ABORTION.......

snood wrote:

Momma Angel:

Quote:
So, you think something could be socially unacceptable but not illegal? Isn't that opening a big can of worms?

Only to the cowardly. A lot of real positive social change has started out as "socially unacceptable".

I disagree, Snood. It isn't the cowardly who make positive social change without legislation.

0 Replies

J_B,

And thus, the can of worms IS opened.

Check this out. Adultery is ILLEGAL and enforced and also not enforced.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery

So, what say you? Didn't "we" the people make these laws (the ones concerning the US that is)? So, were we in error then or are we in error now?

Making something legal because it is socially acceptable does not make it right. Would it be right to make drugs legal just so addicts could get clean needles? Would it be right to make murder legal because we could probably get rid of some pretty bad people in this world? What I am trying to say is, the more we make things legal because they have become socially acceptable is IMO, the biggest problem of the world today. How many times have we heard or even said to our children, "If Tommy told you to jump off a bridge, would you do it?" And hasn't that usually been in response to, "But Tommy does it! or Tommy's parents let him do it!"

IMO, wrong is wrong and right is right. There are certain things in this world that are just what they are, black and white with no grey areas.

I think Snood was referring to things like how it was at one time socially acceptable to discrimate against blacks in this country. It is not socially acceptable now. And according to the Civil Rights, it wasn't legal back then, but it was socially acceptable.

0 Replies

black and white are only absolutes when the light of reason is turned off. That is also when everything is just black. The nature of light is to demonstrate the variety of hues. When Goethe said "more light, more light", he was talking about reason not wattage.

0 Replies

And, dys, your point being? That man has progressed so much that man knows what was wrong before is right now? If that is what you are saying and that is the case, then why all the disagreement about what is wrong and what is right?

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

J_B,

And thus, the can of worms IS opened.

Check this out. Adultery is ILLEGAL and enforced and also not enforced.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery

So, what say you? Didn't "we" the people make these laws (the ones concerning the US that is)? So, were we in error then or are we in error now?

Making something legal because it is socially acceptable does not make it right. Would it be right to make drugs legal just so addicts could get clean needles? Would it be right to make murder legal because we could probably get rid of some pretty bad people in this world? What I am trying to say is, the more we make things legal because they have become socially acceptable is IMO, the biggest problem of the world today. How many times have we heard or even said to our children, "If Tommy told you to jump off a bridge, would you do it?" And hasn't that usually been in response to, "But Tommy does it! or Tommy's parents let him do it!"

IMO, wrong is wrong and right is right. There are certain things in this world that are just what they are, black and white with no grey areas.

I think Snood was referring to things like how it was at one time socially acceptable to discrimate against blacks in this country. It is not socially acceptable now. And according to the Civil Rights, it wasn't legal back then, but it was socially acceptable.

I never said something should be made legal because it becomes socially acceptable, MA. I said making something illegal because it isn't socially acceptable should not pass Constitutional muster. From your source above:

Quote:

n the United States, laws vary from state to state. For example, in the State of Pennsylvania adultery is technically punishable by 2 years of imprisonment or 18 months of treatment for insanity. That being said, such statutes are typically considered blue laws, and are rarely, if ever, enforced. In the U.S. Military, adultery is a court-martialable offense only if it was "to the prejudice of good order and discipline" or "of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces" [3]. This has been applied to cases where both partners were members of the military (and particularly where one is in command of the other), or one partner and the other's spouse.

It is my contention that if the law in the State of Pennsylvania were challenged in the SC, it would be struck down unless it is an issue of States rights not applicable to the US Constitution, I'm not sure if it is or it isn't. Laws that aren't enforced and unchallenged are not at issue. Laws put in place that impact the Constitutional rights of American citizens should be struck down. RvW overturned a law enacted that restricted the right to privacy of American citizens.

Quote:

IMO, wrong is wrong and right is right. There are certain things in this world that are just what they are, black and white with no grey areas.

I totally agree. You asked me before to explain my sense of right and wrong. You just explained it perfectly. Right is right and wrong is wrong with no grey areas. I have the rights granted me by the Constitution including the right to privacy. No law shall be passes that removes that right. It is wrong to pass laws that remove my Constitutional rights. It is also morally wrong for me to violate my own sense of right and wrong but it is an issue between me and my God, not between me and you as long as I don't violate your Constitutional rights in the process.

0 Replies

pretty much the opposite of what you have said there MA, when Goethe on his death bed exclaimed "more light, more light" he was pleading for a society more enlightened by the means of reason. The only hope for mankind is to toss aside the primitive absolutes and seek the ethic of reason. Fiat Lux.

0 Replies

J_B,

I understand what you are saying. My point is this, man is trying to usurp God's laws. Man is trying to make God's laws to be what man wants and not what God wants.

I gather from quite a few different posters they feel God is being unfair to them. I gather they think they know better than God because they think God should change according to the changes in society. I believe that is just backwards. It is society that should be changing to follow God's laws. He said things were wrong, sinful, immoral, etc., for a reason. And IMO the reason becomes clearer and clearer everyday (not to all, unfortunately) but the more society makes things acceptable or legal that are against God's laws, the more the decline of mankind. Now, all this is what I believe. I believe these things because that is what the Bible teaches me and I believe the Bible is the Word of God.

I understand how hard that is for some to understand and yet, others understand it perfectly. Different views, different people, different world.

dys,

What is pointed out as enlightment in that statement to me is justification for man doing what man wants to do because of man's own wants.

0 Replies

some of us simply chose to live with nature while developing a social system with a quality of life for all as a goal. we seek guides within our understanding rather than a mystic imposition from the netherworld. Plato/Paul-Saul and Descartes have been the greatest barriers to civilized understanding.

0 Replies

MA, I understand you live your life based on your beliefs and understanding of the Bible. You are centainly entitled to live your life in that way. This country was based on freedom of religion and separation of Church and State. Those things need not be in conflict. You are entitled to your beliefs and should live your life accordingly. You are not entitled to instill your religious beliefs on the lives of others through the passage of legislation that inhibits the rights granted to them by the founding fathers. If my actions violate your sense of right and wrong (although I doubt our actions are actually very dissimilar) then you may determine not to associate with me, but you may not determine that I do not have the right to my actions unless they violate the law as allowed by the Constitution.

Let me play devil's advocate for a minute. How would you feel if a law was passed that dictated you participate in the five daily Muslim prayers? I think you would be outraged. The laws of God, no matter whose God, have no place in the law of the people. We are a land of laws based on the Constitution of the United States. We cannot change the Constitution to be based on the laws of God - yours or anyone elses.

0 Replies

And dys, I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is things that you think are enlightentment and leaning to your own understanding are the things God warns us about. I place value on the Word of God and you place it on the word of man.

0 Replies

J_B,

Perhaps you will answer this, because as of yet, no one has. Please go to this link and read this.

http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html

What if this is the case? What is this was what was TRULY meant by separation of church and state? Where would stand then?

0 Replies

From the perspective of referencing the early settlers as Christians looking for religious freedom, it is right on. I only partially agree with this,

Quote:

Our founding fathers were God-fearing men who understood that for a country to stand it must have a solid foundation; the Bible was the source of this foundation. They believed that God's ways were much higher than Man's ways and held firmly that the Bible was the absolute standard of truth and used the Bible as a source to form our government.

The religious beliefs of the founding fathers has been heavily discussed in other threads. The claim they were all God-fearing Christians is false. I agree they used the Bible as "a" source to form our government, but it was not the only source. As I stated before, to the extend that the social mores of the time were used to establish the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, I have no arguement. Of course the Bible was part of what constituted the social mores of the time. Those mores cross many religious ideologies and are not inherent to only Christians. I will fight against anyone trying to restrict your right to practice your religion, MA. I will fight equally hard against any religion attempting to rewrite the Constitution towards their own ends.

0 Replies

J_B,

Understood and agreed that probably all of the founding fathers were not Christian, but the Bible was written long before the Constitution. So, which should we follow?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

mesquite wrote:
Eorl, 16 years seems to be a rather short time frame for responsible parenthood, but your point is right on.

Was his point that if a person has made some mistakes or irresponsible choices prior to parenthood and therefore might make some mistakes or irresponsible choices as a parent, then it is better to kill the child so he won't be exposed to that?

Astounding logic to be sure.

Real Life,

It is impossible to argue with anything you say when you come from the position that everyones agrees that a foetus is a child. If I were to assume that you are right in this, then everything else you say I agree with. Like this point. You are right, you win, easily. IF your assumption about the existence of a complete human child from day one is correct.

Remember, from my POV it is you who wants to kill children by forcing them to take desperate risks with illegal abortions.

Why are we bothering to argue past the ultimate issue? Why pour derision on a position that makes perfect sense given a different set of starting assumptions?

As I tried to point out to you before (when you sarcastically called me king) you would possibly have more effect and further your cause by convincing me (and people like me) that the foetus deserves to be treated as a fully paid up member of the human race than by assuming that position is an obvious truth and assuming all other parts of the discussion should be seen from that point-of-view.....because until you do, everything you say that stems from that gets an instant "delete, not valid" mental response from me and everyone who remains unconvinced of your initial assumption.

Naturally, I don't expect you to see this as constructive despite my best efforts! You'll probably see it as satanically inspired propaganda and respond with your usual sarcastic vitriol Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Eorl,

Couldn't the same thing be said of those on your side of the fence? You say prove to us it's a child. We say prove to us it isn't. You say man says it is a fetus. We say God says it is a child. I see no difference in debating our side and you debating your side.

0 Replies

Momma the difference is I don't declare myself absolutely right and do what I can to change the laws for all others on the basis of that certainty. I see, understand and to a degree sympathise with your position....most Christians I know are too certain of everything to be capable of any real empathy for those who disagree.

0 Replies

For those "christians" who support the death penalty, would they mind explaining the parts of "Thou Shalt Not Kill" that are open to interpretation?

Also, can I assume that if you see abortion as an act of pre-meditated murder, that the death penalty would apply? If not, why not? Is the "unborn child" worthy of a lesser sentence than a child?

0 Replies

Eorl,

I understand there are those that do feel the way you describe. But, when it comes to having empathy, I, of course, am going to have empathy for the child before an adult because the child is the innocent in this situation.

0 Replies

Momma,

Again you skip the crux of the argument (namely: what child?) and proceed to respond assuming you already won the argument.

You see? Any chance at empathy was lost at the point you already knew you were right about the "child"

0 Replies

Eorl,

Let me put it this way then, in this case, I will err on the side of the child/fetus.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know