Abortion Is Equal To Murder?

[Teallaura]

Nobody said it had ANYTHING to do with Roe - it's just a typical Tassman "find ANYTHING I can to pretend to back up my claim even if it comes from a nutty source" thing.

As I recall, his source did make that claim.

[Teallaura]

Did you not bother reading?

Um, what? You do realize that is VARIABLE in the definition you're quoting, right? Here it's the definition of First Degree Murder - your original definition was of murder, period.

The more important part of this definition is malice, not legality - hence malice is part of the main clause and not the add on. Further, there's a lot more to murder than a single degree.

Legal execution is not a war crime - what the Nazis did was legal - yet it was a war crime. Why? Because legality is NOT the sole determiner of murder. Had they been tried under US law, I doubt there would have been much trouble making the 1st degree criteria - malice, not legality for its own sake, is the important issue here.

[Teallaura]

So not only is your objective morality internally inconsistent, vague and interpretable, it allows slavery, genocide, lapidation, rape, polygamy, concubinage and racism; is silent on unsafe construction, stem cell use, road safety, elections, intellectual property rights and gun possession; disallows eating scampi, divorce, religious freedom, working weekends and going bare-headed in church; and demands that post-menstruation women sacrifice pigeons.

It's also not objective.

Um, you are lumping ethics with morality in BOTH of your lists here. You don't have a good criticism when you can't even make that simple distinction.

Also, you don't get to be a jerk and turn around and do exactly what you claim the other guy did.

The Source is objective - your haphazard, deliberately skewed and contextually void 'critique' does nothing to undermine that.

And before you ask, you can debate it with Sparky - looks to me like you're derailing this thread as is (he's helping) and this will be my only contribution to that derail.

[Sparko]

What ARE those "moral and objective rules", is the question not being answered. They seem to vary from age to age according to the prevailing social mores of the day.

You want me to quote entire swaths of the bible for you?

You can start with Exodus and Leviticus, reading the moral parts of the Law. Then you can move on to the commandments of Jesus in the NT.

Being good out of fear of punishment is the most juvenile, undeveloped level of moral development. You're putting God in the position of a scolding parent with us being no more than naughty children.

Great. Tell that to God when you see him.

[Tassman]

You want me to quote entire swaths of the bible for you?

You can start with Exodus and Leviticus, reading the moral parts of the Law. Then you can move on to the commandments of Jesus in the NT

OK:

"Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death." (Exodus 21:15)

"All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offence." (Leviticus 20:9)

Are these an example of those "moral and objective rules" that you're talking about, why not?

Great. Tell that to God when you see him.

What god would that be?

[Roy]

The bible reports historical events and actions. It doesn't always approve of them. It also contains commands and information on moral behavior and sinful behavior.

And those commands and information on moral behaviour include that it allows slavery, genocide, lapidation, rape, polygamy, concubinage and racism; is silent on unsafe construction, stem cell use, road safety, elections, intellectual property rights and gun possession; disallows eating scampi, divorce, religious freedom, working weekends and going bare-headed in church; and demands that post-menstruation women sacrifice pigeons.

God created the universe and it's rules. So what he says is moral is objective and affects everyone.

Then you'd better avoid scampi, Sparko, and start buying pigeons.

[Sparko]

OK:

"Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death." (Exodus 21:15)

"All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offence." (Leviticus 20:9)

Are these an example of those "moral and objective rules" that you're talking about, why not?

In a way. Part of it, the punishment, capitol offense, was given to those people at a particular time, but the objective moral part is "treat your parents well" or basically "love your family"

That is an objective morality.

[Tassman]

In a way. Part of it, the punishment, capitol offense, was given to those people at a particular time, but the objective moral part is "treat your parents well" or basically "love your family"

That is an objective morality.

No it isn't. It's a subjective interpretation adapted for a more recent era.

[Sparko]

No it isn't. It's a subjective interpretation adapted for a more recent era.

Is it good to love your parents and respect them?

[One Bad Pig]

And those commands and information on moral behaviour include that it allows slavery, genocide, lapidation, rape, polygamy, concubinage and racism; is silent on unsafe construction, stem cell use, road safety, elections, intellectual property rights and gun possession; disallows eating scampi, divorce, religious freedom, working weekends and going bare-headed in church; and demands that post-menstruation women sacrifice pigeons.Then you'd better avoid scampi, Sparko, and start buying pigeons.

That's a right impressive display of vituperative ignorance, Roy. It's also about the largest elephant hurl I've ever seen. Congratulations, I think.

[Roy]

That's a right impressive display of vituperative ignorance, Roy. It's also about the largest elephant hurl I've ever seen. Congratulations, I think.

For your future reference, "elephant hurling" consists of claiming that there are lots of examples or masses of evidence but not identifying any. Similar to your comment, in fact.

[Tassman]

Is it good to love your parents and respect them?

Yes of course. But the point of an objective absolute law is that it is immutable. Once you start interpreting them and adapting them for a "particular time", to quote you, they become subjective. Interpretations can vary.

[Sparko]

Yes of course. But the point of an objective absolute law is that it is immutable. Once you start interpreting them and adapting them for a "particular time", to quote you, they become subjective. Interpretations can vary.

Not that it is immutable, but that it is universally true. There can be exceptions. If your parents were serial killers and decided you would make a good breakfast, I would think it would be fine for you not to honor them, for example. But the moral value of respecting and loving your parents is a universal good. For all time. 10,000 years ago and today.

The actual LAW regarding that moral truth is not part of the moral truth itself. Every society has different ways to deal with various morals. Murder for instance. Unjustified killing is a moral evil. That is universal for all human beings for all time. Everyone agrees on that, except for those who are evil or mentally ill. But each society has different laws on what is justified or unjustified and different punishments for breaking the law. One society might behead murderers, another might expel them. Another might lock them up for life. So it is with the LAW that if you dishonor your mother and father you will be stoned. The moral truth is the same today, but today our society doesn't stone people who break that moral code. It doesn't change the moral code that honoring and loving your parents is good.

[One Bad Pig]

For your future reference, "elephant hurling" consists of claiming that there are lots of examples or masses of evidence but not identifying any.

Yes, it seems I misused the phrase.

Similar to your comment, in fact.

After looking up the meaning of the phrase, I fail to see how my comment qualifies as one either.

[Tassman]

Not that it is immutable, but that it is universally true. There can be exceptions. If your parents were serial killers and decided you would make a good breakfast, I would think it would be fine for you not to honor them, for example. But the moral value of respecting and loving your parents is a universal good. For all time. 10,000 years ago and today.

The actual LAW regarding that moral truth is not part of the moral truth itself. Every society has different ways to deal with various morals. Murder for instance. Unjustified killing is a moral evil. That is universal for all human beings for all time. Everyone agrees on that, except for those who are evil or mentally ill. But each society has different laws on what is justified or unjustified and different punishments for breaking the law. One society might behead murderers, another might expel them. Another might lock them up for life. So it is with the LAW that if you dishonor your mother and father you will be stoned. The moral truth is the same today, but today our society doesn't stone people who break that moral code. It doesn't change the moral code that honoring and loving your parents is good.

All of which is true, but it just reinforces my point that these ‘objective moral laws” of yours need subjective interpretation in the light of the social mores of the day. This means that, in terms of their application, these laws are subjective not objectively absolute. In short, current values and worldviews, shape biblical interpretation.