33
   

Abortion. Right or Murder?

 
 
Linkat
 
  2  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2016 10:49 am
@lmac2017,
lmac2017 wrote:

What justification says that just because a baby isn't fully formed, it has no human value?


I don't support abortion personally - but you cannot force your beliefs on others - you feel that a fetus is a baby; others do not. An egg before it is fertilized one could argue is also a baby not fully formed. So by a woman not trying to have their egg fertilized every single cycle is also murdering her baby.

Now you need to find something that proves to others that a fertilized egg is a baby. Some believe that a fertilized egg that is not fully formed is not a baby or human.

Your job in this argument is have some sort of facts to support that this is a baby. Just saying it is a baby does not make it so. Otherwise how are you to convince others that they are not killing a baby if they have no facts to support this is a baby?
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  3  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2016 10:50 am
@lmac2017,
lmac2017 wrote:

You only have 1 piece of the puzzle there dude. Life starts at conception.

So for you, a zygote is a child.

How do you figure?
0 Replies
 
Linkat
 
  2  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2016 10:51 am
@lmac2017,
lmac2017 wrote:

Isn't that all arbitrary though? It's ok because one second the child is not a human but if we do it 15 minute later than the child is?


It is just as arbitrary for you to claim that a fetus is a child the moment it is conceived.

It is ok to believe it is wrong because you feel that a fetus is a child, but you cannot force your belief or feelings on others. Now if there are facts to support what you say then you prove the others wrong.
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2016 10:53 am
@Ragman,
Ragman wrote:

No one 'likes' abortion. Just as the term pro-life is misguided distortion and a misnomer. Both sides of the debate are pro-life.


That I disagree with - It is pro-life because a fetus is a life - there should be no question it is a life-there is a heartbeat, there is brain waves - it is living. It is whether you consider it a human life.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  2  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2016 11:17 am
@lmac2017,
lmac2017 wrote:

Shouldn't the law and morality be connected? We can't separate them and retain order can we?


But whose sense of morality governs? Just because lmac2017 thinks something is immoral, that doesn't mean the state must prohibit it and penalize persons who violate that prohibition. Something more is needed. At a minimum, the law must serve a legitimate government interest and must be rationally related to that legitimate government interest. That's the "rational basis" test.

This is what the Supreme Court said on that issue years ago in Lawrence v. Texas, when considering whether the state may criminalize sexual conduct between two people of the same sex:

Quote:
It must be acknowledged, of course, that the Court in Bowers was making the broader point that for centuries there have been powerful voices to condemn homosexual conduct as immoral. The condemnation has been shaped by religious beliefs, conceptions of right and acceptable behavior, and respect for the traditional family. For many persons these are not trivial concerns but profound and deep convictions accepted as ethical and moral principles to which they aspire and which thus determine the course of their lives. These considerations do not answer the question before us, however. The issue is whether the majority may use the power of the State to enforce these views on the whole society through operation of the criminal law. “Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code.” Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 850 (1992).


https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZO.html

Because the statute criminalizing sexual practices between two consenting adults did not serve any legitimate state interest, the Supreme Court ruled the majority could not use the power of the State to impose their sense of morality on the whole society through the operation of our laws:

Quote:
The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. “It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter.” Casey, supra, at 847. The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.


The above answers your question. Apply your individual sense of morality to your own conduct. Don't expect that you may automatically apply your sense of morality to everyone else in society.
Linkat
 
  2  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2016 11:20 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

What gets me about you godsquad is that you go on and on about the rights of the unborn child without giving a monkeys about the welfare of the born child.

What's the real scandal is the children dying of starvation and preventable diseases, not a few cells being terminated.

Quote:
One child dies every 20 seconds from a disease preventable by vaccine.


http://www.unicef.org/immunization/index_bigpicture.html

Your false morality is all about telling other people what to do, it has absolutely nothing to do with the welfare of women and children.


That really is not fair - most Christians do care about children once they are born - there are missionaries all over the world -- many in dangerous places -- helping all people no matter what others beliefs are.
lmac2017
 
  0  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2016 11:33 am
@Linkat,
If you don't have an abortion, there will be a child. If you do there won't. You are taking the life of that child no matter how you justify it.
ehBeth
 
  3  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2016 11:36 am
@lmac2017,
it is still none of your business unless your egg or sperm was directly involved
0 Replies
 
lmac2017
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2016 11:36 am
@izzythepush,
Why do you assume I don't care about the lives of the infants? I do. But nobody is trying to "legalize" babies dying of starvation. It's not in the public eye. Just because one thing isn't being discussed, how does that justify something that is? It's a false dilemma.
lmac2017
 
  0  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2016 11:37 am
@izzythepush,
And by that logic we shouldn't be able to pass any laws because people have the right to do what they want with their bodies.
0 Replies
 
lmac2017
 
  0  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2016 11:39 am
@Debra Law,
My question has nothing to do with whether it should be legal. The question is morality. And if something isn't moral, then no matter how legal it is, it should not be done.
lmac2017
 
  0  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2016 11:44 am
@Linkat,
If you had a winning lottery ticket, but hadn't redeemed it yet, does it still have value? Yes, because of the potential, not because of the empirical value.
lmac2017
 
  0  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2016 11:46 am
@Debra Law,
So because all people have different morals, then morality should be tossed out the window when creating laws? Why make laws then if they have nothing to do with morals?
Linkat
 
  3  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2016 11:46 am
@lmac2017,
Not necessarily - many pregnancies end in miscarriages - it is estimated to be 10- 20 percent.

My friend when pregnant found her fetus was not viable. Being a Catholic, her husband and she decided against an abortion. The doctor suggested an abortion as there was no chance for the fetus to survive - they declined. She almost lost her life. She said in hind sight she should have.

Your argument would make more sense if you said that unnecessary killing of any life is wrong. Most people would agree that a fetus is a life form, but there is no scientific evidence it is a baby. Saying it has a soul at conception is also a belief. You may feel strongly about it - but others feel just as strongly the opposite.
0 Replies
 
Linkat
 
  3  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2016 11:49 am
@lmac2017,
lmac2017 wrote:

My question has nothing to do with whether it should be legal. The question is morality. And if something isn't moral, then no matter how legal it is, it should not be done.


Exactly and that is why you should not engage in it.

However, if Fred feels it not immoral, then Fred is free to do so.

Some people believe Christian religion is immoral - but fortunately in our country we are free and then free to practice this religion.
Linkat
 
  3  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2016 11:51 am
@lmac2017,
lmac2017 wrote:

If you had a winning lottery ticket, but hadn't redeemed it yet, does it still have value? Yes, because of the potential, not because of the empirical value.


No - it doesn't have value until you cash it. If I hold it in my hand for a year and not cash it in all I have is a piece of paper.

Debra Law
 
  4  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2016 11:52 am
@lmac2017,
lmac2017 wrote:

And by that logic we cannot tell a man he can't do drugs, we can't tell a woman she can't be a prostitute, we can't say that it is wrong to lie, we can't make any claim about morality because a person has the right to do what they want with their body.


lmac2017. The use of logic requires an understanding of logical fallacies. You utilized the logical fallacy of false analogy.

For instance, other than the fact that some people believe prostitution is immoral, does the state have a legitimate interest in prohibiting prostitution? Perhaps it does: Courts have held that the state has a legitimate interest in controlling the health hazards posed by prostitution. See, e.g., Colorado v. Mason, 642 P.2d 8, 12 (Colo.1982).

State and federal governments are moving towards decriminalization in favor of regulation to serve legitimate government interests.

Whether the state may make it a criminal or civil offense to lie depends on the circumstances. For instance, the government has a legitimate interest in punishing people who lie on material matters when they give statements or testimony in official government proceedings.

Your argument based on "logic" is a logical fallacy. Wink
Linkat
 
  2  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2016 12:07 pm
@Linkat,
Odd this is voted down -- A family member has his own nonprofit where he travels to Uganda paying out of his own pocket - although he gets donations his own personal travels he pays himself. He goes there several weeks each time.

So far they have helped to build housing, an orphanage, school and working farm. The school is set up to help teach farming. They also put in an irrigation system. This is to help them be self-sustaining.

Another parent at a school my kids used to attend - have built an orphanage and school in Haiti after all the hurricanes.

A large part of churches is to help others - many of which are directed at children. My friend has adopted through a Christian adoption program 4 girls - 3 of which have physical and/or other special needs.

You may not agree with the Christian or Catholic or other religious faiths - but they do a lot of very caring and charitable help.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  4  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2016 12:09 pm
@lmac2017,
lmac2017 wrote:

My question has nothing to do with whether it should be legal. The question is morality. And if something isn't moral, then no matter how legal it is, it should not be done.


Your question, as set forth in the title to your thread and opening post, is this: "Abortion. Right or Murder?"

The substance of your question cannot be answered without reference to the law. Murder is defined as intentionally causing the death of another without legal justification. The scope of each individual right and/or privilege is determined by the substantive law of the land.

You may choose to move the goal posts to further you own agenda, but that is a disingenuous tactic. You are entitled to your opinion that if something is immoral, it shouldn't be done. Again, apply your sense of morality to yourself. The law, however, is most relevant when you seek to impose your sense of morality upon all others.
Debra Law
 
  3  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2016 12:34 pm
@lmac2017,
lmac2017 wrote:

So because all people have different morals, then morality should be tossed out the window when creating laws? Why make laws then if they have nothing to do with morals?


In regulating the conduct of persons within its jurisdiction, the government's main concern is with conduct that causes or potentially causes injury or harm.

Do not confuse state regulation of conduct with the regulation of morals. The two may sometimes coincide depending on a person's point of view, but the government is not the "morality police" whose job it is to impose lmac2017's sense of morality on all other persons in society.

 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/19/2021 at 04:00:27