So is it or isn't it a human

[Worthy5]

=kimmielittle;6580799]

Legality doesn’t negate moral responsibility.

Who said it did?

Moral obligations and Governments sole responsibility - is to protect the weak and innocent.

Okay, so does then the Govt mandate that everyone at least makes $ 100.00 minimum wage, so all can have a fair amount of money with no poverty? What about healthcare for all? What about preventing those greedy employers from unfairly discharging someone from their job because they could not " keep up"?

If a law exists that defies these basics - it becomes immoral, unjust and illegal.

How is it illegal if the Court says it is legal?

Legality is supposed to reflect moral responsibility.

Okay, what about the above questions?

When it doesn’t, it’s an immoral instrument…no matter how many Judges sign it into law

.

Are you saying that a court’s authority should not be obeyed? Is that anarachy?

God Bless.

 

[Tom_Qualey]

Hi, Worthy5,

I get the impression that you are just playing around or making sport of these posts. Maybe I am wrong on this … but, your jabs just seem to lack the intellectual rigor you appear to be demanding of others… But, if this is not the case … let’s try something different.

Okay, so does then the Govt mandate that everyone at least makes $ 100.00 minimum wage, so all can have a fair amount of money with no poverty? No. But it does mandate $7.25/hour (dol.gov/dol/topic/wages/minimumwage.htm ) and some states or cities require employers pay more.

What about healthcare for all?Apparently, we now have this - or, at least will in 4 years time, assuming the law still stands.
What about preventing those greedy employers from unfairly discharging someone from their job because they could not " keep up"? This reason, as cause for employment termination, would not be illegal (where the former employee could go to the Dept of Labor and Justice Dept for relief) but, the employer would be required to pay unemployment compensation because there does not appear to be any aggrevated misconduct on the part of the employee.

Are you saying that a court’s authority should not be obeyed? Is that anarachy?

This is worth looking at with a real example: Hitler’s rise to power. The following is from Wike:

Hitler’s rise to power in Germany began[1] in September 1919 when Hitler joined the political party that was[2] known as the Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (abbreviated as DAP, and later commonly referred to as the Nazi Party). This political party was formed and developed during the post-World War I era. It was anti-Marxist and was opposed to the democratic post-war government of the Weimar Republic and the Treaty of Versailles; and it advocated extreme nationalism and Pan-Germanism as well as virulent anti-Semitism. Hitler’s “rise” can be considered to have ended in March 1933, after the Reichstag adopted the Enabling Act of 1933 in that month; President Paul von Hindenburg had already appointed Hitler as Chancellor on 30 January 1933 after a series of parliamentary elections and associated backstairs intrigues. The Enabling Act—when used ruthlessly and with authority—virtually assured that Hitler could thereafter constitutionally exercise dictatorial power without legal objection.

Now, what we have is a brief summary of one man’s rise within a political structure - and once in power how he changed it. Not in this paragraph is how opposition groups were eliminated, press was censored and millions of people were murdered.

While validly elected and put in power - the Nazi government acted immorally even though they created laws to justify other-wise criminal action.

There is a Higher Judge then the folks wearing black robes in our court rooms today. And despite our sophistry - we will all be called to account.

God bless

Tom

God Bless.

 

[kimmielittle]

Okay, so does then the Govt mandate that everyone at least makes $ 100.00 minimum wage, so all can have a fair amount of money with no poverty?

Actually, it was never Governments responsibility to pull one from poverty. That is an individuals responsibility. The Governments responsibility is not to deliver you - us from poverty - but that equal access for the individual exists to lift themselves out of poverty…

What about healthcare for all?

Again, it is not governments job to provide anyone to healthcare but access to healthcare…There IS a huge difference between funding healthcare and providing access to healthcare

What about preventing those greedy employers from unfairly discharging someone from their job because they could not " keep up"?

Competition unfair? I’m sorry, but you are sounding as if a socialist exists here - last I checked it still is free enterprise - democracy. It is an individuals responsibility to “keep up” or improve his job skills. Not the employers OR Governments.

Would it be fair or just to those that do "Keep up’ - who have invested in themselves, in order to provide better job skills to their employers so that profits are made and higher wages result from it - To create a law protecting the one’s that can’t "keep up’?

How is it illegal if the Court says it is legal?

Think about it. This law says that a select population has the right to kill another select population. What if we juxtapose this law saying; Guys replacing Mothers ] have the right to kill the unborn because of the right to privacy or mental health Or what ever other convenience you want to put in ].

The statue of Lady Justice has a ;
“Two Edged Sword” It has to cut - defend both ways] -
A “Balance Scales” It has to balance ALL rights equally ] -
and a “Blindfold” It has to be blind to any selected group over another ].
ALL for a reason. To Protect AND Defend equally and Justly.

This is where my saying comes in… “You can not exclude - to include - that is discrimination” -kimmie

Are you saying that a court’s authority should not be obeyed? Is that anarchy?

Think about it If the Court issued a law saying “all people with blue eyes a selected population ] has the justification to murder all brown eyed people [a selected group] of human life”…AND that law had no base in our Constitution or Amended Articles - would it be Legal? Is it Just? Is it Moral?
As a Citizen, A member of society, not counting Christain or just plain morality issues - Yes, we are to hold unjust laws accountable.

No because, it doesn’t protect equally - Lady Justice’s Scales don’t work equally - Lady Justice’s Sword doesn’t defend equally - Lady Justice’s Blindfold is not in place She is naming BOTH selected populations - ONE OVER the other ]

With A Just law you should be able to substitute one group or selected population with another selected population and both populations given equal protection. To my knowledge, Roe v Wade is the only law used today - that can not meet this litmus test.

God Bless.

 

[kimmielittle]

Hi, Kimmielittle,

Well said!

Thank You

 

[Lapell]

I thought this should be an interesting thread. Basicly, is, or isn’t, a fetus a human?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d2/4dsonogram.jpg/120px-4dsonogram.jpg

Well, if this baby is the result of sexual intercourse between a man and a woman, both humans, he is human no matter what…
If the woman had the baby from sex with an animal, then I probably couldn’t tell. Anyhow, in such a case, she would have broken God’s commandment forbidding her to do so…
Whether the stage where the baby’s at, I can’t really say when it’s a zygote, an embryo or a foetus, but in all cases the baby already is human!

 

[Worthy5]

=kimmielittle;6582506]Actually, it was never Governments responsibility to pull one from poverty. That is an individuals responsibility. The Governments responsibility is not to deliver you - us from poverty - but that equal access for the individual exists to lift themselves out of poverty…

Now wait a second, what are you talking about—its govt job to protect the weak—those employers are exploiting the workers–paying them low, unjust wages----where is the morality here!

Again, it is not governments job to provide anyone to healthcare but access to healthcare…

What where is the morality in that! How can you support a law, a govt, a society-- that allows people to get sick and die in the streets! Because they cannot afford simple healthcare because those evil employers do not provide coverage—and insurance companies–they deny claims—where is the morality there!

There IS a huge difference between funding healthcare and providing access to healthcare

And there is a huge difference between a govt that helps women make better moral and life decision for themselves versus being overbearing, autocratic and usurping the decision of the individual in a free society.

Competition unfair? I’m sorry, but you are sounding as if a socialist exists here - last I checked it still is free enterprise - democracy. It is an individuals responsibility to “keep up” or improve his job skills. Not the employers OR Governments.

Interesting, so why is it not a women’s responsibililty to protect the life God has entrusted to her. (with govt encouragement and help of course, and the rest of society’s as well)

Would it be fair or just to those that do "Keep up’ - who have invested in themselves, in order to provide better job skills to their employers so that profits are made and higher wages result from it - To create a law protecting the one’s that can’t "keep up’?

Interesting, so the ones that " cant" keep up—just leave them behind—where is the morality there? Is not the law about protecting—the weak.

Think about it. This law says that a select population has the right to kill another select population.

Think about it-----you have one group people economically exploiting another. If all law is morality—how is that just?

This is where my saying comes in… “You can not exclude - to include - that is discrimination” -kimmie

Wow…have you a copy right for that saying.

Think about it If the Court issued a law saying “all people with blue eyes a selected population ] has the justification to murder all brown eyed people [a selected group] of human life”…AND that law had no base in our Constitution or Amended Articles - would it be Legal? Is it Just? Is it Moral?

Think about it–if we have one group of people economically exploiting a weaker group of people—where is that Constitution, the Amended Articles-------how is that just, legal, moral…Are you saying the law is not there to protect the ‘weak’…? The law is not all about morality?

As a Citizen, A member of society, not counting Christain or just plain morality issues - Yes, we are to hold unjust laws accountable.

So is this a revolution?!

No because, it doesn’t protect equally - Lady Justice’s Scales don’t work equally

What! Where is the morality in that!

With A Just law you should be able to substitute one group or selected population with another selected population and both populations given equal protection. To my knowledge, Roe v Wade is the only law used today - that can not meet this litmus test.

Hmm…then what about the progressive income tax? Why should someone making $ 1 mil a year pay a higher rate in tax then someone making $ 100,000.00. How does that not violate equal protection?

 

[kimmielittle]

Now wait a second, what are you talking about—its govt job to protect the weak—those employers are exploiting the workers–paying them low, unjust wages----where is the morality here!

What where is the morality in that! How can you support a law, a govt, a society-- that allows people to get sick and die in the streets! Because they cannot afford simple healthcare because those evil employers do not provide coverage—and insurance companies–they deny claims—where is the morality there!

And there is a huge difference between a govt that helps women make better moral and life decision for themselves versus being overbearing, autocratic and usurping the decision of the individual in a free society.

Interesting, so why is it not a women’s responsibililty to protect the life God has entrusted to her. (with govt encouragement and help of course, and the rest of society’s as well)

Interesting, so the ones that " cant" keep up—just leave them behind—where is the morality there? Is not the law about protecting—the weak.

Think about it-----you have one group people economically exploiting another. If all law is morality—how is that just?

Wow…have you a copy right for that saying.

Think about it–if we have one group of people economically exploiting a weaker group of people—where is that Constitution, the Amended Articles-------how is that just, legal, moral…Are you saying the law is not there to protect the ‘weak’…? The law is not all about morality?

So is this a revolution?!

What! Where is the morality in that!

Hmm…then what about the progressive income tax? Why should someone making $ 1 mil a year pay a higher rate in tax then someone making $ 100,000.00. How does that not violate equal protection?

Nice try …economics is two buildings over.

 

[Lapell]

Well, if this baby is the result of sexual intercourse between a man and a woman, both humans, he is human no matter what…
If the woman had the baby from sex with an animal, then I probably couldn’t tell. Anyhow, in such a case, she would have broken God’s commandment forbidding her to do so…
Whether the stage where the baby’s at, I can’t really say when it’s a zygote, an embryo or a foetus, but in all cases the baby already is human!

All it takes is an egg cell fecundated by a sperm, and already there’s a new human life starting, with a soul and everything already beginning to develop.
About the expression “pro-choice”: I think nobody rejects free will, but when one chooses to take away your own life, should you agree with it just because he or she made the choice to take your life away? If one steals all your belongings, are you going to congratulate him or her just because he or she chose to take away your things as though they were his or hers? Would you not say those two things are wrong?

 

[Doc_Keele]

Worthy has consistently argued what a lot of people would argue about the policy reasons for legalising abortion - and some of the disrespectful comments here are from people who quite simple don’t understand the point being made. They don’t understand that many people cannot accept the Catholic position on abortion and shouldn’t have this imposed on them.

 

[PEPCIS]

Worthy has consistently argued what a lot of people would argue about the policy reasons for legalising abortion - and some of the disrespectful comments here are from people who quite simple don’t understand the point being made. They don’t understand that many people cannot accept the Catholic position on abortion and shouldn’t have this imposed on them.

Why not? And just what is a “policy reason”? Should people have laws imposed on them like “Thou shalt not steal”; “Thou shalt not murder”; “Thou shalt not lie”?

 

[Doc_Keele]

Worthy has explained most eloquently the reasons why, I don’t propose to repeat her exposition.
Is there a law against lying? No! Is there a law against adultery? No. Is there a law against having a god other than Jehovah? No. So clearly the Ten Commandments aren’t enshrined in law in either the US or the UK. Next point?

 

[jmcrae]

Worthy has explained most eloquently the reasons why, I don’t propose to repeat her exposition.
Is there a law against lying?

Actually, there are situations where you can end up in jail for lying - for example, perjury, and fraud. Spreading gossip can also land you in jail, under some circumstances (ie: slander laws).

Is there a law against adultery? No.

You can end up divorced for that, though, and you would be considered “the guilty party” to the divorce, meaning that a court of law would award damages to your spouse that would come out of your paycheque and personal holdings.

So, even though you wouldn’t go to jail for committing adultery, there are certainly legal penalties for it, if your spouse chooses to go that route.

 

[PEPCIS]

No. So clearly the Ten Commandments aren’t enshrined in law in either the US or the UK. Next point?

Actually, there is still, even to this day, a majority of U.S. laws that are derived from Christian principles. For example, bankruptcy laws are based upon Old Testament law that commanded that once every seven years all people who still owed debts to someone were to be completely forgiven of those debts. U.S. law allows any citizen to “go bankrupt” every seven years - just liike OT law.

Many states still have laws on the books that allow a person to sue another person for “alienation of affection.” And if there are no “adultery” laws on the books, it’s only because new laws have superceded them, like “no-fault divorce” laws. It doesn’t make adultery legal, but it simply makes it unnecessary to sue on that basis - because the judge will simply go with no-fault over adultery any day. But that’s not a sign of how America is not governed by Christian principles, but it is a sign on how some in our judicial system try to mock God.

 

[PEPCIS]

Doc Keele]Worthy has consistently argued what a lot of people would argue about the policy reasons for legalising abortion - and some of the disrespectful comments here are from people who quite simple don’t understand the point being made. They don’t understand that many people cannot accept the Catholic position on abortion and shouldn’t have this imposed on them.

PEPCIS:

Why not? And just what is a “policy reason”? Should people have laws imposed on them like “Thou shalt not steal”; “Thou shalt not murder”; “Thou shalt not lie”?

Worthy has explained most eloquently the reasons why, I don’t propose to repeat her exposition.

I’m not debating Worthy. I’m debating Doc Keele. I NEVER assume that one person holds to all the tenets of another person’s belief system. They could always turn around and say something like: “Well, Worthy believes that, but I don’t.”
Doc Keele:

Is there a law against lying? No!

Actually, there is. In every jurisdiction in the United States, it is ILLEGAL to give false statements (lying) on most State and Federal forms, as well as in every single court of law, both local and Federal - it’s a well-known law commonly referred to as “perjury.”
Doc Keele:

Is there a law against adultery? No.

I didn’t ask about adultery. I stated specifically:

[SIGN]“Should people have laws imposed on them like “Thou shalt not steal”; “Thou shalt not murder”; “Thou shalt not lie”?”[/SIGN]
Doc Keele:

Is there a law against having a god other than Jehovah? No.

Once again, I did not ask that question. You’re deliberately going off on a tangent to diffuse the original question. That’s called “obfuscation.” Here’s the question again: “Should people have laws imposed on them like “Thou shalt not steal”; “Thou shalt not murder”; “Thou shalt not lie”?”

Please stick to the actual question. This is NOT about the Ten Commandments. It’s about whether or not people can make laws that force people to do moral things, and/or to abstain from things that are immoral. You stated specifically that people shouldn’t have a law imposed on them to prevent them from choosing abortion.

 

[didymus]

Well, it ain’t a platypus.

I think almost every pro-abort agrees with … well… basic science that a human embryo or fetus is HUMAN. What they disagree with is that it’s a PERSON (with all the rights thereof).

My favorite trope from the pro-aborts is the “it’s a clump of cells”.
Me too – 220 lbs of cells! Rather clumpier than is good for me in fact.

Their only real principle is location, location, location. If it’s in utero, the mother can kill it though they have been extending that – if mom-to-be pays for an abortion and the child somehow survives she’s still entitled to a dead baby.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Actually, there is still, even to this day, a majority of U.S. laws that are derived from Christian principles

OK, not the point being made and totally irrelevant.

Many states still have laws on the books that allow a person to sue another person for “alienation of affection.” And if there are no “adultery” laws on the books, it’s only because new laws have superceded them, like “no-fault divorce” laws. It doesn’t make adultery legal, but it simply makes it unnecessary to sue on that basis - because the judge will simply go with no-fault over adultery any day. But that’s not a sign of how America is not governed by Christian principles, but it is a sign on how some in our judicial system try to mock God.

OK, you do understand the difference between civil and criminal right?

 

[Doc_Keele]

Actually, there is. In every jurisdiction in the United States, it is ILLEGAL to give false statements (lying) on most State and Federal forms, as well as in every single court of law, both local and Federal - it’s a well-known law commonly referred to as “perjury.”

LOL, I just knew you’d say this! Lying is not illegal.

Once again, I did not ask that question. You’re deliberately going off on a tangent to diffuse the original question. That’s called “obfuscation.”

Nice try! The fact you call it “obfuscation” doesn’t make it “obfuscation”, in fact your response is the real obfuscation here.

Here’s the question again: “Should people have laws imposed on them like “Thou shalt not steal”; “Thou shalt not murder”; “Thou shalt not lie”?”

Please stick to the actual question. This is NOT about the Ten Commandments. It’s about whether or not people can make laws that force people to do moral things, and/or to abstain from things that are immoral. You stated specifically that people shouldn’t have a law imposed on them to prevent them from choosing abortion.

You obviously massively underestimate the issues of justification of punishment etc. Law has no necessary moral content. Laws are enacted for a variety of reasons. There is empirically a common morality such that every human society has prohibitions on murder.

 

[jmcrae]

There is empirically a common morality such that every human society has prohibitions on murder.

Which comes from the Ten Commandments, and which also includes the murder of children.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Which comes from the Ten Commandments, and which also includes the murder of children.

Yes, it includes the murder of children.
It is in the Ten Commandments, but not from them.

 

[kimmielittle]

LOL, I just knew you’d say this! Lying is not illegal.

Please provide your evidence.

In the USA it’s covered here. The Federal Criminal Perjury Statute,

18 U.S.C. § 1621. A witness testifying under oath or affirmation violates this statute if she gives false testimony concerning a material matter with the willful intent to provide false testimony, rather than as a result of confusion, mistake or faulty memory.

§ 1621. Perjury generally

Whoever—
(1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or
(2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true;
is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States.