I thought the US had separation of church and state

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
Originally posted by: Pale Rider
The logical conclusion is that abortion is at a minimum manslaughter.

If the logical conclusion is that abortion is manslaughter, what's a miscarriage? Also manslaughter? Manslaughter can be involuntary (just look at vehicular manslaughter), so the logical conclusion is that miscarriages are manslaughter. And I say, good. Lock these barren wenches up. How dare they kill a baby, even unintentionally.
 

ric1287

Diamond Member
Nov 29, 2005
4,845
0
0
Originally posted by: Ballatician
Originally posted by: Pale Rider
Originally posted by: ric1287
Originally posted by: Ballatician
Originally posted by: Pale Rider
Originally posted by: KeithTalent
That's interesting Eeezee because I have heard many times that your country was founded by Christians, so of course the laws and morals of the country are founded on Christian beliefs.

My knowledge of US history is rudimentary at best, so I do not know which is correct, but it seems to me that religious doctrine has had an impact on the laws of your country on more than one occassion.

KT

Since you are seemingly ignorant to our history (by your own admission) and even the most basic workings of our government (by your example) do yourself a favor and don't make any more stupid assertions about our laws.

Are you not aware of the stem-cell or abortion debates?

I still can't figure out why religion has any impact on abortion debates. It should be clear cut: if the egg is fertilized, and will become a full-blown baby in a few months, you should not be allowed to kill it. Do anything you want to prevent the combination, but don't kill it after its done. And I believe in 0% religion.

It shouldn't involve religion at all. The logical conclusion is that abortion is at a minimum manslaughter.

The problem is there are so many anti-religion folks out there who will take any opposite point that the religious folks make that they end up not arguing for abortion just against the religious standpoint.

This has caused problems because the non-religious people who are against abortion get lumped in with the people fire-bombing clinics. I don't really care what the bible states. If you make a law that says you can't kill people that should include all people.

I agree that it should not involve religion. The argument, however, is what constitutes a human.

In addition, should a woman that is raped, be forced to deal with 9 months of pregnancy without any other alternative?

These are not easy questions.

Rape/incest and potential death of the mother are the only cases where it should be allowed. If a fertilized egg is set and ready to go in the woman, you should not be allowed to kill it since the only thing keeping it from being what most people would consider "a baby" is a couple of months.
 

ric1287

Diamond Member
Nov 29, 2005
4,845
0
0
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Originally posted by: Pale Rider
The logical conclusion is that abortion is at a minimum manslaughter.

If the logical conclusion is that abortion is manslaughter, what's a miscarriage? Also manslaughter? Manslaughter can be involuntary (just look at vehicular manslaughter), so the logical conclusion is that miscarriages are manslaughter. And I say, good. Lock these barren wenches up. How dare they kill a baby, even unintentionally.

Then consider it murder since it is intentional.
 

torpid

Lifer
Sep 14, 2003
11,631
11
76
Originally posted by: ric1287
Rape/incest and potential death of the mother are the only cases where it should be allowed. If a fertilized egg is set and ready to go in the woman, you should not be allowed to kill it since the only thing keeping it from being a baby is a couple months.

Yeah but if you legally define it as manslaughter even rape cases aren't included. Last I checked, if a woman gets raped, she can't later commit manslaughter against someone and get a free pass. So I guess you don't agree with Pale Rider.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,940
542
126
Originally posted by: Pale Rider
Originally posted by: KeithTalent
Logical to whom? I don't necessarily think it's logical to make a blanket statement like that.

KT

Do you not care for the term used or the implication?

He probably does not care for the stench of the bullshit loaded into the statement.
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
Originally posted by: ric1287
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Originally posted by: ric1287
I was being comical when saying 'gays', why i used the quotes.

And I don't think it works because of natural human instincts. 2 men or 2 women cannot make a child together and I think would just confuse the hell out of a kid. Not to mention the fact that the adopted kid would be teased relentlessly, not matter how "accepting" we become as a society, which also screws with the kids head.

I'm not saying they would be horrible parents or wouldn't love the kid, but I just don't think its right psychologically for the child.

It's true. I was raised by lesbian mothers, and to this day, I still try to have sex with wildebeests and sunflowers (not at the same time, of course; I was raised a gentleman).

Didn't say that, but cool. Still doesn't matter for me, 1 person saying "I'm a-ok" doesn't mean its 100% true for everyone.

The problem is where you said that being raised by gay parents would confuse the hell out of a kid. I call bullshit. You could raise a kid in a wooden barrel strapped to an elephant and the kid would just assume that was perfectly normal. Kids have no frame of reference at a young age for being perplexed by something that would seem incredibly odd to us.

When I went off to school, I was not even remotely confused that all the other children spoke about their fathers while I spoke about my other mom. My mothers raised me by teaching me that most people had a mother and a father, but some people had two mothers, or two fathers, or just one or the other, or neither, and I shouldn't judge someone just because they came from a different background than myself. The other kids may have been confused by my parentage, but that's probably just how they were raised.
 

ric1287

Diamond Member
Nov 29, 2005
4,845
0
0
Originally posted by: torpid
Originally posted by: ric1287
Rape/incest and potential death of the mother are the only cases where it should be allowed. If a fertilized egg is set and ready to go in the woman, you should not be allowed to kill it since the only thing keeping it from being a baby is a couple months.

Yeah but if you legally define it as manslaughter even rape cases aren't included. Last I checked, if a woman gets raped, she can't later commit manslaughter against someone and get a free pass. So I guess you don't agree with Pale Rider.

Fine, then switch it to voluntary manslaughter or murder
 

Ballatician

Golden Member
Dec 6, 2007
1,985
0
0
Originally posted by: uberman
Look at the zygote. He's 8 hours old. Let's call him "Timmy." At this time he is preoccupied with cell division. He's as human as you or I...

Say what?

I lol'ed.

If you want to get down to the nitty gritty we're still dividing but more at the growth/maintenance phase rather than differentiation and development.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,940
542
126
Originally posted by: ric1287
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Originally posted by: Pale Rider
The logical conclusion is that abortion is at a minimum manslaughter.

If the logical conclusion is that abortion is manslaughter, what's a miscarriage? Also manslaughter? Manslaughter can be involuntary (just look at vehicular manslaughter), so the logical conclusion is that miscarriages are manslaughter. And I say, good. Lock these barren wenches up. How dare they kill a baby, even unintentionally.

Then consider it murder since it is intentional.

Nonsense. A fetus does not have more rights than those of actual persons, and so it cannot be permitted to occupy the body of another unconsenting person, since that would be a violation of the rights of that person -- in this case, the mother.
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
Originally posted by: Ballatician
Originally posted by: uberman
Look at the zygote. He's 8 hours old. Let's call him "Timmy." At this time he is preoccupied with cell division. He's as human as you or I...

Say what?

I lol'ed.

If you want to get down to the nitty gritty we're still dividing but more at the growth/maintenance phase rather than differentiation and development.

If you're doubling in size every few minutes, you may need to cut back your calorie intake.
 

Ballatician

Golden Member
Dec 6, 2007
1,985
0
0
Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
Originally posted by: ric1287
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Originally posted by: Pale Rider
The logical conclusion is that abortion is at a minimum manslaughter.

If the logical conclusion is that abortion is manslaughter, what's a miscarriage? Also manslaughter? Manslaughter can be involuntary (just look at vehicular manslaughter), so the logical conclusion is that miscarriages are manslaughter. And I say, good. Lock these barren wenches up. How dare they kill a baby, even unintentionally.

Then consider it murder since it is intentional.

Nonsense. A fetus does not have more rights than those of actual persons, and so it cannot be permitted to occupy the body of another unconsenting person, since that would be a violation of the rights of that person -- in this case, the mother.

Interesting argument. With an actual baby, a mother that chooses not to take care of it can leave it for adoption. This is impossible with a zygote or fetus.
 

HannibalX

Diamond Member
May 12, 2000
9,359
2
0
Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
Originally posted by: ric1287
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Originally posted by: Pale Rider
The logical conclusion is that abortion is at a minimum manslaughter.

If the logical conclusion is that abortion is manslaughter, what's a miscarriage? Also manslaughter? Manslaughter can be involuntary (just look at vehicular manslaughter), so the logical conclusion is that miscarriages are manslaughter. And I say, good. Lock these barren wenches up. How dare they kill a baby, even unintentionally.

Then consider it murder since it is intentional.

Nonsense. A fetus does not have more rights than those of actual persons, and so it cannot be permitted to occupy the body of another unconsenting person, since that would be a violation of the rights of that person -- in this case, the mother.

Using that argument would it be legal to kill a baby being developed in a test tube?
 

Ballatician

Golden Member
Dec 6, 2007
1,985
0
0
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Originally posted by: Ballatician
Originally posted by: uberman
Look at the zygote. He's 8 hours old. Let's call him "Timmy." At this time he is preoccupied with cell division. He's as human as you or I...

Say what?

I lol'ed.

If you want to get down to the nitty gritty we're still dividing but more at the growth/maintenance phase rather than differentiation and development.

If you're doubling in size every few minutes, you may need to cut back your calorie intake.

Haha, I just wanted to play devils advocate.

 

Vehemence

Banned
Jan 25, 2008
5,943
0
0
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Originally posted by: Ballatician
Originally posted by: uberman
Look at the zygote. He's 8 hours old. Let's call him "Timmy." At this time he is preoccupied with cell division. He's as human as you or I...

Say what?

I lol'ed.

If you want to get down to the nitty gritty we're still dividing but more at the growth/maintenance phase rather than differentiation and development.

If you're doubling in size every few minutes, you may need to cut back your calorie intake.

Was gonna make an erection joke but decided against it :(

 

Turin39789

Lifer
Nov 21, 2000
12,218
8
81
Originally posted by: Pale Rider
Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
Originally posted by: ric1287
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Originally posted by: Pale Rider
The logical conclusion is that abortion is at a minimum manslaughter.

If the logical conclusion is that abortion is manslaughter, what's a miscarriage? Also manslaughter? Manslaughter can be involuntary (just look at vehicular manslaughter), so the logical conclusion is that miscarriages are manslaughter. And I say, good. Lock these barren wenches up. How dare they kill a baby, even unintentionally.

Then consider it murder since it is intentional.

Nonsense. A fetus does not have more rights than those of actual persons, and so it cannot be permitted to occupy the body of another unconsenting person, since that would be a violation of the rights of that person -- in this case, the mother.

Using that argument would it be legal to kill a baby being developed in a test tube?

If it has developed the ability to think, then yes, but it couldn't do that in a test tube. Carl Sagan tells me so.

"If the fetus at a certain stage of gestation would be viable outside the womb, the argument goes, then the right of the fetus to life overrides the right of the woman to privacy. But just what does "viable" mean? Even a full-term newborn is not viable without a great deal of care and love. There was a time before incubators, only a few decades ago, when babies in their seventh month were unlikely to be viable. Would aborting in the seventh month have been permissible then? After the invention of incubators, did aborting pregnancies in the seventh month suddenly become immoral? What happens if, in the future, a new technology develops so that an artificial womb can sustain a fetus even before the sixth month by delivering oxygen and nutrients through the blood--as the mother does through the placenta and into the fetal blood system? We grant that this technology is unlikely to be developed soon or become available to many. But if it were available, does it then become immoral to abort earlier than the sixth month, when previously it was moral? A morality that depends on, and changes with, technology is a fragile morality; for some, it is also an unacceptable morality.

And why, exactly, should breathing (or kidney function, or the ability to resist disease) justify legal protection? If a fetus can be shown to think and feel but not be able to breathe, would it be all right to kill it? Do we value breathing more than thinking and feeling? Viability arguments cannot, it seems to us, coherently determine when abortions are permissible. Some other criterion is needed. Again, we offer for consideration the earliest onset of human thinking as that criterion.

Since, on average, fetal thinking occurs even later than fetal lung development, we find Roe v. Wade to be a good and prudent decision addressing a complex and difficult issue. With prohibitions on abortion in the last trimester--except in cases of grave medical necessity--it strikes a fair balance between the conflicting claims of freedom and life.

"


http://www.2think.org/abortion.shtml
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
Originally posted by: Ballatician
Originally posted by: Pale Rider
Originally posted by: KeithTalent
That's interesting Eeezee because I have heard many times that your country was founded by Christians, so of course the laws and morals of the country are founded on Christian beliefs.

My knowledge of US history is rudimentary at best, so I do not know which is correct, but it seems to me that religious doctrine has had an impact on the laws of your country on more than one occassion.

KT

Since you are seemingly ignorant to our history (by your own admission) and even the most basic workings of our government (by your example) do yourself a favor and don't make any more stupid assertions about our laws.

Are you not aware of the stem-cell or abortion debates?

Oh that's right, killing unborn babies is a purely religious issue.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,357
8,446
126
Originally posted by: Eeezee
Originally posted by: Nitemare
The US is FAR from a secular society

You need some basis for comparison. Are we less secular than Iran or Saudi Arabia? No

Are we probably the least secular Western nation? Abso-fucking-lutely, how else would a non-issue like gay marriage ever be considered a reasonable political issue?

gay marriage isn't legal in all, or even probably most western democracies

Same-sex marriages are legal now in Massachusetts, and California will begin to allow same-sex couples to wed on June 17 under a May 15 ruling by that state's highest court. Canada, South Africa, Spain, Belgium and the Netherlands also allow same-sex marriage.
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202421798174

further, abortion apparently is about as widely spread in europe as it would be here were roe and planned parenthood v. casey tossed. (ironically, even though everyone talks about roe v. wade, planned parenthood v. casey is the more current caselaw.)

http://books.google.com/books?id=oOtVjsdUPP0C&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=jurisdictions+that+outlaw+abortion+spain+ireland&source=web&ots=7Y_NGLhkeE&sig=Cdgrs7uzNYi9JD040f61U6atjlw&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA71,M1
 

lokiju

Lifer
May 29, 2003
18,526
5
0
Anandtech, the place where everyone wears $400 shoes, $200 jeans, drives $40k+ cars and hates anything to do with religion.
 

jyates

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2001
3,847
0
76
Originally posted by: lokiju
Anandtech, the place where everyone wears $400 shoes, $200 jeans, drives $40k+ cars and hates anything to do with religion.

Ding Ding Ding.....I think we have a winner here! :)
 

Linflas

Lifer
Jan 30, 2001
15,395
78
91
Originally posted by: lokiju
Anandtech, the place where everyone wears $400 shoes, $200 jeans, drives $40k+ cars and hates anything to do with religion.

And threads regarding separation of church and state started by people living in a country with a governor general from a country that has an official state church.
 

KeithTalent

Elite Member | Administrator | No Lifer
Administrator
Nov 30, 2005
50,231
117
116
Originally posted by: Linflas
Originally posted by: lokiju
Anandtech, the place where everyone wears $400 shoes, $200 jeans, drives $40k+ cars and hates anything to do with religion.

And threads regarding separation of church and state started by people living in a country with a governor general from a country that has an official state church.

And where you are not, apparently, allowed to make an observation or ask a question.

KT
 

silverpig

Lifer
Jul 29, 2001
27,703
11
81
Originally posted by: Linflas
Originally posted by: lokiju
Anandtech, the place where everyone wears $400 shoes, $200 jeans, drives $40k+ cars and hates anything to do with religion.

And threads regarding separation of church and state started by people living in a country with a governor general from a country that has an official state church.

The governor general is Canadian...

And the Queen as the head of state is a purely traditional figurehead. She has no power whatsoever, and no influence. At least our foreign policy doesn't come from God speaking directly to our head of state.
 

mcmilljb

Platinum Member
May 17, 2005
2,144
2
81
Originally posted by: torpid
Originally posted by: jonks
"Separation of church and state" is an ideal, not a law. The first amendment prohibits the "establishment of religion" or "prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It does not require that every single aspect of religion be totally separate from every aspect of goverment.

Conventions != the government, but even if they were, opening conventions with a prayer does not 'establish' religion.

It is effectively law because the supreme court has repeatedly interpreted the first amendment as establishing a separation of church and state. In fact, the first case mentioned in that link involves a justice directly quoting Jefferson (who came up with the term, I believe) in the opinion.

You are thinking James Madison. Both men were champions of separation of church and state, but James Madison wrote the Bill of Rights. James Madison wrote about "total separation." The problem with his argument is that religion shapes some people's views and morals. I find it difficult in a society that decides its laws by popular decision(sometimes at least) to not have outside influences, religious or otherwise. I think the bigger problem is the intolerance between people of different faiths, morals and ideologies.
 

mcmilljb

Platinum Member
May 17, 2005
2,144
2
81
Originally posted by: Ballatician
Originally posted by: Pale Rider
Originally posted by: KeithTalent
That's interesting Eeezee because I have heard many times that your country was founded by Christians, so of course the laws and morals of the country are founded on Christian beliefs.

My knowledge of US history is rudimentary at best, so I do not know which is correct, but it seems to me that religious doctrine has had an impact on the laws of your country on more than one occassion.

KT

Since you are seemingly ignorant to our history (by your own admission) and even the most basic workings of our government (by your example) do yourself a favor and don't make any more stupid assertions about our laws.

Are you not aware of the stem-cell or abortion debates?

Are you saying only religious people are against your views on the issue? Also the stem-cell position is becoming moot point because you can obtain stem cells without having to destroy embryos. Plus there non religious people who are pro-life too.

Why are we having a P&N topic in OT any way?