So the redacted Mueller Report has been out for a while...

[PaulSacramento]

Hang on there...

You seem to have just stated that the "life" that begins at conception is not a human being:
PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2019 11:51 am
No one said anything about a human being, what I said is that LIFE begins at conception and that is a fact.

No life, no pregnancy, correct?
So sure, no life no pregnancy, but also no human no murder.

Life begins at conception, fact.
Whether that life is "human life" is debated by some ( not be me).
I simply put the argument in the most neutral way possible.
OBJECTIVELY, life begins at conception.


As for "no human, no murder".
Murder is the unjustified taking of a life.
No one mentioned ONLY human life.

Killing an animal without justification ( not like in the case of eating for example or maintaining the "circle of life" balance), would be an unjustified killing. Killing for sport would be murder for example.

Murder, by definition, only applies to humans. Animals cannot be murdered.

Sure, I understand the legal and common definition.
That is not what I am referring to.

[Philip]

Murder, by definition, only applies to humans. Animals cannot be murdered.

Exactly. However, I think a case can certainly be made that sport shooting animals without harvesting an animal is a waste of resources and unjustified - and definitely wrong if the species is endangered. And any animal abuse / unnecessarily harsh treatment is immoral.

[PaulSacramento]

Murder, by definition, only applies to humans. Animals cannot be murdered.

Exactly. However, I think a case can certainly be made that sport shooting animals without harvesting an animal is a waste of resources and unjustified - and definitely wrong if the species is endangered. And any animal abuse / unnecessarily harsh treatment is immoral.

Correct, the thing is that I am trying to not argue from a moral subjective view point and finding common ground, which is that ALL people will agree that taking a life without justification is wrong ( objectively).

[RickD]

Murder, by definition, only applies to humans. Animals cannot be murdered.

Exactly. However, I think a case can certainly be made that sport shooting animals without harvesting an animal is a waste of resources and unjustified - and definitely wrong if the species is endangered. And any animal abuse / unnecessarily harsh treatment is immoral.

Correct, the thing is that I am trying to not argue from a moral subjective view point and finding common ground, which is that ALL people will agree that taking a life without justification is wrong ( objectively).

When you say, "ALL people will agree that taking a life without justification is wrong ( objectively)", do you include Kenny in "ALL who believe it's objectively wrong"?

[edwardmurphy]

I think you missed my earlier question. I read that in Canada there are no abortion laws to speak of, and abortion is treated like any other medical issue - something for a woman to discuss in private with her doctor. Is that accurate? I've also read that the abortion rates in Canada are much lower than in the US, which would be pretty interesting if the first part is accurate.

Thoughts?

Life begins at conception, fact.
Whether that life is "human life" is debated by some ( not be me).
I simply put the argument in the most neutral way possible.
OBJECTIVELY, life begins at conception.

This feels like a parlor trick...

Obviously if I hadn't been conceived I wouldn't be here, so sure, the sequence of events that led to my birth began at my conception. It wouldn't be false to say that my life began with my conception, and sure, from there you can make the semantic leap to "life begins at conception." That doesn't mean that that's a meaningful statement, much less one on which we should base health policy.

There are a hell of a lot of things that have to happen to transform a fertilized egg into a human being, and more often than not those things don't happen. Most blastocytes fail to implant or are rejected, and miscarriages later in the pregnancy aren't uncommon. Consequently it's far more accurate to say that a blastocyte, and even a fetus, represents the potential for human life.

At this point I feel like we should pause to consider the fact that the woman carrying the blastocyte/fetus has already achieved that potential and become human life, while the blastcyte/fetus has not. That woman is also in the best position to judge whether or not to allow that potential life to develop within her body. She's the one that knows her medical history, mental state, relationship status, and financial situation. She's the one that knows if she's a drug addict, or the victim of a rape. She also has a highly qualified advisor, called a "doctor" who can help her to weigh out the risks and rewards of the situation and make a rational decision. I think we should let her. This is not a decision for her neighbors or her government to be making.

As for "no human, no murder".
Murder is the unjustified taking of a life.
No one mentioned ONLY human life.

Killing an animal without justification ( not like in the case of eating for example or maintaining the "circle of life" balance), would be an unjustified killing. Killing for sport would be murder for example.

So a catch-and-release fisherman using worms as bait is a murderer...?

[Stu]

Killing an animal without justification ( not like in the case of eating for example or maintaining the "circle of life" balance), would be an unjustified killing. Killing for sport would be murder for example.

Um no, no where in the Bible or anywhere else does it say that murder applies to animals. Killing for sport might be morally questionable, but it's not murder. Then you have to ask if it's morally acceptable to kill an animal just for the skin, etc.

[PaulSacramento]

I think you missed my earlier question. I read that in Canada there are no abortion laws to speak of, and abortion is treated like any other medical issue - something for a woman to discuss in private with her doctor. Is that accurate? I've also read that the abortion rates in Canada are much lower than in the US, which would be pretty interesting if the first part is accurate.

Abortion is legal in Canada.
So is the morning after pill that keeps one from "getting" pregnant or implantation ( reason you have less abortions here by the way).

Its kind of sad ( all abortions being legal) since:
-A Gallup poll in December 2001 asked respondents: "Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances, and in what circumstances?" The results showed that 32% of Canadians believed abortion should be legal in all circumstances (down from 37% in 2000), 52% believed abortion should only be legal in certain circumstances, and 14% thought abortions should be illegal in all circumstances, (up 9% from 2000).

-In a June 2008 Angus Reid Strategies poll, almost half of respondents (46%) believe abortion should be permitted in all cases. Roughly one-in-five Canadians (19%) would subject abortion to greater restrictions than now, 22 percent would allow the procedure only in cases such as rape, incest and to save the woman's life, and seven percent would only permit abortion to save the woman's life. Among provinces, British Columbia and Quebec have the highest percentage who are pro-choice, and the Prairies have the highest percentage who are pro-life and younger, wealthier, and university-educated respondents are more likely to uphold the legality of abortion.[47]

See, doctors tend to give the pregnant mother quite a few options, abortion as a form of birth control is frowned upon.
We tend to believe that there needs to be a justification for having an abortion since there are SO MANY ways to NOT get pregnant.
I think the main reason that there are less women getting abortions is because of increased understanding of options, birth control, accountability.

I don't know of many people that are 100% pro-choice OR 100% pro-life.
Vast majority agree that there should be a reason for getting an abortion and simply "choosing" to is not it.

[PaulSacramento]

Killing an animal without justification ( not like in the case of eating for example or maintaining the "circle of life" balance), would be an unjustified killing. Killing for sport would be murder for example.

Um no, no where in the Bible or anywhere else does it say that murder applies to animals. Killing for sport might be morally questionable, but it's not murder. Then you have to ask if it's morally acceptable to kill an animal just for the skin, etc.

What do you call the unlawful killing of an animal?

[RickD]

Killing an animal without justification ( not like in the case of eating for example or maintaining the "circle of life" balance), would be an unjustified killing. Killing for sport would be murder for example.

Um no, no where in the Bible or anywhere else does it say that murder applies to animals. Killing for sport might be morally questionable, but it's not murder. Then you have to ask if it's morally acceptable to kill an animal just for the skin, etc.

What do you call the unlawful killing of an animal?

Poaching.

[Stu]

Killing an animal without justification ( not like in the case of eating for example or maintaining the "circle of life" balance), would be an unjustified killing. Killing for sport would be murder for example.

Um no, no where in the Bible or anywhere else does it say that murder applies to animals. Killing for sport might be morally questionable, but it's not murder. Then you have to ask if it's morally acceptable to kill an animal just for the skin, etc.

What do you call the unlawful killing of an animal?

What do you mean by "unlawful"? You will have to define it better.

Are you talking about a rhino in a national park, a sheep on a sheep farm, lions bred for hunting, what exactly?

[PaulSacramento]

Killing an animal without justification ( not like in the case of eating for example or maintaining the "circle of life" balance), would be an unjustified killing. Killing for sport would be murder for example.

Um no, no where in the Bible or anywhere else does it say that murder applies to animals. Killing for sport might be morally questionable, but it's not murder. Then you have to ask if it's morally acceptable to kill an animal just for the skin, etc.

What do you call the unlawful killing of an animal?

What do you mean by "unlawful"? You will have to define it better.

Are you talking about a rhino in a national park, a sheep on a sheep farm, lions bred for hunting, what exactly?

Unlawful means unlawful.
Whatever laws in your Jurisdiction.
People tend to play the "subjective" card when you bring up morals, even though most will agree that unconditional/unjustifiable killing is wrong.
So, since people are going by the "legal" definition of murder...

[edwardmurphy]

Abortion is legal in Canada.

So is the morning after pill that keeps one from "getting" pregnant or implantation ( reason you have less abortions here by the way).

I'm sure that's a factor. Canada is also a much better place for a poor person to have a baby, which I imagine is a factor as well. For example, you guys all have healthcare. Many working class and working poor Americans don't. I'd be willing to bet that the rest of your social welfare programs are better than ours, too.

I don't know of many people that are 100% pro-choice OR 100% pro-life.

Vast majority agree that there should be a reason for getting an abortion and simply "choosing" to is not it.

Simply "choosing" to makes it sound like women are frivolous morons indulging their whims. I'm sure that a few of them probably are, but most are rational people trying to make a responsible decision. Bringing a child into this world is a big deal, and a lot of people can't even take care of themselves.

[PaulSacramento]

Simply "choosing" to makes it sound like women are frivolous morons indulging their whims. I'm sure that a few of them probably are, but most are rational people trying to make a responsible decision. Bringing a child into this world is a big deal, and a lot of people can't even take care of themselves.

Yes, that is why make it a "Pro-Choice" Vs "Pro-Life" argument is silly.
Everyone is Pro-Life, everyone SHOULD view taking a life as the MOST SERIOUS of things.
Everyone is Pro-Choice, everyone SHOULD view GETTING pregnant as a choice.

As you said, bringing a child into this world is a big deal and people should AVOID GETTING PREGNANT, if they don't want to do that.

[PaulSacramento]

I'm sure that's a factor. Canada is also a much better place for a poor person to have a baby, which I imagine is a factor as well. For example, you guys all have healthcare. Many working class and working poor Americans don't. I'd be willing to bet that the rest of your social welfare programs are better than ours, too.

It is far from perfect and needs changing ( for too many become dependent on it when they don't need to be- it's too easy).
I think that a PROACTIVE program to keep women from getting pregnant is the way to go and I think that making it too "easy" to terminate a pregnancy only hinders that, especially when they are far better methods.
I think that all would agree that NOT getting pregnant is the way to go.

[Rico]

Yes I agreed, staying your kids outside is dangerous, I also let my kids play video games but educational video games, me and my daughter enjoying playing video games, but we always make sure that we have time for God.