It should be Murder?

[Belk]

Sorry, but fail. Collateral damage is not intentional killing of persons. In fact, if it is found that soldiers intentionally killed non-combatants, they can be prosecuted for any deaths caused in this way.

Additionally, collateral damage is not a civil law but a regulation governing armed combat with opposing forces. In such conditions non combatants harboring enemy combatants or leaders are considered to intend harm toward armed forces members.

Define your use of "intentional" here. I would say that dropping a bomb on a city is pretty intentional.

 

[redleghunter]

I didn't ask if it was "me". It isn't by the way, unless you're willing to say that "I" am spread out all over the place due to the day to day loss of cells.

I'm asking if what's in the petri dish is a person with rights? especially the second example where it has DNA different from me.

Whether you are exfoliating or have your DNA in a petri dish it is from you a distinct human being. What is joined at conception is distinct from all other human beings. They have their own 'code' which cannot be replicated.

You as an individual have a right to not have your sperm or DNA taken other than by court order in a criminal investigation. It belongs to you.

 

[redleghunter]

So what is your position on the bible? Literal, a collection of stories for the reader to use as they wish, something other?

The TaNaKh and Brit HaHadashah (NT) is the inspired written word of God.

In the Bible we find the Mind of God:

http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/memorize-the-mind-of-god

 

[nomadictheist]

Define your use of "intentional" here. I would say that dropping a bomb on a city is pretty intentional.

Five things:

1. Laws have changed concerning bombings. Bombs have gotten more precise so they can cause less collateral damage.

2. Again, this is military law, not civil law. If you or I were to launch a missile at a city, whether it's a country our nations are at war with or not, we would be prosecuted for multiple counts of homicide, and probably an act of terrorism, not to mention illegally owning and operating weapons systems, etc...

3. Collateral damage has its own set of laws governing it, in which only official members of the armed forces are authorized to clear the launching of a missile or the dropping of a bomb. There are long investigations into any operation involving collateral damage, and the more extensive the damage, the more intensive the investigation.

4. Any persons harboring combatants or leaders of enemy armed forces are deemed to intend harm to armed forces members. If you are fighting in an urban area, you are governed by the military rules of engagement, which prohibit firing at non-combatants, among other things.

5. While the launching of a missile or dropping of a bomb is intentional, the purpose is not to inflict collateral damage but to take out a target, whether that target is an enemy leader, production facility, or something similar.


And, before we go into specifics, I don't believe the use of nuclear weapons was justified during WWII, nor do I believe nuclear warfare will ever be justified. Bombing entire cities of civilians to make a point in a war is no better than terrorism, imo.

 

[nomadictheist]

Ok, you have a valid reason to think that 1% may have been accurate.

I would hotly debate the validity of the findings as the site is clearly a biased one and would prefer independent stats shown, and one of its sources for the findings is Fox News and that is all kinds of scary. But would be interesting to see where they got the 1% from but clearly you hadn't made that up for the sake of a point so I apologise for doubting your integrity on that point.

Would suggest though it always adds credibility if you add the link at the same time as the stat.

I appreciate the concession. I know that this is a biased source, but I spent some time searching for other statistics and could find nothing more than a study released by the guttmacher institute in 2005. These stats put the reasons at (1) rape: 1% and (2) incest <0.5%

Another study by Bio Med Central didn't even have rape/incest listed among their reasons. The "fact sheet" put out by prochoice.org didn't have any statistics either. So I work with what I have.

 

[redleghunter]

That's an evasive nonsensical answer. So the how do you interpret the mind of God from the bible cause clearly we're reading different books.

Are you truly curious? Remember this is not on topic with the OP. But since you asked:

I read the NASB, KJV, and in some cases the Easter Orthodox Bible to check out the LXX translation. I often go to the original languages when conducting an expository examination of passages. Very much like the Apostles and early church fathers interpreted scriptures.

This may help:

There are some basic principles of good exegesis which serious students of the Bible will follow:

1. The Grammatical Principle. The Bible was written in human language, and language has a certain structure and follows certain rules. Therefore, we must interpret the Bible in a manner consistent with the basic rules of language.

Usually, the exegete starts his examination of a passage by defining the words in it. Definitions are basic to understanding the passage as a whole, and it is important that the words be defined according to their original intent and not according to modern usage. To ensure accuracy, the exegete uses a precise English translation and Greek and Hebrew dictionaries.

Next, the exegete examines the syntax, or the grammatical relationships of the words in the passage. He finds parallels, he determines which ideas are primary and which are subordinate, and he discovers actions, subjects, and their modifiers. He may even diagram a verse or two.

2. The Literal Principle. We assume that each word in a passage has a normal, literal meaning, unless there is good reason to view it as a figure of speech. The exegete does not go out of his way to spiritualize or allegorize. Words mean what words mean.

So, if the Bible mentions a “horse,” it means “a horse.” When the Bible speaks of the Promised Land, it means a literal land given to Israel and should not be interpreted as a reference to heaven.

3. The Historical Principle. As time passes, culture changes, points of view change, language changes. We must guard against interpreting scripture according to how our culture views things; we must always place scripture in its historical context.

The diligent Bible student will consider the geography, the customs, the current events, and even the politics of the time when a passage was written. An understanding of ancient Jewish culture can greatly aid an understanding of scripture. To do his research, the exegete will use Bible dictionaries, commentaries, and books on history.

4. The Synthesis Principle. The best interpreter of scripture is scripture itself. We must examine a passage in relation to its immediate context (the verses surrounding it), its wider context (the book it’s found in), and its complete context (the Bible as a whole). The Bible does not contradict itself. Any theological statement in one verse can and should be harmonized with theological statements in other parts of scripture. Good Bible interpretation relates any one passage to the total content of scripture.

5. The Practical Principle. Once we’ve properly examined the passage to understand its meaning, we have the responsibility to apply it to our own lives. To “rightly divide the word of truth” is more than an intellectual exercise; it is a life-changing event.

 

[redleghunter]

Fair play. It would definitely be a number larger than that I'm reality due to the lack of people who could or would answer that question which is understandable. And 1% of 730k is still a whopping 7,300. Not a minuscule number.

That's a good point. I am sure women seeking an abortion is not an insignificant number. Which means that women who abort for other reasons (financial, relational, job security, convenience etc.) far overshadow women who are raped.

 

[nomadictheist]

Fair play. It would definitely be a number larger than that I'm reality due to the lack of people who could or would answer that question which is understandable. And 1% of 730k is still a whopping 7,300. Not a minuscule number.

No number of rape victims is minuscule or insignificant. However, that would be 722,700,000 who seek abortion for other reasons.

And I'm not sure yet where they retrieved the number from, but this site cites the National Abortion Federation as their source for 1% of all women who get abortions citing rape as their reason.

Either way, I still believe it's not the child's fault. The actions of the man are despicable, but the child's life shouldn't be forfeit because of that.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

But if you take a few of my cells and keep them alive in a petri dish, do you allow that "human life" to have rights?

Would those cells develop into a human being with time? Would they acquire a unique and distinct DNA?

 

[Nic Samojluk]

This not a question that science can answer.

“That is, in human reproduction, when sperm joins ovum, these two individual cells cease to be, and their union generates a new and distinct organism. This organism is a whole, though in the beginning developmentally immature, member of the human species. Readers need not take our word for this: They can consult any of the standard human-embryology texts, such as Moore and Persaud’s The Developing Human, Larsen’s Human Embryology, Carlson’s Human Embryology & Developmental Biology, and O’Rahilly and Mueller’s Human Embryology & Teratology.” – Dr. Robert George

“Human embryos, whether they are formed by fertilization (natural or in vitro) or by successful somatic-cell nuclear transfer (SCNT — i.e., cloning), do have the internal resources and active disposition to develop themselves to the mature stage of a human organism, requiring only a suitable environment and nutrition. In fact, scientists distinguish embryos from other cells or clusters of cells precisely by their self-directed, integral functioning — their organismal behavior. Thus, human embryos are what the embryology textbooks say they are, namely, human organisms — living individuals of the human species — at the earliest developmental stage.” – Dr. Robert George

- See more at: http://fallibleblogma.com/index.php/when-does-science-say-human-life-begins/#sthash.TqSfFmd2.dpuf

How many embryologists do you know who disagree with the above?

 

[Cearbhall]

“That is, in human reproduction, when sperm joins ovum, these two individual cells cease to be, and their union generates a new and distinct organism.

Why do people keep answering Belk with science? The topic is personhood. It's not a matter of science. Of course a zygote is a human life. Everyone who was paying attention in elementary school knows that. That fact doesn't automatically lead to certain laws.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Why do people keep answering Belk with science? The topic is personhood. It's not a matter of science. Of course a zygote is a human life. Everyone who was paying attention in elementary school knows that.

Because they don't have a coherent answer, and resort to nonsense and emotion to hide the fact.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

As several people have now reminded you, if you wish a discussion on the morality of abortion, then start your own!

Did you miss the following from this forum:

"It should be Murder?
Discussion in 'Ethics & Morality' started by SteveB28, Dec 28, 2015."

Will you apologize now for you oversight?

 

[Nic Samojluk]

You would have the girl who aborted the foetus produced by rape arrested for murder?

A victim of a crime is not entitled to commit murder. There is no way of unrape the victim. You simply submit the poor girl to a second violation--this time by metal instruments.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

No, the scientific community will not touch "person" because that is not a scientific question.

If science cannot answer a question dealing with science, then no one can!

 

[Cearbhall]

You simply submit the poor girl to a second violation--this time by metal instruments.

Is anyone here advocating for forced abortion? There are indeed some terrible parents who would force their teenage daughter to undergo this procedure if the Plan B didn't do the job, but I haven't seen anyone supporting that.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

If science cannot answer a question dealing with science, then no one can!

What part of "not a scientific question" didn't you understand?

 

[Nic Samojluk]

I know that you hate this simple fact, but fact it is.....most people disagree with you and so do the courts

When Hitler was in power, they were facts, and look how this ended. We are repeating his moral mistakes with impunity!

 

[Nic Samojluk]

However, this discussion has commenced in a sub forum, designed for the contribution of atheists and was started by an atheist and specifically avoided the question of religious issues!

Did you notice the following statement underneath the title of this blog?

"It should be Murder?
Discussion in 'Ethics & Morality' started by SteveB28, Dec 28, 2015."

Ethics and morality requires a higher law!

 

[Nic Samojluk]

You have a female neighbour on either side of where you live. The one on the right tells you one morning that her young son has had a fall at home and has died from head injuries.

In a case like this one, the law requires an investigation.