Page 1 of 2  •  1 2 Next
Switch to Forum Live View
Locked: Why murder should be legal
5 years ago  ::  Dec 18, 2009 - 2:34PM #1
Bei1052
Posts: 986

The Bible says that murder is wrong.


Christians follow the Bible.


Therefore, Christians only believe that murder is wrong because the Bible says so.


As we don't live in a theocracy, then the law shouldn't be based on any religion.


Those people who don't follow Christianity shouldn't be held to anything written in the Bible.


Ergo, murder should be legal and those who think its wrong shouldn't engage in it.


~~~


Right? Or do you throw out the above as insanely stupid logic?


...'Cuz, you know, if it's the latter, then kindly stop using the whole "It's wrong to force your religion on others!" line, as abortion isn't a religious argument-- Even moreso since, as some people are quick to point out, the Bible is silent on abortion.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Dec 18, 2009 - 3:19PM #2
newsjunkie
Posts: 5,744

Nobody is forcing a religious belief on anyone because murder is illegal -- the overwhelmingly vast majority of people in the US and on the planet agree that murder should be illegal. Doesn't matter what religion holds sway, or if none does -- the vast majority of people would not favor legalized murder. But regarding the question, "should abortion be illegal?" there is no such concensus. The other problem with your "argument" is that we do in fact have religious organizations lobbying for abortion restrictions. The RC bishops have been putting statements in church bulletins for parishoners to lobby congress to put greater prohibitions on abortions paid for by private insurance. There clearly is a relgious basis, in the minds of Catholic bishops, for advocating against abortion. So it's no wonder why people would accuse them of trying to force their religious belief about this particular issue on others. It's not a hypothetical -- religious organizations are actively lobbying to get their view of the issue enacted into law. . So of course a lot of people opposed to making abortion illegal have every right to claim that some religious people are trying to force their will on others. That is a totally legitimate claim, just as it is reasonable for people to see the RCC''s active political efforts to thwart same-sex marriage initiatives as trying to force other people to live according to the church's view of marriage as being reserved for only male-female unions.


In this country we value religious freedom. That's why people say "it's not right to force your religion on others." However, I don't think this is what PC people are saying to religious people such as Catholic bishops. Rather, they are saying is that not everyone shares your view of abortion, but we respect your view and defend your right to make your personal reproductive choices according to your view. Difference is that they are not willing to say the same back to the PCers. They do not want women to lead their own reproductive lives according to their own moral, ethical and religious views.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Dec 18, 2009 - 3:31PM #3
Callielou
Posts: 29,628

Good Grief! It is what seperates us for animals. Is that what you want us to become, wild animals?

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Dec 18, 2009 - 3:36PM #4
Tolerant Sis
Posts: 4,201

Of course, Bei realizes that murder is illegal in the United States because it violates the civil rights of a person.


Bei also knows (although he stampeth his tiny foot and claimeth that it is all a bunch of hookum) that a fetus, by virtue of its location within another actual person who has rights to be protected, is not and cannot be a person in its own right.  Its civil rights, to the extent it has any, derive from the civil rights of its mother.  Witness laws against 'fetal homicide'.  These only stand because the civil rights of the mother have been violated FIRST.  That is, she has been assaulted, injured, or killed, in the process of 'murdering' her fetus.  Indeed, fetal homicide statutes are designed to protect the mother.


It is essential to note that all legal 'fetal homicide' statutes do not apply to the mother.  That is, she can abort her fetus up to viability, and in certain situations, after viability, with impunity.  

First amendment fan since 1793.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Dec 18, 2009 - 3:44PM #5
Tolerant Sis
Posts: 4,201

Dec 18, 2009 -- 3:31PM, Callielou wrote:


Good Grief! It is what seperates us for animals. Is that what you want us to become, wild animals?




Most wild animals do not kill other members of their own species unless they are very closely related to humans (chimpanzees hold 'wars'), or do so for reproductive reasons (lions will kill another's cubs to bring the females into estrus, for example).


Humans are the only animals who routinely murder one another.


However, many animals do practice abortion, infanticide, or suspended pregnancy when conditions do not favor the rearing of an offspring.  Birds will destroy their own eggs if conditions deteriorate; bison consume black cohosh, inducing abortion; kangaroos can suspend a pregnancy; gerbils eat their babies.  


 

First amendment fan since 1793.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Dec 18, 2009 - 3:51PM #6
Ageo
Posts: 453

At the moment on Earth, the people war against each other.  War is honored, why should murder not be?


War is a menace to souls.


War is like telling children that argue and disagree to take up arms, and kill or slaughter each other, until a resolution or death is achieved.


I am a child amongst children.  We are all from a root cause, or Adonai.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Dec 18, 2009 - 4:24PM #7
karbie
Posts: 3,329

Frankly, it's just another attempt to use buzz words to attempt to make people willing to let others manage their own reproductive issues acording to their  own beliefs and circumstances without interferring in what are currently lawful actions. A fertilzed egg is not a baby. Many fertilziled eggs either don't implant or don't make it to the finish line through no fault or action of the mother. I can tell you from bitter experience that it doesn't make dealing with that loss any easier.


Much as Bei likes to push his own views on when life begins, so far the courts disagree with him. The time to really worry is when birth control can be applied retroactively to people who are currently living, breathing and walking around. Like, oh..abortion clinic doctors during a church service in front of a traumatized congregation. That's murder. No matter how much you dislike someone or disagree with them, you aren't allowed to bludgeon them with a blunt instrument, shoot them, knife them, or poison them.


In cases where panicked teenagers assumed they had delivered a stillborn child, if later autopsy results finds any oxygen in that body's lungs, then it was a living being and will usually end up with one or both children standing trial and doing jail time. The smartest thing in recent years was establishing safe drop off places in hospitals and fire stations where newborns can be left without any penalty or questions as opposed to the alternatives of being exposed or put in dumpsters.


JFK, RFK, and Martin Luther King, Jr were murdered. People in abusive relationships are murdered. And as it says in The Mikado, we all "Have our little lists of those who never will be missed." A fertilized egg may have the potential of becoming a human being, but legally it isn't one yet. Many women miscarry without knowing that they were ever pregnant in the first place; it isn't comparable to having bullets rip through your body or having knives slash at your flesh.


We've had this exact thread before, haven't we? I guess it's rerun time here too.some things--including tired old cliches and left over rhetoric--just don't reheat that well.

"You are letting your opinion be colored by facts again."
'When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you."
these are both from my father.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Dec 18, 2009 - 4:52PM #8
Bei1052
Posts: 986

Dec 18, 2009 -- 3:19PM, newsjunkie wrote:

Nobody is forcing a religious belief on anyone because murder is illegal -- the overwhelmingly vast majority of people in the US and on the planet agree that murder should be illegal. Doesn't matter what religion holds sway, or if none does -- the vast majority of people would not favor legalized murder.



Oi vey. This again? Don't you ever get tired of this? I know I do. So you agree that if the majority of people say abortion should be illegal outside of situation X, that it should be illegal outside of situation X, correct? lol, of course you don't. So why mention majorities in the first place?


But, even still, that wasn't the point and your response was mildly ironic. Christians opposing murder because the Bible says it's wrong doesn't constitute making a religious argument, but Christians opposing abortion even when the Bible doesn't say it's wrong constitutes making a religious argument?


Good luck rationalizing that (Which you didn't even try to).


But regarding the question, "should abortion be illegal?" there is no such concensus.



Do you want me to start posting polls again? Majorities of people would restrict abortion to cases of incest, rape, maternal health issues and fetal defects. This is a fact. Every poll taken shows this, and you can't produce a single one which shows something different. Sticking your head in the proverbial sand isn't going to make this fact go away.


The other problem with your "argument" is that we do in fact have religious organizations lobbying for abortion restrictions. The RC bishops have been putting statements in church bulletins for parishoners to lobby congress to put greater prohibitions on abortions paid for by private insurance. There clearly is a relgious basis, in the minds of Catholic bishops, for advocating against abortion. So it's no wonder why people would accuse them of trying to force their religious belief about this particular issue on others. It's not a hypothetical -- religious organizations are actively lobbying to get their view of the issue enacted into law. . So of course a lot of people opposed to making abortion illegal have every right to claim that some religious people are trying to force their will on others. That is a totally legitimate claim, just as it is reasonable for people to see the RCC''s active political efforts to thwart same-sex marriage initiatives as trying to force other people to live according to the church's view of marriage as being reserved for only male-female unions.



Well, if that's the case, then we should do away with HCR, as one of the biggest proponents of HCR has been-- Drumroll please!-- The RCC. Surprising, ain't it? Not, really. So, I suppose we should throw out HCR on the basis that it's being backed by a religious organization and not everyone is religious or wants HCR, right? Right??? RIGHT?!?!?!


lol, of course not.


This goes back to the point above. Since the majority of people want abortion to be restricted in HCR, then it should be restricted. The RCC, therefore, isn't "forcing their religion" on anyone, since this is something the majority of people want and religious ideals don't change that.


...Or do the majority of people who want abortion to be restricted in HCR believe so solely because they're religious?


In this country we value religious freedom. That's why people say "it's not right to force your religion on others." However, I don't think this is what PC people are saying to religious people such as Catholic bishops. Rather, they are saying is that not everyone shares your view of abortion, but we respect your view and defend your right to make your personal reproductive choices according to your view. Difference is that they are not willing to say the same back to the PCers.


They do not want women to lead their own reproductive lives according to their own moral, ethical and religious views.



Yeah, see. This is a classic case of trying to have your cake and it eat too, and is where your argument falls apart-- Something I've had to point out no less than a hundred times. On one hand you state that people should be able to decide things for themselves based on their own "moral, ethical and religious views", while on the other hand you state that they should only be able to do so as long as the majority does not believe an action should be illegal.


If I say, "Rape should be legal according to the moral, ethical and religious views of those engaging in it", you would tell me that it shouldn't because the majority of people think rape should be illegal. If I say, "Murder should be legal according to the moral, ethical and religious views of those engaging in it", you would tell me that it shouldn't because the majority of people think murder should be illegal. If I say, "Theft should be legal according to the moral, ethical and religious views of those engaging in it", you would tell me that it shouldn't because the majority of people think theft should be illegal. On the other hand, if I say, "Abortion-on-demand should be illegal because the majority of people think it should be illegal", you would tell me that it wouldn't matter what the majority of people want and that women should be able to act according to their own "moral, ethical and religious views".


How does that work? You can't have it both ways, as the above is patently indefensible and blatant hypocrisy. I know it, you know it and pretty much anyone who reads the above knows it (Whether they admit to knowing it is another thing entirely). Either you argue based on majorities or you don't. You don't get to pick-and-choose when you want to use the "Well, the majority agree with Proposition X!" argument when it suits you.


...Oh, and to have a little fun, consider the following situation. There's a community of 100 people, 80 of whom think murder should be illegal and 20 of whom believe it should be legal. Let's also assume that, tomorrow, a fire kills 70 of the people who believe that murder should be illegal. Guess what? Now, according to your logic, murder should be legal. Hooray!

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Dec 18, 2009 - 5:13PM #9
Bei1052
Posts: 986

Dec 18, 2009 -- 3:36PM, Tolerant Sis wrote:

Of course, Bei realizes that murder is illegal in the United States because it violates the civil rights of a person.



"Why aren't the unborn persons?"


I'll save you some of the trouble.


"Because SCOTUS said so!"-- SCOTUS also stated that a tomato is a vegetable. Appeals to authority aren't all that good, really.


"Because it isn't born!"-- Why do you need to be born to be a person?


"Because the Constitution says they aren't!"-- No, it doesn't, and it doesn't unilaterally exclude the unborn from being considered as persons (Nearly all =/= None).


"Because it's not sentient/sapient/whatever!"-- Why do these characterize personhood?


Bei also knows (although he stampeth his tiny foot and claimeth that it is all a bunch of hookum) that a fetus, by virtue of its location within another actual person who has rights to be protected, is not and cannot be a person in its own right.  Its civil rights, to the extent it has any, derive from the civil rights of its mother.  Witness laws against 'fetal homicide'.  These only stand because the civil rights of the mother have been violated FIRST.  That is, she has been assaulted, injured, or killed, in the process of 'murdering' her fetus.  Indeed, fetal homicide statutes are designed to protect the mother.


It is essential to note that all legal 'fetal homicide' statutes do not apply to the mother.  That is, she can abort her fetus up to viability, and in certain situations, after viability, with impunity.



...And speaking of straw men...


I really should be used to this by now, but reading just isn't your forte. Like, at all. The above really didn't have anything to do with anything I wrote out, but only because I'm bored, I'll bite. Take the above bolded and underlined. I don't know how many times we've gone over this but:


1.) Your rights are not contingent on another's rights. To state that they are doesn't make any sense. At all. If this were the case then abortion would be legal throughout all nine months of pregnancy, as the ZEF's rights would always be subservient to the mother's (Actually, it wouldn't have any rights). I've asked you no less than a gajillion times to show me some text, some case or some opinion of the court which even hints at this being true. Of course, you're not going to find said example because it's preposterous poppycock of the highest order.


2.) What do you mean that a ZEF can't be a person due to its location? The only way for this to be true would be to argue that to be a person you have to be born, but to do that you would have to ignore both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. So, yeah... Care to explain? I'll wait :)


3.) There are already laws on the record to protect the mother (You know? Assault, battery, domestic violence, etc. etc. etc.?). In fact, no injury what-so-ever has to befall the mother (The only states in which this is untrue are Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Mississippi, Nevada, Rhode Island and Washington).


...Oh, and, yes, a mother can be charged under fetal homicide laws (See: Oklahoma).

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Dec 18, 2009 - 5:48PM #10
Tolerant Sis
Posts: 4,201

Your not caring for the argument of 'location' doesn't make the case less valid, Bei.  A fetus is not a person because if it were granted rights of personhood it would diminish the rights of the woman carrying it BECAUSE of its location (in HER body).


And yes, in the case of fetal homicide, any rights it has derive from its mother's civil rights.  That's just the way it is.  That's why a woman can abort ('murder') a fetus without penalty but if her husband knocks her down the stairs and achieves the same end, it's 'homicide'.  The law is to protect the woman from being knocked down the stairs and having HER rights violated; it does this by extending limited 'rights' to the fetus to deter the crime against HER.


Because women are more likely to be murdered and assaulted during pregnancy than any other time in their lives, not that that matters to you.


And you can claim you are right all you want, but you're not.  Too bad that you don't like the jurisprudence around fetal/maternal rights.  A lot of serious thought went into determining whose rights are in ascendance, and guess what, Bei?  The adult female PERSON's rights are always ascendant.  All of that work was done to protect women from people who want to usurp their rights.  And if you see yourself among those who want to usurp women's rights, well, if the shoe fits.


 

First amendment fan since 1793.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 2  •  1 2 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook