Yes, and the non citizen has a legal name, a birth date, driver's license and a green card if he's legal.
And if he has none of the above its still illegal to kill him.
If he did not have any of the above, he would not exist. So what's your point?
If not, what is the logic or scientific basis for your position?
Science give us facts not moral or philosophical conclusions. We can and often should apply these facts to our moral and philosophical reasoning but science can't say something is morally right or wrong. It deals with facts, nor meaning and truth and ethics or morals. I don't think you really can have a scientific basis for a basic moral or philosophical opinion. Science can only help direct how you apply the opinion. For example lets say your moral opinion is that it is wrong to let people suffer and die from horrible diseases without any effort to help them. Scientific information (medicine being a subset of science) would tell you how to treat them. If there is no known treatment existing known fact and scientific methodology can provide a basis for the effort to figure out how to treat their disease, but science doesn't tell you what you should do, or what is important, it just gives you the information needed to apply you more abstract ethical and philosophical opinions.
Its impossible to come to a conclusion re. abortions based on morality. If that were possible, we would have resolved our differences long ago. The fact is your morality is not mine. Isn't that the bottom line when it comes to abortion and other burning issues?.
You consider it perfectly fine to have liberal laws re. guns. I consider that morally challenged.
Many conservatives think that teenagers should be tried as adults and subjected to the death penalty laws. I think that's morally insane. What we know about teenagers and there inability to discern between right and wrong, subjecting them to adult penalties is grossly unfair.
Most conservatives are all for the death penalty. I find that disgusting esp. considering how many innocent people have been executed.
To try and find the moral common ground on such issues as abortions, the death penality, guns etc. is virtually impossible. Consequently, the only application that makes sense is the law's interpretation done in a logical and scientific manner.
I believe in protecting human life and I believe that killing human life without strong and appropriate justification is wrong, more than just wrong it is a transgression against human rights. The fetus is a human life so it should be protected against being killed.
Then I take it you're against the death penalty?
We can argue about the fetus and its resemblance to human life from now until doomsday. That really isn't the issue and even if it were, we will never come to an agreement. Suffice to say a fetus bears a closer and closer resemblance to its human creators as it gets closer to full term.
However the issue is not about the fetus and how cute you might find them. Its about a woman and her right to do with her body what she wants. In that sense, Roe vs Wade is the appropriate basis for abortion law.
ted |
