Romney's Taxes

[vt]

Re: Romney's Taxes

Yes, the woman has rights, but at some point the fetus can feel pain (proven scientifically), and can survive outside the womb with the same care a newborn would receive. Thus the woman also has a Responsibility to the living being that while not delivered has reached the stage of viabliity. The woman has a Responsibility to get an abortion early in term, unless she was recently raped or her life (not mental inconvenience) is physically threatened.

Killing an living aborted human that was delivered is a crime. The child should be given the same care a premmie would.

[BadJuju]

Re: Romney's Taxes

Yes, the woman has rights, but at some point the fetus can feel pain (proven scientifically), and can survive outside the womb with the same care a newborn would receive. Thus the woman also has a Responsibility to the living being that while not delivered has reached the stage of viabliity. The woman has a Responsibility to get an abortion early in term, unless she was recently raped or her life (not mental inconvenience) is physically threatened.

Killing an living aborted human that was delivered is a crime. The child should be given the same care a premmie would.

Is it a person at that point, though? I do not think so and the science of neurology would back me up on this. A fetus does not possess consciousness. Consciousness does not develop until after birth. That's the crux of the issue to me.

[shiny!]

Re: Romney's Taxes

Is it a person at that point, though? I do not think so and the science of neurology would back me up on this. A fetus does not possess consciousness. Consciousness does not develop until after birth. That's the crux of the issue to me.

You and many others believe life begins when consciousness begins. Different people have different opinions of when that moment arrives.

Other people believe life begins when ensoulment happens. This is usually a religious belief. Different religions have different beliefs about when ensoulment happens or when life begins. Some religions believe the soul enters at the moment of conception. Some believe it happens at birth. Some believe it happens at some point during pregnancy, such as on the 120th day after conception, which is roughly when the fetus begins to move.

A problem arises when people who have the best of intentions attempt to make their religious belief about the beginning of life the law of the land, and make people who don't share that belief abide by it when it comes to something so personal and private as a pregnancy.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As far as athiesm goes, most athiests (and many theists) I've known live along these lines:

"If there's no great glorious end to all this... if nothing we do matters ... then all that matters is what we do. 'Cause that's all there is. What we do. Now. Today."
-- Angel (the series)

[Raz]

Re: Romney's Taxes

It certainly is, but it is part of her. It is absolutely dependent upon her. And it is part of her body. And insomuch as that, she should exercise complete control over her body. And even though it may be unique, that does not mean it is a person at that point. With enough time and the right conditions, it could become one, though.

When you were two months outside your mother's womb how well could you have taken care of yourself? At six months could you feed yourself? When were you no longer dependant upon your mother? And wouldn't it be far better to put a child up for adoption that to quietly murder "it"?

If "it" was "part of her body" then "it" would have the very same genetic code and the very same blood type. For about nine months "it" resides within her body, but if "it" is a male then "it" has Y chromosomes -"its" mother doesn't have any Y chromosomes. So whatever you might consider 'it" to be, "it" most certainly is not "part of her body".

Brain waves are detectable at ten (10) weeks. Now the little one at that stage doesn't have a fully developed "personality", but has a heartbeat and brainwaves. Just what can we know for certain about the personality of a two month old baby? How do we know for certain that you have a "fully developed personality"? Are you likely to remain stagnant in your mid-twenties, or will your "personality" continue to develop?

If Doestoyevsky were right, why am I not out robbing people and murdering them as an atheist? As far as the universe is concerned, I believe there is no meaning beyond what we create ourselves. No underlying moral code. No supreme being to dictate what is right or wrong.

Doestoyevsky was absolutely right - and you just proved him to be - with your very own words! He wasn't talking about every individual human being: you might well be a "decent person" for very few people act out their darkest thoughts; the earth is filled with humans - not demons.

He was speaking of societal norms and the very mindset such as yours. You accept no moral absolutes whatsoever. That being reality for you, it then makes perfect sense to dispose of anyone who threatens your personal peace and affluence, such as an "unwanted" child. Much easier to pay for a procured abortion that to marry the girl or pay child support for the next twenty years.

Of course one must think more than twice when confronting someone big enough to defend themselves for they might get rid of you first.
But the little one cannot defend his or her self.

I consider myself to be a decent, if not very flawed, person. I do not try to hurt people.

I'm sure you do. I've listened to prison interviews with convicted felons who consider themselves to be "decent persons" who only made a few mistakes, but as our society would see it I will certainly assume you to be a decent person.

Yet those who attempt to follow Christ are intimately aware that they are NOT good persons. If they do in fact believe themselves to be then they (a) aren't really trying to follow and obey His teachings, or (b) they are utterly deluded. I do not believe myself to be a good person, and before I turned thirty I was in reality not a truly decent person.

I wish everyone well

You don't "wish everyone well" - unless you get to define "everyone".
But the Supreme Court of the United States has usurped the separation of powers and set aside the legislative function of the republic so at least legally (certainly not morally) the preborn are now "non-persons", similar logic as Roger Tanney used when he declared Dred Scott to be only chattel.

... From what I can recall, people that identify themselves as religious are actually more likely to be in jail for various offense on a proportional basis.

"From what I can recall ..." That's one of the most preposterous statements I've ever heard. Would you care to provide some data or at least a highly credible reference to back up such an assertion?

[jiimbergin]

Re: Romney's Taxes

"From what I can recall ..." That's one of the most preposterous statements I've ever heard. Would you care to provide some data or at least a highly credible reference to back up such an assertion?

+1

[cjppjc]

Re: Romney's Taxes

Move to Rant and Rave.

[Raz]

Re: Romney's Taxes

...Some religions believe the soul enters at the moment of conception. ...

A problem arises when people who have the best of intentions attempt to make their religious belief about the beginning of life the law of the land, and make people who don't share that belief abide by it when it comes to something so personal and private as a pregnancy.

Ovum do not reproduce. Sperm cells do not reproduce. At conception cell division begins, all the pairs of chromosomes are present, a *new* and unique genetic code exists and this is clearly the beginning of a new physical life. To dispute that is like disputing the exisistence of gravity. I'll leave the disputes about ensoulment to the likes of Thomas Aquinas and other such scholastic thinkers for whose opinions I care nothing.

All law is the enshrinement and application of someones morality. A far bigger problem arises when a handfull of judges seek to overthrow the legislative function and write law themselves. Roe vs. Wade is a classic example of such.

By 1973 procured abortion had been legalized by the legislatures of at least four states. For activists like Harry Blackmon that wasn't good enough. After all, he and his colleagues were "enlightened", so why wait upon the will of the electorate since it was slow in revealing itself? And I am indeed familiar with the case of Griswald.
But it's one helluva stretch from Griswald to Roe.

[Raz]

Re: Romney's Taxes

Move to Rant and Rave.

+1.

[peakishmael]

Re: Romney's Taxes

"From what I can recall ..." That's one of the most preposterous statements I've ever heard. Would you care to provide some data or at least a highly credible reference to back up such an assertion?

Suggest anyone interested google "jail population religious" and read a bit. In summary, lots of stats, which can be spun in different ways. Better yet, google "morality and religion". Personally, while I would not try to back up BadJuju's claim, it's also pretty hard to demonstrate that religious people are more moral.

[Raz]

Re: Romney's Taxes

Suggest anyone interested google "jail population religious" and read a bit. In summary, lots of stats, which can be spun in different ways. Better yet, google "morality and religion". Personally, while I would not try to back up BadJuju's claim, it's also pretty hard to demonstrate that religious people are more moral.

And you base that upon what: your idea of what is or isn't moral? Some statistics you've examined? The life and times of Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker?

It would help if you elaborate upon what leads you to such an opinion.

[BK]

Re: Romney's Taxes

I would argue that history tends to support that religious people may be more moral - not this does not mean that religion is often used by Politicians to dominate citizens when ever possible.

Take a look at Education:
Religious people were the ones to take up the cause of education when there was no pay. Yes - you can argue that it was done in part to promote the religion, but the education frame work created by religious people has brought the world out of the Dark ages.

Freeing people from slavery - again seems that history indicates that religious minded folks were the prime movers. Take a look at France where pre-Revolution the salvery was abolished, once the revolution dismantled the Catholic Church in France, this pave the way for Napoleon to bring slavery back in areas of the world that France had colonized.

I'm unaware of any groups of atheist or agnostics that travel to the third world to provide medical and education services. Religious people in their need to promote their religion travel to some of the most awful parts of the world to bring hope and improve lives.

Even more interesting is are their any Muslim groups that offer Disaster relief services or service the poor of all faiths (or of no faith) the way christian groups do? Are there any groups of non-believers that provide free services to the poor the way many Christian organizations do?

[peakishmael]

Re: Romney's Taxes

And you base that upon what: your idea of what is or isn't moral? Some statistics you've examined? The life and times of Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker?

It would help if you elaborate upon what leads you to such an opinion.

Fair enough, I'll take a stab at it.

First, I recommend that anyone interested read the Wikipedia article on morality and religion. I think it makes a lot of good points on all sides. Personally, I note the following;

Different religions have very different views of what is moral.

Individual religions have changed their moral stances over time, often on very fundamental issues.

Even people of the same religion, today, have conflicting opinions of what is moral. Some of them are certain that they know "the one true way", both for religion and morality.

Not all of these religions can be right, on religious or moral issues.

It is possible to point to anecdotal evidence of immoral individuals, as you suggested by mentioning the Christian Bakkers. Or we could pick stories of horrible atheists, Muslims, freethinkers, Hindis, Unitarians, Buddhists, Catholics, KKKers, or any other group someone wants to pick. But the list of stories would be very long, and in the end unpersuasive of anything, as I think you are suggesting.

In the end, all I said was, it is hard to demonstrate that religious people are more moral. If you think I'm wrong, perhaps you could elaborate on that in a new thread in Rant&Rave, where you and cjppjc both suggested the discussion belongs (and I agree).