legislating morality

[meltzerboy]

As a Catholic, I do not oppose abortion based upon the teaching of the Catholic Church. I oppose it because I oppose the taking of innocent life. Where and when human life begins is not a matter of religious doctrine. It is a matter of scientific fact. It is beyond argument that if conception has taken place a new and unique life has been created, with DNA unique from both parents. The Government has sanctioned the taking of innocent life. I see no 1st Amendment bar to my right to seek a change in that policy.

I think you’re missing something fundamental here. Although Catholics and other groups of christians are personally opposed to abortion and “gay marriage” on religious grounds, there are moral justifications for opposing abortion and protecting the institution of marriage as it has traditionally been recognized. I could not seek to pass legislation banning these things on the basis that the Catholic Church teaches that they are wrong. But I could oppose both on moral grounds without relying on the doctrinal statements of my faith. In other words, what you are suggesting is that if one’s morality is based in their religion they should be prevented from seeking legislation consistent with it. Conversely, you seem to suggest that if one’s morality is not formed within the context of a religion, that is a proper basis for legislation. Is this really your position, or am I just not tracking with you.

If this is your position, you see the problem, right? It actually penalizes those of us with morality formed from our faith (Catholic, Muslim, etc.) and would bar us from any say on many (if not all) of the key issues of our day.

Peace,
Robert

I had not yet read these comments when I had written my response to your comment addressed to me. Still, I think my prior remarks stand. No one is depriving you of your morality, grounded in your religious faith, by legalizing abortion. Your family members are not being forced to have an abortion. But how about other people’s morality: what makes you assume that their morality is not grounded on THEIR religious faith? Do you believe that if one chooses abortion, that means one does not have any religious faith? Just because YOU have concluded that abortion is murder does not mean that others have reached the same conclusion in keeping with their own faith. I find it interesting that you use science to justify your thinking on abortion. (I’m wondering whether you rely so much on science when it does not accord with your religious views, as in supporting the theory of evolution.) Biology actually states that an embryo is a viable human life, not exactly the same as a fully or even partially formed fetus. And science does make qualitative distinctions with regard to fetal development. BTW, although this is really a topic for another thread, are you also opposed to stem cell research, as well as abortion, based on your morality regarding that life begins at conception? Most scientists do support stem cell research.

 

[Sufjon]

Not exactly. Those who have legalized abortion are giving people who have honestly different religious viewpoints about when life begins and when the baby receives a soul, based on their own faith, the option to have an abortion under certain circumstances. This may be an offensive option to Catholics but government is NOT requiring Catholics who do not believe in abortion to choose this option. On the other hand, by making abortion illegal for all under any circumstances, government is removing this option from those who do not hold the same religious beliefs as those of Catholics.

I agree with you 100% meltzerboy. My religion requires me to be a vegetarian. We see killing any creature as unacceptable, but should my religious conviction be forced on everyone else? I like separation of church and state. I watch other people eat carcasses that are prettied up and made tasty and it makes me ill to watch, but I have the choice not to watch and the choice not to participate.

Your friend,
Sufjon

 

[meltzerboy]

No, we should never force or impose one religious belief on others, which is one of the paramount reasons why the world is becoming very anxious with the radical muslims who indeed use mortal force to ensure “their” belief of the muslim faith is either spread or not interfered with.

Now, that being said, let’s not be secular hypocrites either. The “civil laws” impose severe penalties for murder - and in the case of the murder of a pregnant woman, whose baby dies in the womb as a result of her death by murder - the perpetrator is charged with a “double homicide” recognizing that the baby in the womb was “a person” who was “alive” and is now “dead” as a result of the action to murder the mother.

So, therefore, why can the murder of child “by the mother” be less than a crime if the same child is murdered by another, who was killing the mother? The mothers action was premediated, the criminals action upon the baby in the womb may have been accidental, but it is still a murder charge. And going to the logical conclusion of your question, why can the State impose an irrational law upon its citizens in refusing to recognize murder as murder when the State’s court recognize the same act of killing a child as murder by a criminal? The State is imposing the State’s “belief” upon the populace.

By your logic, the State should then execute or, at least, imprison the mother who has an abortion. And why not also execute or imprison the doctor who performs the abortion? And maybe the family of the mother who consent to her having an abortion, as accomplices? And the hospital administrators who allow the abortion to be performed? How about the legislators who made the abortion legal: they too should be punished. And, if we can round them up, the whole pro-abortion (pro-choice is a better description) culture, including me? Why not according to what you say? Murder is murder. Of course, legally speaking, murder is NOT murder. There are gradations of legal culpability, including criminal intent and extenuating or mitigating circumstances. I recall Ronald Reagan, in a presidential debate, made the same argument as you. He actually called mothers who have abortions murderers. I wonder though whether he or you are willing to take the next step leading to imprisonment for the mother, doctor, and others implicated in the crime. If not, why not, based on your argument?

 

[dzheremi]

What is the alternative to legislating morality? From what source should our laws come from, if not from the morality of the specific group advocating the adoption of that particular moral stance?

 

[SteveVH]

Not exactly. Those who have legalized abortion are giving people who have honestly different religious viewpoints about when life begins and when the baby receives a soul, based on their own faith, the option to have an abortion under certain circumstances. This may be an offensive option to Catholics but government is NOT requiring Catholics who do not believe in abortion to choose this option. On the other hand, by making abortion illegal for all under any circumstances, government is removing this option from those who do not hold the same religious beliefs as those of Catholics.

If this were only a “personal” issue I might agree with you. In this case it is a crime against humanity, every bit as much as the holocaust, while focused on the Jews, was a crime against humanity. There is a 9/11 (3,000 abortions) occuring everyday just in the United States. Over 40 million so far, in this country alone, since legalization. Sorry, but an autrocity of this magnitude affects all of mankind and my tax dollars are being spent to help subsidize it. That is legislating immorality in that I am forced to participate.

 

[meltzerboy]

I agree with you 100% meltzerboy. My religion requires me to be a vegetarian. We see killing any creature as unacceptable, but should my religious conviction be forced on everyone else? I like separation of church and state. I watch other people eat carcasses that are prettied up and made tasty and it makes me ill to watch, but I have the choice not to watch and the choice not to participate.

Your friend,
Sufjon

Good point about vegetarianism; but, of course, some will say you’re comparing “apples and oranges”: a human life is not comparable to animal life. But I agree with your remarks and especially the importance of separation of Church and State, which even in the US is not always followed and certainly not approved of by all its citizens. I think this separation ultimately safeguards the rights of all.
P.S. Thanks for your kind private message.

 

[meltzerboy]

If this were only a “personal” issue I might agree with you. In this case it is a crime against humanity, every bit as much as the holocaust, while focused on the Jews, was a crime against humanity. There is a 9/11 (3,000 abortions) occuring everyday just in the United States. Over 40 million so far, in this country alone, since legalization. Sorry, but an autrocity of this magnitude affects all of mankind and my tax dollars are being spent to help subsidize it. That is legislating immorality in that I am forced to participate.

So I’ll present to you the logical conclusion of your remarks as I presented to two other posters. If abortion is such as horrendous crime–equivalent to the Nazi Holocaust as you state–a true “war crime,” then why not punish the murderers in the same way? Let’s put the perpetrators on trial, find them guilty, and sentence them to imprisonment or execution.

 

[SteveVH]

So I’ll present to you the logical conclusion of your remarks as I presented to two other posters. If abortion is such as horrendous crime–equivalent to the Nazi Holocaust as you state–a true “war crime,” then why not punish the murderers in the same way? Let’s put the perpetrators on trial, find them guilty, and sentence them to imprisonment or execution.

Doctors who perform abortions should be the one’s prosecuted first. They are killing humans for money. Start there and abortion on demand would cease to exist. Logically, if it was determined to be illegal, the mother and even the father, if he is compicit, should also be prosecuted. We are speaking of the taking of human life. We certainly prosecute mothers for killing their children and it is seen as a horrendous crime. There is really no difference here other than no one hears the baby scream.

 

[campeador]

Was it justified for the Allied nations to condemn those who were responsible for the Holocaust? Weren’t the Nazis being forced to accept a moral opinion contrary to their beliefs?

 

[meltzerboy]

Doctors who perform abortions should be the one’s prosecuted first. They are killing humans for money. Start there and abortion on demand would cease to exist. Logically, if it was determined to be illegal, the mother and even the father, if he is compicit, should also be prosecuted. We are speaking of the taking of human life. We certainly prosecute mothers for killing their children and it is seen as a horrendous crime. There is really no difference here other than no one hears the baby scream.

Should we also punish the hospital administrators and pro-choice legislators who voted to make abortion legal?

 

[meltzerboy]

Was it justified for the Allied nations to condemn those who were responsible for the Holocaust? Weren’t the Nazis being forced to accept a moral opinion contrary to their beliefs?

Is the mother who has an abortion to save her own life (whether or not the baby will die in any event) equivalent in moral culpability to a Nazi leader in your view?

 

[SteveVH]

Should we also punish the hospital administrators and pro-choice legislators who voted to make abortion legal?

People can vote for what ever they want. Once a law is made they have to abide by it or suffer the consequences if they choose not to abide by it.

 

[JSSebastianoP]

By your logic, the State should then execute or, at least, imprison the mother who has an abortion. And why not also execute or imprison the doctor who performs the abortion? And maybe the family of the mother who consent to her having an abortion, as accomplices? And the hospital administrators who allow the abortion to be performed? How about the legislators who made the abortion legal: they too should be punished. And, if we can round them up, the whole pro-abortion (pro-choice is a better description) culture, including me? Why not according to what you say? Murder is murder. Of course, legally speaking, murder is NOT murder. There are gradations of legal culpability, including criminal intent and extenuating or mitigating circumstances. I recall Ronald Reagan, in a presidential debate, made the same argument as you. He actually called mothers who have abortions murderers. I wonder though whether he or you are willing to take the next step leading to imprisonment for the mother, doctor, and others implicated in the crime. If not, why not, based on your argument?

Given the power I would. Not execute, perhaps, but at least imprision as with any other murderer…

Pax,

Sebastiano

 

[campeador]

Is the mother who has an abortion to save her own life (whether or not the baby will die in any event) equivalent in moral culpability to a Nazi leader in your view?

It seems you are side stepping the question. The exception does not prove the rule.

 

[SteveVH]

Is the mother who has an abortion to save her own life (whether or not the baby will die in any event) equivalent in moral culpability to a Nazi leader in your view?

If a mother had to choose between her life and her six year old’s life what would you think of her saving her own life and letting her child die? There is no difference. As a parent I would not have to think twice about sacrificing my life for my child.

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

The state is only a vehicle of the wishes of the public as dictated to their representative. Any nebulous “separation of church and state” cannot and does not mean a separation of morals and policy. The correlation between abortion and euthanasia can easily lead to an extermination of other groups based on the “common good”. The same arguments Nazis used against Jews: not human, unwanted, drain on resources, are surprisingly unabashedly used today both in abortion and euthanasia. In the end though, it is political power that is the consummation of legislation and not that which is wrong or right. I. and I assume others as well, think it should be about what is wrong vs what is right or we are possibly to repeat what is wrong.

Is the mother who has an abortion to save her own life (whether or not the baby will die in any event) equivalent in moral culpability to a Nazi leader in your view?

The moral object is the same, taking the life of an innocent. Whether one is a Nazi leader, supporter, or not doing anything about it, it is culpable in the taking of an innocent life.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

It hasn’t happened in a while, Joe, but we did it!----I totally agree with ya! :thumbsup:

The idea that we shouldn’t “legislate morality” a common position of individuals who support legalized abortion and same sex marriage. They say we shouldn’t force our beliefs on others. The thing is, we legislate morality all the time on less controversial issues. A thirty year old man cannot have sex with a ten year old girl, a thirteen year old boy cannot legally purchase and consume alcohol and cigarettes, and I cannot refuse to hire someone because of the color of their skin or their sex. Every one of those issues is 100% a morality question.

If the case is made that we can’t legislate morality we have to legalize all those things and quite a few other things besides. The reality is, most of our laws are based on some level in morality. Judge Robert Bork famously said, “You can’t legislate morality; We legislate little else.” He was right. In fact the very fabric of society is based on our concept of morality. If you throw that out, what do we have left?

 

[Sufjon]

If a mother had to choose between her life and her six year old’s life what would you think of her saving her own life and letting her child die? There is no difference. As a parent I would not have to think twice about sacrificing my life for my child.

Hi Steve:

-I should like to think that I would have the courage to sacrifice my own life for my 6 year old. I can say that I do, but do I? I don’t know.

-If it were to come to pass that your child needed a heart transplant within a few days or she would die, and your heart was the only match that could save her, the question would be superfluous. The law will not allow you to have your heart removed from your living body to be placed in her body. In short, the law won’t let you die for her.

-Why then should the law allow, or even worse require a woman to die for an unborn child, when it won’t even allow her to do it for a living breathing member of society? If both are equal, then why is one more equal than the other? Why should I have to live to watch a child I already know and love die, and be allowed or even forced to die to save one I don’t even know yet?

I would submit that letting religions make public policy decisions that affect the lives of real people in the real world has had disastrous results in the past. This discussion shows that it had promise to do the same again if allowed to. Churches have a right to say who is a member and who is not and what those members can and cannot do. They have the right to excommunicate as well. People have the right to join or leave. That is where the story of the authority of churches should begin and end in a society where there is separation of church and state.

Of course some people people stay and keep quiet about what they really do and who they really are because they’re convinced that their souls are at ransom. I wonder how many?

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[SteveVH]

Hi Steve:

-I should like to think that I would have the courage to sacrifice my own life for my 6 year old. I can say that I do, but do I? I don’t know.

-If it were to come to pass that your child needed a heart transplant within a few days or she would die, and your heart was the only match that could save her, the question would be superfluous. The law will not allow you to have your heart removed from your living body to be placed in her body. In short, the law won’t let you die for her.

-Why then should the law allow, or even worse require a woman to die for an unborn child, when it won’t even allow her to do it for a living breathing member of society? If both are equal, then why is one more equal than the other? Why should I have to live to watch a child I already know and love die, and be allowed or even forced to die to save one I don’t even know yet?

Your friend
Sufjon

The issue is what would you choose to do, not what are you prevented from doing. In the case of a mother choosing her life over her child’s life, I would not agree. As I said before, I would give my life for the life of my child without a second thought.

 

[Sufjon]

The issue is what would you choose to do, not what are you prevented from doing. In the case of a mother choosing her life over her child’s life, I would not agree. As I said before, I would give my life for the life of my child without a second thought.

The question has everything to do with that Steve. You are saying to take away the choice. YOU have the choice to watch your child die once he’s alive on his or her own. We are talking about taking that choice away from pregnant women. The law won’t let you die for your 6 year old. You can pledge to do it all day, but you know the law won;t let you by medical procedure kill yourself to save your child. It just will not allow it. I’m sure you know that. Sure, you can jump out in front of a car to save her, but the law will not let a hospital kill you to save her even if you yourself only had a minute left to live anyway. That is the law in the US. Tell me why then should a hospital be allowed to aid and abet a woman in killing herself to save an unborn child? Even more so, why should a hospital be forced to kill her? Let’s not avoid the issue. This is exactly what is being suggested in the case where a woman’s life is seriously threatened. This is why letting religion play a role in public policy is dangerous. I’ve seen that denied on this very website, but history is history. I consider myself a religious person, but I know there are zealots and zealots are often dangerous. This is why religion should be strictly an ornamental agency in regards to secular affairs. They should be allowed to blab all day, but never make public policy or legal decisions. That’s why they have websites like this one. So folks like us can blab at each other, rather than make decisions for other people to live by.

Your friend
Sufjon