Peeples ruled that the law unconstitutionally gave legal standing to people not injured, and was an "unlawful delegation of enforcement power to a private person."
yet God didn't ask Mary to have an abortion. — Agent Smith
Where does the soul come from? Does it exist prior to taking form in the fertilized egg? Does each parent have half a soul to share?
If the body and soul are the same, does the soul change as the body does? — DingoJones
Jesus was destined to suffer horribly - publicly humiliated, tortured and crucified, perhaps words can't describe the intensity of his pain, both physical and psychological - — Agent Smith
A very powerful Christian argument against abortion: Jesus Christ — Agent Smith
In the XXth century alone no one was "to suffer horribly - publicly humiliated, tortured..., perhaps words can't describe the intensity of [their] pain, both physical and psychological"? And 2000 years ago, crucifixion was a common form of execution. Can you say auto-de-fe? Or trail of tears? Black Death? The list of misery seems endless. If Christ died for us, he did a poor job of it. — tim wood
Pathetically bad.
It's already been established that the god of the old testament is a bit of a bastard.
But even supposing that there is a god who sacrificed himself for our sins, the comparison with a child who's suffering achieves nothing so dramatic, who's suffering will help no one, utterly fails. — Banno
yet God didn't ask Mary to have an abortion.
— Agent Smith
Perhaps, but she wasn't after child support, nor was Jesus made from a weekend of fun, so perhaps not the same value attachment there eh — Book273
Jesus had nothing to lose at all (being divine meant that he couldn't actually be hurt/killed). That's not a sacrifice is it? — Agent Smith
Well, no. He presumably did suffer. Even if "crucification is a doddle".
The point is that his suffering had a purpose, while the suffering of a child raised in poverty need not. — Banno
We're all God's children: If Jesus' suffering/death meant zilch, the same goes for us. If, on the other hand, Jesus' trials and tribulations had a purpose, so too does ours. — Agent Smith
We're talking about law here; rules for everyone, not just Christians. Your argument assumes a Christian hegemony, it assume the primacy of a Christian perspective. It lacks respect for the views of non-christians. In that regard it is immoral. — Banno
1. X kills Y in the now.
2. X goes back in time and kills Y's parents [Grandfather paradox of time travel]
3. X causes/induces Y's mom to abort when Y's a fetus [Abortion]
That abortion (3) appears in the list of ways X could "murder" Y. That must mean something, right? — Agent Smith
We're talking about law here; rules for everyone, not just Christians. Your argument assumes a Christian hegemony, it assume the primacy of a Christian perspective. It lacks respect for the views of non-christians. In that regard it is immoral. — Banno
What percentage of belief, political views, or practice does it take to achieve hegemony? — Bitter Crank
Three-quarters of Americans say they want to keep in place the landmark Supreme Court ruling, Roe v. Wade, that made abortion legal in the United States, but a strong majority would like to see restrictions on abortion rights, according to a new NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist Poll.
What the survey found is a great deal of complexity — and sometimes contradiction among Americans — that goes well beyond the talking points of the loudest voices in the debate.
"Hegemony would occur when a law adopts prevailing majority social values instead of a minority dissenting views"? — Bitter Crank
This poll shows that hegemony goes to the pro-abortion position--nationally, maybe not locally. — Bitter Crank
Imagine X wants to murder Y.
Options for X:
1. X kills Y in the now.
2. X goes back in time and kills Y's parents [Grandfather paradox of time travel]
3. X causes/induces Y's mom to abort when Y's a fetus [Abortion] — Agent Smith
You do realise that post is not a reply, don't you? — Banno
That analogy is easily distinguished with relevant differences.
#1: Y is not living inside of X's body; illegal.
#2. Y is not living inside of X's body; illegal.
#3. Y is not living inside of X's body; illegal.
Notice how you introduced parents and mom as third parties with no consideration for them whatsoever? That's what anti-abortion people do. Let me rephrase it properly for you:
Y is living inside of X's body, X kills Y; Legal, moral, ethical. — James Riley
it means that you have presented your position in this way in order to strengthen your position while using time travel as that strengthening means. I will let you process how weak that makes you initial position, that a time travel position is STRENGTHENING to it. Sheesh — Book273
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.