Protestantism

» pink101 - Soul

In response to Soul posted by BrianTubbs:
.
"...you can't have it both ways."
.
Can't have WHAT both ways?
.
The very idea of soul is religious.
.
Is not the main argument against abortion that a human soul has been planted in a woman's body by God?
.
It is a question of religious doctrine, is it not?
.
Period?
.
Isn't his stand on abortion why Gonzales isn't being protected by the Christian right?
.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Pro-life Argument

In response to Soul posted by pink101:

There are two ways of expressing or understanding the basic pro-life position -- one is religious and the other is more secular. Obviously, as a Christian, I'm sympathetic to the religious argument. A human being IS a "living soul," and that soul is worthy of protection.

However, there are MANY people who do not accept the reality or existence of the soul. They say that the very concept or idea of a "soul" is religious. And, since it's religious, it can't be the basis of public policy.

If that is true, then what is the basis for protecting ANY human life? What is the tragedy of the VA Tech slayings? Why care about the bloodshed in Iraq?

The answer to those questions is that just about everybody (Christian, Jew, Muslim, atheist, whomever) respects human life to at least some degree. We recognize that a conscious human being with DNA, brain waves, a heartbeat, etc. is a "life" - and that this life is worthy of protection.

I'm telling you and everyone else that a baby in the mother's womb has his/her own DNA, is growing, is MOVING, has a heartbeat AND brain waves -- all well before the 10th week of pregnancy. For someone to say it's okay to kill such a baby strikes me as highly disturbing...not just on religious grounds, but on secular grounds.

» pink101 - Pro-life Argument

In response to Pro-life Argument posted by BrianTubbs:
.
This question you pose could well be laid in the Ecclesiastes thread as well as here as this one is about the Supreme Court and its importance in American society. At least that is what I think. But ... It's okay to discuss the issue recently decided. I'm sure.
.
I have some strong views on the subject; but, at the moment, my better half is calling for my attention and her wishes are my commands. I hope you understand.
.
For now, I'll just posit that there is a major difference between a human in its embryonic stages and one that is being in the sense Heidegger speaks of the human being a human person. What gives life its meaning might be a good question for contemplation.
.
Later.
.
:)
.

-- posted by pink101

» paper_turtle - Pro-life Argument

In response to Pro-life Argument posted by BrianTubbs:

Yes, but: Those within the Pro-Life movement almost always speak from a religious perspective. And I find it very hard to believe that those with political power who support the Pro-Life position are doing so from a secularist point ot view. There *is* a connection between the anti-abortion position and religion. Those of us who take a strong stand on the separation of church and state tend to see the recent Supreme Court ruling as being decided on religious grounds (legislating morality, if you will). I don't think we're altogether wrong.
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle

» pink101 - Pro-life Argument

In response to Pro-life Argument posted by BrianTubbs:
.
"... , there are MANY people who do not accept the reality or existence of the soul. They say that the very concept or idea of a 'soul' is religious. And, since it's religious, it can't be the basis of public policy.
.
"If that is true, then what is the basis for protecting ANY human life? What is the tragedy of the VA Tech slayings? Why care about the bloodshed in Iraq?"
.
First, we might define what we mean by a "soul".
.
Heidegger's idea of a human being depends on understanding the idea of what it means to be. As a word, being, is an active verb that connotes the subject is involved in the process of being something. So, a human being is a human in the process of being what he or she is. What makes us so?
.
Are we human merely as a result of our body is being in some process of development or is more involved? I'm just trying to be objective. Does the word sentient have some application here? And, what does it mean to be sentient? Aren't we the sum total of our awareness of reality? What are we in the sense of our own personal being? Do these questions make any sense to you?
.
Remember Mary Baker Eddy's question? What is matter? Never mind. What is mind? Never matter. These are questions we might settle; but, how?
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Legislating Morality

In response to Pro-life Argument posted by paper_turtle:

Everyone observing this discussion needs to understand that ALL of our laws - indeed, the very CONCEPT of law - is based on morality. Legislating against rape is a legislation of morality. You may retort: "No, it's not. It's protecting...." But WAIT! Why must we legally protect people? That's not a mere utilitarian idea. It's a moral imperative.

The idea that human beings have intrinsic value and worth is a MORAL concept! Surely, everyone can see that.

» Brian Tubbs - Judicial Ruling

In response to Pro-life Argument posted by paper_turtle:

Paper Turtle, if you're accusing the Supreme Court of judicial activism, I have to chuckle at that. Roe v. Wade is one of the most outrageous decisions EVER handed down by the Supreme Court - and even some PRO-CHOICE folks agree with that. It was TERRIBLE, AWFUL constitutional jurisprudence!

The Supreme Court issued a correct ruling here on LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL grounds. Nothing in the federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban transgressed the US Constitution - the actual Constitution, which is what the Court is supposed to concern itself with.

It's the pro-choicers that have taken advantage of judicial activism, NOT the pro-lifers.

» paper_turtle - Judicial Ruling

In response to Judicial Ruling posted by BrianTubbs:

I'm talking the principles behind the actions, not the labels one might put on the actions after the fact.

One can legislate morality, but seldom is anyone converted. While legislating agains rape is, in a very loose sense, legislating morality, only sexual predators think its OK to rape. Therefore, this is morality which would seem to be "programmed" into us--not exactly the same thing, as I see it.

peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle

» pink101 - Judicial Ruling

In response to Judicial Ruling posted by BrianTubbs:
.
Heh heh heh.
.
:)
.
I watched a panel discussion on judicial activism coming out of Yorba Linda by the Cato Institute on C-span Book TV today. I think your idea of judicial activism was firmly shot down in that interview by the conservatives.
.
Now, the whole rigamarole around abortion, etc., is on quick sand and passing laws against it is about as activist as can be.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Activism

In response to Judicial Ruling posted by pink101:

Now, the whole rigamarole around abortion, etc., is on quick sand and passing laws against it is about as activist as can be.

There is a BIG difference between judicial activism and legislative activism. The latter is legitimate and expected. That's what a Republic is all about. But Judicial activism is very much INAPPROPRIATE. It is not the job of judges to make law or to create rights.