|
Grex > Agora56 > #125: Kludge Report Part C -- Die, You Little Black Babies | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 331 responses total. |
nharmon
|
|
response 72 of 331:
| 
Feb 26 04:00 UTC 2006 |
Do you consider it wrong for a parent to neglect a child?
|
marcvh
|
|
response 73 of 331:
|
Feb 26 04:23 UTC 2006 |
Depends who gets to define "wrong", "neglect" and "child."
|
nharmon
|
|
response 74 of 331:
|
Feb 26 04:27 UTC 2006 |
My point is that defining the point at which life reaches personhood is
important for defining the responsibilities that people have as a result
of their own choices.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 75 of 331:
|
Feb 26 04:28 UTC 2006 |
FWIW, the Constitution confers citizenship ONLY on those who were BORN or
naturalized. Obviously, the law also protects non-citizens against things like
murder. Still, it's a point worth considering, especially for "originalists."
|
crimson
|
|
response 76 of 331:
|
Feb 26 04:29 UTC 2006 |
#70: "The question is when does the woman have authority over her own body
and its functions, and when does she lose that authority." It seems to me
that the question is really whether a pregnancy *is* "her body and its
functions" more than incidentally, or rather the body and functions of
someone else.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 77 of 331:
|
Feb 26 04:37 UTC 2006 |
Re #74: I'm only talking about the legal issues, not vague issues like
what is "wrong" and what "responsibilities" exist. Lots of pro-choice
people personally believe that abortion is "wrong" or "irresponsible"
but never the less believe that making it illegal (or "legal but
unavailable") would not be a good idea.
|
slynne
|
|
response 78 of 331:
|
Feb 26 05:25 UTC 2006 |
resp:70 A pregnancy might not BE a woman's body but it certainly
involves it considerably. I have an idea. Let's pass a law that makes it
legal for a fetus to jump down the birth canal and stop mooching anytime
they would like (within reason of course, I know some people who would
stay in until they were 35)
|
bru
|
|
response 79 of 331:
|
Feb 26 12:54 UTC 2006 |
apparently there is a bible verse which states that life is in the blood.
Thus a feotus is considered alive by soe as soon as it begins to make its own
blood, around 10 days.
|
johnnie
|
|
response 80 of 331:
|
Feb 26 15:59 UTC 2006 |
That would be Genesis 9:4, which actually says nothing of the sort.
|
cross
|
|
response 81 of 331:
|
Feb 26 17:53 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
crimson
|
|
response 82 of 331:
|
Feb 26 18:12 UTC 2006 |
It's actually 9:6, which is much more relevant. 9:4 forbids the eating of
blood; 9:6 says (in the NIV) "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall
his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man."
|
rcurl
|
|
response 83 of 331:
|
Feb 26 19:51 UTC 2006 |
The bible is not a legal reference for our laws. It is just the opinion of
some people that lived a few millenia ago.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 84 of 331:
|
Feb 26 19:55 UTC 2006 |
And the Constitution is just the opinion of some people who lived a few
centuries ago. Are you proposing we discard it too?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 85 of 331:
|
Feb 26 19:58 UTC 2006 |
The Constitution, even though the opinion of people that lived a few centuries
ago, is still our established law. The bible has never had that status in the
USA. We do change the Constitution when it becomes to be believed necessary.
It would probably be a good thing if the bible were also changed when a change
is needed.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 86 of 331:
|
Feb 26 20:01 UTC 2006 |
The Bible is part of the body of literature that our Constitution and laws were
formed from, along with English common law and Enlightenment political thought.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 87 of 331:
|
Feb 26 20:11 UTC 2006 |
That is irrelevant. As you note, our laws were formed from a lot more
literature and history and experience than just the bible (this should be
kept in mind by those that have been recently fulminating about judges
citing foreign laws - the bible is one of the ultimate foreign law
documents).
|
kingjon
|
|
response 88 of 331:
|
Feb 26 20:16 UTC 2006 |
Any argument that says that the Bible is irrelevant can also be used to dismiss
any other member of the body of historical literature from which our laws have
been formed -- and if you dismiss each member of a set you dismiss the set as a
whole.
The objections to references to foreign law have been objections to references
to _current_ foreign law as a standard by which to judge ours. Looking at the
_history_ of a given law, even when that history crosses national boundaries,
is commendable.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 89 of 331:
|
Feb 26 21:26 UTC 2006 |
I did not say the bible was irrelevant to some aspects of the formation of
our laws. The men that wrote our laws believed in some aspects of the
bible to various extents. There are insights to be gained from the story
telling in the bible (about foreign partly historical and partly
mythological events). But what is irrelevant is your stated fact that "the
Bible is part of the body of literature that our Constitution and laws
were formed from". I acknowledge that, but what relevance does that fact
from the past have now? None.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 90 of 331:
|
Feb 26 21:28 UTC 2006 |
Exactly the relevance that history of any sort has. If you say that is none,
that's your opinion, but I don't think you'll find many that share it.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 91 of 331:
|
Feb 26 21:35 UTC 2006 |
Of course not - you and others of your persuasion keep trying to claim
that our Constitution is based on the bible so the bible should control
our lives now. That is nonsense. "Exactly the relevance that history of
any sort has" is, exactly, to history.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 92 of 331:
|
Feb 26 21:37 UTC 2006 |
The Constitution, along with every law ever passed, is a part of history. To
understand it, we must understand the history that it came out of.
|
slynne
|
|
response 93 of 331:
|
Feb 26 21:40 UTC 2006 |
Well, try to argue a point of law in our country's courts using the
Bible as precedent and I think you will quickly learn how irrelevant it
is as a legal document especially when compared to the Constitution.
However, it would be silly to deny that the Bible has influence over our
current law makers. Obviously it does.
I am reading an interesting book right now about the abortion issue. It
has a bit of a provocative title but it is a good read. It is called
_How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America: Freedom, Politics, and the
War on Sex_. It has mostly, so far, talked about how the Pro-Choice
movement also tends to be the pro birth control movement and how birth
control has changed our society both for men and women. The author gives
a lot of examples of the Pro-Life movement being against birth control.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 94 of 331:
|
Feb 26 21:44 UTC 2006 |
Re #92: Good. We can agree perhaps on "Those who don't know history, are
bound to repeat it."
|
bru
|
|
response 95 of 331:
|
Feb 26 22:46 UTC 2006 |
Leviticus 17:10 - 15 is the verses I was refering to.
|
keesan
|
|
response 96 of 331:
|
Feb 26 23:23 UTC 2006 |
The bible requires that men whose brothers died marry their widows.
|