, but Natual Law is basically recognition of probable and reasonable consequences of human action.

homosexuals are biologically this way. That is natural. (just a side argument)

That's a poor statement. I addressed it in the marriage thread. Some homosexuals may be biologically this way, but it's the exception. Some people are biologically pre-disposed to alcholholism. Being an alcoholic is not natural. You have to find a different arguement that it being 'biological'.

I would have to hold to the moral of democratic freedom over my belief.

You need to explain that, it doesn't make sense. Do you mean that the greater good is better decided by majority rule, and one individual doesn't matter? That is just 'might makes right' and is a simple form of democratic tyranny.

[PhatPhred]

So what if a woman or man choose to be a prostitute?

You're obviously forgetting that women (and I guess men as well) have a Constitutional right to be prostitutes. It's right next to the Constitutional rights to have abortions and engage in homosexual sex.

I wish I were kidding. I'll bet it happens within 20 years.

[dairygirl4u2c]

You need to explain that, it doesn't make sense. Do you mean that the greater good is better decided by majority rule, and one individual doesn't matter? That is just 'might makes right' and is a simple form of democratic tyranny.

I truly can't see how you are saying that my form of voting is "might makes right" and yours isn't. Or even if you admit yours is, mine still is as far away from the "might makes right" so to allow freedom. Since the only "right" we're using our "might" to accomplish is to allow other people to live the way they want to live as long as it isn't hurting anyone else. But you don't agree because you insist that natural law only is the way you percieve it to be.

superficially limit infringemnt to what you personally can know and understand?

I don't think so. I just hold respecting others higher than imposing my will on them. But since you know the Truth, you're willing impose your Truth/will on everyone.

Edited February 14, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[jasJis]

I read your post twice. I don't understand what you are saying at all.

I would have read it a third time, but my brain was beginning to feel like a jello mold being carried by a waiter with palsy, so I didn't.

[Hananiah]

The ten commandments are your moral perogative to hold. It is religion. What I am arguing against is requiring others to follow the ten commandments, so to speak.

God's moral law is an objective reality; it is the duty of the Christian state to hold it's citizens to this law, whether they believe in God or not.

[dairygirl4u2c]

I would have read it a third time, but my brain was beginning to feel like a jello mold being carried by a waiter with palsy, so I didn't.

That was probably your mind starting to open to new ideas and you didn't know what was going on. Maybe you started to see validity to homosexual unions{edited by foundsheep:play nice}But thanks Jas Jis. So far you've been the most enlightening person here. And your style of communication is superb... what with the what the heck am i babbling about to the DING DING to this. Truly an admirable Christian attitude that we can all learn and benefit from.