Explore by Topic
Explore by Format
Search Results | 65 results found
I mentioned earlier that we have to answer the question first and foremost, what is an unborn child, before we can answer any other questions about this issue. Your suggestion that an unborn child is like a seed, the seed is not the flower, was a thought I responded to by saying that yes, you are right, but all you've said is that an adult is not the same as an infant. Because the seed, if it is of a begonia flower, is a begonia. They are just at different levels of development.
The question "Are Blacks human beings?" is so bizarre it's almost comical. Who could ask such a thing today? Yet the question is still being asked, this time with a twist. Are Blacks human beings? Believe it or not, there was a time when the Supreme Court's answer to this question was no, not if they were slaves. It was 1856. Dred Scott, a Black slave, had been taken north of the Mason-Dixon line into Illinois and Wisconsin where slavery was prohibited by the Missouri Compromise.
Greg describes the "Columbo Tactic" to answer a classic pro-abortion objection. I was at a brunch earlier this morning with friends. Just as I was getting ready to leave someone asked me what I was going to talk about. I mentioned that I would have some comments about the shooting of Dr. George Tiller, the abortionist by Rachelle Shannon. There were a couple of people in the room who made a few comments. I was kicking myself as I drove away because I wasn't more careful from a tactical perspective as I talked with my friends about abortion.
The humanity of the unborn is a fact from the point of conception. It is fully human. There is no gradation in that regard. There are merely gradations of development. A baby is fully human from conception. There's no question about it. Even to say that it's fully human is missing something. Jot this down. The law of identity: a thing is itself and not something else. What that means is that whatever a thing is it remains what it is for as long as it exists. Things don't change from one essential thing into another essential thing.
Why has our discussion been about what is legal instead about what is moral? I suggest it's for one reason: self-interest . We can always adjust what is legal to fit what we want.
Think carefully about how you justify some moral actions because it could turn on you in another moral situation.
When it comes to ethics, we are often asked to focus on the person and ignore the morality of their actions. If he's a nice guy or is skilled, then the moral conduct of his sexual life is benign.
What are the moral implications of surrogacy? It reenforces morals that aren't good for family or society. I want to talk about what I call "broodmare motherhood" for a moment, this unfortunate surrogate mother situation between Anna Johnson and Mark and Crispina Calvert ruled on last week in Santa Ana.
Me: You believe that euthanasia should be allowed because it eases the psychological or physical suffering of a person. Is that correct?Him: Yes. Me: I object because I believe that life is a gift from God and we must answer to Him for how we use our life. Therefore, we don't have the liberty to take our life; it's not ours to take.Him: You're inappropriately bringing religion into the issue because my views are otherwise.
While waiting in line at the theater, I spoke to a young man named Ira who was a musician from Canada. I don't know what led up to it but somehow the issue of karma came up, the eastern religious concept of cause and effect. We were walking into the theater for the showing so I couldn't get into detail exploring the issue and trying to refute it so I used a tactic I call "Columbo" to get him thinking.