politics: what i don't get... (rant) (Page 2)

Are you saying that Laura turned W down on the Supreme Court thing?

TW

Asa,

It's not my term - it's the Texas Republican Party's term.  It's also Thomas Jefferson's term (he coined the phrase in referring to the First Amendment). If the expression was good enough for Thomas Jefferson, it's good enough for me. Let's not be disingenous and pretend we don't know that "separation of church and state" is part of the American vernacular referring to the First Amendment "no establishment" clause.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

My understanding of the ACLU's twisted agenda is the protection of Civil Liberties for All. I guess for people who don't believe in civil liberties, that can seem subversive and twisted. All depends on your perspective.

Don, the problem is... no one knows when life begins. Some very earnest people believe it begins at conception (or being unable to know, default to the conception stance) and see this as a moral fight, no less moral than ending slavery in the 1800s. And other people believe differently. It is a conundrum. How to resolve it?

I don't think the question should be settled by the people. I don't want mob rule.

Exactly. Leave it up to individuals. What's so hard about that?

dontracy - 2005-10-12 3:03 PM

Renee -

Don, the problem is... no one knows when life begins.

BINGO!!! You win today's grand prize.

With one important qualification. We do know when biological life begins. As with all animals, biological life begins at conception.

I think the question is when does human personhood begin. Lacking emiprical evidence to the contrary, you must err on the side of it beginning at conception. Otherwise you risk sanctioning the killing of human persons.

Change the word life to personhood in your statement, and you would basically agree with the Catholic Church! Will wonders never cease.

Don, I don't agree that I must err on the side of life beginning at conception. Cell replication begins at conception. My personal experience is that life did not begin at conception; it never began at all. Those who claim to know make false claims. No one knows though many believe.

What's the solution? I don't know. It would be an understatement to say I'm no Solomon.

I do believe that a state that sanctions killing its citizens can make no moral authority claims when it comes to a maybe-life.

Reneeeeeee.... don't you now go throwing out red herrings this late in the day.

The fact that you and I agree that a particular group may get issues of war and capital punishment wrong, does not mean that they cannot get the issue of abortion right.

Don, maybe I was being too vague but I thought you would 'get' what I was saying. After 7 miscarriages, the view that life begins at conception does not hold water with me. Certainly, cell replication begins at conception. That much I can believe.

With respect to state sanctioned killing, I'm pointing out that the righteousness of the state with respect to life issues is hypocritical. The state is rarely to be trusted, in any event. It's our laws which keep the state imperfectly in line, more or less. I'm not saying the state has no right to decide the cases; just saying the state's moral arguments would carry more force if it truly respected life.

Edited to add (Warning: Controversial and Emotionally Charged Topic):

You know, Don, we agree on more than you might think although we arrive at our beliefs for different reasons. Stem cell research - because of my ambivalence about where life begins, I'm not willing to say the embryo's should be destroyed in the name of curing people. I'm opposed to man playing God (although I don't believe in an anthropomorphic god); I think it's a dangerous game. I'm also opposed to all the embryo's being created and left in a petri dish in the name of procreation. Again, what if these are lives left in a cryogenic-limbo? I am opposed to it in spite of my own dismal attempts at procreating; I would not leave my extraneous embryos in petri dishes just so that I can be a mother to my own biological child. I'm opposed to suicide but I'm opposed to the state telling a terminal patient that they can't ease their own ways into death. Yep, some of my views are paradoxical and I'm okay with that. I don't have to be right; I just have to feel like I'm still sincerely seeking The Answers.

Always a pleasure to discourse with you, Don.

Unborn children can't speak, so I'm guessing their parents? Who do you want speaking for your kids? Legislators? The courts?

Well, yes, if that's what you believe. But others don't believe that. Renee's right...there is no proof where life begins. It can be argued quite easily, however, that life does not begin at conception. Where it does begin, is anybody's guess. It might be close to the point where the fetus can survive outside the womb.

The"life begins at conception" argument is rooted in the religious doctrine that the immortal soul is imbued by the creator at conception. But that's religious doctrine, and again, religious doctrine shouldn't be legislated.

It's ironic that republicans (among others) argue that global warming doesn't exist because the science to support it is flawed. Isn't the science that supports life at conception at least equally flawed?

Are you saying that I should have the right to kill my children if I want to?

No, because your children are undisputably alive. Science says a blastocyst isn't alive. You say it is. Make your own decision.