tiller faces the Maker

[PreachersWife2004]

LetL is entirely correct. Dr. Tiller murdered no one.

and like I said, you guys just keeping telling yourself that.

 

[kiwimac]

Murder is a legal concept. It applies to the 'unlawful taking of (human) life', abortion is not illegal ergo there is no murder happening.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Murder is a legal concept. It applies to the 'unlawful taking of (human) life', abortion is not illegal ergo there is no murder happening.

Technically you are correct.

But just because abortion isn't illegal, doesn't make it moral.

It was not illegal in native cultures of the Amazon, to practiced head-hunting, so it wasn't murder.
However, is headhunting moral when if its not illegal?

Jim

 

[lux et lex]

Morality and Legality have nothing to do with each other.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

I cannot capitalize his first name since he deserves no recognition whatsoever but pure shame.
If anyone here does not know who or what I am talking about, please read the news.
How do you feel about the man being shot to death? Murder of course. But then again, with him gone, there will be many less abortions (specifally, VERY late term abortions... ones that are illegal if I recal). Part of me says "good riddence". The other says hold on a minute...

It's terrible that he was murdered, but his murder is no worse than the murders he committed.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Morality and Legality have nothing to do with each other.

Really? Are you sure about that?

 

[lux et lex]

Really? Are you sure about that?

I'll step back from "nothing" and put "very little". I used to think the two were intermingled, but after taking Professional Responsibility in the Law class, I learned that what would be considered "moral" is often illegal and will get you slapped with malpractice very quickly.

I'm also going to assume you're a natural law theorist. I am not, I am a legal realist. Looking at it from that perspective, you will understand my previous answer.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I'll step back from "nothing" and put "very little". I used to think the two were intermingled, but after taking Professional Responsibility in the Law class, I learned that what would be considered "moral" is often illegal and will get you slapped with malpractice very quickly.

I'm also going to assume you're a natural law theorist. I am not, I am a legal realist. Looking at it from that perspective, you will understand my previous answer.

Although civil laws may either be moral or immoral, belays the point.

They should be moral.

Slavery was at one time, legal, but it was never moral.


Jim

 

[lux et lex]

Although civil laws may either be moral or immoral, belays the point.

They should be moral.

Slavery was at one time, legal, but it was never moral.


Jim

So you're saying the parts of the Bible about slavery are immoral?

 

[PreachersWife2004]

So you're saying the parts of the Bible about slavery are immoral?

That's a whole different issue. Slavery in the bible is nothing compared to the slavery that the North and the South fought over...and the bible never openly condones slavery, only talks about how one should conduct themselves in that situation.

 

[lux et lex]

Oh, so the part about a fetus that is lost during a confrontation is worth less than a woman whose life is lost is also a whole different issue? Keep picking.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

So you're saying the parts of the Bible about slavery are immoral?

The definition of the word "Slavery" in the Bible, can be akin to having a mortgage on your house, where you're in servitude to the bank until its paid off.

Its not the same as the enslavement of African's in the South.

The former is not immoral where the latter is.


Jim

 

[JohnDeereFan]

The definition of the word "Slavery" in the Bible, can be akin to having a mortgage on your house, where you're in servitude to the bank until its paid off.

Its not the same as the enslavement of African's in the South [and many places in the North].

The former is not immoral where the latter is.


Jim

Agreed. Slavery in the Bible is much more akin to what we could call indentured servitude. In addition, unlike the slavery we experienced here in North America, there were many laws to ensure humane treatment of slaves with harsh penalties for masters who violated these laws.

Very often, slaves in the Bible were considered part of the family and had the authority to carry out legal and business transactions on behalf of the master (Joseph is a good example of this) and it was not uncommon for a slave to inherit a share of the estate when the master died.

Many slaves were well educated and even chose to stay with their master, even after their debt had been paid. This is the basis for Paul's concept of "a bondslave to Christ". A bondslave was one who's obligations were fulfilled and who was free to leave, but chose to stay and serve the master.

I think people have an instant visceral reaction to the word "slave" that causes them to just assume things about it, but we must remember that not all slavery is the same and not all slavery should be judged by the slavery we experienced here in North America.

 

[brinny]

The definition of the word "Slavery" in the Bible, can be akin to having a mortgage on your house, where you're in servitude to the bank until its paid off.

Its not the same as the enslavement of African's in the South.

The former is not immoral where the latter is.


Jim

thank you for the clarity.

 

[brinny]

Agreed. Slavery in the Bible is much more akin to what we could call indentured servitude. In addition, unlike the slavery we experienced here in North America, there were many laws to ensure humane treatment of slaves with harsh penalties for masters who violated these laws.

Very often, slaves in the Bible were considered part of the family and had the authority to carry out legal and business transactions on behalf of the master (Joseph is a good example of this) and it was not uncommon for a slave to inherit a share of the estate when the master died.

Many slaves were well educated and even chose to stay with their master, even after their debt had been paid. This is the basis for Paul's concept of "a bondslave to Christ". A bondslave was one who's obligations were fulfilled and who was free to leave, but chose to stay and serve the master.

I think people have an instant visceral reaction to the word "slave" that causes them to just assume things about it, but we must remember that not all slavery is the same and not all slavery should be judged by the slavery we experienced here in North America.

thank you for the clarity.