A
Arkansan
Guest
You’ve still not made any argument for why the system is good. That changing it will be difficult is not an argument for its goodness.
11 years in jail for a stillbirth: did the Church in El Salvador support this legislation?
- Status
M
MPat
Guest
Um, if you have USA in mind, there is no reason to think that anything violent would have to be necessary. American Constitution can be amended legally.
For that matter, there is nothing whatsoever in the American Constitution that somehow prevents anyone from lobbying for criminalisation of abortion, or even from passing the laws to that effect. There are some silly interpretations of that Constitution that say so, but they are not Constitution itself.
Thus no amendments are necessary, just a different composition of Supreme Court. And that is by no means impossible to achieve.
I
IWantGod
Guest
To me its simply a qeustion of whether you support the split between church and state. I do, and at the same time i recognize that some of my beliefs about the nature of human beings and their value cannot be an expression of secular law in principle because they are a matter faith and not self-evident fact. So how can i or the legal system justify imposing my beliefs on other people who do not share the faith, without being a fascist? This is the point at which i think the split between religion and the state is a good thing because it means for example Islam cannot force sharia law or its religion in general on to me, and i can’t force my religion on to them through law .
We can negotiate social contracts on practical matters, we can come to agreements on matters of fact like the fact that none of us want to be killed or harmed, but that’s about it.
We can negotiate social contracts on practical matters, we can come to agreements on matters of fact like the fact that none of us want to be killed or harmed, but that’s about it.
Last edited:
M
MPat
Guest
OK, so, in your own words, what exactly is that “split between church and state” and why exactly do you think it is a good idea?
A
Arkansan
Guest
Well no, but that isn’t the point. Abortion being wrong is of natural law, there’s no reason why even a secular state shouldn’t ban it.
I also have no idea what you think fascism has to do with anything. Every state imposes the views of those who run it on others. That’s by definition what a state does.
I
IWantGod
Guest
I 'll let you figure it out.
M
MPat
Guest
So, in other words, you do not know, but you have heard those words somewhere and you liked them?
I
IWantGod
Guest
Believe what ever you like.
I
IWantGod
Guest
Abortion is wrong because a human embryo has personal soul and thus the dignity of a person as assigned by God. Get it right.
Last edited:
M
MPat
Guest
Thank you.
But seriously, if you are not going to explain your own position, why did you try to participate in this discussion?
E
Elf01
Guest
Why is murder wrong if you don’t believe in a soul?
A
Arkansan
Guest
What I said was correct. Nothing you just said contradicts it.
I
IWantGod
Guest
My position has been explained you simply do not agree with it. You want it written into law that God is the ground of our value as human persons and that the human embryo has a personal soul from the moment of conception and thus has the same value as you or me.
What in your mind, assuming you can think reasonably, makes you think that this will ever be written into secular law as a matter of faith when taking into account that secular law does not function on the presupposition of God’s existence or the existence of a personal soul?
I really don’t understand why you re failing to grasp the issue here.
What in your mind, assuming you can think reasonably, makes you think that this will ever be written into secular law as a matter of faith when taking into account that secular law does not function on the presupposition of God’s existence or the existence of a personal soul?
I really don’t understand why you re failing to grasp the issue here.
Last edited:
I
IWantGod
Guest
I do believe in the soul. What you are failing to understand is that the reason your life is legally protected by the state has nothing to do with you having a personal soul or the value that God gives to your life.
Last edited:
M
MPat
Guest
You know, your position really hasn’t been explained in a way that is not ambiguous.
So, once again:
What exactly does “split between church and state” mean here?
Do you take it to mean that Church cannot lobby the government? That the government must not listen? Or just that the Church is not to pass laws on its own?
What exactly can’t Church and State do under this “split between church and state”?
For now you have kept that part ambiguous. And that must change.
Last edited:
A
Annie
Guest
My belief that abortion should be illegal has nothing to do with the soul. I believe abortion should be illegal because abortion is an act that has the intention of taking an innocent human life.
This is a scientific fact, not a religious idea. If we believe that innocent human beings should not be killed, then we should apply that to unborn human beings as well.
This is a scientific fact, not a religious idea. If we believe that innocent human beings should not be killed, then we should apply that to unborn human beings as well.
I
IWantGod
Guest
People should not be killed.
Last edited:
A
Annie
Guest
And what is your definition of “people”?
I
IWantGod
Guest
A being with a personal soul as defined by God.
Last edited:
I
IWantGod
Guest
Its not a scientific fact that we have a personal soul from the moment of conception. What is evident is at the moment of conception the building blocks for the physical development of what society normally recognizes as a person exists. You wish to call an embryo a human being, but the laws definition of what a human being is does not in principle extend to the development of a human-being from the moment of conception because it is not evident that it is a human-being, only that it is becoming one.
Perhaps If from the moment of conception an embryo expressed a conscious desire to live and evidently had an intellect or sentience.then it would make sense for the law to extend the protection we give to human-beings to embryos.
But at the end of the day, the protection we have as human beings is entirely based on a social contract. I see no pragmatic reason why that contract should be extended to human embryos other than that we strongly feel it is against God’s moral law. But again, the legal system is incapable of recognizing and enforcing Gods law beyond a mere practical self interest for survival and power.
Last edited:
- Status