Media-1

Yes.

Media-1

Media-1

Filo: "And just what is your reason? How is it more justified than my getting pissed off about it?"

M-1: I get pissed about what she did to her kids because what she did was horribly wrong, and I mean that in the absolute moral sense.

For you, and atheists in general, there is the luxury of getting morally pissed off without any morally valid REASON for being pissed off. If this woman did something that is morally wrong, what was it, and why was it morally wrong?

Was it because human beings are morally obligated to advance the agenda of human survival? Says who? Isn't that just a non-theistic religion? And how can we know what actions will best lead to human survival? On what basis is the goal of promoting human survival a realistic goal for humanity?

Media-1

Panta Pei

The 'Mysterious Plan' (tm) or 'Perfect Knowledge'(tm) defense for an alleged omnipotent being's omission to act to care for and save these babies from such a tortuously slow death is pathetic and sickeningly immoral.

I, as a freethinking human being, use rational assessments in my daily life to ernestly try to bring some level of comfort and security to society and would not allow or support this defense in any court of law.

That theists can dispatch their basic visceral anger at this event in the support of their 'faith' in some nebulous, omnipotent fairy tale reveals the horrific nature of their dogmatic mindsnare and inhumane delusion.

Media-1, I do not and will not ever conceive of any justification for allowing this suffering to happen, especially for a being alleged to be all-powerful.

That you do, IMHO, simply provides me with a stronger conviction that theists really have absolutely nothing to base their system of morals and ethics upon.

This would explain my constant interaction with them as recidivist criminal offenders.

PS Alli and the Police Chief are correct, though an initial review of intent to kill would include 'manslaughter' as The Other Michael points out, it has been my experience that the prosecution will be able to show that the 'reasonable and prudent person' would know that the 'inevitable result' of leaving these children in a car for an extended period of time would be their death.

The probable cause element of intent is, therefore, reached for the Murder 1 charge.

So, in my jurisdiction, I would have charged her with Capital Murder (murder 1) which includes the element of killing a child while in the commission of another felony, in this case, child abuse (effectually placing the unattended children in 'the equivalent of' an oven over time).

Also, the jury will eventually be able to consider the crime charged (Murder 1, in this case) along with any possible lesser crimes (Manslaughter, child abuse) to actually convict her of, given the evidence.

This is not inversely true. The jury cannot convict of a greater crime (Murder 1) if she was never charged with its probable cause elements prior to trial.

Yeah, I know, I really gotta get a life...I'm working on it.

~ Steve

[ June 30, 2002: Message edited by: Panta Pei ]</p>

JL

Media 1 you wrote:

I think there's a lot of things we do without a conscious understanding of why we do them. Take reproduction. How many of us are motivated by the continuation of our species? There was no requirement that we accurately assess the causal relationships between us and the environments that produced us in order to survive. No requirement that we even survive. We need only behave in the correct manner. What better way to ensure adherance to these behaviors than through emotion, conviction?

[ June 30, 2002: Message edited by: JL ]</p>

Media-1

God is the solution that provides the least of those things, not the most. Morals that are grounded on nothing but whimsical and highly varied human emotion are morals without reason or purpose. No ultimate right or wrong means we can't make a valid moral judgement on this woman's actions concerning the death of her kids.

Media-1

lance piston

Since there are so many examples of people having kids who should not have kids, there needs to be a breeding test. Block conception until people prove they can handle having a child. Its not like we are in danger of going extinct anytime soon.

bonduca

Media, what if your infallible god told you to kill a child?

Media-1

You say..."We need only behave in the correct manner." Is that the biologically correct manner or the morally correct manner? If what usually grounds atheist morality are purely biological/survival considerations, why should we bother calling our topic "morality", isn't that a bit misleading???

Instead, we should just plan for a humanist biological brave new world. But in that case we should stop calling our subject "morality" and start to admit that what we're really advocating is a non-theistic humanist religion that seeks to promote human survival. Why we ought to get excited about such a religion is beyond me.

I don't think we're talking about morality anymore. BTW, what is so "freethinking" about the humanist religious goal of promoting non-moral "morals" which are really just designed to promote human survival?

Media-1

Media-1

Two can play that game! Here is an equally valid question for you: whatever your god is, what would YOU do if that god told you to kill a child?

My God wouldn't give me such a command. But, if I'm wrong, and God surprised me with such an awful order, I seriously doubt that my faith would be strong enough to even consider doing it.

Media-1

[ June 30, 2002: Message edited by: Media-1 ]</p>

Not Prince Hamlet

Media-1,

Your fundamental mistake is the assumption that without a God, there is no morality. Hence, in your mind, morality is defined as equivalent to "whatever my god tells me to."

So, for instance, when your god tells you that "... their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up" (Hosea 13:16) this means that it's ok to kill infants, and carve up pregnant women, right?

Ok, much clearer. You're definitely more moral than we atheists. For instance, I would never even dream of "dashing [an infant] in pieces", so could never qualify for the kind of "good" morality your god seems to be advocating. You on the other hand, I take it, would have no trouble doing so?

Jeff