Where is Liberty and freedom? Will it someday become extinct?

[shmogie]

It's defenders would say it's a complete religion, rather than a totalitarian ideology. And arguably all societies 'indoctrinate' their children in the set of values that they hold to be important.



Do you know what the content of the 5-times-daily prayer actually is? It doesn't lock in messages any different from those of other religions.

It is a religion, government theocracy, a totalitarian system controlled by religious leaders, a system of law and punishment. Since all aspects of ones life is regulated by the ¨religion¨, civil law in another nation is unimportant because the true believer is convinced it doesn´t apply to him. If they can get away with breaking the civil law, and are consistent with islamic rules, regulation and laws, they are guilty of nothing

 

[shmogie]

Where is the right of a fetus or embryo to be born into a home in which you are not wanted enumerated? Please show me the amendment

Who's making up rights now?



Yes, as long as the church has the cultural hegemony to mount this attack, it will continue. The church cannot be a good neighbor in a pluralistic society and coexist with people of other values, allowing them to choose abortion even if they think their god disapproves. Like kudzu, it incessantly tries to pierce the wall separating church and state and spread through government to impose its will on all.

You may recall the ARIS and Pew data I presented to you here recently showing the decline in those in America self-identifying as Christian since 1990, which trend predicts minority status for Christians by the late 2030's, at which time, the church can begin to join the Jews, Muslims, Wiccans, Druids, and all of the rest of the religious groups that have nno say over how America works, but only over how their own lives work as it should be.

How do pagans into the Viking pantheon think Odin feels about abortion? Yeah, me neither. And neither of us likely care.

When Christianity reaches that point, the conflict you describe will cease.



I'm not frustrated. Why should I be? Abortion is safe and legal in America.

Also, I don't care if you accept my terminology. I'm telling you that I reject yours.



I've told you why. And I've discussed legal issues with you in this post anyway.

Also, I think you meant the only thing that matters to you. The moral argument matters more to me.



How does anything I do here serve myself? I am not a candidate for an abortion in America (or anywhere else). This is a perfectly selfless campaign. I'm male and not living in the States.

I ignore your questions about humanity because I have already conceded that a human fetus is human, and not a factor in the moral equation. The argument is the same if applied to a dog. What makes aborting a litter of puppies moral or immoral? Does it become moral because they are not human? Those aren't my values.

Spoiler: off topic digression

I didn't see a response to my detailed description of the commonalities between the two religions, which you seemed to have dismissed out of hand, or to my claim that the major difference between how Christians in the States and Saudis in Saudi Arabia live was not due to differences in the religions, but the presence or absence of a few centuries of humanism in the West.

I also suggested that had the American colonies remained theocratic and the Arabs gotten the humanist constitution and formed a secular state, that it would be the Christians pushing homosexuals off of towers and burning blasphemers alive in cages as Arabs lived lives resembling American lives.

Then I introduced the dominionists, who are indistinguishable from the ayatollah's, and who would lead America back into that darkness if able, You scoffed that I pointed at extremists, but those are the people that run authoritarian governments.

The entire response I recall seeing from you the scoffing at the dominionists, and a sentence or two using the words absurd and ignorance. There was no rebuttal to my argument, nor an argument of your own. Unrebuted, n aturally my position is unchanged, and it feels well supported.

There is no ball in either court on this matter now. I've made my case and you've opted to ignore it and claim that you didn't. Some might call that the ball being in your court, but we both know that this game is over.

 

[shmogie]

Who are you or anyone given the authority to deny life to a person, for any reason ? Death is better than being alive ? Is there in death any opportunity for anything ? Millions and millions have survived bad homes, or adoption to become successful and productive people. You want to deny them that possibility by killing them ? Yet you speak of morality ? I can´t get my head around that kind of morality.

 

[shmogie]

If laws did it, it's a privilege, remember? Recall when I said that if the speed limit was increased from 55 MPH to 65 MPH, drivers just acquired the right to drive 60 MPH, and you quickly pointed out that that was a privilege, not a right, according to a legal definition. Well, now you're claiming that statute confer rights.

And the law can revoke privileges. The speed limit can be lowered again, and the statues regarding the personhood of embryos and fetuses superseded.



I don't.

What creator? Where is it, and where is the list of rights it granted us?

Why did nobody have them until a certain group of people got together, debated them, wrote them out, went to war to get them, continued to fight to defend them, established police systems to enforce them and courts to interpret them, and provided a mechanism to amend them?

What was this creators role in any of that?

Why didn't man have these rights from the outset? Why did they not exist through the Middle Ages, when the


Christian god allegedly proclaimed that the king ruled under its authority and was to be obeyed? Why do so many people still not have these rights?

Couching these rights as god given was likely a necessary ploy to manufacture consent for a revolution against the king in defiance of scripture. What else can you tell people that believe the following:

• "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."- Romans 13:1-2
• 
  
• We can talk religion in another series of posts, this is a discussion of the law and the Constitution. What Jefferson said about certain rights as being endowed by the creator, he was speaking of what is termed in law as natural rights. These rights exist for every person. They may be denied, but they exist nevertheless.

Wash their hands of what matter? You seem to think that those justices share your values, and travailed over the matter, losing sleep for months or years thereafter wracked in guilt.


I don´t understand how you extrapolated this from what I said. I said that rather than face the central issue, they got themselves off the hook by their decision. They were pro abortion, but even they knew they couldn´t hit the act of killing the unborn the humanity of the unborn,head on so, they created themselves a loophole. I am sure they were quite pleased with their machinations, they got what they wanted without ever addressing the real issue.


I'll bet not. They may have had some misgivings coming to a decision, but they undoubtedly did what they considered was right and moved on.

 

[Poseidon Soter]

who cares?

(I mean really, this seems like a distinction without a difference, no?)

If you want me to take your response seriously, then I think it's fair for me to ask you this: "How much Sharia is okay with you?"

Wrt the former, you tried to link your claim that half of all European Muslims (and perhaps half of all Muslims?) support Sharia (if I recall correctly, this was your claim, right?) with the current state of affairs in Muslim majority countries. Given that, it seems relevant to note that Sharia is not (fully) implemented in any of those countries.

Wrt the latter, the underlying principle of Sharia I fully support (that of God-given laws), and I'm okay with the application of Sharia in the time of Muhammad, but Sharia as it is understood by Islamic scholars, for application today, not so much (well, hardly at all really).

 

[Poseidon Soter]

It is a religion, government theocracy, a totalitarian system controlled by religious leaders, a system of law and punishment.

It's far more than a system of law and punishment.

Since all aspects of ones life is regulated by the ¨religion¨, civil law in another nation is unimportant because the true believer is convinced it doesn´t apply to him. If they can get away with breaking the civil law, and are consistent with islamic rules, regulation and laws, they are guilty of nothing

Except many - probably most - Muslims don't see it that way. They see no conflict between being a good, law-abiding citizen in a Western country and their faith. Some would even say their faith mandates them to be a good, law-abiding citizen in the West.

 

[shmogie]

I never gave you a definition of person.

Furthermore, I've told you repeatedly that it doesn't matter to me how you define a person - that calling an embryo a person doesn't change the moral argument.

Furthermore, you keep conflating the legal and moral arguments. For the fifth or tenth time, I repeat: I don't care about legalisms or semantics.

My only interest in the law is that it support the moral argument I made, which is that I believe that a woman should have the right to choose if her early term or life-threatening pregnancy goes to term, not the church using the power of the state. And at this point in time, that is the position of the law as well.

Since you refuse to even acknowledge that this is my position, and continue returning to you legalistic and semantically charged appeals to emotion, we are at an impasse here.

Do you even have a moral argument here - one based in right and wrong rather than what you think the constitution and statutes referring to persons say? See if you can state one without using legalism and without resorting to words like murder, baby, and child to refer to legal feticide. Try using neutral language rather than emotive language, and see if you can still make a moral argument.

I think that the best you can do is to say the opposite of what I did - that you think it is right and good that the church impose its values on all American women, Christian or not, and make lawful feticide a crime again because you feel that the value of the life of the fetus outweigh the needs and wishes of the pregnant woman.

And if that is correct, we are done with this issue. Note though, that you are attempting to contract rights of Americans to protect embryos and fetuses.



Back to the legal, and to the maudlin, lugubrious language? OK - lets look at the llegal for awhile

What rights does the fetus have? According to you, these are enumerated in the Constitution. If you're going to refer to your personhood statues relating to whether one person or two were killed when a pregnant woman and her fetus are both killed, then by your own reckoning, being born is but a privilege not guaranteed by any right.

Can I play? The fetus isn't a citizen. Let's make that word the focal point of the discussion instead of person, human, baby, child, or murder. Therefore, not being a citizen, the fetus has no rights.

Do you see what I did there? I just dismissed your entire argument using semantics and a legalism. Are you willing to let that happen? Probably not. I'm petty sure that you're going to claim that that distinction is irrelevant. If so, welcome to my world.

First, the rights granted under the constitution apply to non citizens as well, no one on US soil can be denied these rights. The right to life is no where stated as applying only after birth, nor is the freedom from being murdered. They therefore apply to the unborn as well. Consequently, being born is a natural part of life, which every person experiences, it defines nothing legally, or morally.

You are having difficulty understanding the difference between a right and a privilege . Let me help. You have no right to have a drivers license or to operate a motor vehicle. That is a privilege granted to you by the state. It can be revoked. Rights cannot, except in very rare cases, like being an inmate in a prison. A murderer can be denied the right to life by execution as punishment for a crime. There is no statute that says a baby can be executed for nothing but being alive. Roe v wade, the abortionists empowerment decision doesn´t say this. It says nothing even remotely close. The execution of the unborn is screened from legal scrutiny by privacy. The denial of the right to life can´t be seen. It occurs behind a brick wall, in the shadows, and the law can´t see it.

Of course I have a moral position, abortion is murder, immoral in the worst way.

Those who support abortion sooner or later want to drag in religion to the discussion. They want to harp on the mean old Christians, and dominion BS, and forced confirmation to standards people don´t want, blah, blah, blah. this is where they want to attack, with bizarre ideas and conspiracy theory´s. I couldn´t care less.

My faith is irrelevant to the matter. Pro abortionists despise the legal argument because there is no room for hyperbole or conspiracy theories. It is what it is, black and white, no grey. The only legal thing they can cling to is privacy as a legal excuse for killing the unborn, a rather paltry argument for leaving a living baby alone with no care whatsoever, to die. The overwhelming majority of Americans want limits place on abortion, for very moral and legal reasons. I am with the majority

 

[shmogie]

I hav

It's far more than a system of law and punishment.



Except many - probably most - Muslims don't see it that way. They see no conflict between being a good, law-abiding citizen in a Western country and their faith. Some would even say their faith mandates them to be a good, law-abiding citizen in the West.

en spoken to most muslims, anywhere. I have only read their holy books that their religion says takes supreme authority over any and all in the faith. These books define a good muslim, not I

 

[shmogie]

Oh I didn't even have to read the link.
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act (circa 1985) defined exact Police Procedures for all Constabularies in England and Wales and they have to be followed.............! Not much erosion there.

But the Police 'Caution' (Miranda?) was adjusted several years later to address situations where crime suspects just refuse to answer questions or speak. Previously the Caution was spoken to the suspect immediately at the point where suspicion (or arrest) became evident, something like : You do not have to say anything but anything that you do say will be taken down and may be used in evidence against you.

And so some suspects just refused to answer questions, which they some time later decided to give answers to Court, Police or whoever. Our Parliament decided that such gaps needed to be closed and so the Police Caution was changed to (something close to): You do not have to say anything., but it may harm your defence if you fail to mention something now which you decide to rely on later (in Court?).

And so now where suspects who have information which could help an investigation withold it, they cannot so easily decide later to suddenly tell a Jury, Magistrate or judge all about it.

Fair enough, I'd say.

In the UK many offences where convicts get fines, or probation, community service or home-gaiting would end up in Prison in the USA.................. we are mostly amazed at how easily one can get jailed or imprisoned there! And we repeatedly hear about convicts being able to pay bail to get out of jail in the S, a kind of bail which is different from ours. Pay the fine or do the time............... if we cannot pay the fine a Court can agree to a payment scheme.

And over here we don't get arrests noted on to our Criminal Records...... thus influencing many careers and Jobs, we only get Court Convictions or Police Cautions (where a crime has been admitted) on our records.

The UK is a much more reasonable place imo.

Not hardly. I have studied British police procedures for one of my degreeś, criminology. I will address your post, later. I am tired of typing in another thread. Later.

 

[icehorse]

It's defenders would say it's a complete religion, rather than a totalitarian ideology

I'm using the common definitions of words to make my assessment. That said, you will often hear Muslims say that Islam is a "total solution" or a "total way of life", or words to that affect.

And arguably all societies 'indoctrinate' their children in the set of values that they hold to be important.

Not all indoctrination is created equal. E.g. values are one thing, dogma is quite another.

Do you know what the content of the 5-times-daily prayer actually is? It doesn't lock in messages any different from those of other religions.

I do indeed, it's the first Surah, and I think it's pretty unique in that it clearly establishes the Muslim vs. non-Muslim conflict right from the get-go.

 

[Curious George]

Oh I didn't even have to read the link.
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act (circa 1985) defined exact Police Procedures for all Constabularies in England and Wales and they have to be followed.............! Not much erosion there.

But the Police 'Caution' (Miranda?) was adjusted several years later to address situations where crime suspects just refuse to answer questions or speak. Previously the Caution was spoken to the suspect immediately at the point where suspicion (or arrest) became evident, something like : You do not have to say anything but anything that you do say will be taken down and may be used in evidence against you.

And so some suspects just refused to answer questions, which they some time later decided to give answers to Court, Police or whoever. Our Parliament decided that such gaps needed to be closed and so the Police Caution was changed to (something close to): You do not have to say anything., but it may harm your defence if you fail to mention something now which you decide to rely on later (in Court?).

And so now where suspects who have information which could help an investigation withold it, they cannot so easily decide later to suddenly tell a Jury, Magistrate or judge all about it.

Fair enough, I'd say.

In the UK many offences where convicts get fines, or probation, community service or home-gaiting would end up in Prison in the USA.................. we are mostly amazed at how easily one can get jailed or imprisoned there! And we repeatedly hear about convicts being able to pay bail to get out of jail in the S, a kind of bail which is different from ours. Pay the fine or do the time............... if we cannot pay the fine a Court can agree to a payment scheme.

And over here we don't get arrests noted on to our Criminal Records...... thus influencing many careers and Jobs, we only get Court Convictions or Police Cautions (where a crime has been admitted) on our records.

The UK is a much more reasonable place imo.

Glossed over some of the facts but, the truth of the matter is, by your own words, one could do something as it was considered their right now one "can't so easily" do that something. That marks an erosion.

 

[godnotgod]

Lets take your definition, which, for the most part is wrong.

So if Black's Law is wrong in its LEGAL definition of what a 'person' is, then we are back to square one. You need to provide a LEGAL definition of 'person' if we are going to discuss the legality or illegality of abortion.

Also, I am not using the word 'thing' to describe an unborn fetus in ordinary, everyday usage, but as a LEGAL term, as described in the Black's Law definition I provided, If you also disagree with THAT definition, then you must provide one you think is correct.

To reiterate, In the Declaration of Independence the very FIRST right that can never be abridged is The RIGHT TO LIFE. This right applies to every person, born or unborn.

Where does it say that in the Constitution?
*****

Fetal Personhood and the Constitution
By John A. Robertson
The Rubio-Huckabee claim that actual and legal personhood start at conception has drawn trenchant responses from Art Caplan on the medical uncertainty of such a claim and David Orentlicher, drawing on Judith Thomson’s famous article, that even if a fetus is a person, woman would not necessarily have a duty to keep it in her body.

Their debate claim that the fetus is already a legal person under the constitution also deserves a response, for it has no basis in positive law. In Roe v. Wade all nine justices agreed that the use of “person” in the Constitution always assumed a born person, and therefore that the 14th Amendment’s mention of person did not confer constitutional rights until after a live birth. In the years since Roe, when the make-up of the court has changed, no justice has ever disagreed with that conclusion, including those who would overturn Roe and Casey.

Fetal Personhood and the Constitution | Bill of Health

 

[oldbadger]

Not hardly. I have studied British police procedures for one of my degreeś, criminology. I will address your post, later. I am tired of typing in another thread. Later.

No probs....... I look forward to your post.

 

[oldbadger]

Glossed over some of the facts but, the truth of the matter is, by your own words, one could do something as it was considered their right now one "can't so easily" do that something. That marks an erosion.

I don't think so...... Look, a skeptic will find 'erosian' at every turn. Impose a speed restriction on a dangerous road to save lives and the speed freaks could be screaming 'I got rights! Look! Erosian!'

If I was to point to a time when human rights were less good (here) I would point to the 60's. We now know that positions, professions, warrants, direction and leadership was so bunged full of corruption that any person could be subjected to injustice for any vast number of reasons................ but technology, IT, and surveillance systems have smashed into that wall of badness so hard that our whole system is beginning to look again at itself.

I can remember when only character references from professional people (teachers and upwards) were considered to be of any value in a job application. And so a lorry driver acquaintance's word was no good, whereas a dentist's word was true. Oh dear........ we don't think that now! We must have been so blind back then.

 

[Curious George]

I don't think so...... Look, a skeptic will find 'erosian' at every turn. Impose a speed restriction on a dangerous road to save lives and the speed freaks could be screaming 'I got rights! Look! Erosian!'

If I was to point to a time when human rights were less good (here) I would point to the 60's. We now know that positions, professions, warrants, direction and leadership was so bunged full of corruption that any person could be subjected to injustice for any vast number of reasons................ but technology, IT, and surveillance systems have smashed into that wall of badness so hard that our whole system is beginning to look again at itself.

I can remember when only character references from professional people (teachers and upwards) were considered to be of any value in a job application. And so a lorry driver acquaintance's word was no good, whereas a dentist's word was true. Oh dear........ we don't think that now! We must have been so blind back then.

That there was a time when a system was collectively 'worse' does not mean there were not times when aspects were individually better.

You want to look at the whole and say, "see, progress!" This notion ignores the question of whether erosion of civil liberties exist.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

So if Black's Law is wrong in its LEGAL definition of what a 'person' is, then we are back to square one. You need to provide a LEGAL definition of 'person' if we are going to discuss the legality or illegality of abortion.

Also, I am not using the word 'thing' to describe an unborn fetus in ordinary, everyday usage, but as a LEGAL term, as described in the Black's Law definition I provided, If you also disagree with THAT definition, then you must provide one you think is correct.



Where does it say that in the Constitution?
*****

Fetal Personhood and the Constitution
By John A. Robertson
The Rubio-Huckabee claim that actual and legal personhood start at conception has drawn trenchant responses from Art Caplan on the medical uncertainty of such a claim and David Orentlicher, drawing on Judith Thomson’s famous article, that even if a fetus is a person, woman would not necessarily have a duty to keep it in her body.

Their debate claim that the fetus is already a legal person under the constitution also deserves a response, for it has no basis in positive law. In Roe v. Wade all nine justices agreed that the use of “person” in the Constitution always assumed a born person, and therefore that the 14th Amendment’s mention of person did not confer constitutional rights until after a live birth. In the years since Roe, when the make-up of the court has changed, no justice has ever disagreed with that conclusion, including those who would overturn Roe and Casey.

Fetal Personhood and the Constitution | Bill of Health

Yeah, but who are ya gunna believe? A True American like @shmogie or some random, probably Obama supporting, probably illegal immigrant, Supreme Court nobody?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

That there was a time when a system was collectively 'worse' does not mean there were not times when aspects were individually better.

You want to look at the whole and say, "see, progress!" This notion ignores the question of whether erosion of civil liberties exist.

Conversely, preserving one particular "civil right" without thought for changes to societal context, while things get collectively worse despite, or even because of, it, is nonsensical.

 

[Curious George]

Conversely, preserving one particular "civil right" without thought for changes to societal context, while things get collectively worse despite, or even because of, it, is nonsensical.

Sounds like you are trying to argue something specific in a vague manner. Usually that isn't the best idea.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Mapped: The world's most (and least) free countries

Is freedom on the rise, or is it in Decline?

There is no doubt the United States has lost a fair amount of freedom the past few decades and has slipped in it's ratings as a free and open country.

Opinions?

It occurs to me that the people in this thread probably have a range of ideas about what “freedom” means. What did you have in mind when you wrote this?

Personally, as a broad definition, I like the one that the Human Freedom Index uses: they say that freedom is “the absence of coercive constraint.” I like how it reflects all infringements on freedom, not just laws and the actions of governments.

... however, I have a feeling that some of the people in this thread might be thinking of “freedom” in terms of constraints created by government specifically. Anyone: am I right?

 

[Curious George]

It occurs to me that the people in this thread probably have a range of ideas about what “freedom” means. What did you have in mind when you wrote this?

Personally, as a broad definition, I like the one that the Human Freedom Index uses: they say that freedom is “the absence of coercive constraint.” I like how it reflects all infringements on freedom, not just laws and the actions of governments.

... however, I have a feeling that some of the people in this thread might be thinking of “freedom” in terms of constraints created by government specifically. Anyone: am I right?

Yes. It is easier to quantify when we are talking about government regulation. But you make a valid point. I think even looking at government regulation we find ourselves trying to weigh too many variables. If we talk about all possible "coercive restraints" the subject matter becomes exceedingly more broad.