If there was no death (of animals) before the Fall, then why would animals need to eat?

[Bungle_Bear]

I go to a bar and have a few drinks. I know I shouldn’t drive home but I do anyways. I’m not gonna call for a ride and leave my car at the bar. I’ve only had a few drinks. I can drive fine.

I don't see how that makes your point. What is the moral decision you have made? Why is it complicated and difficult not to follow through? Impaired faculties and overconfidence are not examples of "complicated and difficult", they're just examples of poor judgement.

Try this one for size: your 12 year old daughter is raped by your brother and falls pregnant. Talk us through your decisions regarding abortion.

 

[Platte]

I don't see how that makes your point. What is the moral decision you have made? Why is it complicated and difficult not to follow through? Impaired faculties and overconfidence are not examples of "complicated and difficult", they're just examples of poor judgement.

Try this one for size: your 12 year old daughter is raped by your brother and falls pregnant. Talk us through your decisions regarding abortion.

Or how about this one. I’m a 27 year old female sleeping around. I don’t use birth control or any other contraceptive. I already had multiple abortions so I have no concern if the off chance I get pregnant. This is a much more common scenario. This 27 year old killing another child with the aid of a child killing doctor needs to be stopped. That’s what the abortion laws should target

 

[LightLoveHope]

It's a general rule based on an unsupportable
opinion that the law " should" not get involved.

Not sure how you arrive at your summary.
The law defines when a criminal act has taken place, which when proven suitable punishment is set.

So I am defining the law can get involved past 24 weeks abortion, where a baby can survive outside the womb, and if abortion is done at this point, penalties can be levied against the guilty.

A lot of people do not understand what the law is there for. It is simply to separate those who fall within the justice system and can be punished in some way and those who are innocent, and nothing can be done against them by the criminal justice system. The aim is to discourage certain behaviours, and separate out such individuals into either prison or community services or whatever is deemed appropriate.

Now the unfortunate thing is wherever you put the line someone will be innocent over the line, and guilty but appear to get away with it. But the law is to empower the society to enforce principles.

Some feel that to get involved at all is wrong, but that is simply abdication of responsibility.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Or how about this one. I’m a 27 year old female sleeping around. I don’t use birth control or any other contraceptive. I already had multiple abortions so I have no concern if the off chance I get pregnant. This is a much more common scenario. This 27 year old killing another child with the aid of a child killing doctor needs to be stopped. That’s what the abortion laws should target

That does not address the scenario I gave in any way. By trying to change subject you appear to be indicating that things are not as clear cut and simplistic as you initially asserted. If things really are that simplistic then please talk us through the scenario I presented.

 

[Estrid]

Not sure how you arrive at your summary.
The law defines when a criminal act has taken place, which when proven suitable punishment is set.

So I am defining the law can get involved past 24 weeks abortion, where a baby can survive outside the womb, and if abortion is done at this point, penalties can be levied against the guilty.

A lot of people do not understand what the law is there for. It is simply to separate those who fall within the justice system and can be punished in some way and those who are innocent, and nothing can be done against them by the criminal justice system. The aim is to discourage certain behaviours, and separate out such individuals into either prison or community services or whatever is deemed appropriate.

Now the unfortunate thing is wherever you put the line someone will be innocent over the line, and guilty but appear to get away with it. But the law is to empower the society to enforce principles.

Some feel that to get involved at all is wrong, but that is simply abdication of responsibility.

I pointed out that "ban all / allow all" abortions is,
while a general rule, is not even sane

You stated as a fact not in evidence that a woman
"has a right".
The sudden assignment of rights to a person at a
certain age is as illusory as the sudden insertion of a
soul that some imagine. Whether either is sane, you decide.
Then there is thr arbitrarily determination of when
the law "should" get involved. Where do you get this "should"?

The proposed 24 week law me arbitrary and making it a law
doesn't make it right or wrong.
There's no need to tell me the function of law which btw
is substantially different in the USA and China.

Your use of the word "principles" is interesting. What principle is
upheld by setting a one minute after mindight time before
which any person can be deprived of life for any chosen reason?

 

[AV1611VET]

Then there is thr arbitrarily determination of when
the law "should" get involved. Where do you get this "should"?

We have a habit of calling the police whenever a life has been taken against its will.

It's called "murder."

And in fact, to NOT get the cops involved, but to take the matter into one's own hands, is called 'vigilantism".

 

[Platte]

That does not address the scenario I gave in any way. By trying to change subject you appear to be indicating that things are not as clear cut and simplistic as you initially asserted. If things really are that simplistic then please talk us through the scenario I presented.

What does killing a child have to do with someone getting raped?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

What does killing a child have to do with someone getting raped?

You haven't answered my question. Please talk us through the scenario I gave you.

 

[Platte]

You haven't answered my question. Please talk us through the scenario I gave you.

I’m not going to talk you through killing a child. That is insane.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I’m not going to talk you through killing a child. That is insane.

I didn't say there had to be an abortion or anything else about killing a child. In fact I asked you to talk us through your deicsion concerning abortion i.e. would you resort to abortion or not, and what factors would you consider in making that decision. I'll take your emotional response as an admission that things are not as simplistic as you assert.

Let's move on.

 

[LightLoveHope]

I pointed out that "ban all / allow all" abortions is,
while a general rule, is not even sane

You stated as a fact not in evidence that a woman
"has a right".
The sudden assignment of rights to a person at a
certain age is as illusory as the sudden insertion of a
soul that some imagine. Whether either is sane, you decide.
Then there is thr arbitrarily determination of when
the law "should" get involved. Where do you get this "should"?

The proposed 24 week law me arbitrary and making it a law
doesn't make it right or wrong.
There's no need to tell me the function of law which btw
is substantially different in the USA and China.

Your use of the word "principles" is interesting. What principle is
upheld by setting a one minute after mindight time before
which any person can be deprived of life for any chosen reason?

Let me say my assumption in discussions that people exists and all have rights to be acknowledged, protected, and respected. As members of society they have obligations to others and the society has obligations to them. Now these are assumptions, which some will throw out from a nihilistic perspective, but I dismiss this position as delusional. We are born with relationship awareness from birth and develop this as we grow within our social group.

Within this context, it is pragmatic to draw up legal frameworks of rights of members of society, when they begin and when they end. This is the basis of all civil and criminal law. Now if you want to deny all this as the foundation of a reasonable discussion, then I cannot say a lot more, as it is pointless.

God bless you

 

[Estrid]

Let me say my assumption in discussions that people exists and all have rights to be acknowledged, protected, and respected. As members of society they have obligations to others and the society has obligations to them. Now these are assumptions, which some will throw out from a nihilistic perspective, but I dismiss this position as delusional. We are born with relationship awareness from birth and develop this as we grow within our social group.

Within this context, it is pragmatic to draw up legal frameworks of rights of members of society, when they begin and when they end. This is the basis of all civil and criminal law. Now if you want to deny all this as the foundation of a reasonable discussion, then I cannot say a lot more, as it is pointless.

God bless you

I don't do nihilism or disagree with the above

 

[LightLoveHope]

I don't do nihilism or disagree with the above

Ok on this basis there is a conflict of rights between harm done to a baby through neglect or negligence and that which is an embryo growing inside the mother which will lead to a baby.

So a premature baby at 26 weeks, born through surgery and doctors skill to save their life on behalf of the baby and the parents is in stark contrast to the same baby which is killed through poison or a drug because the mother or parents want this babies life to end prior to its birth. These are two conflicting approaches which call into question who has the right to declare whether this baby lives or dies.

Now it becomes more problematic, because the medical doctor who kills the baby is either an innocent doctor doing their duty or a murderer who should be struck off. Now the judges who authorise either behaviour carry the burden if the medics cannot decide. In the current state of affairs the doctors cover themselves with consent and permissions. Those of a more sensitive disposition realise signing a bit of paper does not make the action better or worse just legally defensible. So you have a moral question, where the moral actors get brutalised, which is not good for anyone. It is little wonder the suicide rate among medics is high, given this kind of pressure when put alongside the youthful ambition most have when they enter the service.

This is why I favour a 24 week gestation period divide between legal abortion and medical intervention.
Of course this ignores silent eugenics which is going on. This child might have downs or a genetic disorder so abortion would be the kindest option...which is currently an active alternative. Should we be playing God like this, valuing life, rather than life valuing itself and seeing what survives while helping the unfortunate.

God bless you

 

[Sheila Davis]

See title.

Animals eat for the purpose of providing nutrients for the replenishment of energy stores, cellular rejuvenation, and so on. If an animal stops eating, metabolic processes no longer have the 'fuel' required to function and the animal eventually dies.

According to creationists there was no death before the Fall. If animals were no longer in danger of starving to death then why would there be a need to eat?

Animals died - it was the fruit of the Tree of Life that enabled human mortal bodies to obtain immortality. as written in Genesis 3:22 God put them out of the garden so that they wouldn't eat from the tree and live forever in sin - as God told Adam the day that he eats from the tree of knowledge he would surely die - and a day to the Lord is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day, so God's timing and man's timing will never be in sync.