Let us cut the crap.

[Theben]

Maybe men could force women to have babies if women could force men to have vasectomies.

[GePap]

I guess if the state would be governed by laws that say to ... kill all black people, for example, you'd be ok with it, too? and if not why not?I am sorry, but that's bull. you have to solve a moral issue here. Or do you think that murder should be a legislative matter, either?

This always come up, and as far as this arguement goes, it is only tangetially applicable. At the base, yes, it would be legal to kill black people if the law said "it is OK to kill black people". IN Sparta weak babies had to be exposed to death to keep the city strong: the fact is that today's morality is not absolute, simply becuase morality is a human invetion, a social convention, unless you claim one from God. Sentience can not grant special rights..from whom? (again, only a god or gods could?).

And murder is a legislative matter, since the legislature gets to say what is murder and what is not. Until 20 or less years ago, hitting someone while drunk was not murder but manslasughter..but then a new class of murder was introduced..where was the morality of that? So yes, murder is regulated and legislated, and thus, so is abortion.

Once upon a time, slavery was legal, and noone questioned it Does that mean that it was right?

Lets put it simply, explain to me the basis of your moral absolutism..on what ground can a pronoucment of the rightness or wrongness of something stand? Untalitarianism? well, then, some slavery should be had, no?

[st_swithin]

Originally posted by Theben
Maybe men could force women to have babies if women could force men to have vasectomies.

Ever considered a career in diplomacy?

[Theben]

Originally posted by Ned
Also, Theban et al., I will concede to the idea that America freed it slaves based on ideas flowing from French humanists if you can cite one speech by Lincoln that made any reference to them.

Can you find any examples of a Lincoln speech where he says he freed the slaves for political gain? No? Does that mean it didn't happen?

The ideas of the humanists originally influenced the thoughts and writings of our forefathers, the drafters of the constitution. You can find citations of both Jefferson and Franklin regarding the French. The effects of this have been felt for over 200 years, if not directly mentioned in speeches.

[Theben]

Originally posted by st_swithin


Ever considered a career in diplomacy?

Yeah, but I've also considered a career in saying whatever I thought it would take to get into a woman's panties.

[Japher]

I think we have had a discussion about the slaves before. We noted that slaves, in the north, were already be "free", and the reason for the EP was to encourage southern slaves to come north to join the armies during a time of Yankee shortages. I don't think the end of slavery had any thing to do with any moral agenda on Lincolns part, and that the movement that ended slavery was already in motion far before Lincoln was probably even born.

Was it French ideals? I don't know. Chances are it was more due to the lack of need for them. Industry no longer needed "free" labor as machines were performing most of the deeds that were demeaning enough to watch them do... It became more the fashion to have children do them

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
There are some problems with your definition. 'If the mother could potentially die' is very poorly worded, since all pregnancies carry a marginal risk. Therefore your ban would allow abortions throughout all nine months of any pregnancy.

Ben, I hope you would agree that no human as an absolute right to life regardless of circumstances. A person forfeits is is right to life for example when he takes up arms against you and tries to kill you. There are circumstances during a pregnancy where the pregnancy actually threatens the life of the mother. Here we have a choice, do we not? One of the two must die. The choice is which one. Under the circumstances, I think the balance of rights favors preserving the life of the mother.

What is wrong with genetic deformity? If we allow people to kill these children before they are born, why can the not do so afterwards? The same for genetic disease. Why should anyone be permitted to kill someone just because they are considered to be 'genetically defective?'

This raises the whole concept of whether euthanasia is acceptable. Can one kill a human being to put that human being out of its misery?

The answer of courses is complicated. If the person requests assistance in dying, I think there is no serious ethical question involved. If the person however is unable to communicate, we allow the guardian to make the decision. In the case of an infant, that guardian normally is the mother and father who should be able to make the choice.

Did you know that one of the 10 laws inscribed in stone in the Roman forum around 500 B.C. enjoined the Romans to kill deformed infants? I think we Americans will eventually end up at the same place and permit horribly deformed infants to die on birth.

Catastrophically affect? Again, see my previous answer. If these children are so expensive, and such a burden on their parents and society, why should we kill them before birth and not after?

Same answer. I think will eventually permit deformed and genetically diseased infants to die rather than to allow them to suffer horribly until they do die. Not pulling the plug under these circumstances in my view is inhumane.

[st_swithin]

Originally posted by Theben


Yeah, but I've also considered a career in saying whatever I thought it would take to get into a woman's panties.

Same thing.

Hey, look, H.L. Mencken predicted the uselessness of the argument for/against abortion:

"There is, in fact, no reason to believe that any given natural phenomenon,
however marvelous it may seem today, will remain forever inexplicable.
Soon or late the laws governing the production of life itself will be
discovered in the laboratory, and man may set up business as a creator
on his own account. The thing, indeed, is not only conceivable; it is
even highly probable."
-- H.L. Mencken, 1930

[Ned]

Originally posted by Japher
I think we have had a discussion about the slaves before. We noted that slaves, in the north, were already be "free", and the reason for the EP was to encourage southern slaves to come north to join the armies during a time of Yankee shortages. I don't think the end of slavery had any thing to do with any moral agenda on Lincolns part, and that the movement that ended slavery was already in motion far before Lincoln was probably even born.

Was it French ideals? I don't know. Chances are it was more due to the lack of need for them. Industry no longer needed "free" labor as machines were performing most of the deeds that were demeaning enough to watch them do... It became more the fashion to have children do them

Japher, the war started because Lincoln was elected president. He fully intended to confine or abolish slavery. He did not free the slaves only to destabalize the South.

The Republican party was formed as a merger of Whigs and Abolistionists. The Abolistion of slavery was a major purpose of the party.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The ideas of the humanists originally influenced the thoughts and writings of our forefathers, the drafters of the constitution.

My man, Theben, is 100% correct on this point. The French humanists, such as Voltaire and Rousseau were very, very influential on the American revolutionaries.

He did not free the slaves only to destabalize the South.

If that is true, he should have freed slaves everywhere, right? However, the Emancipation Proclimation ONLY freed slaves in the areas where the Confederacy still ruled. Slaves in areas of Union rule were SOL.

[Theben]

Originally posted by Japher
Was it French ideals? I don't know. Chances are it was more due to the lack of need for them. Industry no longer needed "free" labor as machines were performing most of the deeds that were demeaning enough to watch them do... It became more the fashion to have children do them

I never meant to imply that it was solely French ideals that ended slavery. As always, it's a number of reasons: ideals, increased industrialization in the North AND South, the cost of owning slaves vs. hiring workers, political expediency.

[Theben]

Originally posted by st_swithin
Hey, look, H.L. Mencken predicted the uselessness of the argument for/against abortion

Mencken couldn't have predicted the internet.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
To continue Elok's analogy further, abortion is like someone shoving you out the airlock. Of course, you would want to have the choice to prepare, but that's exactly what we deny the unborn child.

You are begging the question, because you are already assuming the "unborn child" is a person.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So an infant is not a person? How can an infant possibly be sentient?

Why not? Have you tried to put a mirror in front of an infant? It recognises itself.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Why not? Have you tried to put a mirror in front of an infant? It recognises itself.

When it's first out of the womb it can't recognize anything; it barely sees any shades other than black and red. To put it another way, what makes the child out of the womb worthy of full protection under the law-in fact, anybody who took to killing newborns for money or expediency would probably get a lot worse than a normal murderer-whereas a fetus a few days/months younger has no rights at all? There's no pat analogy here, but nobody's ever explained to me why it doesn't matter that one becomes the other.