Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Al Gore vs George Bush: the moderate's perspective -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Augustus Gloop who wrote (1317)	10/5/2000 4:53:51 PM
From: Zeev Hed	Respond to of 10042

Augustus, thank you for the kind introduction. I think we really do not have disagreement. It is not my point that my tenet (life starts with the first independent breath) should be everyone's tenet. You are absolutely right that Christianity in general and particularly Catholicism differs from Judaism (and I believe Islam as well) on important interpretations of biblical law. You cited yourself James 2:10, where Paul believes that breaking one law is like breaking it all. Human are often presented by the almighty in situations where they have to choose between two evils, and thus it helps grade the laws according to the severity of punishment. For instance, in Judaism, there are three laws that should not be broken (Yehareg ve-lo Yavaor- transliterated into : will die, but not breach), even if the penalty (an outside oppressor, for instance) for stubbornly refusing to break said three laws will be death. In Judaism, if absolutely necessary (to save a life) you can work on the Holy Shabbath, eat non Kosher food and even make a fire, but it has to be for a higher good (saving a life). When there is a question of choosing between the living mother's life and the unborn child, some religions (for instance, Judaism) unequivocally choose the living mother (and Rabbinical arguments to that effect were based exactly on the citation from Genesis, which I gave earlier). That is why I stated that the issue is a religious issue not a political one. A law putting in jail a physician for performing an abortion because he has come to the conclusion that continuing the pregnancy will put the mother's life in jeopardy will be unconstitutional, if said physician followed his religious belief that maintaining the mother's life is more important than bringing the unborn to full term. Zeev, A Jewish turnips farmer...(VBG)

To: Augustus Gloop who wrote (1317)	10/5/2000 11:53:27 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10042

our system of morals on what is generally acceptable societal behavior is inextricably linked to natural law and the Judeo-Christian tradition. Perjury is referenced to the Ten Commandments, so is murder, so is theft, etc, etc. While I would acknowledge that the constitution was primarily derived from Judeo-Christian morals, we have to go back and review where some of THOSE values were derived. There are numerous codes that are NOT derived from Judaism, such as the code of hammurabi and ancient greek and roman law, none of which were derived from Jewish law. Ancient Israel was primarily a theocracy with a strong priesthood (sanhedrin, Sadduccees and Pharisees.. etc) So while we may derive many of our moral values from Judaism, we have derived much of our legal structure from the greeks and romans. And because we are a representative republic with separation between church and state, we must be careful not to compel non-christian/jewish secular citizens accepting a view on the beginnings of life. Listen.. abortion existed at the founding of our nation. But none of our founding fathers believed it important enough to impart the right of citizenship at the point of conception (especially with the level of mortality and miscarriages at that time). Rather, they conveyed citizenship at time of birth. Now I think we have progressed far enough to the point where I don't have to coerce non-believers into living under religiously derived beliefs about when life is conveyed, AND STILL limit the time frame in which a women can elect to have an abortion for the purpose of birth control. I don't have to be a christian in order to make a sound and logical argument against 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions. But as a Christian, I think that I should be happy with such an achievement of logic and not be so extremist that I provide secular citizens with powerful ammunition that I'm some kind of religious zealot who lives only to see the US become a Theocracy. Limit abortion to the 1st trimester, except in cases of endangerment of the mother's life or greivous genetic defect that would render the child non-functional in society (and I know that last aspect is very contentious but that is where I think a just compromise can be derived that meets the interests of pregnant women and social morality). Regards, Ron