Create a New Forum Admin Login Member Login Contribute to Voyager Search VoyForums Help Desk VoyForums Exchange VoyForums Directory/Categories VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Thursday, October 17, 09:37:57pm

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, [7], 8, 9, 10 ]

Subject: Not yet... Author: Wade A. Tisthammer [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 11/11/03 4:49pm In reply to: Damoclese 's message, "Abort." on 11/10/03 5:23pm >>The President of the United States is free to use his >>religious beliefs in his reasoning. If his religious >>beliefs tell him that murder is unethical, then so be >>it. > >I'm pretty sure I didn't argue whether or not he is >free to use it. I argued whether or not his argument >should rest on religious belief alone and whether this >is acceptable reason to make laws. As it pertains to outlawing murder, sure; I don't mind. If a Buddhist’s religious belief says murder is also wrong, I would not have a problem with that either. Otherwise, it depends on the circumstances as to what the religious beliefs say. >>You are referring to the banning of late term partial >>abortions? I would not call that a fiasco. I >>actually think it's among the (few?) things Bush has >>done right. > >That's not really surprising since you guys are >ostensibily of the same religion. So that I think Bush has done only a few things right is not surprising because we are of the same religion? >>The belief that human life has intrinsic worth and >>should not be murdered; that sounds barbaric to you? >>If so, welcome back to the Middle Ages. > >No. That's not the problem, although as long as Bush >was willing to justify it religiously, I'm sure you >wouldn't have a problem with it. After all, he's free >to use it as he pleases. The origin of the belief has no bearing to this belief's veracity. The belief that human life has intrinsic worth and should not be murdered still does not sound barbaric to me. >>The bottom line is this: Bush believes late-term >>abortions involve the death of a human person. The >>religious aspect (God says murder is wrong) is >>practically irrelevant because I think even you agree >>that people should not be murdered, and so this is >>not where the main point of dispute lies. The >>main disputable point here is where human >>personhood begins. > >Actually, that isn't the point I was making at all. >That's an entirely seperate point in fact. I was >driving at the point that Bush signed a law using only >as justification HIS RELIGION. And that was not his only justification. The point your missing is that the main disputable point is where personhood begins, hence my saying it's practically irrelevant that he got the “murder is wrong” idea from religious ethics. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject Author Date Damoclese eject. 11/11/03 7:25pm