Abortion in Germany
Thorsten Altenkirch
>I think you simplify here a bit. What does ``from the beginning''
>mean? From the moment of fertilization?
Yes. Sorry If I wasn't clear, I didn't have the scientific vocabulary at hand.
I also have seen reasonable people argue for the point of nidation (sp?),
but as long as abortion is concerned the difference doesn't matter.
Interesting, does this mean you would consider the use of a coil
(Spirale) as a crime (maybe even murder)??? A coil kills a fertilzed
egg since it prevents it to settle in the womb.
This is indeed the most extrem position I have seen. Actually, even in
Ireland the morning-after-pill is tolerated.
>How does your religious belief tell you this?
Well, Thorsten, I did not intend to roll up the topic itself but merely
to point at its inherent problems. And that statement was to avoid
someone feeling "cheated" about my own position from the later paragraphs.
Moreover I think I have quite clearly decribed a position which enjoys,
unlike others, not only nearly univocal support within the hierarchy,
but also broad agreement from the scientific theolgy in the Catholic Church.
So to question my belief seems to be moot, at best, and if you need details,
ask your priest.
My priest is lutheran-protestant, but I can ask him [I am not yet
sure whether I'll go to church tomorrow... but this is a godd
incentive].
In a discussion about moral issues I am not happy if somebody refers
to some higher authority (like ``scientific theolgy in the Catholic
Church''). I would sincerely like to know what elements of Christian
faith (or you personal faith) let you come to this conclusion.
>I also can't see how one can derive this from the constitution.
May I suggest reading the reasoning of the two Constitution Court decisions ?
If you disagree with my attempt to summarize their general position, feel
free to correct me.
Yes, this is an interesting idea. Does anybody has this online???
Maybe I should ask in de.soc.recht also...
>The 3 month rule seems to be a sensible compromise.
Well, Thorsten, that's not a compromise, since it doesn't take into account
one position. I will add an analogy to maker that clear.
I should, in line with my previous articel, remark, that such a suggestion
(calling the own position a compromise) is a rhetorical device which paints
the other side as compromiseless hardliners.
And to give the analogy, let's assume I have the political agenda
to introduce a law which allows killing of all Altenkirchs younger than 30
years. Would you call it a compromise if I, after some dicussion,
presented as compromise only to kill all Altenkirch younger than 15 Years ?
Phew.... I just got away in any case... Lucky me... :-)
I believe you misunderstand me. In an earlier posting I formulated the
diverging goals: protect the embryo as early as possible and on the
other side prevent that women are getting into impossible situations
where there are forced to break the law, driven into suicide or into
the arms of ``Kurpfuscher'' or even attempt self-experiments.
Given these goals I see an arbitrary rule like ``3 months'' as a
compromise and I do not think that there is anything better than a
compromise possible in questions like this.
To completely ignore the situation of pregnant women and their
interests seems not very christian to me.
>I would not accept a law which is only motivated by other people's
>moral feelings. I would not respect such a law and would help anybody
>to escape punishment.
Ok, I give up, and change to German. Es geht nicht um _irgendeine_ religioese
Ueberzeugung, sondern um die Frage, wer Mensch ist und wer nicht.
Damit steht nicht eine Auspraegung unsres Wertesystems zur Debatte, sondern
seine Grundlage schlechthin.
Anfang des letzten Jahrhunderts gab es eine ganze Menge Leute in den USA und
anderswo, die behaupteten, Schwarze seien keine richtigen Menschen.
Haetten die eine religioese Ueberzeugung daraus gemacht, wuerde Deine
Argumentation da genauso gelten.
Christoph says that the core question is who is human and compares it
with the reasoning of racists in the last century who said blacks
wouldn't be real humans.
I agree in essence and I actually believe that an even better example
is the Euthanasie program of the Nazis, where mentally handicapped
people were killed as "lebensunwertes Leben". Therefore I come to the
conclusion that bad experiences in the past force us to define
the concept of a person (e.g. an entity who enjoys the human rights,
among them the most essential right to live) as general as possible.
For precisely this reason I am in favour of a protection of embryos
in general and I am opposed to late (last trimester) abortions.
However, as you remark, it isn't all that simple. In the question of
abortion we have a clash of interests, as I have already mentioned
above. There is no pure, no god given perfect solution, we always have
to decide between good and bad, every moment, every day. This to me at
least is one of the essences of Christian Faith... The consequence of
this for me is a law which acceppts this impossibility and attempts a
good compromise between the diverging interests and beliefs.
Please people, this isn't all that simple. And, unfortunately for us all,
as well as necessarily, there won't be such a law in the foreseeable future.
So, Thorsten, don't worry.
I am worried for principal reasons. People who are in favour of
outlawing abortion IMHO suffer from a fundamental and dangerous
misunderstanding what *human* law can do and achieve. It is not there
to enforce *god's* (who/whatever this is) will on earth. That's to me
one of the essences of enlightment (Aufklärung).
That's precisely the point and I declare myself disobediant to any law
which is merely an attempt to enforce some people's religious beliefs
on other people. Full stop.
--
Thorsten Altenkirch, Computer Science, Chalmers University of Technology
DISCLAIMER: All opinions expressed here are my own.
finger : al...@muppet77.cs.chalmers.se
WWW URL: http://animal.cs.chalmers.se/pub/users/alti/www/home.html
Wolfgang Schmidt
ich brüte gerade für meine Freundin über eine Frage zum Steuerrecht - und da
ich auf diesem Teilgebiet leider keine Ahnung habe, frage ich nun in die
wissende Runde:
Wie ist der derzeitige Stand bei der steurlichen Beurteilung von Lebens-
versicherungen ?
Konkreter: Wird bei einer beitragsfreien Lebensversicherung der Auszahlungs-
betrag bei Ablauf der Versicherung als zu Versteuerndes Vermögen
gewertet, oder ist es auch dann als quasie angesparter Betrag
steuerfrei zu werten ?
Und wie verhält es sich mit einer Rente, die an die Erbin des
verstorbenen Versicherungsnehmers als Bezugsberechtigte monatlich
ausgezahlt wird ?
Ist diese Summe von z.B. 500,- DM auch eine zu versteuernde Leistung
wie z.B. Zinsenzahlungen aus Vermögen ?
Wenn ja:
Und wie wäre es, wenn zur Aufrechterhaltung der Versicherung ein
Teilbetrag an eine Miterbin ausgezahlt werden muß, dieser Betrag
über ein Darlehen finanziert werden muß und dafür monatlich 300,- DM
an Zinsen gezahlt werden müssen:
Sind dann die 700,- DM weiterhin in dieser Höhe zu versteuern, oder
nur der reale "Vermögenszuwachs" von 200,- DM ?
Über Antworten auf diese - sicher sehr speziellen Fragen - würde ich mich sehr
freuen...
Möglichst (auch) als PM, da der Bezug der DE/SOC/RECHT im comlink-Verbund hier
nicht so recht zu klappen scheint.
Vielen Dank
Wolfgang
## CrossPoint v2.1 ##