nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
User talk:HelpJazz (view source)
Revision as of 00:05, September 27, 2008
, 00:05, September 27, 2008→Hi, Philip: government involvement, Tim's views, religious guidance, and government involvment again.
:I thought it was hilarious, personally. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|<sub>Discussion</sub>]] 16:18, 25 September 2008 (EDT)
:I thought it was hilarious, personally. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|<sub>Discussion</sub>]] 16:18, 25 September 2008 (EDT)
I'd like to think that the "we're legalising it but still think it's a bad idea" message wasn't that hard to get out, but I suspect that it would not be easy. For example, if it was done in isolation (instead of as a large package or series of such changes), then critics would (probably quite rightly) point out that if the government is doing it just for this particular law (whatever that law was) and not for a whole host of other things, their credibility is suspect and despite their claims, they must ''really'' believe that ''this particular'' whatever is okay to legalise but so many other things aren't.
Rereading Tim's message, I see that I've either read a bit too much into it or I'm thinking of something he wrote elsewhere. I don't now know which. But I would also point out that I was talking not about the ''health'' of the mother, but the ''life'' of the mother. I also point out that Tim said that it's "wrong to kill one person because it ''might'' help save the another person's life" (his emphasis), the implication being that a legitimate exception is if it ''will'' save the mother's life. So I still believe that he and I probably agree on this, but concede that I can't claim that as a certainty based on his post above.
HelpJazz says that I am guided by my religion, and whilst that's correct in a sense, I'd say it's not correct in the sense he's thinking. First, let me point out that one of the definitions of "[[religion]]" is a "cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith". In that sense ''everyone'' is guided by their "religion" (set of core beliefs). As for being guided by my religious affiliation (I currently attend a Baptist church), then no, you are incorrect, and I couldn't even tell you with any certainty what my denomination's stance on abortion is. I am guided primarily by my "religious" beliefs that murder is wrong, and by various bits of evidence that the baby is a living human from the moment of conception.
The bit about menstruation is a red herring, as menstruation occurs when there is ''no'' conception.
Getting back to government involvement and when the baby is human, would you (Arizaphale and HelpJazz) agree that governments ''should'' be involved to the extent of making murder (killing of an innocent human) a crime? And would you agree, given that you appear to agree that abortion is wrong ''sometime'' before birth, that abortion ''can'' be murder (depending on how advanced the baby is), or at least that government should ban it ''at some stage''? Because if you do, then you are left with the problem that even if ''you'' are not prepared to nominate how far advanced the fetus is before abortion is wrong, the government must decide that when they legislate against abortion. And once they make that decision, they are de-facto conveying the message that, prior to that time, it is okay. Thus giving early abortions tacit ''approval'', despite no clear evidence that early abortions are ''not'' murder. That is, they would not be staying out of the issue of whether early abortions are murder; they would be getting ''involved in'' that issue simply by setting a cut-off point for their legislation. And if, by some chance, you think it's okay for a government to make murder but not abortion a crime, why would it be okay to make it a crime to kill a human one day after being born but not one day before?
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:05, 26 September 2008 (EDT)
==Drugs==
==Drugs==