Cancer and the Problem of Evil

Conversation Side Conversation
24

Let’s take that argument back to the first century in the Roman Empire. The pater potestas was considered both a fundamental moral law, and an idea fully supported by the government. (There was no “Constitution” per se but it was part of the law of the land in that era.) They used similar reasoning:

“The head of the family must be allowed to control that family. It is a basic human right to control one’s own family. And government involvement/interference in a man’s family is contrary to moral law.”

How does one decide that it is more moral or appropriate to move the standard of control from “the head of the family” to “the woman’s right to her body”? And why not move the standard of control even further and extend it to all individuals and their bodies, including the human individual which happens to be very young and have temporary residence in a womb? How do you determine which is more fundamental of the three:

(1) the power of the father,
(2) the power of the mother,
(3) the power of every individual?

If human rights is the fundamental issue, why doesn’t the right extend to humans who happen to reside inside of a human female? After all, the human fetus is a separate individual and a _separate body with its own identifying DNA that is quite different from the mother’s body?"

In the first century, the father and head of the family would have said, “I should have ultimate control over my household and family because it is MY household and family.” Similarly, a woman can say, “I should have ultimate control over my body because it is MY body.” A human prior to birth cannot easily say anything but why can’t its survival instinct (and retroactive reflections pondered later in life) express the human rights position that “I should have ultimate control over my body because it is MY body”?

Both the first century Roman father and the modern day abortion advocate each reason that they should have complete control over their family (a group of bodies) and their body. Does not the fetus’ survival instinct demand likewise?

Patrick, how did you determine that the second of these three positions is more moral or more right or more fundamental as to “basic human rights”. How would you convince advocates of the other two positions that they are wrong?

1 Like
25

So my friends, we are not going to debate abortion here. I suggest you wrap it up quickly.

26

But you didn’t explain why. You simply explained the obvious: that incest laws cover a variety of situations, some involving children and some involving adults only.

False! In 48 of the 50 USA states, incestuous relations between consenting adults (the specific details of which vary by state) are indeed criminalized. For example, sexual relations between a parent and their adult child is a felony in most jurisdictions and can be punished with prison time. Same with sexual relations between adult siblings.

Do you consider those state laws unconstitutional? Should they be constitutional because they involve basic human rights of control over one’s body (and one’s own reproductive rights?)

1 Like
27

Why? We live in the present. 2018 America. 1st Century Rome has no relevance to what is legal, moral, or ethical in 2018 United States.

Because it is 2018 and I live in the United States under the godless US Constitution. I determine what is moral, ethical by my own reasoning and my individual freedoms. I happen to live in 2018 America where the laws protect my freedom to have my own morals, ethics, and values. And you can have your own values, ethics, and morals. But don’t even try to take your biblical morals, values, and ethics and make them the law of the land as I will vehemently oppose you.

28

Agree. This is not the place to discuss abortion.

But the abortion debate is very personal to me. 26 years ago, my wife was near death trying to maintain the pregnancy of our second child. An abortion of a 22 week fetus was determined as the only course of action to save my wife’s life. Because we lived in New Jersey and were at a non-Catholic secular hospital, the termination of pregnancy was done saving my wife’s life. The baby boy at 22 weeks gestation weighed just under 1 pound. He was resuscitated and with the help of outstanding neonatal care survived. He is now 26 years old and makes his parents proud every day.

29

I did explain why. Incest laws only apply to children as the Government has an obligation to protect children. There are no incest laws regarding what two consenting adults can do.

30

These state laws have been deemed unconstitutional. They went out with the various sodomy laws. Sexual relations between a parent and an adult child is NOT a felony anywhere in the United States. Same with sex between adult siblings. Please don’t conflate marriage laws with sexual relations.

31

For the record, this is not considered “abortion” by most Catholics. The intent was not to end a life, but to preserve a life. And I’m so glad to hear your baby made it too. This must have been such a difficult and intense decision. I’m glad they both made it.

32

Ok, but I did have to sign a paper labeled “Termination of Pregnancy” because my wife was unconsciousness at the time. Yes, it was the most difficult time in my life. My father had just died suddenly. I had a three year old son at home who needed a mother more than he needed a brother. I credit my cold analytical reasoning for my decision. I didn’t pray. I didn’t ask for advice. The decision was obvious to me, save my wife’s life. If my wife died the fetus would die also. I was also ask if I wanted to resuscitate the baby. I said yes to do everything medical possible to keep him alive. He was 22 weeks, non-viable, middle of 2nd trimester. Wasn’t even considered a late term abortion. I was give a one in ten chance the baby would survive 72 hours. When 72 hours came and went, I named him Neal (the champion) and vowed to be the best father I could be. He struggled his first years of life but now at age 26 years old, you would never know the critical nature of his birth. Before Neal, the abortion debate was so distant to me. Why would a husband and wife in upper income New Jersey be concerned about abortion? But when you are in that life or death situation, the last thing you want is for Government or religion to dictate what you can and can’t do.

1 Like
33

This is a good example of why I typically eschew dialog with anyone who refuses to accept the authority of reason, or any other authority, as Patrick has previously and publicly done. If Fry is answering a hypothetical based on the idea that “its all true” about God then his answer is based on the view that God does exist, even if he does not accept that premise. He is saying that if he were mistaken and God did exist, this is what he will say to Him. In the event, I don’t think that’s what he’ll say, but he is talking big now.

How can it be “unconstitutional” for a man in a private conversation to say that it is wrong for mankind to flout God’s will? To someone who eschews the authority of reason it can be! Because what they say doesn’t have to make sense, just sound indignant and officious. And since I am not suggesting that flouting God’s will be made a crime, or subject to any government sanction, it is utterly irrelevant to our discussion that you have a constitutional right to give God’s will the middle finger. You are free to do that. And I am free to tell you that you are wrong to do so.

This is yet another example why engaging you is pointless. You acknowledge no authority at all over yourself but brandish the authority of the constitution about like a sword. You expect us to respect its authority- even in areas where it is at best irrelevant and possibly mis-interpreted, yet you will heed to none yourself except so long as they please you.

Now, while all this is true that you are free to continue to behave in this manner and disregard God, and God Himself permits you this as a right for as long as you live, listen to what the man who is considered “the Father of the Constitution” had to say about the subject…

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.- John Adams
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/john_adams_391045

It is true that they were not trying to found a “Christian Nation”. There can be no such thing as Christianity is a relationship with God and not a set of religious institutions or rules. But many of them hoped that it would be a nation of Christians. They were giving us more freedom than people without virtue could handle. It was up to us to have the virtue to keep from using that freedom to destroy ourselves.

And as for the document, it says of itself that it was ratified “in the Year of Our Lord…” in Article VII. I know many have tried to jump into pretzel contortions in an attempt to claim that it didn’t really say what it says but it says what it says. The very document you are citing to give your your “right” to give God’s will the middle finger mentions that He is the Lord. It also makes sure that FEDGOV can do nothing to compel any man to say so, but they said so right there in the document. And of course many states had their own state supported churches at the time and for many years after and this was not seen as a violation of the constitution because it applied to Congress and the Federal government alone at the time.

So if you have a constitutional right to give God’s decrees the middle finger, it is a constitution which says “in the Year of Our Lord” on it, and whose most credited author said religion and morality are indispensable to it’s success.

There are no sins either you or I have committed that are too great for God’s forgiveness. That’s the good news.

1 Like
34

(1) False. (Although some law review articles, for example, have certainly taken that position to advocate for the Supreme Court clarifying such to make clear if some of the reasoning behind the strike-down of sodomy laws should be applied to other acts between consenting adults. “Compelling public interest” issues still remain to be worked out.)

(2) No. Anti-incest laws didn’t go out with various sodomy laws. (Despite popular claims on the Internet, the 2003 Supreme Court decision did not extend protections to consensual adult incest—nor did the more recent decisions.)

(3) My own state is one of many states where the adult incest laws not only remain on the books but occasionally indictments are issued and convictions won. (I had a pastoral counselling situation a few years ago related to this topic and I eventually got clarification from the state Attorney General’s office so that I could advise from an informed position. So this is still fresh on my mind, especially for my own state.) I write “occasional indictments” because most such relationships never get exposed and prosecutors don’t like to pursue them, for a variety of reasons. That is why the cases tend to get news coverage.

(4) I agree. Marriage laws should not be confused with incest-related laws. I said nothing about marriage laws.

We’ve hit a wall. So that is all I’m going to post further on this topic (or on the abortion topic, on which I’ve already addressed the main logic issue and the philosophical-moral issue.)

1 Like
35

Ok. I concede that they might be some state laws on adult incest. I was reacting to your use of the word felony.

Also while I am against Federal Adult incest laws, I do not advocate the practice. For me it seems morally and ethically repulsive.

36

“Felony” is the correct word in the context in which I used it. They were NOT misdemeanors. Incest is typically a mala in se felony crime.

(That clarification made, I’ll look forward to more posts on the topic of “Cancer and the Problem of Evil.” However, I will admit that this is a very interesting topic, Patrick.)

37

Thank you for the clarification. I was mistaken, until now I equated felony with Federal law. I realize now that you can be convicted of a felony in State Court. So you are correct about incest laws in your state.

As an aside why is the Christian right going crazy with NJ law banning marriage for anyone under 18 even with parental consent?

38

I have never heard of any federal law in the USA involving incest. (I just did a quick look in a law dictionary and found no federal law.) In Canada and many European countries there are indeed federal laws against adult incest—but if my memory is accurate, you live/lived in New Jersey, I think?

39

I don’t think there is any. Yes, I live in NJ.

40

There are no sins period. Certainly none of those “thought sins” you speak of. Freedom of Thought is guaranteed under US Constitution.

41

That’s news to me. I follow a lot of Christian news sources and I haven’t heard anything about it.

States vary a lot on the marrying age which requires parental consent. However, it is quite routine for a legal minor to require parental consent for any legal contract. So I can’t imagine why a marriage contract would be any different.

If someone is a minor, states have always protected them by requiring parental consent to all legal contracts. However—and keep in mind that I’m no lawyer—if a minor goes to a judge and gets legal emancipation from parents, I assume they are granted the right to sign their own contracts, and marriage would surely be included but I’m not sure.

(Such laws have provided protections against some adult talking a 17 year old girl into marriage by requiring that the parents agree. Otherwise there is legal inequity, even if the adult is only slightly older because one has adult rights and privileges and the other doesn’t.)

42

NJ/NY law says you can’t get married until your 18 even with parental consent. Proponents of the law got push-back from Muslim, Orthodox Jews, and Amish/Menonites who felt it impinged on their religious beliefs such as requiring a pregnant underage girl to marry the underage boy. Also the whole area of arranged marriage was attacked. It is in the courts now and will be tested.

I think that they should raise the age to over 25. :grinning:

1 Like
43

Considering that those are two very different issues, the fact that “thought sins” are “constitutional” is kind of irrelevant, wouldn’t you say?

The Constitution doesn’t try to define everything that should be prohibited or even to define what is good or polite. I’ve noticed you mention the Constitution a lot during debates about moral issues. That surprises me. (Most people would agree that being kindly to one’s neighbor is a good idea, yet the Constitution takes no position on that moral issue.)

Morality and federal law are not tightly connected.