Question for one and all

[LongHaul 10]

Question for one and all.

If, instead of trying to legislate abortion, the State of South Dakota were to pass a law stating For purposes of common and civil law the State of South Dakota holds that life begins at conception. Do you think it would pass judicial review?

LongHaul

 

[nldscout 18]

Nope, not in my court, and not according to the supreme's eaither

[packsaddle 753]

A similar endeavor:

http://www.agecon.purdue.edu/crd/localgov/Second%20Level%20pages/Indiana_Pi_Story.htm

Seems ridiculous but I'd be OK with it as long as it was sponsored by a Branch Davidian, or perhaps a licensed dog.

[packsaddle 753]

OK, taking this seriously, I offer a question to the forum that is, in fact, related to the topic of this thread. I've been reading a book that I find thoughtfully written, "The Lysenko Affair" by David Joravsky. It has caused this question in my mind:

Neglecting the origins and supposed authorities, but rather concerned with the functional effect on society, what is the difference between ideology and religion?

I'm interested in your thoughts.

[Rooster7 11]

You know, if I felt as some posters here have already indicated (i.e., "Nope, not in my court", "Seems ridiculous", etc.), I would at least have some reservation in the way I expressed my opposition. If you do not believe in God, then what I'm about to propose is moot. But consider the possibility that your opponent may be right and you have to stand before God (or "stand before your god", if that's how you rather it be expressed). Here is that possibility from my side of the fence: If I'm wrong, I'm pretty confident that God will understand that while I may have been misguided, my intent was to protect a life that I thought He created. I truly doubt that such a defense will be necessary, but I have no concern about uttering it. How would this conversation play out from your side of the fence? "I thought a woman's 'reproductive rights' out weighted the possibility that a life you created would be killed"? I'm just curious. The possibility of this conversation does not bother you? You feel confident in such a defense of your thoughts and actions. You do not believe there is a god...or you feel confident that God will not pass judgment on you - even if your opponents are right (i.e. abortion is the killing of a life created by God). Have you ever pondered this possibility?(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[Trevorum 24]

Rooster, I thought we had covered this before, but I know how persistent you are , so here goes. I don't believe in a heaven or a hell or a deity who sits in judgement on petty human concerns, so your question has no meaning for me. Really. It's like me asking you why don't you put that tooth under your pillow at night -- just in case there really is a Tooth Fairy. You reject the whole premise of a Tooth Fairy and so you don't worry at all about potential quarters under your pillow or potential lumps of coal in your stocking. (OK, so that is mixing myths ..) I do good for reasons that have nothing to do with anticipated rewards in an afterlife. I shun evil for reasons that have nothing to do with fear of supernatural punishment.

[packsaddle 753]

Wow, Trevorum that was fairly blunt! I was going to mention that the God to whom many of us refer is probably smart (omniscient) enough to spot the deception of hedging one's bet. Rooster7, what you seem to miss is that a lie in one's heart is still a lie. This could be one reason we were all left behind after the rapture of 1996.

If judgment is to come it will be to the individual, or am I wrong? My point is that the action of a legislature is unlikely to reflect on my personal actions, beliefs, or thoughts - when or if it comes to the judgment to which you refer.

The analogy I was making earlier was to the incredible fallability of the political process. And I now claim that such political process is irrelevant to my own supernatural fate, if there is to be such a thing (I mean, considering I'm already left behind with you slimes). Have a nice day.

 

Edited part: OK, I can't resist. To answer that last part, I am thankfully not responsible for what another individual decides for themself if I am not involved in the decision. I don't understand why you want to take that decision away, or to assume the responsibility for yourself. Beyond that, I disagree with the concept of life beginning at conception. It clearly is a continuum and to think that haploid life is non-living merely because it's haploid is, well, ignorant. As Trevorum said, this ground has been plowed plenty of times and I am still waiting on the answers to the tough questions on that other thread in case you care to answer.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[evmori 11]

I got a better idea - why not charge those who chose to abort their unborn child with murder?

[Rooster7 11]

Trevorum,

 

Okay, thats pretty clearI understand how you sleep at night. As I said, if you dont believe in God, the question was moot.

 

Packsaddle,

 

Rooster7, what you seem to miss is that a lie in one's heart is still a lie.

 

Im not sure how that factors into my questionunless youre incapable of viewing this issue in any other way than what youve already proclaimed. As to individual accountability vice that of a legislative body, if you defend the practice than I think youre accountable. Not unlike those who turned a blind eye to the Holocaust victims. But we are probably more accountable, because we live in a country whereas expressing opposition to abortion will not cost you your life.

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[LongHaul 10]

 

Been busy running Baloo training and haven't had a chance to check in till now, Loooong Day.

nldcout,

I wasn't aware that the SCOTUS had ruled one way or another as to when life began specifically. They have been asked to rule on related matters but the specific question of when life begins on it's own merit? When might that have been, I ask for edification.

 

packsaddle,

Why that reaction to an attempt to legally define for the purpose of common and criminal law when life begins? Why must we bring religion or ideology in to this? What about science, Darwin, how do the atheist feel about this? Merlyn I believe, no offence intended if I'm wrong, but I believe you are an atheist when do you believe life begins. Trevorum same question. Yes religion dictates a lot of what we think and how we feel but what is wrong with setting a specific point for legal purposes? Would you say the laws against murder are purely religious in origin?

 

Packsaddle Part 2,

Beyond that, I disagree with the concept of life beginning at conception. It clearly is a continuum and to think that haploid life is non-living merely because it's haploid is, well, ignorant.

 

It's late and I'm tired but I can't seem to understand what you are saying here, you say you disagree with the concept of life beginning at conception but say it is clearly a continuum. Should I have worded my original post to have read "......begins at conception and is entitled to the full protection of the law from that point forward."?

 

Rooster7 & Trevorum,

Yes I'm headed to abortion but I'm only at the when does life begin state. Are we ready to strike down a law because it may be used to defend a different issue we feel strongly about? How about the child who needs special medical attention in utero but the mom has been killed in a car accident and is on life support while the baby develops and either the insurance or the family says pull the plug it's not legally entitled to life? Or the husband says keep my wifes body on life support as long as possible and let's see how much further the fetus can develop. It may reach viability but the insurance and the hospital say too much money. Why must when life begins and when it is entitled to protection be decided at the abortion level?

LongHaul

 

(This message has been edited by LongHaul)

[packsaddle 753]

Hi Longhaul, That might have been long day but it was a good one, wasn't it? I wasn't aiming my comment at you specifically but at the idea of life beginning at conception.

My comments are related the need to establish a legal 'line' that must be crossed if we are to apply the term 'human life' to a developing embryo. It is the 'line' that causes part of the disagreement. I'll risk getting it wrong but I think that Ed and Rooster7 and others tend not to agree with the current legal 'line' that is established at viability. Scientifically that line is ok except viability continues to change as technology gets better. And the current viability line doesn't account for the foetal variability, that is, one foetus might be capable of viability at a much earlier stage than another. But in my argument I am trying to apply reductio ad absurdum to the proposed replacements for the current standard of viability.

 

The 'line' represented by fertilization (conception) is completely arbitrary and although it is clearly defined, scientifically I take issue with the characterization that fertilization is when 'life' begins. These are all personal views and opinions and mine is that whether one believes that life began at the moment of creation 4004 years BC or whether it began several billion years ago, once life began it didn't stop and still hasn't. That's why we call it a 'life cycle', it keeps cycling and ours alternates between haploid and diploid generations. If 'life' is what we care about, then we must not draw a line at any stage and we must completely ban all forms of birth control.

 

The 'conception' line (as opposed to fertilization) is one that associates with the question of when the 'soul' enters the body. That is a particular religious viewpoint. It injects a particular religious perspective into the law. Science cannot address the concept of 'soul' but my personal view is that 'soul' is something that should follow all human life regardless of the number of chromosomes. If the proposed legislation used the term 'fertilization' I would still object on the scientific basis.

 

We must answer the hard questions that I have posed previously and I still note that Ed is the only person who has made the attempt (thanks Ed). At least Ed is honest enough to admit that under the conception line, we should prosecute anyone who terminates the pregnancy as a murderer. I merely suggest that if we establish this new standard, we make it clear to those engaging in certain forms of birth control that they will be legally risking murder and the charges associated with that crime. We need to be completely open and honest about this during deliberations of the new legislation.

 

If we can't establish a 'line' then it forces us to think more carefully about how we want to address this issue. And THAT is what I think we need, very careful and honest deliberation. It is my faint hope that such can be accomplished in a legislature.

[Trevorum 24]

Rooster, I never said that. I don't believe in your definition of god. There is a big difference.

[LongHaul 10]

Packsaddle,

Yes my day was rewarding and the participants left with a feeling that it was time well spent.

Thank you for your response and clarification on the continuum thing I totally missed the point, I hope it was the lateness of the hour and not that I am slowing down mentally. I must admit when I wrote my original post I was of the mind that the terms fertilization and conception were interchangeable for the sake of this discussion. You have pointed out that they indeed are not. I must also admit that when I wrote my original post in this thread I was indeed thinking in terms of conception not fertilization but was trying to present my argument from the stand point of fertilization. By that I mean I was thinking in terms of the life in question as already having a soul but trying to talk about the biological blastulae. I think society needs to decide on and define that legal line. We should legislate for the protection of the citizenry not in relation to an act.

You mention the tough questions in another thread which thread is that? I usually avoid the religious threads because there is no way to convince anyone of anything if they join a discussion with the resolution that they will not be swayed from their views. Unless we are just trying to discuss view points, beliefs, and clarify positions they are fruitless IMO so I pass them by. Id like to read the thread to which you refer.

LongHaul

 

[packsaddle 753]

Longhaul, the tough questions are easy to pose, tough to answer - regarding the abortion issue.

The first one has to do with birth control and those methods that work by causing early abortions. An honest pro-life approach would be to ban these birth control measures.

The second question is an ethical conundrum: how to act, for example, in the case of ectopic pregnancy (either fetus or both mother and fetus will die). Any action taken (or non-action) will result in death. How to legislate the authority to make this decision without conflicting with the rationale for a ban on abortion?

The third question is pragmatic and doesn't require an answer, merely states an unexpected outcome. Abortion is always going to be available as a legal choice for women who have the means. They can afford to travel. This thereby confines the application of the law only to poor women. I suppose this is not a problem for some people.

The fourth question is also pragmatic. Technology is not going to stop and new advances are going to give us the ability to terminate pregnancies less expensively and more privately than ever before (for example RU486, but the technology is going to go way beyond that).

Given that some pro-lifers feel that 'out of sight, out of mind' is an acceptable approach to resolve the first question, the fourth question will tend to make the need for abortion legislation moot. If successful, new technology could very well make nearly all abortions 'out of sight, out of mind'.

Of course this is a huge self-deception on their part and I am merely trying to call attention to the naked emperor. Not many are listening, I fear. Perhaps they like the view.

[LongHaul 10]

Packsaddle responded to my post while I was writing this so I'm going to post this and go address packsaddle's last post.

 

Packsaddle asked for our views on the difference between ideology and religion. Define terms; religion can be defined as Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. Ideology can be defined as The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture.

Where I might be able to separate the two when examining my own personal beliefs and view points, I have a hard time doing it with respect to society. Our country was started by people who were so committed to religious freedom and the right to practice those religions as a community that they were willing to travel across the Atlantic Ocean to a place very few had been and even few had returned. Once here they congregated in small communities according to religious beliefs. Those types of strong convictions are not soon lost in the decedents of those original settlers. The framers of the Constitution set out a frame work for the new government and immediately addressed certain concerns with respect to how that frame work should be implemented. Here is the Constitution describing how this government shall function, now here are the exceptions to the rule, Amendment 1, part 1, KEEP YOUR NOSE OUT OF MY RELIGION. Kinda makes one think that religion was important to these people. It would follow therefore that religion played a part in deciding what the laws were to be and how they would be enforced. The Constitution from what I can see is pretty non religious. Its like a technical manual for Federal Government and therefore does not need to touch on local guidelines and thereby the religious views of those localities.

LongHaul