Esoteric_Illuminati wrote:Corvus wrote:How does the analogy fall apart? The 14th amendment isn't doctrine, and has nothing to do with whether a man can lose their sanctity of life or not. Nor does it explain how a judge has been granted the authority to remove the sanctity from another man's life. Law and morality are separate, though they often come to an agreement. Law is the mutually beneficial agreement people give to each other when they live in a society. Morality is the perspective of a person or persons. Kerry's actions undermine the vehemence of his belief, not the belief itself.
The 14th Amendment (cf 5th Amendment) establishes when it is justified to violate fundamental human rights, including the right to life.
...nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ...
Since you yourself are opposed the death penalty and euthanasia, you understand that because something is legal does mean it cannot be immoral.
Take note of the second part of the quote. It seems to me that Kerry believes a woman's womb is outside of the jurisdiction of the federal government, and I believe this is quite right. The contents of a persons body are under the complete jurisdiction of its owner (up until the person takes illicit substances, which are illicit for the reason that they alter behaviour that cause harm to the greater society). To say otherwise sets a dangerous precedent. If the government could force a woman to bring a child to full term against the woman's will, then it could just as easily force you to relinquish an organ in order to save the life of a citizen you care nothing about. I have strong objections to this sort of authority.
Also, in one the links you very kindly provided, Kerry explains how the ramifications of denying a woman the services of a doctor if she wishes to abort will...
....take us back to the days of back alleys, gag doctors.., etc.
The only option for women in such circumstances are to obey the law, or simply, upon discovering they are pregnant, concoct some home-made abortifacient, drink alcohol, fall on their stomach or use a coat hanger. I'd much rather they do it safely, with the help of medical professionals.
He seems far from being a madman to me.
Furthermore, law and morality are NOT separate. The law is predicated on morality, namely the moral theory stated in the DoI. When the law violates morality, it becomes unjust. You need look no further than the timeless words of Martin Luther King Jr. for in-depth arguments on this. That and the Nuremburg trials. You misdefine morality anyways. There is a difference between
morals and
mores. I for one reject the notion that morality is subjective. I believe there is only one way we OUGHT to live (most philosophers call it the "good life"). However, the way we DO live is indeed subjective, but I don't call that "morality."
I do not misdefine morality. Your own source states morality is "A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct". Since the idea is a judgement of something, one can call it a perspective. Mores are something very different.
It is important to understand you are referring to one specific type of law: Criminal law. Civil law is something quite different which deals with matters of business, trade, credit, insurance, and even bus tickets. Bus tickets do not need to be "predicated", and neither does any other law. Criminal law deals with people who have broken the social contract by committing a crime. A crime is not just committed against an individual, but also against the entire state (or society). Not only are things like murder and theft covered by criminal law, which, coincidentally, are considered immoral things, but also the act of "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre". A rule that, I am certain, is a foremost in any person's system of ethics.
Many of these cannot be predicated on anything by any stretch of imagination. Neither is it necessary.
Recently we have seen that any law that is not "values neutral" has been abandoned. Suicide is no longer a crime, and antiquated laws against sodomy have been expunged.
<i>The Guinness Encyclopedia:
Crimes and the State.
The notion that the criminal law always enforces morality is a mistaken one. While the criminal law can be used to enforce the Ten Commandments, for example, it can also be used to bolster the most repressive regimes, such as Nazi Germany. For the society that has made the law, crimes are wrongs committed not just against an individual victim, but against society as a whole. Thus prosecutions are almost always brought by the state and only rarely by individual citizens.
</i>
A foetus is not a member of society. Its death is also of no consequence to anyone but the parents.
Concerning your "blank page" analogy, think about the fact that the DNA contained within the unborn child possess the traits that are in the process of being written. From the point of conception a blueprint, not blank page, exists.
The unborn child does not have any experience of the world. The blank page has nothing to do with inherited advantages. The blank page has been bleached, cut, and ruled up with lines and margins. But no one has yet written on it, which is why nothing is lost, and if this page is used for the purposes of adding another page to a work-in-progress (stem cell research), then I am all for it. Since this has to do with my own belief of what gives value to a human life, I will end this note here, as it has nothing whatsoever to do with this particular topic.
In America, I am given to understand that it is perfectly legal for parents or next of kin to terminate the life of a person if they are living only through the support of machinery. Perhaps Kerry trusts the consciences of mothers to know what is right or wrong, and hesitates to term the people who go through something as drastic as an abortion as "murderers", as you just come shy of doing.
I'm against euthanasia too while we're at it, unless the person had previously specified to an attorney that he does not wish to live under such conditions. I don't think the SCOTUS or John Kerry should fight to undermine fundamental human rights by giving people the benefit of the doubt, or by trying to mitigate the law to compromise with emotional appeals.
The term "murder" I think is accurate. If you intentionally end the life of an innocent human being, that's murder. It may not "legal" murder, but murder nevertheless.
If murder is legal it is not murder. Murder is defined as "an unlawful killing". Any attempt to mischaracterise it as such is, I believe, entirely emotional. Abortion is, as I understand it, legal at the present moment, so cannot be termed "murder". You obviously disagree with the decision that made it legal, but there are three of us (correct me if I am wrong, gentlemen) who do, and disagree with your assessment that a foetus, zygote, or whatever you want to call it is entitled to rights before it has developed into something recognisably human. I would not treat an egg with the same courtesy as I would treat a chicken.
I do not believe we are arguing from emotion.
I reject the notion that
this is entitled to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".
Me either, but he is trying to obtain the feminist vote, as well as others. It brings to mind a certain Scripture verse:
