Posted on 12/12/2011 8:12:59 PM PST by hocndoc
“The definition and punishment for the various forms of homicide is most certainly a State’s right, but whether or not abortion is homicide is not. The 10th does not justify or permit Parties’ ‘acceptance of the pro-abort.’”
On the contrary if killing is not murder it is simply killing. By defining murder the State implicitly must define what killing is murder.
The Federal Goverment no where in the Federal Constitution is authorized to define when life begins for the States.
This question in its most pure form is a religious question. The Catholics have long maintained that life begins at conception. Other religions both in and out of Christianity hold different positions.
But for the propose of the Protection of the laws of the State. the Question of where human life begins and thus when killing becomes murder is invariably that of the State.
To give you a little perspective, the Roman Empire did not regard it as murder until you became the family paternal.(oldest male) That the rest of the family was effectively the Paterfamilies property. Thus the killing of any family member by anyone else was a bit like a property crime against the Paterfamilies.
None of us have any right to object to any state of theses united States from adopting the same stance in the extreme. Likewise any State can recognize the individual(independent of family) as becoming subject to direct state protection and subornation by defining such a beginning at conception.
To discriminate as to which human beings are *human enough* to deserve protection from killing ignores science, which gives us more information about embryology and human development than the Romans had.
Nevertheless, this is not the Roman Empire. This is the United States of America, where the law is not based on a right not to be killed that is given and taken away by the State. It is endowed on all human individuals, independent of the opinion or decisions made by other individuals, including the States.
The States may have different levels of punishment and criteria for self defense, neglect or non-intentional homicide, but all of those laws are based on the right to life.
“To discriminate as to which human beings are *human enough* to deserve protection from killing ignores science, which gives us more information about embryology and human development than the Romans had.”
Who is and is not *human enough* is as I said is a religious question of morality not that of scientific hypothesis.
It is no different then for you to say this is mine and that is yours. Nature (science) cares not to whom we humans judge an object belongs but only that the object exist. We humans on the other hand make that judgement based upon our cultural(religious) values & understandings of property rights.
I know this because there exist species & cultures that do not understand property rights.
My friend hocndoc, you confuse 2 different aspects, one of moral in judgement & qualification, the other physical.
It is akin to trying to mix the dictionary’s of two different languages.
The definition of life in the agreed language of scientist is not necessarily the same same as the definition of human or (Insert citizenship) life in the opinion of the State.
Nor is either necessarily the same as the definition of human life in religion.
Our books were not written by the same people looking for the same things & agreeing upon the same values.
You know had the Federal cot left row vs. wade well enough alone we wouldn’t have to bother with this. But no they had to insert themselves into a clearly state affair. Question whether or not the State of Texas regarded the unborn as living humans, and decide on that basis whether or not it could protect them as one of its citizens.
But instead we are forced by Federal injustice system into splitting the hairs between the moral qualification of human life and the scientific qualification.
I and (I beleive) my State naturally is in agreement with your position on the definition of life. New York, New & Old England, China, and Vermont are not.
It is not a matter of personal opinion that embryonic humans are humans. It’s a matter of taxonomy, and scientifically documented that the offspring of a given species are members of that species.
It’s you who are confusing morality and science.
Break the egg of a bird, turtle, or lizard on the Endangered species list and it won’t matter that the animal couldn’t survive or was an embryo or fetus. The Feds know that an embryonic pelican is a pelican.
We don’t have the same protection for our own children of tomorrow that we give lesser species, although we are the only species having the conversation in the first place.
Discrimination between members of a species is much more a “religious” or moral decision than whether or not a given individual is a member of that species.
It is interesting that you should expose federal hypocrisy in this matter.
Even thou as in the case human life the protection of animal life is also not legitimately subject to the jurisdiction of Washington D.C.
Nor is their a completion to protect all animal life only that select animal life which the goverment selects. Indeed your example of the endangered species list provides an excellent example of the discrimination of goverment in the domain & extent of its active protection of even matters such as life.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.