Terri's Law overturning/checks and balances?

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

How then do you justify the wars we fought to preserve the freedoms and the choices that we have today?

Those people went voluntarily. They were adults making choices. What I'm talking about is killing someone else not to defend a greater collection of people having choices, but killing another person so that YOU, just ONE person, can selfishly preserve their own choice. In war (at least ones that justifiably are to preserve freedoms), you have one faction imposing an entire systems of restrictions on another. In abortion, you have one person avoiding the consequences of choices already made. The two are hardly comparable.

[Archon]

Those people went voluntarily.

Not necessarily, in many past wars military service was compulsory.

What I'm talking about is killing someone else not to defend a greater collection of people having choices, but killing another person so that YOU, just ONE person, can selfishly preserve their own choice.

So SE if someone owned just one slave and the slave killed the master would that be an unjust act? After all, they did selfishly kill a person just so that they, one person, could live a life by their choice and not have something that got in between them and that.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

Ok, enough strawman arguments. Your proposed scenarios don't even apply.

As for compulsory military service, we can get into a long debate, but sufficeth me to say that if the war is not a decision of the people, at least as decided through their duly elected representatives, than it is probably not a war for freedom, which is the only type of war that applied to your earlier argument.

As for the slave/master argument, you're overlooking the externally imposed restriction on freedom that I mentioned before. Yes, I stressed numbers, but I also talked about external and internal sources of the restriction of freedom. In the case of pregnancy, it was the decision of the pregnant person that caused the restriction of freedom. In the case of a slave/master, the master has imposed the restriction.

Please stop coming up with this silly examples that don't reflect my actual position in anyway.

[House of Mustard]

No matter what ill-concieved example you give, Archon, you're whole thesis rests on the idea that the unborn child will assuredly lead a terrible life--a life that is worse than death.  How can you make such a guarantee?  And, if you can't why even bother defending this worthless arguement?

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

you know, there's a reason that the pro-life supporters in this country primarily argue about the loss of a life and that hte pro-choice supportors never bring it up. It's because, as a whole, this country believes that taking a life is firmly in the "bad things" category. There are extreme exceptions: warfare, self-defense, and... that's about it. Very few pro-choicers will actually admit that they're talking about a human life they get to choose about. They center their arguments around responsibility (primarily how they're too irresponsible to choose to raise a kid) and about the virtues of freedom, but they never, when actually trying to convince pro-lifers or undecideds the justness of their cause, say that killing a helpless child is the cost of their freedom. Because as human beings, we find that a really sick and twisted point of view.

If you want to justify abortion, you should probably be arguing about whether the fetus is an actual human being or not. You'll not win any converts with your current line of argument.

[Archon]

Ok, what about in the case of rape? Should a woman be forced to carry a baby that she never wanted nor voluntarily made? That doesnt make sense, it wasnt her choice. What about the woman who wnated to raise a baby with her husband but he dies or leaves for some reason? There are so many situations like this that would justify abortion. If we restrict it, who will decide who can and can not have an abortion? No person is without prejudice, so nobody can be trusted to regulate abortion fairly.  Therefore it should be free to any woman.

[House of Mustard]

In both of those cases you are looking at abortion as merely an elective medical procedure: if it is inconvenient to have the baby, then we might as well abort.

What about the woman who wnated to raise a baby with her husband but he dies or leaves for some reason?

To turn it back around: what if that father died the day after the child was born?  The mother, now single, will have to support that baby -- be both a mother and father -- a nurturer and bread-winner.  Should she have the right to kill it then?

Archon, your arguments make no sense.

[Archon]

That is different, she has already gone through the pregnancy and can not be prevented from having the baby. She is already going to have to bear the psychological strain of having to give up the baby, it is just a matter of how. The pregnancy is already over therefore she would gain nothing from killing the baby. When a baby is aborted it is much easier to get over it and continue on with your life than if you were to go through the pregnancy and then give up the baby.

Archon, your arguments make no sense.

Please stop attacking my arguments. This was not constructive so could we keep to the debate please?

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

Please stop attacking my arguments. This was not constructive so could we keep to the debate please?

you misunderstand what debate is. you challenge arguments, not he person in a debate. Would you prefer it that we say YOU make no sense?

in rape, yes, I think that abortion is an option.

In the father dying, that's a possibility at any time. That hardly seems worth ending ANOTHER person's life to get over. She chose to bring a life into this world, that's NEVER easy. why should her grief allow her to kill?

I think you vastly underestimate the difficulty in dealing with an abortion, even one you chose. It is not an easy thing. Maybe a 1 day old baby is easier, but I can't think that it's much.

To be honest, the cheapness with which you hold human life frightens me.

[stacer]

When a baby is aborted it is much easier to get over it and continue on with your life than if you were to go through the pregnancy and then give up the baby.

Who told you that?

Actually, women who abort carry psychological scars throughout their lives, and abortion is just as traumatic as giving up the baby, just in a different way.

[Archon]

I know that it is traumatic stacer, but I have a hard time believing that you wouldnt have a harder time giving up a child after you actually gave birth, and held the baby in your arms, you actually could see it and touch it.

What I meant by the father dying is that she might not be able to support herself without his help, through no fault of her own she is left in a very hard situation. Grief is also a factor, if she had visions of starting a nice warm fuzzy family with him, and then he was gone, she might give up on the dream. She might decide that without him she can never have what she wanted by having this baby. Circumstances change and sometimes it isnt the mothers fault that she made a decision that she later regrets.

SE, I asked him to stop calling my arguments ridiculous because it doesnt contribute to his point. If you want to prove me wrong use reason, dont make statements which are solely opinion. I know he backed it up, I just feel that it was a superfluous part of his text, and nobody gained anything from it.

SE about the cheapness of life, I just have a different viewpoint on death than you do, and I think that that might be a topic for another thread if you want to discuss it.

[EUOL]

Guys, I'm going to have to come down with Archon on this one.  SE, HoM, you're dismissing what I see as valid arguments on his part when you say things like:

Ok, enough strawman arguments. Your proposed scenarios don't even apply.

And

No matter what ill-concieved example you give, Archon,

And

Because as human beings, we find that a really sick and twisted point of view.

As an outside observer who agrees with you two, I think you're both being too reactionary, and aren't giving enough respect to the person you're arguing with.  Please take time to respond to their arguments, rather than dismissing them as foolishness and calling them names.

So SE if someone owned just one slave and the slave killed the master would that be an unjust act? After all, they did selfishly kill a person just so that they, one person, could live a life by their choice and not have something that got in between them and that.

This is an interesting example, Archon, and one I think will make many Christians uncomfortable.  Because, as I understand the doctrine, the slave is NOT justified in killing their master.  If the laws of the land say that slavery is legal, and those laws treat the slave with at least a small measure of protection and dignity, the slave is morally bound by Christianity to uphold the law.  (My reference for this is the story in the New Testament where Peter sends a runaway slave back to his master.  LDS people can also note the comment in the D&C about not interfering with the laws of a land that legalizes slavery.)

In addition, I have encountered the 'choice' argument NOT from a 'fetuses aren't children' viewpoint a lot, SE, and I find it simplistic of you to dismiss it.  This is a common argument made by the pro-choice side.  I find it specious.  However, the pro-life side ALWAYS tries to bring it back to the 'fetus is a baby' argument and the pro-choice side ALWAYS tries to bring it back to the 'mothers rights' argument.  To claim that Archon should abandon this argument is fine, but do understand that he's not just coming up with it out of nowhere. It is an established and valid tenet of his side.

[Peter Ahlstrom]

No matter what ill-concieved example you give, Archon, you're whole thesis rests on the idea that the unborn child will assuredly lead a terrible life--a life that is worse than death.  How can you make such a guarantee?  And, if you can't why even bother defending this worthless arguement?

Ah, what I'm gathering from this, is that Archon believes life is terrible, and death is good.

I haven't yet had any experience with someone close to me dying, but I hope that when I do my beliefs that death is only a step in our continued existence will keep me from being devastated over it. However, even though I believe our spirits live on, I think it's wrong to have a cavalier attitude about life. Life is a sacred gift from God and we should cherish it and try to make the best out of it, and offer that same opportunity to all.

There's a story I read in a science fiction book or magazine about a future where parents can perform postnatal abortions whenever they want. In this story, until someone is able to do algebra, they are not considered human beings. The story revolved around an adult demanding the abortion van take him away, claiming that he couldn't do algebra. I don't remember how the story ended, but it was interesting. It seemed a very natural outcome of a slippery slope to me.

[Peter Ahlstrom]

as I understand the doctrine, the slave is NOT justified in killing their master.  If the laws of the land say that slavery is legal, and those laws treat the slave with at least a small measure of protection and dignity, the slave is morally bound by Christianity to uphold the law.  (My reference for this is the story in the New Testament where Peter sends a runaway slave back to his master.  LDS people can also note the comment in the D&C about not interfering with the laws of a land that legalizes slavery.)

It's an interesting question: To what extent are you supposed to honor and sustain the law, if the laws are unjust?

I don't have a huge understanding of slavery in Roman times, but I seem to remember hearing that it wasn't necessarily hereditary or permanent. What was the case of the particular slave Paul was addressing? Was he more like an indentured servant who could eventually earn his freedom? Perhaps he was a slave through some obligation he himself incurred, and running away was trying to avoid responsibility for his own actions.

Even today we have lots of people who have their rights taken away quite legally because of their own actions. Some of them make license plates.

In any case, if a slave kills his owner...that's a very individual thing. Was it in self defense? Was it after physical and emotional abuse? Was it just because he felt like it one day? Was it in anger? Was it while scared for his own life?

In the US's history there were plenty of slaves who attained freedom without killing their masters. Running away is usually an option. In the Book of Mormon the people of Limhi and the people of Alma both escaped slavery without killing their masters, and their enslavement was just fine according to the laws and rulers of the lands they were in. As for when running away is NOT an option, I'm not the judge of that; God is.

I think there are plenty situations where you can justifiably fight against unjust laws even if you are only really trying to save your own skin or your family's at the moment it comes down to it. But again, I'm not the judge.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

I don't have a huge understanding of slavery in Roman times, but I seem to remember hearing that it wasn't necessarily hereditary or permanent. What was the case of the particular slave Paul was addressing? Was he more like an indentured servant who could eventually earn his freedom? Perhaps he was a slave through some obligation he himself incurred, and running away was trying to avoid responsibility for his own actions

Roman law was inconsistent on slavery. Slaves were considered property; they had no rights and were subject to their owners' whims. However, they had legal standing as witnesses in courtroom proceedings, and they could eventually gain freedom and citizenship. Masters often freed loyal slaves in gratitude for their faithful service, but slaves could also save money to purchase their freedom. Conditions for slaves in Rome gradually improved, although slaves were treated cruelly in the countryside.


So, in Rome, if a slave killed his master in Rome legally he would be punished,... even if it was self defense, just like a slave in the US before 1861-5 would have been hung... legally for killing their master. Both cultures would have also considered it a moral duty as well, even though a few might have objected.