W
- Status
S
SteveGC
Guest
Good point. It emphasizes the angle from which the devout Christian approaches the legal system.
Ultimately, I do not care how the government defines any of these terms. I only care that their laws accurately reflect and preserve the objective morality that God has revealed to us. That’s it. The rest is semantics and a many-angled debate, as you say.
Right now, the law does not accurately reflect the objective morality regarding the sanctity of human life, as defined by God Himself. Therefore, the law must be changed…not so much because I think the government is ultimately responsible for preserving life, but because in the absence of Christian faith, the law of the land is really the only substantial moral compass available to ensure society doesn’t drown in it’s own wickedness.
C
Caramel
Guest
That is true; however, it isn’t quite so easy to jump across the border into Canada anymore. I don’t know much about travel to other countries but you need a passport to get into Canada now; though now that I think about it I always had an easier time getting into Canada than getting back into the U.S. I think that for some reason they don’t want me here. Must be my views on abortion.
I don’t have a reference for this and it is from what I learned in college a long time ago. I am looking for a reference. I remember being taught in my psychology classes that there were several stages of looking of morality and that people went through these stages as they got older. One of them was “concrete thinking.” And at one of these stages (I can’t remember which but it is present in a large percentage of adults) people believe that if the law states that you can’t perform a particular action, the action is wrong. Fortunately some people do progress beyond this stage.
Give me some time to research this because I think it is important. It was important enough to stick in my mind for thirty years (yeah I’m pretty darn old). But back then we used books, not computers and I am having computer problems (I was on the phone with Symantec for two hours today already - whee!!).
caramel
wife of James Andrew (in heaven)
mother of Ryan Christopher
and Elysia Catherine (in heaven)
“A person’s a person, no matter how small.” - Dr. Seuss
C
Caramel
Guest
This is for Worthy5:
Again here we have the problem of Worthy5 not quoting correctly. For pete’s sake, do you even check your replies to see if they look right? I don’t know what you are quoting and what other people are quoting because it just all runs together in your replies.
Just put a, sheesh I don’t know what it’s called, like a parenthesis but it’s like half a rectangle, put a left one of those, then a forward slash, then QUOTE, then the right half of the rectangle and the amazing thing is that it ends the quote. So you can quote and then respond to the quote.
But you know this, don’t you?
I made the following up myself along with probably 500 million other people, but it’s one of my laws that I don’t use anymore in debating:
“When all else fails, confuse the issue.”
You are doing a darn good job of that!!
caramel
wife of James Andrew (in heaven)
mother of Ryan Christopher
and Elysia Catherine (in heaven)
“A person’s a person, no matter how small.” - Dr. Seuss
W
Worthy5
Guest
No my friend I just like to confuse the issue.
S
SteveGC
Guest
LOL…bracket.
C
Caramel
Guest
See - that law does work!!No my friend I just like to confuse the issue.
caramel
wife of James Andrew (in heaven)
mother of Ryan Christopher
and Elysia Catherine (in heaven)
“A person’s a person, no matter how small.” - Dr. Seuss
G
gearhead
Guest
Yes, I suppose there are minor obstacles to travelling out of the country, but they’re not that onerous.That is true; however, it isn’t quite so easy to jump across the border into Canada anymore. I don’t know much about travel to other countries but you need a passport to get into Canada now; though now that I think about it I always had an easier time getting into Canada than getting back into the U.S. I think that for some reason they don’t want me here. Must be my views on abortion.
The ID requirement at the border (at least for land crossings) is a passport or an “enhanced security” piece of ID that meets the standards of the border agencies of the two countries. For people who don’t already have a passport, a number of states now offer “enhanced driver’s licences” that meet these standards. Most can be got within a week or two for an extra $40 or $50.
Now… this is definitely an extra cost, and I imagine that many poor people don’t already have their own passport, not to mention money for travel or to pay for the abortion once they get there. This means that an abortion ban in the US wouldn’t really be an all-out ban; it would just stop abortions among lower-income people. The wealthy would still be able to leave and get their abortions elsewhere.
How do you think this relates to the abortion debate?
Judging by the number of Americans who engage in underage drinking, the number of Swedes who make trips to Amsterdam for the “coffee houses”, or the vast numbers of people who speed on the highway just about anywhere (the average speed on the freeways here is probably 10 or 20 km/h over the limit), I think it’s only a small minority of people who engage in “concrete thinking” like you describe.
C
Caramel
Guest
Unfortunately for us our laws are so stupid in many many cases. I think it’s the bureaucracy (had to look that up to be sure I spelled it correctly
) and pork and just plain corruption.I used to be a law enforcement officer - not a cop, but an inspector for the county health department. I know of at least one law that I will NEVER let anyone else know about. I don’t know how it got passed but it would mess things up so badly that millions of people would be getting food-borne illnesses. It is a stupid law and stupid people got it passed. Fortunately few know about it.
But if I know about one law that could cause so much damage there must be hundreds or thousands more, buried deep in law books.
It scares me. It really does. I try not to think about it.
caramel
wife of James Andrew (in heaven)
mother of Ryan Christopher
and Elysia Catherine (in heaven)
“A person’s a person, no matter how small.” - Dr. Seuss
F
fix
Guest
The flaw is you see killing the unborn as less important than rape and other crimes.
This is the pro abortion propaganda. That you want no legal defense for the most innocent is apparent. Pro life folks are all in favor of all types of help but they never rule out that the law must respect life.
Limited governemt=codifying killing innocents by your position
F
fix
Guest
I think that because it is. Why do you think the government should allow “legal” murder?
F
fix
Guest
Same goes for slavery. You are more concerned about some idealized notion of “limited government” than about protecting life.
Why does any of that matter? We have ways of devising laws against murder right now. As I asked before do we not prosecute a single father who is guilty of rape and murder because you deem it too costly?
F
fix
Guest
Facts are stubborn things.
It is central to the issue. The emotional nature leads some to claim the law will not matter.
Relativism blinds some to the truth.
Thank the Lord Catholics have great help in these matters:
[2273](javascript
penWindow(‘cr/2273.htm’) The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."80
"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights."81
F
fix
Guest
If you refuse to recognize a human as a human no proof will suffice.Well, that clears things right up.
Begging the question.
C
Caramel
Guest
Bravo!! Well said!!Thank the Lord Catholics have great help in these matters:
[2273](javascript
"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."80
"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights."81
caramel
wife of James Andrew (in heaven)
mother of Ryan Christopher
and Elysia Catherine (in heaven)
'Person’s are persons, no matter how small." - Dr. Seuss
C
Christopher68
Guest
Caramel,
There are often times when I have similar thoughts - i.e. that I understand an issue with extreme clarity, and I have difficulty understanding why others cannot see the issue the same way that I see it.
The thing to realize is that there are those on the opposing side of the issue who have the same conviction about their beliefs as you do about yours - i.e. that women have the right to control the destiny of all that happens to their own body, and that rights are not conferred on an individual until after they live apart from the mother (at birth).
Obviously, both sides have positions that are irreconcilable with the other. That is why I made the comment earlier in the thread that this is likely a never-ending debate. (I did not make the comment to be cavalier about the issue - merely to state what I believe to be factual based on my observations).
There is some middle ground (I think). Why can’t those who are pro-life and those who are pro-choice find some common ground and work to decrease the number of abortions that occur? Without common ground, both sides will remain polarized and it is unlikley that legitimate debate and constructive actions can occur.
W
Worthy5
Guest
Nooooo, its that society can use different means to attack each problem and secondary, that at some point limits should be placed on government power.
And it is pro-choice my friend, quit mischaracterizing. No, we do want protection for the unborn just in different ways. And, limited government is a policy that protects our liberty.
And it is pro-choice my friend, quit mischaracterizing. No, we do want protection for the unborn just in different ways. And, limited government is a policy that protects our liberty.
B
Benadam
Guest
‘OUR’ liberty.
When you place the life of a human person outside the boundary it isn’t liberty that is protected because liberty flows from the nature of the person set outside the boundary.
- Status