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

[AV1611VET]

You do realize that killing the unborn child is the key element of an abortion. A doctor shouldn’t be involved in the killing of an unborn baby.

Killing a woman with child is considered a double homicide.

 

[Platte]

Regarding the topic at hand. Adam’s punishment for sin was that he would surely die. I have no reason to think that animals didn’t die before the fall. There is nothing in the Bible that mentions some biological change for animals or man that occurred because of the Fall. I have no reason to think biologically animals and man before the Fall were different than animals and man today. Both capable of death before the fall and after the fall

 

[Bungle_Bear]

You do realize that killing the unborn child is the key element of an abortion. A doctor shouldn’t be involved in the killing of an unborn baby.

Who should be involved, then? Are all moral decisions so simplistic in your world?

 

[Platte]

Who should be involved, then? Are all moral decisions so simplistic in your world?

Unless for the life of the mother a doctor should not be involved. Doctors should not be killing children.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Unless for the life of the mother a doctor should not be involved. Doctors should not be killing children.

Would I be wrong to infer that the answer to this question:

Are all moral decisions so simplistic in your world?

is "Yes"?

 

[Platte]

Are all moral decisions so simplistic in your world?

Would I be wrong to infer that the answer to this question:
is "Yes"?

Making the moral choice is extremely difficult and complicated. But yes the moral decision is almost always simplistic.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Making the moral choice is extremely difficult and complicated. But yes the moral decision is almost always simplistic.

Difficult and complicated but at the same time simplistic is self-contradictory.

 

[Platte]

Difficult and complicated but at the same time simplistic is self-contradictory.

Not at all, it means KNOWING the right thing to do and DOING the right thing are two different things

 

[SelfSim]

Not at all, it means KNOWING the right thing to do and DOING the right thing are two different things

Interesting ... You seem to be implying that knowing (knowledge and 'choices' thereof) is complicated, and taking actions (doing, deciding) based on that knowledge is simple, is that right?

I'm not sure I've ever considered knowledge, once I have it, as being something I have a choice about?

 

[Platte]

Interesting ... You seem to be implying that knowing (knowledge and 'choices' thereof) is complicated, and taking actions (doing, deciding) based on that knowledge is simple, is that right?

I'm not sure I've ever considered knowledge, once I have it, as being something I have a choice about?

Knowing the right thing to do is easy. Doing the right thing not always so easy. Much more complicated.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Knowing the right thing to do is easy. Doing the right thing not always so easy. Much more complicated.

Again, that makes no sense. If you know the right thing to do why is it hard to do? Perhaps you could provide an example.

 

[LightLoveHope]

A word game about my choice of an informal use
of "sane" hardly negates my observation that the
absolute dichotomy between "ban all" and "allow all"
is brainless and unrealistic.

That many indulge in brainless behaviour and
beliefs hardly speaks to the quality of sanity.

Both of those extremes would be general rules, as in covering all cases.
I asked if you think there is a general rule ( that would be sane) that you might care to propose.
So far you e not even approached a response.

One general rule is if the baby can survive outside the mother, then medical abortion should not happen.
The mother has the right up to that point to make decisions as to her life and what she chooses to do.
The law should only get involved when the rights of the baby are clearly being removed, which could be survived outside the mother.

It is interesting that conservative jews regard the baby as part of the mother until it is born. In a non-medical sense this is true, up till birth the child is part of the mothers body and the mothers desire to carry on living. With the advancement of medicine this is no longer true.

It also makes sense that medical practitioners are committed to protect life, which is in definite conflict with late abortions ie after 24 weeks.

If you look across the world, pragmatically this is where things work out, whether put into law or not.

 

[Astrid]

One general rule is if the baby can survive outside the mother, then medical abortion should not happen.
The mother has the right up to that point to make decisions as to her life and what she chooses to do.
The law should only get involved when the rights of the baby are clearly being removed, which could be survived outside the mother.

It is interesting that conservative jews regard the baby as part of the mother until it is born. In a non-medical sense this is true, up till birth the child is part of the mothers body and the mothers desire to carry on living. With the advancement of medicine this is no longer true.

It also makes sense that medical practitioners are committed to protect life, which is in definite conflict with late abortions ie after 24 weeks.

If you look across the world, pragmatically this is where things work out, whether put into law or not.

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

 

[Platte]

Again, that makes no sense. If you know the right thing to do why is it hard to do? Perhaps you could provide an example.

We all have our own struggles with that for some they know they shouldn’t smoke cigarettes but they do it. For some they know they shouldn’t have sex outside of marriage but they do it anyways. Some people swear too much, eat too much, not exercise enough, do drugs, abuse alcohol, cheat on their taxes, stay true to their spouse, look at porn, etc. I’m sure most if not everyone struggles with things decisions they make doing things they don’t think is the right thing to do. I don’t know anyone who thinks abortion is a good thing. Just my opinion.

 

[SelfSim]

We all have our own struggles with that for some they know they shouldn’t smoke cigarettes but they do it ... {etc}

So, if we asked those people why they smoke when they smoke, we'd find out what they do know. If we see them smoking, then we can say whether their actions are consistent, or not, with what they know. The issue there then becomes them dealing with the inconsistency.

Dealing with inconsistency is a matter of accepting responsibility for one's actions, based on what one does know. There is no 'right' or 'wrong' there. 'Complicated' and 'simple' is really beside the point as the root issue there, is really being responsible in resolving inconsistencies for oneself, IMO(?).

 

[Platte]

So, if we asked those people why they smoke when they smoke, we'd find out what they do know. If we see them smoking, then we can say whether their actions are consistent, or not, with what they know. The issue there then becomes them dealing with the inconsistency.

Dealing with inconsistency is a matter of accepting responsibility for one's actions, based on what one does know. There is no 'right' or 'wrong' there. 'Complicated' and 'simple' is really beside the point as the root issue there, is really being responsible in resolving inconsistencies for oneself, IMO(?).

So you don’t think there are a lot of people who think that the right thing for them to do would be to quit smoking but they don’t even though they know that would be the right thing to do?

 

[SelfSim]

So you don’t think there are a lot of people who think that the right thing for them to do would be to quit smoking but they don’t even though they know that would be the right thing to do?

The point I was making there, is that accepting responsibility for resolving inconsistencies is up to them .. its their choice and doesn't come down to trusting someone else's opinions of 'what right is' and 'what wrong is' and others' (or even their own) judgements about 'how much they know/don't know'.

The latter basis is less motivating (particularly in dealing with addictions), as they may not have the detalied knowledge needed for convincing themselves to the point where they'll stop (from their viewpoints, they're most likely just going by abundant hearsay/hype). Its also demotivating, because it negates their sense of personal freedom to acquire that knowledge for themselves, (or even worse/insulting: being made to appear as though they are somehow deficient in knowledge on the topic).

Their reports of their 'struggles/difficulties', tends to be a sure sign that their mind has set up a smoke screen of confusion, in order to avoid accepting the responsibilty for their actions. (We all do this).

The pre-requisite conversation might be along the lines of: 'Do you consider yourself as living a life of integrity?, (where by 'integrity', I mean a deep sense of completeness and wholeness), as this taps into less sensitive parts of their knowledge and is also the tip of a huge iceberg affecting other areas of their lives).

 

[Bungle_Bear]

We all have our own struggles with that for some they know they shouldn’t smoke cigarettes but they do it. For some they know they shouldn’t have sex outside of marriage but they do it anyways. Some people swear too much, eat too much, not exercise enough, do drugs, abuse alcohol, cheat on their taxes, stay true to their spouse, look at porn, etc. I’m sure most if not everyone struggles with things decisions they make doing things they don’t think is the right thing to do. I don’t know anyone who thinks abortion is a good thing. Just my opinion.

I don't see the moral dilemmas in many of those, so please walk us through a specific example. Explain the moral problem, what the "right" decision is (including why it is right and how that is a simple decision), and how it is difficult to follow through on that decision.

 

[Platte]

The point I was making there, is that accepting responsibility for resolving inconsistencies is up to them .. its their choice and doesn't come down to trusting someone else's opinions of 'what right is' and 'what wrong is' and others' (or even their own) judgements about 'how much they know/don't know'.

The latter basis is less motivating (particularly in dealing with addictions), as they may not have the detalied knowledge needed for convincing themselves to the point where they'll stop (from their viewpoints, they're most likely just going by abundant hearsay/hype). Its also demotivating, because it negates their sense of personal freedom to acquire that knowledge for themselves, (or even worse/insulting: being made to appear as though they are somehow deficient in knowledge on the topic).

Their reports of their 'struggles/difficulties', tends to be a sure sign that their mind has set up a smoke screen of confusion, in order to avoid accepting the responsibilty for their actions. (We all do this).

The pre-requisite conversation might be along the lines of: 'Do you consider yourself as living a life of integrity?, (where by 'integrity', I mean a deep sense of completeness and wholeness), as this taps into less sensitive parts of their knowledge and is also the tip of a huge iceberg affecting other areas of their lives).

There are so many people who drink and drive even though they know it’s the wrong thing to do. Is that an inconsistency or should we do what we can to ensure people don’t do that?

 

[Platte]

I don't see the moral dilemmas in many of those, so please walk us through a specific example. Explain the moral problem, what the "right" decision is (including why it is right and how that is a simple decision), and how it is difficult to follow through on that decision.

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.