Flip-Flopper

[Jimmyeatworld]

I understand the logical end that you are trying to reach, but you aren't.

Kerry says he believes life begins at conception. Therefore, abortion must be murder in his eyes. So he is saying that he thinks it is a woman's right to choose to murder or not. Why should that ONE segment of society be the lone segment that has a choice to murder or not to murder?

That is why there is a HUGE difference between his position on abortion and the legitimate examples of conflicts of morality and legality you cite.

Exactly. I can understand what Kerry said because it's the way I used to think too. Abortion is something that I've "flip flopped" on, if you want to consider it that though it took 20 years to happen. I came to the realization that life indeed did begin at conception and that's how we all started. It's not just a mass of cells or whatever, it's a very small baby. Why should someone consider it okay to snuff out that life simply because it doesn't fit into their plans to give birth to that baby?

I still think it should be legal for incest and rape, but anyone that has an abortion for convenience is doing little more than killing a child.

 

[insein]

Hobbit,

It doesn't seem to me that Kerry's views on abortion are a case of so called flip-flopping. He is FOR a woman's right to choose legally but AGAINST abortion morally. Legality and morality are obviously not the exact same things. Legality is a subset of morality. There are many things which we consider immoral but do not make illegal. Some view working on Sunday as immoral - not illegal to do so. Most view adultery as immoral - (illegal I think in the South) but not prosecuted. Immoral to lie - not illegal to do so unless under oath. Immoral to force a competitor out of business through competition resulting in his/her financial collapse but not illegal.

There are many cases such as these because legality is considered a smaller sphere within the larger sphere of morality.

So basically, legality overcedes his morals and therefore he has no morals. If you believe that abortion is murder, how can you in good conscience vote for laws that allow it too exist? That is what you don't get. Actions speak louder than words.

 

[DKSuddeth]

So basically, legality overcedes his morals and therefore he has no morals. If you believe that abortion is murder, how can you in good conscience vote for laws that allow it too exist? That is what you don't get. Actions speak louder than words.

sometimes legality does supercede morals. that does not mean that one has no morals. Especially if one dictates that belief in god dictates morals.

 

[insein]

sometimes legality does supercede morals. that does not mean that one has no morals. Especially if one dictates that belief in god dictates morals.

What im saying is that if you believe that abortion is murder, why would you vote to pass a law that allows murder? Unless you don't really believe abortion is murder and you were just placating to a group of Catholics.

 

[DKSuddeth]

What im saying is that if you believe that abortion is murder, why would you vote to pass a law that allows murder? Unless you don't really believe abortion is murder and you were just placating to a group of Catholics.

could be, but I wonder why capital punishment is legal then.

 

[Annie]

could be, but I wonder why capital punishment is legal then.

A point that often bothers me a lot! While 'Catholics' are not always consistant, 'the Church' is. (now let's not go down the pedophilia crimes, I'm with all of you on that).

 

[insein]

could be, but I wonder why capital punishment is legal then.

In certain instances, if a person has committed a crime so horrific that he can not be allowed to continue along living in civlized society, then the punishment should reflect the crime. Some people feel that no Capital Punishment should be had regardless of the crime. In order for society to continue though, we have to have a stern punishment for the worst of crimes.

 

[DKSuddeth]

In certain instances, if a person has committed a crime so horrific that he can not be allowed to continue along living in civlized society, then the punishment should reflect the crime. Some people feel that no Capital Punishment should be had regardless of the crime. In order for society to continue though, we have to have a stern punishment for the worst of crimes.

while we, as humans, think that, my point was to establish that legalities can supercede morality and still not make sense. capital punishment was used to show that even people can let those legalities supercede gods moral code, as in 'vengence is mine' sayeth the lord. but we don't need to go down that road either. it would probably just blow up badly.