legislating morality

[meltzerboy]

In Hinduism, the taking of any life, human or otherwise is to be avoided at all cost. It is the concept of ahisma. However, it is also understood that this isn’t always possible. We are called to do the least harm possible in each situation. Hurt rather than maim, maim rather than kill, kill if unavoidable. It is also a sin not to explore every possible alternative first. It is presumed that there is a solemn obligation to use the intellect we were given to maximum effect in such situations. There is almost always another alternative, and you are bound to find them to the very best of your ability… If you don’t explore them, there are karmic consequences. There is also the concept of protecting that which is of a higher conscious, evolutionary or spiritual state. Therefore, an abortion to save the life of the expectant mother would be a tragedy for the whole family, and a cause of deeply felt grief, but not counter-indicated by religious principle.

Shooting a tiger at the last minute with no time left to keep it from killing a child is acceptable, but there are lesser karmic consequences for not having kept the child and the tiger out of contact with one another beforehand if it was possible to do so.

Your friend
Sufjon

I like the rational approach of Hinduism. It is quite similar to Judaism on several points. There is even an argument within Judaism in favor of vegetarianism, and when animals are killed for food, they must be done so using the sharpest possible needle to inflict the least pain. Also, I recall reading that the notion of reincarnation is not thought by some rabbis to be contradictory to Jewish Law.

 

[samiam1611]

The problem is without God, there is no morality.

So not true. Speak for yourself. Maybe for you, if you found out there was no God, you would start behaving immorally (that is, what’s immoral to you right now). But I don’t believe in God and I have morals. It’s part of being human. Empathy. There’s some people out there (sociopaths for instance) who are an exception, but for the most part, morality is a human trait that we all have and as long as we are raised right, there’s no need for God or religion. I’m a good person bc I want to be. Not bc I think God is watching me or judging me or going to judge me or anything. Sometimes I mess up. Then I feel bad. But not bc I’m worried about my fate in the afterlife or anything like that.
See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism

 

[samiam1611]

the morning after pill which work by causing abortion

Wrong. wrong wrong wrong. Emergency contraceptives (ECs) or the “morning-after pill”—are drugs that act to disrupt ovulation or fertilization to prevent pregnancy (contraceptives). According to the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics, “EC is not an abortifacient because it has its effect prior to the earliest time of implantation.” Furthermore, EC’s have no effect on pregnancies if taken after implantation.

If you are against contraceptives, fine. But your statement is incorrect.

 

[Sufjon]

I like the rational approach of Hinduism. It is quite similar to Judaism on several points. There is even an argument within Judaism in favor of vegetarianism, and when animals are killed for food, they must be done so using the sharpest possible needle to inflict the least pain. Also, I recall reading that the notion of reincarnation is not thought by some rabbis to be contradictory to Jewish Law.

I also think Judaism is probably very similar to Hinduismin a lot of ways. What little I have seen of the Kabbalah looks very much like what is in our Upanishads. It also seems that I tend to fall on the side of most Jewish people I know on social issues, so there is probably a good deal of commonality in philosophy, but I don’t know enough about Judaism to say how similar they might be.

Your friend,
Sufjon

 

[Sufjon]

Wrong. wrong wrong wrong. Emergency contraceptives (ECs) or the “morning-after pill”—are drugs that act to disrupt ovulation or fertilization to prevent pregnancy (contraceptives). According to the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics, “EC is not an abortifacient because it has its effect prior to the earliest time of implantation.” Furthermore, EC’s have no effect on pregnancies if taken after implantation.

If you are against contraceptives, fine. But your statement is incorrect.

Thank you!

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

Wrong. wrong wrong wrong. Emergency contraceptives (ECs) or the “morning-after pill”—are drugs that act to disrupt ovulation or fertilization to prevent pregnancy (contraceptives). According to the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics, “EC is not an abortifacient because it has its effect prior to the earliest time of implantation.” Furthermore, EC’s have no effect on pregnancies if taken after implantation.

If you are against contraceptives, fine. But your statement is incorrect.

Are you kidding me???

Sure, killing Jews is not murder because they are not human. Killing Native Americans is not murder because they are not human. And African people are not human, either, so it’s not murder to kill them.

I advise you to try some intellectual honesty.

“It has its effect prior to implantation?” Oh really? Implantation of what??? What kind of effect??? Let’s try some plain English and science 101, instead of obfuscation and euphemisms!

Q: Prior to implantation of what???
A: Prior to implantation of the newly conceived human person.

Q: What kind of “effect” are you talking about?
A: You are talking about MURDERING A NEWLY CONCEIVED HUMAN PERSON.

 

[Sufjon]

Are you kidding me???

Q: Prior to implantation of what???
A: Prior to implantation of the newly conceived human person.

I think he is referring to the implantation of 70 to 100 cells that form what is known as a blastocyst.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

I think he is referring to the implantation of 70 to 100 cells that form what is known as a blastocyst.

Your friend
Sufjon

Yes, probably. However, in my neck of the woods, that blastocyst is regarded as a human person. And purposefully preventing the implantation of that human person, thus depriving him/her of nutrients and purposefully starving him/her to death, in my world is called abortion, that is the murder of that human person.

 

[Sufjon]

Yes, probably. However, in my neck of the woods, that blastocyst is regarded as a human person. And purposefully preventing the implantation of that human person, thus depriving him/her of nutrients and purposefully starving him/her to death, in my world is called abortion, that is the murder of that human person.

I am not in a position to say when human life begins, because all of humanity is in my view one big organism. The soul that attends a newly created child in my view has always been and always will be. It cannot be destroyed by a morning after pill, a world war, a plague or have it’s nature changed by a thread on CAF. I also must concede however, that a wart you might have removed from your wrist has far more human cells than a blastocyst.

It should be noted that I have never promoted or entertained the idea of killing an unborn child. I have defended the right of a mother to save herself when needed as she might see fit. Not permitting this is a count of murder as much as would be an.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

Here’s a pharmacist’s testimony on the occasion of Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich legislating his immorality on others and trying to force pharmacists to participate in what they regard as an abomination:

Quote from:

pfli.org/peggypacetestimony_june05.html

Quote - bolded emphases mine:

**TESTIMONY

Public Hearing on Proposed Amendment to Illinois Pharmacy Practice Act **

June 2, 2005 …I am a licensed pharmacist in Illinois. I’m sharing testimony with you to explain why I believe the governor’s emergency rule is bad for the people of Illinois, and bad for the pharmacy professionals in this state. I work for a large chain at a southern Illinois location. Prior to working at my current location, I worked for the same chain at a Missouri location, where the pharmacy manager decided not to stock the morning after pill… …I transferred to an Illinois location of the same chain that did stock the morning after pill. I was also aware of the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act of 1997, and the protection it guarantees to health care personnel like me. The governor’s rule is in direct violation of that Act. I cannot in good conscience dispense a drug that is designed to destroy human life. This drug’s action cannot be accounted for in its effect on mucous, since it is taken post-coitally, and fertility specialists tell us that the sperm are already at the distal end of the fallopian tube, where fertilization takes place, within 20 to 30 minutes. Daily progestin administration only inhibits ovulation in about half of the women who use it, so the ability of this drug to inhibit ovulation, after only being taken twice during a woman’s cycle (12 hours apart) is questionable. The mechanism of action which inhibits implantation of an embryo, living and human, is in large part responsible for its effect. I understand that the morning after pill is classed as a contraceptive. I also understand that the reason it is called a contraceptive, and not an abortifacient, is because the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, in 1965, redefined the terms “pregnancy” and “conception” to now only mean after implantation of an embryo has occurred. However, embryologists world-wide agree unanimously that time zero for human life is fertilization, not implantation, which doesn’t begin until the embryo is about 7 days old. This drug would therefore be more properly termed a “contraimplantive”, rather than a contraceptive. Further, to describe this drug as ending the life of a “fertilized egg” is scientifically incorrect, since a fertilized egg is properly called an embryo. But the issue before us is not some arcane redefining of medical terms, but the real human right not to participate in purposefully killing another human being in early development…

…In order to comply with this rule, I have to pretend that what I believe is false. My Christian faith, which informs my morals, is not a whim or a personal feeling that I can set aside when I go to work each day. Therefore, I cannot and will not participate in the ending of a human life. Does the governor think that by making a rule a public law, he has settled this moral issue? Does he also intend that in order to practice pharmacy in this state I must adopt his world-view, which includes abortion on demand, as my own? Since we cannot agree on an objective moral truth, why must I accept his demand to participate in killing as the moral absolute? Everything I do as a pharmacist is an act of moral conscience. For example, many times I have had to advise a physician of a dosage error for a patient. Other times I’ve had to contact the prescriber because of a drug interaction, or a disease state contraindication, and I do not dispense the drug until such time as I can discuss with him or her how to proceed. Still other times I refuse to fill a habit-forming drug when it is clear that the patient is overusing it, and may, in fact, be forming an unhealthy habit that the prescribing physician never intended. In each of these situations, if I were to act otherwise it would be immoral, because it is immoral to harm a patient. These types of decisions are required by this licensing body, as an exercise of professional conscience, which is actually an outworking of moral conscience, that is, it is wrong to do harm based on professional training and experience. But this same moral conscience is what this rule is asking me to abandon…

…In all of the years that I studied pharmacy, “a patient’s expectations” was never taught as a standard by which we must operate. There were many standards taught us which are to govern the way we practice, but a patient’s individual expectations, because they can be incorrect or unrealistic, was never held out as the model by which we practice. Now, however, it seems that this has become a new standard, and must include that we do whatever the patient wants, even if it harms him or her; after all, the argument goes, the patient is entitled to live in a risky way. Is this really the change that this board wants to usher into our profession?..

…We are grappling with the idea that no one should be forced by his government to do something that he finds morally repugnant…

…I know that convictions cost. I know that taking a stand against the governor could potentially cost me my license and my income. Has this board considered the cost of running pharmacists of conscience out of Illinois? With pharmacists at an all-time shortage, does this one-size-fits-all moral code really serve the people of this state, in light of the fact that it will force the part time closing of some pharmacies? This would deny access to a far greater number of people to their life-saving medications. And all for one drug, marketed by one company, for one non-emergency, non-life-threatening indication. Thank you for your time.

 

[stephe1987]

i understand that there are probably as many opinions on abortion as there are people on this forum. that said, why should any one religion’s opinion on the subject be forced onto people that aren’t of that faith?

so abortion is a sin in the catholic church, but why should hindus or muslims have to accept that? some do or don’t anyway, but there doesn’t seem to be any general consensus in those religions. most muslims allow it until the fourth month, and many, but not all, hindus ban it outright.

so my question isn’t on whether or not abortion is a sin. rather, i want to know is if it is ever alright to force one person’s beliefs on another person, and why or under what circumstances.

Abortion shouldn’t be legal or illegal. Before abortion was legalized, 90% of abortions were done at a doctor’s office, so it wasn’t “unsafe”… but when the government makes laws saying something IS legal, it sets a bad precedent. It forces morality on secular individuals because by saying abortion is legal, it is telling those people that abortion is okay. There are also militant anti-religious activists who attack people for being pro-life, and want to take away our religious freedoms because not everyone agrees with the state’s decision.

IMO, the government needs to be more about setting laws that protect its citizens (i.e. domestic abuse, rape, murder, stealing, vandalism, etc. should be illegal) and less about making laws that deal with morality. People have a right to be safe, but they also have a right to religious freedom. By making certain laws, the government, intentionally or not, is attacking those freedoms and making pronouncements about what people should believe.

Another good example is gay marriage. Many naive people believe that making a law about marriage is fine. After all, if they want to get married, that is their life. God doesn’t force people to follow him, so why should we? They aren’t Christian, so they wouldn’t want to marry in a Christian church anyway, right? Well, Catholic adoption agencies have been forced to close because they won’t let gay couples adopt children. And now they are trying to force churches to “marry” homosexuals in the church, and in some countries they have already succeeded. These are serious attacks on freedom; you can get a lawsuit for practicing your religion and are even accused of a “hate crime”.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

I think in about 50 to 75 years it will be a commonly accepted moral tenet not to eat meat. Our level of awareness about the nature consciousness is expanding rapidly. It should be noted that I have never promoted the idea of abortion. The exception is in cases where the mother’s like is endangered.

Your friend,
Sufjon

Perhaps we should only eat the meat that we raise or hunt on our own, instead of making the production of animals for eating an industry. Perhaps the natural couse of life and death in all things is the best course to take? It would certainly resolve the abortion issue. I think that would be very much in line with Catholic teaching and eastern philosophical ideas.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Sufjon]

Perhaps we should only eat the meat that we raise or hunt on our own, instead of making the production of animals for eating an industry. Perhaps the natural couse of life and death in all things is the best course to take? It would certainly resolve the abortion issue. I think that would be very much in line with Catholic teaching and eastern philosophical ideas.

Peace,
Robert

Hi Robert: I can definitely agree that raising or hunting an animal for food is much better than the industrial factory complex system we are using these days. I don’t think hunters cause animals much suffering.

Your friend,
Sufjon

 

[Mumbles140]

I think in about 50 to 75 years it will be a commonly accepted moral tenet not to eat meat. Our level of awareness about the nature consciousness is expanding rapidly. It should be noted that I have never promoted the idea of abortion. The exception is in cases where the mother’s like is endangered.

Your friend,
Sufjon

I wholeheartedly disagree, because there is no moral universal standard that could be applied to this today. Now, if you argued that all animals should be treated with respect and care, and that kicked agri-business onto its knees, I’d be dancing in the streets! But banning meat is not a universally accepted moral tenet like protecting an innocent, defenseless human life.

And concerning the mother’s life in jeopardy, I have been over this issue on several occasions. It is not an abortion as long as the purpose of the procedure is not to terminate the pregnancy. If the intent isn’t there, even if they know the child will die, it is still not considered an abortion. Therefore, based on your arguments and in light of these present facts, it appears you are against abortion! Congratulations!

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

I am not in a position to say when human life begins, because all of humanity is in my view one big organism. The soul that attends a newly created child in my view has always been and always will be. It cannot be destroyed by a morning after pill, a world war, a plague or have it’s nature changed by a thread on CAF. I also must concede however, that a wart you might have removed from your wrist has far more human cells than a blastocyst.

It should be noted that I have never promoted or entertained the idea of killing an unborn child. I have defended the right of a mother to save herself when needed as she might see fit. Not permitting this is a count of murder as much as would be an.

Your friend
Sufjon

Hi Sufjon,

it seems to me that your idea of the soul pre-existing the creation of the physical body is very similar to what Tibeti Buddhism believes. In Tibeti Buddhism and yoga, one will even learn to practice an exercise for “closing the womb”. According to the Tibeti Book of Dead, the person’s soul will leave his/her body after death. Then, the soul will find itself in a land resembling what the Tibeti landscape might look like during the autumn, will encounter certain spiritual beings, and yet later on, the soul will see human couples from the physical world engaging in the marital act. At this point, the soul will usually enter a woman’s womb and re-incarnate into a new physical body. The goal of the exercise of “closing the womb” is however, for the soul to become conscious of this sequence of events awaiting to happen after the person’s death, and for the soul to consciously choose not to enter a woman’s womb, thus exiting the cycle of successive reincarnations into human bodies. A yogi will learn all this during his present life in a human body, so that once he dies, his soul will be aware of what’s happening to him/her, and take adequate action to break the cycle.

The Catholic Church, on the other hand, teaches that God creates the person at conception, and the various Biblical texts are consistent with a view according to which the unformed or partially formed person in the womb is precious to God, God “knows” this person. Hence the Catholic belief that we do not have the right to administer an abortive drug and kill the person, even if the person is unformed or partially formed in a physical sense, even if he/she consists merely of a single cell or a cluster of cells at this time. We Catholics also believe that a person’s soul will not be killed during an abortion. If a baby in the womb is killed by abortion, his/her body is destroyed, but the soul of this baby will continue to exist and live for all eternity. However, we refuse to kill a baby, whether the baby was born or is yet inside the womb, because of God’s fifth commandment and other Biblical texts forbidding us to kill human beings. The Biblical texts do not differentiate between the unborn and the born, and the Catholic Church interpreted the texts throughout its history in a sense that killing a human being (more exactly, murdering - as opposed for example to just war and legitimate self defense) is forbidden regardless of whether the human being is inside the womb or outside, regardless of what stage of development the human body is in.

Now regarding the question of when human life begins, the Catholic Church confidently and unequivocally answers, “at conception”.

To tie this in with the thread’s topic of “legislating morality”, for the above reason we Catholics regard it as an abomination for Governor Rod Blagojevich to come and force us pharmacists to give to a woman a drug that will cause the death of her baby. For us, that single celled human person, or that human person consisting of a cluster of cells, is every bit as much a human person, possessing of just as much dignity, and worthy of just as much protection, as that other human person consisting of billions of cells, who has a foul mouth and tries to sell the Illinois senator’s office to the highest bidder, this multi-billion cell human being more commonly known as Rod Blagojevich. If anything, we probably have more sympathy for the innocent little human person (you can call this person a zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus, whatever) who never did anything wrong to anyone, than the big bad Rod Blagojevich who thinks it’s OK to kill this little unborn baby.

 

[Mumbles140]

Thanks that was very informative. I appreciate the response, it should clear up misconceptions, it did for me at least.

Glad to be of assistance!

 

[Mumbles140]

In Hinduism, the taking of any life, human or otherwise is to be avoided at all cost. It is the concept of ahisma. However, it is also understood that this isn’t always possible. We are called to do the least harm possible in each situation. Hurt rather than maim, maim rather than kill, kill if unavoidable. It is also a sin not to explore every possible alternative first. It is presumed that there is a solemn obligation to use the intellect we were given to maximum effect in such situations. There is almost always another alternative, and you are bound to find them to the very best of your ability… If you don’t explore them, there are karmic consequences. There is also the concept of protecting that which is of a higher conscious, evolutionary or spiritual state. Therefore, an abortion to save the life of the expectant mother would be a tragedy for the whole family, and a cause of deeply felt grief, but not counter-indicated by religious principle.

So, the best possible situation for an unwanted pregnancy would be adoption? The parents do not have to raise the child they did not want or were unprepared for, the child is given a loving set of parents, and a husband and wife who were unable to have children on their own are able to be father and mother. And again, this ‘saving the life of the mother’ discussion is bunk because it is either an abortion (direct termination of the fetus) or treatment of the mother that indirectly causes the death of the preborn child.

 

[Mumbles140]

It should be noted that I have never promoted or entertained the idea of killing an unborn child. I have defended the right of a mother to save herself when needed as she might see fit. Not permitting this is a count of murder as much as would be an.

See, what troubles me is your use of the phrase ‘as she might see fit.’ If you really believe it is the choice of the mother, then you are in favor of legalized abortion. You spoke earlier about saving the mother’s life, which I explained wasn’t considered an abortion if the intent of the procedure is to treat the mother, not end the pregnancy. Now, when you are giving the choice to the mother, it becomes a matter of convenience rather than a medical issue. Maybe their finances aren’t great - then put the child up for adoption. Maybe husband was away for a long time and she was unfaithful - then deal with the consequence of your actions. When you leave it up to the mother, then you make this a matter of choice, not medical issues like you have previously claimed.

 

[Joan1969]

Hello, Sufjon,

(from Sufjon) I don’t think we are so far apart in our thinking, but sometimes thinking in itself is the problem. The heart is usually the best guide in such matters. If we legislate homosexuality as illegal, then homosexuality is done more in secret. It is not done less.

This is an area where we disagree. There are, and have been, many cultures where homosexuality has been much rarer than it is in the modern western world. You can allege, if you choose, that it was going on in secret, but this is a mere unfalsifiable assertion. Hard evidence such as disease rates (caused by homosexual acts) would have to be provided in order to make this case. The known facts, including marriage and childbearing rates in a number of cultures, lack of diseases resulting from secret homosexual promiscuity, and a universal abhorrence of such behaviors that endures over centuries, gives me strong evidence that such activity was much less common in the past, and continues to be uncommon today in at least some cultures such as those of the Middle East.

Same with your abstinence perspective. The idea that certain sins will “happen anyway”, not just at some rate but presumably at the same high rate no matter what we do, is not supported by the reality of the human experience. There have been, and continue to be, cultures where abstinence is indeed practiced until marriage. Christian families and communities of various denominations have been very successful in teaching almost all their young people to embrace chastity. In the past, fornication clearly happened but was not as common, and marriage with childbearing often followed (not to give general approval to any harshness of these past cultures). There are some new realities to deal with now (espeically contraceptives), but we can still have reasonable results with effort. Look at the trends with smoking, or drunk driving, which happened because of the will of American moral standard setters (including lawmakers).

Usually the biggest opponents of such things in legislative bodies and pulpits are themselves latent or active practitioners of the behaviors they rail against. There are certain recent members of our national government who ran campaigns that featured an anti-abortion platform. These same people personally supported and were deeply entangled in business ventures in third world countries that enslaved women workers in cages. These women were not only subjected to slave labor, but repeated forced prostitution (outright rape), and forced abortions. All supported by the ultra right wing candidates who told the American public that upon election they would fight a woman’s right to an abortion in the US.

I have to say that this is a rather overwrought accusation. You may be believing unreliable, politically driven sources. I know of some of the stronger pro-life politicians, and I have the strongest confidence in their personal integrity. Again, there is such a thing as a sincere, and good, political leader just as there is such a thing as a largely chaste culture.

You seem in this post to express a certain moral despair with respect to some issues, espeically sexual ones. This I will never accept. I am not an optimist in the sense that I think things are in good shape, but I do believe they can be in good shape, and that it is worth a fight.

God Bless,
Joan

 

[manualman]

i understand that there are probably as many opinions on abortion as there are people on this forum. that said, why should any one religion’s opinion on the subject be forced onto people that aren’t of that faith?

so abortion is a sin in the catholic church, but why should hindus or muslims have to accept that? some do or don’t anyway, but there doesn’t seem to be any general consensus in those religions. most muslims allow it until the fourth month, and many, but not all, hindus ban it outright.

so my question isn’t on whether or not abortion is a sin. rather, i want to know is if it is ever alright to force one person’s beliefs on another person, and why or under what circumstances.

I hate that canard. Can anybody seriously name a law that is NOT a legislation of some form of morality? EVERY law, from speed limits (a moral judgement about the degree of risk to others posed by the speed of one) to taxes (moral judgement about how to spread the cost of the common good of government among the people) to murder (a moral assertion about the primacy of life over “choice”) is about legislating a morality.

Let’s not have any more of that nonsense, please. ALL laws are based in moral assertion. It’s just a smoke screen to avoid discussing the nature of what abortion IS. Pro-aborts innately know they can’t win that argument, so they raise endless distractions to avoid discussing it.