Vaccinations and Religious Exemptions

[Curious George]

I don't have to cross that bridge yet. It WOULD be nice to have some way to objectively know if someone were contagious other than sneezing and coughing, which otherwise might just be allergies.

I understand that you do not have to cross that bridge. I am asking you to do so. It will either force you to draw a line or it will demonstrate more clearly the path you are pursuing. Again, the law must have limits. You seem to want the opposite. That is tyranny.

 

[Polymath257]

There you go. It is nacient human life, a developing human being. Sure a zygote is not the same as a person. But where do we draw the line. You want to draw it at consciousness. But that would allow for infanticide.

No. From what we can tell, the fetus starts being conscious around the 24-26 week of gestation. Prior to that, I have no issue with abortion at all. After that, I do have issues and think that those fetuses that can be removed from the woman without harm to her and still survive should have steps taken to ensure survival.

Certainly you must agree that there is no developmental difference between a baby just prior to labor, and just after delivery.[/QUOTE]

But there is a HUGE difference between a fetus at 8 week and one at 24 weeks.

But, again, the issue is that a fetus, even if a person, does not get to hold another person captive.

A skin cell is like an arm -- it is clearly only a part. A zygote is the whole human being, but simply at an earlier stage of development.

No the zygote is a *developmental stage* leading to a human being. In terms of chromosomes, there is little difference between a skin cell and a zygote. Neither is a full person. One can, potentially, develop into a full person, but neither is one at that point.

Sorry, but it is not some "thing." It is nacient human life, and it is not the life of the woman, but a separate human being with rights of its own. I'm not saying that killing an embryo is murder. I'm simply pointing out that it's not the same thing as pulling a tooth or having a parasite excised.

Even if I grant you that a fetus has rights of its own (which I don't think is true prior to about the 24th week), there is STILL the issue that the fetus resides inside of an other person who also has rights.

According to one study in 2015, fetuses at 22 weeks gestation had a 25% chance of survival if delivered and treated at a hospital. Up to 35% of fetuses at 23 weeks gestation survive early birth. Advances in Medical Science have changed the abortion debate and the very effects of the Roe v. Wade arguments.

Since, by far, the majority of abortions are done prior to the 8th week and since those that are done after that tend to be for medical reasons, I'm not sure I find this relevant.

 

[ecco]

Sure a zygote is not the same as a person. But where do we draw the line.

I think the Supreme Court did a pretty good job of drawing the line. The did a lot of research into secular and religious history. Perhaps you should read the ruling.

In issues like this, where there is vast disagreement, someone, some entity, has to decide. In the United States, that entity is the Supreme Court. I'm sure, at least in this instance, you would have preferred a religious council as they use in places like Saudi Arabia and Iran.

 

[ecco]

It's a human right to refuse, whatever your opinion on it is irrelevant - rights are rights.

Does that mean that you think that someone with AIDS has the right to have unprotected sex with as many people as he or she can?
Does that mean that you think that someone with measles should be allowed to walk around a store or a school or your church?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So do periods and masturbation.

What are you talking about? There is nothing about periods and masturbation that ends the life of a complete human organism.

No I don't want a beit din (Jewish court of law) to decide this for the country. However, I do think it is important that the religious morals of the country influence its governance. The founding Fathers stated that the democracy they set up would only work if the citizenry were a moral, religious people.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I understand that you do not have to cross that bridge. I am asking you to do so. It will either force you to draw a line or it will demonstrate more clearly the path you are pursuing. Again, the law must have limits. You seem to want the opposite. That is tyranny.

I gave you as good an answer as I could when I said it would be nice to be able to determine when someone was contagious. They could then be quarantined.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

No. From what we can tell, the fetus starts being conscious around the 24-26 week of gestation

Here we run into the problem of defining consciousness. There is no real science of consciousness at the present. Some scientists would say a newborn is not really conscious. A couple of decades ago I read a report about one PhD (I think his name was Sears) who supported infanticide up to age three because kids younger than that were not fully conscious.

But there is a HUGE difference between a fetus at 8 week and one at 24 weeks.

Of course there is. Just like there is a difference between a newborn and a six month old.

BTW, you know the odds aren't too bad these days for fetuses of 22 and 23 weeks surviving natural birth. Medical Science is changing the playing field of the abortion debate.

But, again, the issue is that a fetus, even if a person, does not get to hold another person captive.

. Let's not exaggerate. You have to compare the relative damage. On the one have we have the extinction of life. On the other hand, we have inconvenience. (I'm not talking about cases where there is i.e. severe medical trauma or the woman's life is in danger.) It's like the vivisection argument. On the one hand we have bunny rabbits going blind, and on the other hand we have women going without the bliss of yet another new mascara. It is very clear where the gavel comes down.

No the zygote is a *developmental stage* leading to a human being. In terms of chromosomes, there is little difference between a skin cell and a zygote. Neither is a full person. One can, potentially, develop into a full person, but neither is one at that point.

I have to disagree with you. If a human being becomes comatose, meaning they lack consciousness, they are still a human being. Consciousness is not the criteria for what makes an individual human.

Second, while there are similarities between a skin cell and a zygote, there is a significant difference -- the zygote has all the potential to continue developing along the entire spectrum of human life, and the skin cell does not (it will always remain just a skin cell). The zygote is human rather than a mosquite or clam. It is alive rather than dead or inanimate. It is therefore a living human being; it is simply at the first stage of development.

Even if I grant you that a fetus has rights of its own (which I don't think is true prior to about the 24th week), there is STILL the issue that the fetus resides inside of an other person who also has rights.

Yes, of course. This is why I'm not against abortion in all cases. What's going on with the woman has to be weighed against what is going on with the fetus. But the overwhelming majority of abortions are performed because a baby will be inconvenient -- those are the ones I'm against. There is absolutely no reason not to bring those children to term and place them up for adoption.

Since, by far, the majority of abortions are done prior to the 8th week and since those that are done after that tend to be for medical reasons, I'm not sure I find this relevant.

I don't believe either one of these statements, not for a minute. Most women aren't sure they are pregnant by the eighth week, and most abortions are elective, not medically necessary.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I think the Supreme Court did a pretty good job of drawing the line. The did a lot of research into secular and religious history. Perhaps you should read the ruling.

In issues like this, where there is vast disagreement, someone, some entity, has to decide. In the United States, that entity is the Supreme Court. I'm sure, at least in this instance, you would have preferred a religious council as they use in places like Saudi Arabia and Iran.

If Roe v. Wade were actually enforced, we would see a whole different ethic in this country. For one thing, viability has been pushed back to 22 weeks. But what we find in practice is physicians strangling babies that have survived abortions.

I believe I've already said that I do not prefer a religious court. I simply prefer religious morals to inform the electorate.

 

[Brickjectivity]

....

The moment conception takes place, the being has all the chromosomes necessary to take it through all the stages of human life. That makes it a human being.

I don't know that I would call early abortions murder. But they are wrong, except in very needy circumstances. As the pregnancy goes along, the allowances for abortion become fewer and fewer. Having an elective abortion while in labor is infanticide.

Orthodox Jewish position on abortion (and the media's bias against it):

• Orthodox rabbis compare abortion to murder - and Orthodox women are angry about it - Jewish Telegraphic Agency
• Jews Complain: The Rabbis are Sounding Like Christians!
• Orthodox Groups React To NY’s New Abortion Bill

Judaism has roots in fertility. That is, I think it has roots in the mystery of reproduction evident in its symbolism throughout the ages. Its focused on reproduction of itself, and that has implications for reproducing children at maximal rates. Maybe its findings about reproduction are not necessarily applicable to people who are not in Judaism? Roman Catholics though seem to get their reproductive focus from Judaism. In their case though the same question seems relevant. What choices work for Judaism are not necessarily a generally applicable for all people who are not practicing Judaism, because its a whole system and way of life.

Abortion ends another life every time.

Is it identical to murder? I don't think so. But how can it be right?

I agree that it can't be perfectly right. Certainly its good for people to try and save more children. Also its good to realize there is a limit to the effectiveness of legislation. For example we could simply say that its illegal for people to have sex without a government issued chit for each encounter. That could prevent abortions. It might save unborn lives, so regulated sex is more moral than unregulated sex! The same goes for many areas of life which could benefit from government regulation, such as meal choices. Lots of Americans are overweight and dying because of poor meal choices. That's not perfectly right. Lets make it illegal for people to choose bad meals, to save their lives.

 

[ecco]

I simply prefer religious morals to inform the electorate.

Religious Morals? What are Religious Morals? On which religion do we base Religious Morals?

Judeo Christian morals which permit owning and beating slaves?

Also, you obviously didn't bother to read the Roe v Wade decision. If you had, you would have seen that the Justices did take Religious Morals and Religious History into account.

 

[Curious George]

What are you talking about? There is nothing about periods and masturbation that ends the life of a complete human organism.

Yes, yes and the same is true for abortion as abortion does not end the life of a fully formed human organism, or an independent human organism or a birthed human.

We can make arbitrary distinctions or use qualifiers to peddle our beliefs all day long.

 

[Curious George]

I gave you as good an answer as I could when I said it would be nice to be able to determine when someone was contagious. They could then be quarantined.

You gave no real answer. You suggested that it would be nice to determine whether or not someone was contagious. This avoids the question of limits on the law entirely.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Judaism has roots in fertility.

I don't know why you think Judaism has it's roots in fertility. Usually fertility religions are agrarian.

I agree that it can't be perfectly right. Certainly its good for people to try and save more children. Also its good to realize there is a limit to the effectiveness of legislation. For example we could simply say that its illegal for people to have sex without a government issued chit for each encounter. That could prevent abortions. It might save unborn lives, so regulated sex is more moral than unregulated sex! The same goes for many areas of life which could benefit from government regulation, such as meal choices. Lots of Americans are overweight and dying because of poor meal choices. That's not perfectly right. Lets make it illegal for people to choose bad meals, to save their lives.

Being silly doesn't progress the discussion.

I actually do think that food choices should be regulated by taxes. For example, I think that sugary foods should be heavily taxed, beginning with soft drinks. It makes no sense to me that cigarettes are $10 a pack when people are dying of diabetes and heart disease from sugar and HFC.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Religious Morals? What are Religious Morals? On which religion do we base Religious Morals?

Judeo Christian morals which permit owning and beating slaves?

Also, you obviously didn't bother to read the Roe v Wade decision. If you had, you would have seen that the Justices did take Religious Morals and Religious History into account.

You can't figure out what religious morals are? They are morals you get as a result of training in a particular religion, i.e. Buddhism or Islam, etc.

No, the abolitionist movement was formed and run by Christians, and is based on the Judeo-Christian ethic of the dignity of all individuals (that all are made in the image of God).

As far as Roe v. Wade goes, a good start would be seeing it actually enforced, such as seeing children who can survive outside the womb being given rights. Right now a woman can be given an elective abortion right up to the time she is in labor in the state of New York.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Yes, yes and the same is true for abortion as abortion does not end the life of a fully formed human organism, or an independent human organism or a birthed human.

We can make arbitrary distinctions or use qualifiers to peddle our beliefs all day long.

You could argue that an eight year old child is not a "fully formed" human organism. Sheesh. Where do you draw the line? An organism with all its chromosomes and the potential to go from conception to death is a fully formed human being, just at different stages of development.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You gave no real answer. You suggested that it would be nice to determine whether or not someone was contagious. This avoids the question of limits on the law entirely.

I can't give a fuller answer until the necessity actually arrives.

 

[Curious George]

You could argue that an eight year old child is not a "fully formed" human organism. Sheesh. Where do you draw the line? An organism with all its chromosomes and the potential to go from conception to death is a fully formed human being, just at different stages of development.

My point is your distinction is jist as arbitrary. I certainly would not argue that an 80 year old, an 8 year old, a fetus, a zygote, or a sperm is any less human than the other. Indeed they are all undeniably human. They all possess potential as well.

My argument is simply that the law mist have limits. How and why we decide to draw these limits is the only real discussion.

 

[Curious George]

I can't give a fuller answer until the necessity actually arrives.

That is simply not true. You are quite capable. You choose not to do so. I assume because it is clear where such a decision leads.

We either dispose of freedom or we draw the limits.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I don't know why you think Judaism has it's roots in fertility. Usually fertility religions are agrarian.

That is a fair challenge, but it would take us pretty far off course from the topic. That doesn't mean I'm wrong about it. I base my thoughts on images from the walls of ancient synagogues and other relics but which I can't produce on the internet. In addition your scriptures refer to Israel as a plant, to its members as plants such as Psalm 1. Plants everywhere and cuttings, and there are warnings of being 'Cut off' from Israel. I don't know how anyone could miss it. The descriptions of the tabernacle contain images of pomegranates, and pomegranates are the essence of the sacrum. The ark contains a staph of almond, and the ark itself is parallel to the tree of knowledge and tree of life, the tabernacle being laid out and aligned like it was the garden of Eden. I have lots of reasons to think it. It doesn't make me an expert.

I actually do think that food choices should be regulated by taxes. For example, I think that sugary foods should be heavily taxed, beginning with soft drinks. It makes no sense to me that cigarettes are $10 a pack when people are dying of diabetes and heart disease from sugar and HFC.

That is different from having to report what you are eating. Its just a standard sales tax.

 

[Polymath257]

I have to disagree with you. If a human being becomes comatose, meaning they lack consciousness, they are still a human being. Consciousness is not the criteria for what makes an individual human.

And if the brain activity in the comotose patient is below a certain level, we say they have died.

How about this? We use brain-death to determine when someone has died. That is the point where they lose all sorts of rights.

Why not use brain-life as the corresponding point when fetuses gain some rights? So, the question is when the brain of a developing fetus starts showing characteristics that are generally accepted as a 'functioning' brain. That requires enough connections and neural pathways as well as, say, basic brainstem activity.

Care to guess when that happens during development?