Posted on 02/01/2017 6:59:57 PM PST by markomalley
My assertion stands. As for your comments, remember that the legal basis for the death penalty is partly based on retribution.
Then I guess there’s a value judgment to be made, whether one regards more highly that intrinsic value of human life, or whether one favors retribution instead.
It always helps to revisit the foundation of moral law.
Your view of moral law appears to be that it comes from men. My view is otherwise. This would explain the incompatibility of our opinions.
They reject pretty much all science, everything from DDT is evil to man made global warming is anti-science.
What they actually believe in is alarmist fiction.
Irregardless if whether you support abortion or not, Roe is TERRIBLE law. The regulation of abortion is a question for Congress and the legislatures of the several state, not Judges.
Yup.
Self-defense is not intended by the defender - it is forced by the attacker.
Agreeing that human beings have intrinsic value, Swalwell added, “However, Roe v. Wade says that a woman has a right to make a decision about her own healthcare —”
Carlson quoted Gorsuch again and asked whether Swalwell agreed that the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong. Instead of answering directly, the California lawmaker said that “two of the most personal decisions” someone can make involve abortion and assisted suicide.
Carlson also challenged him to answer whether abortion is “the taking of human life.”
“She’s terminating something that she does not want, and that’s her choice,” Swalwell responded.
“OK, but do you think it’s human life?”
“I think at viability, a baby should be decided by the woman,” the congressman answered. “She’s the one who has to have it.”
1. You cannot say a woman is the sole arbiter and has the imprimatur of God as to whether or not she wants this “THING” and then hold that a man must abide by her decision.
If the woman decides to abort, kill or murder her unborn baby “IT BECOMES A THING” by the power of her deeming so but, if she decides to keep it, suddenly it is a valuable life and a baby.
In either decision the man is removed from the decision of the woman who can relieve and absolve him of responsibility or in another instance force him to become a responsible party to a decision he had no involvement in.
A woman can decide to keep “a viable” baby, making “viable” only because she deems it her desire.
If this is the case, then a man can walk away from either decision, without being held responsible for her actions.
If, it is your body and the “embryo” is in one instance an annoying parasite but, in another a valued human life, how can a man be held responsible for “your decision”?
A man, under your demand of right, also has the right to choose not to be part of a decision he had no say in.
Equal under the law.
You want the 19th amendment, ERA and title IX then own it, like a sole proprietor and make All The Decisions from now on.
You can decide to be mother as much as and man can decide to be a father, then logic dictates if you decide not be a mother, a man can decide not to be a father.
BTW, my opinion to be against abortion was formed 25 years ago by a woman who informed me I was not from the right family, didn’t hold some social standing, didnt have an Ivy League pedigree didn’t have “the means”, at the time, compared to some idiotic standard, that I was not qualified to be the father of her child.
These days, I live with my younger brother and am amazed at him becoming a father and an extraordinary leader of my nephew, who is very bright, but now, only and 17 with attendant annoyances of that young age.
I don’t know if I would developed the skills my brother has as a father.
I have zero patience for some of things I observe in their interaction but, my nephew really is a great kid.
My child would probably be pulling some of the same dork arguments of their assess too.
This , despite the fact, I made more money than most of my friends and society at large.
It is not your wealth or worldly honors that define you, rather, it is the internal nature and discipline of a person, which defines who you really are.
I never forgot it and 25 years on, I know I would have raised one brilliant, self determined son who, by now, would surprise me and likely, make me proud.
Sadly, I have no children and zero desire to produce one, in a world where I have no say over their beautiful life before their birth and few rights to mentor an amazing life.
The whole argument is stupid, when you consider we came from similar backgrounds and have become, financially, part of the 20% so, the argument of “means”, when contrasted with how little our parents had and still produced fine adults, who most certainly have the means to provide whatever I want to or for my child is and was bogus.
My child could afford Harvard as a choice because I make money. However, by God, my child would have understood what it is that defines being an adult and how you can live a life joy, while prospering.
My child would have known, in the physical world, our loving God and all his promises of Faith and Hope and would learn the charitable aspects of life and why it is important for mankind.
My child, by now, may have already created a new life with a similarly life of possibilities.
My child would have had the advantage of parents who speak several languages and finding the world fascinating, well traveled, making the world very real to them and not some concept they read about or an abstract when watching images on the evening news.
My child, if it were a girl, would have been treated like the royalty she is, my princess, and learned from me the ways of women and men, as well, how they can understand the nature of each.
My princess would have never wanted for anything, except my credit card.
If, I had a son, he would have learned how to become a man, treat a woman, as well, his fellow man.
He would have understood what to do with a bully, when and how to deal with a bully and still have compassion.
I would have enjoyed a princess who could have her way with me merely by a certain look but, was also an extremely independent, self determined woman.
My son would have been as adventurous as me, finding the world a fascinating and crazy place to be. I hope he would have learned that pain let’s you know you are still alive and was possessed by curiosity, an indomitable spirit and sense of purpose.
My son or daughter would have learned we are all one human species, inhabitants of the same planet and created by one almighty parents who are to aid and support each other.
My child would sing The National Anthem and “Proud to be an American” with joy.
This person was wrong about her decision and my child would have been the most amazing human being I had ever met.
Except for Jane Seymour, who is amazing too.
It always helps to understand the definition of the word “intrinsic”.
Do you have any other basis for morally justifying your position other than “my god says...”?
If you have to play the god card then you’ve abandoned moral philosophy and have entered the realm of theocracy.
And you’re not even getting that one right.
Presuming that you are referring to the God of Israel as the source of your moral code, how then do you square a killing in cold blood with the commandment “Thou shalt not murder”?
I wonder if you are completely unaware that the view of retribution and justice that you are expressing comes not from the Bible - it’s in direct contradiction to the Commandment specified above - but from Prussian philosopher Immanuel Kant? Probably not.
Again, our views differ because we accept, in formulating them through syllogism, different starting premises. As follows:
If God doesn’t exist, then Divine commandment is not the basis of all moral law.
If God exists, then moral law is what God says it is.
I don’t want to upset you or compete with you. Knowing truth is not derived from a personal attribute either you or I possess. That truth comes from beyond us is self evident and separate from the question of Divine existence.
The death penalty is supported by Scripture.
I’m no expert on Kant but I studied him on an undergraduate level. His moral imperative is borrowed from Christianity. It’s inherent in the commandment to love one another.
There are stand-your-ground laws all over the country that make a mockery of that statement.
We need to change the narrative now.
“ARE YOU WILLING TO ACCEPT THAT THIS IS THE KILLING OF THE UNBORN?”
Take the gloves off folks. We have been being much to kind with these ambiguous words like choice and abortion. Now they have moved to using the false term “healthcare”. It is nothing less than murder and killing. A holocaust.
And remember, as a freeper posted earlier, this is the hill that the left will die on. It funds their politicians.
Roe is not law.
Remember the SCOTUS is only to interpret existing law. They do not make law.
This really was a state issue back in 1973. If we had had an educated and willing populace back then maybe this would have been fought harder. More people than not saw an altar of convenience.
It is more pervasive than most realize. It has bought and funded a power base, and that is our consequence.
I don't agree, and I expect that very few freepers do. For one thing, what about self-defense? Killing someone about to kill you is the intentional taking of a human life by a private person.
Scripture also contains concepts like mercy and redemption which don’t seem to be present in your theology. Whatever view you think you have, it’s not a Christian one.
If you’re going by Jewish/Old Testament theology, then you have some scriptural support for that view. However, if you are not engaged in the practice of picking and choosing which of God’s words to follow, then you must necessarily have to support the death penalty for things like blasphemy (Lev: 24:13-16), Sabbath breaking (Exodus 31:14), and disobeying your parents (Deut:21:18-23).
I’m pretty sure we could convict you of a death penalty offense on one of those items, which leaves you in the odd position of needing to believe that God says you yourself should be put to death.
I have a few suggestions for you.
One, find some real respect for God’s creations, especially the most special of them all - human life. That baseline of respect shouldn’t in any way be contingent on however corrupted that life may have been.
Two, stop pretending you know God’s will, when you clearly have only the most rudimentary education in the scriptures you claim to be God’s word. If you really deep down felt that way, you would know them by heart and not need someone like myself to educate you. So stop lying to yourself and others - you don’t really believe in scripture, you just want to think you believe in it because that makes you feel like you’re better than other people. God gave men reason, as well as scripture - willfully abandoning it in lieu of “well, God says so, so there” type of arguments is wasting His gift. It’s also of zero weight whatsoever when dealing with any intellectually serious person.
Three, stop trying to use the government as an instrument of divine action. God doesn’t need men to execute His will - He can handle it just fine on his own. Government is by men and about men, and claims of divine right and demand are not only blasphemous, but are also, on their bottom line, a demand to others that they convert to your religious views or die. It is every bit as wrong and offensive (if not more so) to try that with Christianity as it is to try it with some other creed, such as Islam.
Four, put in some serious study into the Constitution. An establishment of religion is specifically forbidden, making an argument of law based solely in religious doctrine a direct contradiction of the fundamental principles on which this nation was based.
I hope this is helpful to you in sorting out some contradictions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.