legislating morality

[Mumbles140]

oh mumbles. i realized that i had said something in ignorance.

months ago, i had claimed that religious fanatics don’t sabotage condoms by poking holes in them. but now, i have come across a paper that reports: 1 in 5 young women in a CA study describe coercion as a factor that led to their unintended pregnancy.

anyways. condoms do not fail 2.5% of the time. try it out. take a hundred condoms and fill them up with water. it was already done once at the condom factory, and any that didn’t hold water were discarded.

I’m not really sure of the relevance here. If the whole article is to prove the failure rate, you are just listing part of factors. How do those women know the birth control was manipulated by the male? Was that an assumption because they were taking the pill everyday regularly, so it must be due to something else? The anecdotal evidence is good, and I’m not saying the points I bring up explain the results alternatively, but how do we know for certain? This is a survey, not a science experiment, so we have no way of knowing if the girls are telling the truth. But regardless of all of what I just said, let’s talk about failure rates of condoms.

Just because the condoms hold water doesn’t mean they always work. Have you compared the size of a water molecule to that of a sperm? Also, my claims weren’t that 2.5% of condoms have holes in them. The statistic was that regular condom usage resulted in approximately 2.5% of couples becoming pregnant. They test for leaks, but what about the durability? How easily can a condom break? I don’t know these answers, either from scientific study or otherwise. But there are multiple facets involved in ‘condom effectiveness’, not just whether or not they hold water.

Lastly, I know it has taken you a long time to respond, but you again did not address my definition of the most basic characteristics of a human being. Perhaps you forgot, or haven’t had time to address them. It seems a lot of time passes sometime between posts, so it can be hard to keep up. But again, arguments about birth control, coercion, etc are all about factors of unintended pregnancies, which could be reasons women have abortions. But I want to talk about whether abortion kills a human being or not, and I think I have laid out a clear argument as to why that is so. Please respond to this, as the whole post is about the legality of banning abortion, not necessarily on reasons why people get them.

 

[Mumbles140]

Also, I know I wanted to stay on topic, but there was a recent post on here (I’ll try to find it later) quoting one of the regional presidents of PP (I think in Canada) of saying they don’t promote abortions for the sake of choosing the baby’s sex, but aren’t against the woman’s right to do it. If you support abortion across the board, then certainly this holds true, but this is even worse than someone using abortion as a regular form of birth control.

 

[z0wb13]

Just because the condoms hold water doesn’t mean they always work. Have you compared the size of a water molecule to that of a sperm? Also, my claims weren’t that 2.5% of condoms have holes in them. The statistic was that regular condom usage resulted in approximately 2.5% of couples becoming pregnant. They test for leaks, but what about the durability? How easily can a condom break? I don’t know these answers, either from scientific study or otherwise. But there are multiple facets involved in ‘condom effectiveness’, not just whether or not they hold water.

ok. Have you compared the size of a water molecule to that of a sperm? i don’t own a microscope that can discern a water molecule [they cost http://www.labx.com/v2/adsearch/detail3.cfm?adnumb=459005”]tens of thousands of dollars], but i can tell you that a sperm is several orders of magnitude larger than an H2O.

ugh. i just went to wikipedia to prove it all to you, but i looked up semen and it made me gag! haha. i’m sure that it’s out there: the chemical makeup of a sperm. but i never took organic chemistry, because high school chem was too hard.

The statistic was that regular condom usage resulted in approximately 2.5% of couples becoming pregnant. there is a distinction here between “regular” usage and “proper” usage. this is a very important distinction. if you actually want to learn how to use a condom properly, you can look here.

condoms are very effective at preventing the spread of HIV. the virus is at least an order of magnitude smaller than a sperm, for context, look here here here here here

no seriously, look here. it will give you an idea of how small these things are that you are talking about.

Lastly, I know it has taken you a long time to respond, but you again did not address my definition of the most basic characteristics of a human being. i said it earlier. eyes, ears, mouth and nose. head shoulders knees and toes. (knees and toes!) if you want, you could jump down and say “WHAT ABOUT PEOPLE BORN WITHOUT ARMS!!!” yeah. that happens too.

but this is critical. i think that a family should be able to choose to have a kid without arms or not. ugh, i’m sorry if that makes you sick to your stomache. even if it has a face.

but i know that i could be wrong about everything. so i think each person should be able to choose for themselves. i don’t know what is best for everyone, ever. neither do you;p

 

[LiseTravis]

i think that there are good reasons for society that those things not be permitted, so if government’s job is to affect the continuation of a stable society, then i think it would make sense.

   Allowing the innocent to be killed does not create a stable society- just the opposite.

before you commit those crimes, a person must first dehumanize their victim. a rapist especially must have no empathy for other people.

    This is precisely the problem- in order to justify their actions, most people who perform abortions & have abortions "decide" that the embryo isn't human.

 

[Mumbles140]

Lastly, I know it has taken you a long time to respond, but you again did not address my definition of the most basic characteristics of a human being. i said it earlier. eyes, ears, mouth and nose. head shoulders knees and toes. (knees and toes!) if you want, you could jump down and say “WHAT ABOUT PEOPLE BORN WITHOUT ARMS!!!” yeah. that happens too.

but this is critical. i think that a family should be able to choose to have a kid without arms or not. ugh, i’m sorry if that makes you sick to your stomache. even if it has a face.

but i know that i could be wrong about everything. so i think each person should be able to choose for themselves. i don’t know what is best for everyone, ever. neither do you;p

So you have just broken your argument because people without arms are still human. And saying each person can choose for themselves means we can never have laws. Laws are in place to protect citizens, maintain order, and preserve the general sense of well being, so yes, I can say I know making murder illegal is best because we cannot have an ordered society without that.

That being said, we have ruled out ‘normal physical appearance’ as a BASIC characteristic to define a human being. Dig deeper to try and disprove my qualifications, or accept them as logically valid. And if you are forced to accept them as valid, then that means abortion is murder. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

 

[seeker57]

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 would say “No” to answer your question. Christians, Jews and Muslims share some beliefs, including monotheism.

That doesn’t mean they should be allowed to force their beliefs on Wiccans, Hindus, etc., who may believe in mulitple deities of multiple manifestations of a single deity.

Someone earlier said we legislate morality all the time. This is not quite correct. We legislate against harming others, which is what an adult who has sex with a child is doing. This example was used earlier, which is why I bring it up now.

Legislating morality means trying to dictate the morals another must live by and, at least tacitly, implies they should believe in the same belief system as does the person doing the imposing.

I don’t share Christian beliefs on a number of issues, among them the divinity of Jesus.

But, I would not try to force my beliefs on a Christian and insist he or she denounce the belief that Jesus was of divine nature.

My grandmother used to say, “What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.”

If a person opens the door allowing the imposition of beliefs on another, that person should realize they also open themselves up to have another’s beliefs imposed upon them.

Peace,

Seeker

 

[Mumbles140]

Legislating morality means trying to dictate the morals another must live by and, at least tacitly, implies they should believe in the same belief system as does the person doing the imposing.

And our point is that the preborn child is a human being, and therefore afforded the universal rights given to human beings, most chiefly the right to life. This isn’t about trying to ban stores from being open on Sundays because it draws away from the Sabbath, or banning the sale/consumption of meat on Fridays. This is trying to stop a form of murder that has become legalized in only the past 40 years in America.

It’s not about morality, it is about protecting the rights granted to every single human being solely by the fact that they exist.

 

[z0wb13]

That being said, we have ruled out ‘normal physical appearance’ as a BASIC characteristic to define a human being. Dig deeper to try and disprove my qualifications, or accept them as logically valid. And if you are forced to accept them as valid, then that means abortion is murder. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

an ectopic pregnancy, or eccysis, is a complication of pregnancy in which the embryo implants outside the uterine cavity.[1] With rare exceptions, ectopic pregnancies are not viable. Furthermore, they are dangerous for the parent, since internal haemorrhage is a life threatening complication. Most ectopic pregnancies occur in the Fallopian tube (so-called tubal pregnancies), but implantation can also occur in the cervix, ovaries, and abdomen. An ectopic pregnancy is a potential medical emergency, and, if not treated properly, can lead to death.

About 1% of pregnancies are in an ectopic location with implantation not occurring inside of the womb…

Detection of ectopic pregnancy in early gestation has been achieved mainly due to enhanced diagnostic capability. Despite all these notable successes in diagnostics and detection techniques ectopic pregnancy remains a source of serious maternal morbidity and mortality worldwide, especially in countries with poor prenatal care.[2]

-wikipedia

i don’t really feel like i need to make an argument. you can read up on this stuff yourself.

i’ve already told you that my definition of life isn’t a line that a soul crosses over. life and death are part of the same path, and if you are a toaist you probably can’t really understand a catholic perspective. i hear what you are saying, sperm+egg+moment of conception= life. but i see life as a continuation, from your ancestors, and down into the future of your progeny. and the myriad other things.

but i can’t think of a single humane reason not to perform an abortion to fix an endoscopic pregnancy. the embryo is not ever going to be viable, because it will never receive the nourishment it needs from the womb to grow into a snugly little baby. so there is no baby, and there is no murder. those are moot points. now, you have an alive mother that will die if no action is taken. that, sounds like gross negligence, or manslaughter if you refused to perform an abortion for a woman in that medical condition.

 

[Mumbles140]

but i can’t think of a single humane reason not to perform an abortion to fix an endoscopic pregnancy. the embryo is not ever going to be viable, because it will never receive the nourishment it needs from the womb to grow into a snugly little baby. so there is no baby, and there is no murder. those are moot points. now, you have an alive mother that will die if no action is taken. that, sounds like gross negligence, or manslaughter if you refused to perform an abortion for a woman in that medical condition.

First, if you believe the spirit of life passes from ancestors, aren’t you ackowleding a prenatal soul? And this still does nothing from a scientific point to refute my claims that a preborn baby is a human. So unless you can prove otherwise, the facts at hand point towards human being.

Addressing all problematic pregnancies, the Church is very clear. Abortion is a direct act to kill a fetid. That is an absolute moral wrong. However, a medical procedure to save the mother’s life that results in the death of the fetid is not immoral, so long as the purpose of the procedure is not the termination of the pregnancy.

The Church does not put the life of a fetus over the life of the mother. But the life of the mother is not more sacred than the life of the fetus either. All human life is sacred, and should be fought to be preserved. However, when it cannot be saved, that does not give free reign to intentionally end a life.

 

[z0wb13]

Addressing all problematic pregnancies, the Church is very clear. Abortion is a direct act to kill a fetid. That is an absolute moral wrong. However, a medical procedure to save the mother’s life that results in the death of the fetid is not immoral, so long as the purpose of the procedure is not the termination of the pregnancy.

rewritten as:
However, an *abortion *to save the mother’s life that results in *abortion *of the fetid is not immoral, **so long as the purpose of the abortion is not the termination of the pregnancy.

First, if you believe the spirit of life passes from ancestors, aren’t you acknowleding a prenatal soul?
*
no. you are taking your worldview, and trying to force-fit my spiritual beliefs into an analogous concept to angels and ghosts. i don’t personally believe in either of these, or gnomes, but some taoists do leave offerings and do other weird ghost stuff. i give people junk food, according to a lunar calendar. i don’t believe in gods or an afterlife, either, but some toaists do, and some of them believe in reincarnation.
*
And this still does nothing from a scientific point to refute my claims that a preborn baby is a human. So unless you can prove otherwise, the facts at hand point towards human being.

a “preborn baby” and an blastocyst are two spectacularly different things. i would say that all babies are humans. i know, such a brave position to carve out;p so preborn baby, yes. newborn baby, yes. crack baby, still a baby. the adjectives are irrelevant.

 

[z0wb13]

forcing somebody to undergo a medical procedure that is unnecessary is immoral. i said it, we can argue about it later.

but if we agree that this is broadly true, then it is wrong to force women to undergo an ultrasound procedure before proceeding with a scheduled abortion. a simple pregnancy test can confirm this. an ultrasound procedure is just a tool used to further shame and humiliate women that are already making a difficult and potentially dangerous decision.

the counter-argument rings false, and is usually described as “informed consent.” basically, more information is good, and an ultrasound just gives patients more info. that’s hollow, because the same people should also want their teenagers shown the proper way to use a condom, as well, because more information is a good thing. every time that i have mentioned adults teaching kids how to use condoms, you start to imagine something… something i don’t. i think it’s an important lesson for people to learn before they become sexually active, and not some pathway to perversion.

 

[Mumbles140]

rewritten as:
However, an *abortion *to save the mother’s life that results in *abortion *of the fetid is not immoral, **so long as the purpose of the *abortion ***is not the termination of the pregnancy.

First, if you believe the spirit of life passes from ancestors, aren’t you acknowleding a prenatal soul?
*
no. you are taking your worldview, and trying to force-fit my spiritual beliefs into an analogous concept to angels and ghosts. i don’t personally believe in either of these, or gnomes, but some taoists do leave offerings and do other weird ghost stuff. i give people junk food, according to a lunar calendar. i don’t believe in gods or an afterlife, either, but some toaists do, and some of them believe in reincarnation.
*
And this still does nothing from a scientific point to refute my claims that a preborn baby is a human. So unless you can prove otherwise, the facts at hand point towards human being.

a “preborn baby” and an blastocyst are two spectacularly different things. i would say that all babies are humans. i know, such a brave position to carve out;p so preborn baby, yes. newborn baby, yes. crack baby, still a baby. the adjectives are irrelevant.

1. You cannot have an abortion that is moral because the primary purpose of the procedure is the death of the fetus. It doesn’t matter if the woman was having the abortion to avoid potential health risks for herself, or for some other reason. Now, if the woman were to have a procedure done (i.e. hysterectomy) to save her life that resulted in the death of the fetus, than no abortion. You can’t add the word abortion in an make it okay because abortion is never okay. It isn’t interchangeable for ‘death of the fetus’ the same way ‘to murder’ is not interchangeable with ‘to kill’.
2. I didn’t mean to try and place your views in my worldview. I honestly don’t know the specific beliefs of Taoism, but it appears there is a lot of openness for what individuals choose to believe in. I had thought you were expressing that you believed in the human soul.
3. So if you are stating that a preborn baby is a human being, how is abortion not murder?

 

[Mumbles140]

forcing somebody to undergo a medical procedure that is unnecessary is immoral. i said it, we can argue about it later.

but if we agree that this is broadly true, then it is wrong to force women to undergo an ultrasound procedure before proceeding with a scheduled abortion. a simple pregnancy test can confirm this. an ultrasound procedure is just a tool used to further shame and humiliate women that are already making a difficult and potentially dangerous decision.

the counter-argument rings false, and is usually described as “informed consent.” basically, more information is good, and an ultrasound just gives patients more info. that’s hollow, because the same people should also want their teenagers shown the proper way to use a condom, as well, because more information is a good thing. every time that i have mentioned adults teaching kids how to use condoms, you start to imagine something… something i don’t. i think it’s an important lesson for people to learn before they become sexually active, and not some pathway to perversion.

First, why are people in favor of abortion so afraid of an ultrasound? Abortions are invasive medical procedures, that result in at least one death, and can lead to the death of the mother, or health complications. I’m not saying this happens all the time, or even most of the time, but it does happen. If you had a tumor, wouldn’t you want to see where the tumor was and know how they would remove it? This is the same principle.

Your example of condom usage is flawed. First, sex is not an invasive medical procedure - it is a physical action with real consequences. Informed consent is an actual medical requirement, stating that a patient must be fully aware of the procedure, the risks, etc, before being forced to make a decision on their health care. For an invasive procedure, I think an ultrasound absolutely falls under ‘informed consent’. Especially considering how Planned Parenthood (the largest abortion provider in the US) has been documented breaking the law, discouraging information, and trying to stop people from providing information to their clients. Why are they so afraid? Maybe because one of the most pre-eminent abortion providers, NARAL Founder Dr. Bernard Nathanson, himself became a pro-life activist after seeing an ultrasound of his procedure. If the founder of NARAL can feel that way after he had done thousands of those procedures, what will happen to Planned Parenthood’s business? Don’t let yourself be fooled - this is about money for PP, NARAL, etc, and they’re afraid of being left out in the cold.

Secondly, these people aren’t against banning teenagers from learning how to use condoms - they just don’t want it taught in the schools because they (we) believe it is not the appropriate place. If your child is ready to be sexually active, by all means take them to a doctor or health clinic if that is your/their choice, and they can learn all they need to know, including proper birth control usage if they so choose. But by teaching it in the schools, you are forcing it on all of the kids. And if parents choose to opt-out their children, those kids are often ostracized.

 

[Leon_Bloy]

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.

All law is essentially an imposition of morality. Otherwise, law is completely capricious and arbibrary. Please don’t think this next statement is at all meant to be offensive or insulting (I know this is rarely taught to anybody), but this is really something that is very basic to the philosophy of law.

 

[CompSciGuy]

Abortion is NOT an issue of religion. It is a moral issue. Just like murder is a moral issue. Abortion is wrong because it puts an unjust end to a defenseless human life. There is no way around this, whether you are hindu, voodoo, rastafarian, scientologist or any other such religion.

 

[KathleenGee]

Abortion is infanticide; what number of month in gestation is irrelevant to the absolute of destroying an innocent human being.

Legislating morality is not what is happening. What is really happening is the dictatorship and tyranny of subjective relativism. No truth. This is why our country is profoundly divided.

If this administration wins the next election, the right of religious expression for Jews and Christians will probably get worse. And when people are not free to worship, then all sorts of disasters could happen.

I have seen religious persecution by the state in foreign countries be countered by all sorts of natural calamities. You can’t fool God. But what is sad is that it is the helpless subjects who suffer the most.

The state exists to serve the people, not the people existing to serve the state.

 

[Leon_Bloy]

Abortion has usually been argued against in law using “natural law,” not an appeal to theology.

 

[KathleenGee]

Yes…abortion is a moral issue…it impacts all of mankind.

Ectopic pregnancies…the Church upholds the life of both mother and child. There are better procedures to save the unborn. Those who have survived, however, have a very short life span, 6 to 8 years. But yes, ectopic pregnancies are most serious, and the potential of survive for both is not good.

 

[Leon_Bloy]

Abortion has usually been argued against in law using “natural law,” not an appeal to theology.

What I mean by saying this is that one can make the argument for the outlawing of abortion on many kinds of grounds, not necessarily religious ones. The evil of killing unborn children has been recognized by societies all around the world for thousands of years - and why it is wrong can be demonstrated quite rationally. Even the original Hypocratic Oath, which most medical doctors have taken over the years, makes the physician promise he will not perform an abortion. However, some medical schools have been taking that out lately. How “convenient.”

 

[sedonaman]

All law is essentially an imposition of morality. … this is really something that is very basic to the philosophy of law.