This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Oklahoma Introduces barbaric abortion law
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
pezz
So, murder is wrong, even if it would save everyone in the world?
Huh... Oh I'm sorry, what's that about Jesus? No, no, MyTie apparently DOESN'T think he should have given himself up for everyone else's salvation. That's a shame. I guess these filthy heathen non-christians just can't understand his sacrifice.
The Jews were wrong to murder Jesus, that is correct, however it was a very compassionate thing for Jesus to allow it, and for a greater good. I really don't see what this has to do with abortion, though.
every single human being,
including the fetus
, begged me to perform the abortion,
Gee darn, i guess you're right. Those two aren't similar at all.
The point was that it was ultimately Jesus' (the trinity's?) decision to die, since God can zap anybody He feels like, or even make it so they never even come to exist. What the fetus
wants
in the hypothetical example is irrelevant, MyTie still has complete power over its fate. As hilariously ironic as it would be, a fetus cannot abort MyTie.
Post by
107106
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
278900
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
More wanted him dead than believed him. So it mostly was just "The Jews and the Romans." It was both as I see it. The majority of the Jews wanted him dead as did the Roman government.Well, I don't know if that is true. Even Peter denied knowing Jesus. It could just be that the haters were the more vocal.
My point is, it's kind of a loaded statement to say that "The Jews killed Jesus," just like it's kind of a loaded statement to say that "The Whites hated the Blacks in the nineteenth century."
It's not really fair to just generalize it like that.
We know you don't believe it, you don't have to keep sticking that in there.Just clarifying. I know that there are some atheists that believe that Jesus was a real person, and that there are some that don't. By saying that Jesus did this or Jesus did that, I just wanted to clarify that I don't necessarily believe that there actually was a Jesus Christ.
Post by
Monday
Just clarifying. I know that there are some atheists that believe that Jesus was a real person, and that there are some that don't. By saying that Jesus did this or Jesus did that, I just wanted to clarify that I don't necessarily believe that there actually was a Jesus Christ.
Ah, never mind then =)
My point is, it's kind of a loaded statement to say that "The Jews killed Jesus," just like it's kind of a loaded statement to say that "The Whites hated the Blacks in the nineteenth century."
This is true. I just didn't want to go through and make a huge post about it, which is why I said the Jews and Romans, as they were the two biggest groups that the majority wanted him dead.
Post by
Squishalot
Based on the power granted to that panel of judges by the Constitution, their interpretation defines whether or not it is Constitutional. You keep implying there's some difference between the text of the Constitution and the Court's Opinion, when there isn't.
You also keep implying that the text of the Constitution is too vague, when it's written that way on purpose, and is precisely the reason for the Judiciary's existence.
It's difficult to keep a legal discussion going while these guys are arguing about the morals of abortion, but anyway...
There is a difference between the text of the Constitution and the Court's Opinion. The Constitution is a document that permits a Government's actions, represented by the people. The Court's Opinion is the opinion of a panel whose role it is to interpret that Constitution and identify what law is permissible and what law is not.
There is no need for the Constitution to be vague. It makes it more flexible, yes. It's not necessary, no. That it's written that way on purpose is irrelevant to the question of whether it is structured in the most ideal way or not.
And, most importantly, it clearly does not state that restricting abortion is clearly unconstitutional, without requiring the Supreme Court to interpret certain provisions as being broad enough to include abortion.
Here's an example:
1) The government is allowed to legislate on all matters regarding corporations trading in the United States.
2) The government is allowed to legislate on matters of taxation relating to persons and corporations in the United States.
Does the first provision allow the government to legislate on taxation on corporations? Iffy - tax can be interpreted as 'not regarding a corporation' - it's not an inherent part of a corporation. But if you consider what constitutes a corporation's matters generally from a practical purpose, it will often include taxation. It's nebulous.
Does the second provision allow the government to legislate on taxation on corporations? Yes. No vagueness, other than the question of what types of taxes are permissible or not.
Post by
MyTie
I just wanted to clarify that I don't necessarily believe that there actually was a Jesus Christ.
Whatever you believe is your business. It is generally accepted by historians that Jesus did exist.
Source
Source
... There are more... but I have to go make dinner.
edit: Wiki has a good list of sources...Most critical scholars in biblical studies believe that some parts of the New Testament are useful for reconstructing Jesus' life, agreeing that Jesus was a Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer, that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect of Judaea, Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire. in the 'jesus' article.
Post by
Heckler
MyTie's point about subjective morality is important, but as one of the Constitution people he suggested, I just wanted to state for the record that I don't draw my
morality
from the Constitution; I instead accept that the idea of morality is
inherently
subjective, and the only "true" right or wrong is what lies in my own heart and mind, and matters only to me. When it involves another person, the only truth I accept is that I have no right to impede another's own quest for truth.
Whatever God may or may not exist, I refuse to believe that I could get away with lying to him. As an example, if someone knew that Christianity said Abortion was wrong decided not to get one, but secretly harbored regret over the decision, or resentment towards the child, that
those
feelings would be 'judged,' and not the decision about the abortion.
From this point of view, whatever I
believe
to be right or wrong
is
. And it will remain unless I can somehow force myself to
truly
believe
something new (which isn't impossible by any means, I just don't think I need a religion -- which may or may not be a creation of man -- to tell me what's right and wrong).
But back to the Constitution; with my beliefs described above, it becomes necessary to define "rules" of society so that we can all coexist, and that's where I depend on the Constitution. The question of right or wrong isn't all that important to me on this issue, but legality is -- because the rules of society are the only thing that allows my type of thinking to exist (and everyone else's), free from oppression from any form, including "moral."
The effects of abortion on society are almost nothing but negative, and I think it would be better for society as a whole to reduce the number. Almost everyone agrees on this, and therefore the focus of legislation against abortion should be targeting the causes, not the procedure itself. Targeting the procedure simply makes the debate more divisive and more pointless, and has little to no positive impact on society.
That it's written that way on purpose is irrelevant to the question of whether it is structured in the most ideal way or not.
Maybe that's why we can't seem to agree, that's not the question I'm trying to address =D I have no desire to question the "properness" of the U.S. Constitution as a whole. It seems to be working so far, and I like it the way it is. In addition, even if I didn't, I have enough respect for the thinker's of the 1700's to trust them more than myself (or you) on the matters of creating a government.
And I'm not questioning the explicit language of the document itself, I'm just saying that if we both accept the Constitution as its written (whether it's the best or not), then the method to "find out" if something is or isn't Constitutional is not to read it really closely and have a debate or anything like that -- it's simply to let the Supreme Court rule.
I'm not saying that removes ambiguity from the text itself, but I am saying that it provides an
official
interpretation that carries the same strength of Law as the Constitution itself, at least until it's overturned. Again, I'm not arguing that this was the best way to write the document, I'm just saying that's how it's written and so that's what we do. If the SCOTUS says the 22nd Amendment makes strawberry ice cream illegal, then it's illegal. And they said restricting abortion in any way pre-viability is unconstitutional, so it is.
I think on this much, we agree. Maybe. As far as whether Australia is better than the U.S. -- that's a discussion for another time ;)
Post by
Squishalot
I am saying that it provides an official interpretation that carries the same strength of Law as the Constitution itself, at least until it's overturned.
See, though I acknowledge the mechanics of Constitutional Law that result in this, to me, that doesn't provide me with any certainty that under the document, restricting abortion is unconstitutional. It's not that preventing abortion is unconstitutional, it's that it's been deemed to be unconstitutional, and that deeming is less black and white, and more grey. Which is why I was very quick to point out the inverted commas in your original statement.
I think on this much, we agree. Maybe. As far as whether Australia is better than the U.S. -- that's a discussion for another time ;)
I'd agree with that. We both understand how it works and appreciate that fact. I think we diverted the discussion a bit away from the actual issue and more towards how it operates, but yes, we can leave that til next time :)
Post by
Skreeran
I just wanted to clarify that I don't necessarily believe that there actually was a Jesus Christ.
Whatever you believe is your business. It is generally accepted by historians that Jesus did exist.
Source
Source
... There are more... but I have to go make dinner.
edit: Wiki has a good list of sources...Most critical scholars in biblical studies believe that some parts of the New Testament are useful for reconstructing Jesus' life, agreeing that Jesus was a Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer, that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect of Judaea, Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire. in the 'jesus' article.From my research and those of many I respect, there are very few historians that documented "Christus" (which merely means "the annointed one") in his time. Josephus' documentation is widely agreed to be a forgery, inserted by the Catholic Church years after he died.
Edit: But this has little to do with abortion, so I'll leave it at that.
Edit #2: Just finished reading that Atheist.org link there. Did
you
read it? The author came to the conclusion that he probably didn't exist...
Post by
MyTie
I just wanted to clarify that I don't necessarily believe that there actually was a Jesus Christ.
Whatever you believe is your business. It is generally accepted by historians that Jesus did exist.
Source
Source
... There are more... but I have to go make dinner.
edit: Wiki has a good list of sources...Most critical scholars in biblical studies believe that some parts of the New Testament are useful for reconstructing Jesus' life, agreeing that Jesus was a Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer, that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect of Judaea, Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire. in the 'jesus' article.From my research and those of many I respect, there are very few historians that documented "Christus" (which merely means "the annointed one") in his time. Josephus' documentation is widely agreed to be a forgery, inserted by the Catholic Church years after he died.
Edit: But this has little to do with abortion, so I'll leave it at that.
Edit #2: Just finished reading that Atheist.org link there. Did
you
read it? The author came to the conclusion that he probably didn't exist...
Not entirely no. However, at the end he does point out that the 'charachter' that 'condensed' is a mystery as to how that happened. In the very least, this is a tough sceptic who is left at a loss. Like I said, it's up to you what you want to believe.
Post by
Orranis
Back to the abortion. MyTie, you would not kill a child in order to save every other child, but would you kill every other child to save a single?
Post by
Skreeran
I just wanted to clarify that I don't necessarily believe that there actually was a Jesus Christ.
Whatever you believe is your business. It is generally accepted by historians that Jesus did exist.
Source
Source
... There are more... but I have to go make dinner.
edit: Wiki has a good list of sources...Most critical scholars in biblical studies believe that some parts of the New Testament are useful for reconstructing Jesus' life, agreeing that Jesus was a Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer, that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect of Judaea, Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire. in the 'jesus' article.From my research and those of many I respect, there are very few historians that documented "Christus" (which merely means "the annointed one") in his time. Josephus' documentation is widely agreed to be a forgery, inserted by the Catholic Church years after he died.
Edit: But this has little to do with abortion, so I'll leave it at that.
Edit #2: Just finished reading that Atheist.org link there. Did
you
read it? The author came to the conclusion that he probably didn't exist...
Not entirely no. However, at the end he does point out that the 'charachter' that 'condensed' is a mystery as to how that happened. In the very least, this is a tough sceptic who is left at a loss. Like I said, it's up to you what you want to believe.But he hardly says that it is unlikely that he condensed. The article as a whole most definitely leans toward Jesus being myothlogical, rather than having been a living, breathing person.
Think Robin Hood. It is unlikely that Robin Hood was a real person, but he may have been an amalgam of other figures and stories put together.
Edit: And I really am going to try to stay on topic from now on.
Post by
MyTie
Back to the abortion. MyTie, you would not kill a child in order to save every other child,yes but would you kill every other child to save a single?
no
Post by
85162
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Back to the abortion. MyTie, you would not kill a child in order to save every other child,yes but would you kill every other child to save a single?
no
It goes back to the train and the two tracks thing. MyTie believes that as long as you don't directly act to cause a result, then you're not morally culpable for the consequences. Orranis believes that if you are in a position to cause a result, then you are morally culpable for the the consequences. That's all.
Even going by Christian morals, it's still your interpretation of the morals, which means they're still subjective.
I've seen exactly one possibility of objective morals, which was basically "the more people who benefit, the better." Even that is largely subjective, since we don't know for certain what will be beneficial.
Basically, any moral judgment of any sort is subjective.
Utilitarianism is no less subjective than Christianity. The utiliarian argument is "the more people who benefit, the better". The Christian argument is "the more you do that God approves of, the better". Both arguments are subject to subjective interpretation about what benefits people and what God approves of.
Post by
85162
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
It goes back to the train and the two tracks thing. MyTie believes that as long as you don't directly act to cause a result, then you're not morally culpable for the consequences.
Close. More accurately, I believe that the consequences of one track do not justify your decision to enact the other track. If there is nothing you can do, in good morals, to remove the consequences of one action, you are not morally convicted of the consequences of that track.
Post by
Squishalot
Even going by Christian morals, it's still your interpretation of the morals, which means they're still subjective.
I've seen exactly one possibility of objective morals, which was basically "the more people who benefit, the better." Even that is largely subjective, since we don't know for certain what will be beneficial.
Basically, any moral judgment of any sort is subjective.
Utilitarianism is no less subjective than Christianity. The utiliarian argument is "the more people who benefit, the better". The Christian argument is "the more you do that God approves of, the better". Both arguments are subject to subjective interpretation about what benefits people and what God approves of.
As I said, it's largely subjective. What God approves of is far less clear, since there are conflicting sources. Judaism, Christianity and Islam all believe in the same God, but have radically different beliefs about many things related to morals. Hell, just within
Christianity
there are far different views on what is right and wrong.
There's a limit to what you can do and call "for the benefit of the majority" before you have to start using poor justifications.
Juadism is not the same moral code as Christianity. There are plenty of issues about 'for the benefit of the majority'. For example - are there diminishing returns on utility?
Post by
85162
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.