Posted on 07/05/2004 12:58:47 AM PDT by miltonim
DYERSVILLE, Iowa — As Sen. John Kerry campaigned across Iowa yesterday with Gov. Tom Vilsack, widely reported to be on Kerry's vice-presidential short list, both men dodged repeated questions about whether their joint appearance might be a preview of the Democratic ticket.
But even as he tried to avoid making news, Kerry broke ground in an interview that ran in the Dubuque, Iowa, daily, the Telegraph Herald. A Catholic who supports abortion rights and has taken heat recently from some in the church hierarchy for his stance, Kerry told the paper: "I oppose abortion, personally. I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception.
"I can't take my Catholic belief, my article of faith, and legislate it on a Protestant or a Jew or an atheist," he continued. "We have separation of church and state in the United States of America."
The comments came on the final day of a three-state Midwest swing, during which Kerry has repeatedly sought to dispel stereotypes that could play negatively among voters in the Midwest.
President Bush's campaign said these instances are further evidence of what it says is Kerry's propensity for misleading flip-flops.
"John Kerry's ridiculous claim to hold conservative values and his willingness to change his beliefs to fit his audience betrays a startling lack of conviction on important issues like abortion that will make it difficult for voters to give him their trust," said Steve Schmidt, a Bush campaign spokesman.
I have a feeling deep inside
That somethin' is missing
It's a feeling in my soul
And I can't help wishing
That one day I'll discover
That we're living a lie
And I'll tell the whole world
The reason why
Sorry, I was just going by the dictionaries (emphases mine):
The unlawful killing of one human being by another, especially with premeditated malice. -- AHEDthe crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought -- MWO
the crime of intentionally killing a person -- CDO
crime of killing somebody: the crime of killing another person deliberately and not in self-defense or with any other extenuating circumstance recognized by law -- MSN
"Value" is more universal than you are using it, here. Each of your two fathers values life, and the life of his child, in particular.
In addition to J Budziszewski's and Dr. Spitzer's books, I'd recommend Gilbert Meilander's "Bioethics, a Christian Primer."
Of course the fathers value life and their children. That was part of one of my points. Some people try to claim that the fathers DON'T value their children, they instead either recognize or don't recognize some instrinsic isolated valuer-independent value in their children.
The other point is that values can legitimately clash. Both fathers value life, but each father probably values his own child more than the other guy's. That is not wrong. It is expected and even understandable. It is also probably irreconcilable.
As opposed to *past or future* human law, or as opposed to *nonhuman* law?
At any rate, the dictionaries I could find *define* "murder" in terms of current human law.
I don't think you need to appeal to the emotional baggage of the term "murder". I don't believe killing has to be murder to be wrong. For that matter, I don't think murder is always necessarily wrong. We can discuss right and wrong without redefining terms.
Sadly, the man has no shame. He will have a lot more to answer to than just the voters, some day.
No. Some defined it as a crime.
crime: A serious offense, especially one in violation of morality. AHD
Any violation of law, either divine or human; an omission of a duty commanded, or the commission of an act forbidden by law. WRUD
I don't think you need to appeal to the emotional baggage of the term "murder".
Emotional? ok.
I don't believe killing has to be murder to be wrong.
Quite true.
For that matter, I don't think murder is always necessarily wrong.
Now there we disagree. Murder is always wrong. It may be necessary at times or at least seem that way but it is still wrong.
We can discuss right and wrong without redefining terms.
Agreed.
There's no glibness intended. Not all members of our species are fertile, not all walk on 2 feet, and not all members are capable at all times of displaying reason and thought. There's also considerable variance in the expression among members. However, the members of no other species demonstrates such a nature or drive toward the unconditional values, individually or as a group.
The quality of pattern seeking - especially as demonstrated by the persuit and practice of science - is uniquely human. It's also one of the demonstrable, repeatable evidences that humans do not default to a lack of values.
You know that we do know "truths" such as the effects of gravity, that a fire will burn, and, as Dr. Spitzer says, sane humans desire "happiness." The history of conversations like these always distill down to "Good" since Plato wrote of Socrates. And the way that "Good" is measured is by the pattern of results.
Of course, there are "infinite truths." We just don't know them, yet. But we keep looking for the pattern that will lead to them.
Whether a drive is known is irrelevant to the fact that it is the nature of the species. Even the pre-congnizant, concrete 4 year old knows "That isn't fair!"
If you read on at the link to Dr. Spitzer's website, you'll find that Dr. Spitzer refuses to discriminate between one genetic human and another. Which makes just as much sense if the source of the drive is merely genetic than if it's a soul.
You did not exist 10 years before you were born. You did - unless you were very premature - exist approximately 254 days before you were born, however. The same body that allows you to take part in this conversation was in existence since conception, and the same soul or genes have guided your development ever since.
1. An act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction. 2. Unlawful activity: statistics relating to violent crime. 3. A serious offense, especially one in violation of morality. See note at offense -- AHED1. illegal act: an action prohibited by law, or a failure to act as required by law 2. illegal activity: activity that involves breaking the law 3. immoral act: any act considered morally wrong 4. undesirable act: a shameful, unwise, or regrettable act --MSN
Well that is interesting. If the definitions of "murder" refer to "crime" as in the minor definitions above, then we needn't waste our time using it any more, since it becomes synonymous "killing". I assure you there are many who consider all killing to be morally wrong, and even more who consider it "a shameful, unwise, or regrettable act".
Or, we could assume that the dictionaries were not referring to crime or law in some meaninglessly broad sense. I'll ask around and see if I can get a local concensus about what people assume "murder" to mean. It could be I've been misusing the term all these years. I should probably have been saying "unlawful murder".
I don't think you need to appeal to the emotional baggage of the term "murder". Emotional? ok.
Just wondering why you so much wanted to misuse the word. I just assumed it was for the emotional appeal. Sounds nastier than just "killing".
For that matter, I don't think murder is always necessarily wrong. Now there we disagree.
Unfortunate. Unlike you, I would have considered it a minor moral victory for a German concentration camp victim to murder one of his sadistic gaurds before hitting the gas chamber. I believe that would have been contrary to German law at the time, however. Assassination of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hussein, Komeini by their countrymen would all have been both illegal and, in my opinion, solidly moral and right. Even in the here and now, if the law failed to convict a man who you knew would exact revenge on your family, I would consider it immoral for you to wait for him to strike first, unless you were sure you could protect your family from him.
You're right of course; however, your assertion wouldn't be consistent with Kerry's flip-floppiness. See, the beauty of flip-flopping consists entirely in saying one thing and doing something else. You mentioned that, "if he followed his personal beliefs? Isn't that what the good Lord demands upon us?." Personal beliefs constitute believing that which is true, thus, an unshakable faith. Something from which Kerry is far removed.
As there is Judicial murder which is murder under the law that would indeed follow.
Unlike you, I would have considered it a minor moral victory for a German concentration camp victim to murder one of his sadistic gaurds before hitting the gas chamber. I believe that would have been contrary to German law at the time, however.
It would have. However considering the fact that the man was about to be legally murdered it would have been self defense and therefore not murder at all.
Even in the here and now, if the law failed to convict a man who you knew would exact revenge on your family, I would consider it immoral for you to wait for him to strike first, unless you were sure you could protect your family from him.
I would consider it necessary however it would still be murder.
I might argue legally that it was preemptive self defense. In fact there have been legal arguments made for that and people have walked away acquitted before the law. It is still however murder.
This was in regards to your denial that people are initially thoughtless. I hope my example relieved you of that error.
Not all members of our species are fertile, not all walk on 2 feet, and not all members are capable at all times of displaying reason and thought.
But if the drives are inborn, what does any of that have to do with it? Surely you've seen an infertile person with a drive for propagation.
The quality of pattern seeking - especially as demonstrated by the persuit and practice of science - is uniquely human. It's also one of the demonstrable, repeatable evidences that humans do not default to a lack of values.
How so? Okay, tell me what a morula values. Specifically, what did you value when you were a morula. Think back now.
You know that we do know "truths" such as the effects of gravity, that a fire will burn, and, as Dr. Spitzer says, sane humans desire "happiness."
I do know that these are experiences that, good health willing, we will evenually probably have, and in the case of happiness, conclusions that some of us will come to.
Of course, there are "infinite truths." We just don't know them, yet. But we keep looking for the pattern that will lead to them.
What in the world are you talking about? Nothing meaningful comes from a literal interpretation, so you better just define what you mean by "infinite truth".
Whether a drive is known is irrelevant to the fact that it is the nature of the species.
You might want to make up your mind. Previously you said, "We have a drive toward unconditional Truth, Love, Beauty, and Justice, and seems to "know" these exist and strive toward them without being taught."
Even the pre-congnizant, concrete 4 year old knows "That isn't fair!"
As does the morula too, apparently.
You did not exist 10 years before you were born. You did - unless you were very premature - exist approximately 254 days before you were born, however.
You missed the point. There was a time when I did not value anything (e.g., 10 years before I was born), and there was a time with I did value things (now). That is, I CAME to value things over time.
The same body that allows you to take part in this conversation was in existence since conception, and the same soul or genes have guided your development ever since.
Impossible. At conception, I had only a tiny fraction of the mass I do now. It couldn't have been the same body. Furthermore, my understanding is that the body mostly replenishes its tissues, fluids, and even its nucleic acids on a fairly frequent basis. Twin studies suggest that there are significant aspects of development that are free of any genetic constraints (that's "genetic", not "physical"). For instance, my genes did not tell me to just switch over to the Lifetime Network. My wife did.
This is far out, man. Let me slip into a tie-died t-shirt and puff on a little peyote, and maybe I'll be a little more prepared for this conversation. Infinitely prepared, man, to accept the inherent coolness of my zygotic remembrances. And not just a little coolness, dude, but infinite coolness, literally.
Alright, I'm no lawyer, but if Ted Bundy had managed to kill his executioner before his execution, I'm pretty sure that would be murder. And how is the camp example self-defense? You really think the Nazi's would give him a reprieve for killing a guard?
At any rate, you are making it painfully clear that you don't see any distinction between "murder" and "kill".
I might argue legally that it was preemptive self defense. In fact there have been legal arguments made for that and people have walked away acquitted before the law. It is still however murder.
Wild. A jury can acquit you of murder but still call you a murderer. A convict killing a law-abiding officer who was acting on the request of the court is not committing murder. Murder can be legal or illegal. Apparently murder is independent of the law. Dictionaries that refer to "crime" are not referring to the law, but rather "crime" = "undesirable act".
Is this really how people in your community use the word "murder" in conversation?
Talk is cheap.
BTTT !!
"At conception, I had only a tiny fraction of the mass I do now. It couldn't have been the same body."
It was the same body, and you are driven by that nature that was determined by your DNA, or your soul - whichever name you wish. In these conversations as to the definition of "human" or "person," I prefer to stick with DNA, but, your statement about values and following your wife's directions could be used to support the existence of something besides the arrangement of 4 nucleotides.
As to what the morula values, I repeat: not all members of the species must demonstrate all the characteristics of the species at all - or even any - of the time. That's where the DNA comes in. The fact that the morula doesn't think does not change the fact that most of the more developed humans do, and that we usually land on the side of values - and the same values of it's wrong to kill, steal, have sex with anyone who is not your spouse, etc., when we do. Nevertheless, the species of humans - as a species - is unique in our possession of - and our default to - values.
Your statement that the human default position is one of no values and so it's incumbent on the valuer to support his views is in itself a value statement. It's wrong, but it points out that you believe/know/understand/have a drive toward unconditional Truth that leads you to have this discussion. And, if you truly believe your own statement, you wouldn't feel a need for psychotropics in order to support it.
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.