Re: Oleszek vs. Cuccinelli in 2011
Posted by:
GMU2002
()
Date: May 23, 2008 04:41PM
Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dear Who...if the shoe fits wear it. Please go on
> to tell us your tolerant relgious and political
> philosophies. By the way...I wouldnt think of
> limiting or stopping anyone from following just
> about any religion they want...as long as they
> dont try to make those personal beleifs the law
> of the land. Can you say the same? Being
> tolerant doesnt mean not having an opinion...it
> means not stopping somene else from having and
> acting on their beleifs and opinions. Believing
> you have the right to stop someone from having an
> abortion or making critical life support decisions
> for a relative...is the definition of intolerant.
Why is is that everyone who is pro-choice assumes that everyone who is pro-life must have a religious belief that forces them think that way? You act as if a pro-life belief is an intrinsically illogical and irrational position.
So, let's look at this logically through a series of hypothetical tests without implying that any person or mother would ever make these choices.
I hope that you would agree that there would be something wrong -- morally wrong -- if a mother delivered a baby, and a day later decided to kill the baby. (Although some on this forum have expressed some truly disturbing views to the contrary.)
This is not a religious belief, any more than believing that it is wrong to kill an innocent person in any other circumstance. Is my, and I"ll assume your, belief that killing a one day or one month old baby is wrong just a religious belief?
I hope you will agree that infanticide is wrong, morally wrong, without regard to religion; mine, yours or anyones. Therefore, can we agree that our government should outlaw infanticide.
Next hypothetical: does the baby have a right to life that the government should protect after he/she is delivered from the mother's womb but before the umbillical cord is cut? That is, all the doctor has to do is cut the cord and the baby can survive on its own and there will be absolutely no further health consequence or responbility required of the mother? Seems like an easy call to me, I hope you would agree.
Does the baby have a right to life while it is being delivered? In this case, let's hypothetically assume the mother is in labor and the doctor can either deliver a live baby or a dead baby. In this hypothetical, I'm talking about a circumstance where the delivery will have absolutely no negative health consequence to the mother.
Again, I would hope that you will agree that the baby has a right to life in these circumstances, but maybe you have reached your limit of granting a right to life to the baby.
As you move backwards in time, you can come to the point of viability as another time when the baby acquires the right to live. That is, once the baby is capable of surviving without the mother's womb to sustain he/her, does the baby have a right to life. The vast majority of Americans agree that the baby does, not that being in the majority makes it morally correct.
Moving backwards between viability and conception is the main area of contention. Is there a point along this continuum of growth at which the baby acquires a right to life. For some people (quite a lot, actually) there is no moral (not religious, but moral) difference between the point of viability and conception, other than time and growth. They believe a baby has the right to life from the moment of conception.
As a general matter, the greatest area of disagreement among American's occurs in determining at what point the baby acquires a right to life: at conception, somewhere between conception and viability, upon birth, or never for some.
And the issues of rape and incest make these questions even further complicated because of the crime that has been commited against the woman
But given the complexity of this debate, why do you and others say it is only a religious belief that intolerant people are trying to force upon others.
Again, if you disagree with the basic premise that killing an innocent life is wrong, morally wrong, and the government should outlaw it, than there is nothing to discuss.
But if you do agree that killing an innocent life is wrong and government should protect innocent life, than when do you think it should protect a baby? And what does this mean for infanticide, partial-delivery abortion, late-term post-viability abortion, and all abortion?
Now, what part of the brief discussion of the moral complexity of this issue above is religious?
I would argue that this moral debate over killing innocent life, infanticide and abortion does not require that God, Jesus, Muhammed, or Buddha be involved?
I would argue that these moral issues are legitimate subjects that stand on their own, without regard to religion?
And those who invoke "religious intolerance" do so to avoid actually examine these issues in a logical manner.