We may see a shift in the US political landscape.

[Occhidiangela]

If a government says it is not OK to kill someone the day after child birth, but it is OK to kill them the day before, is that not just as much a moral judgment as if they set the date to 2 years after birth, or the day after conception? 

I will not go down that rathole of your straw man, nor your false dillemma, per the spirit of the opening post. PM me if you wish. :)

What if it's an immigrant instead of a citizen?

If said immigrant is crossing our borders illegally, they should be shot at the border as they attempt to cross. If found illegally in the country, deported within 72 hours to home country, or executed. If entering legally, said "life or death sentence" is a matter of due process of law as it is for any citizen, and as such is a non question within the framework of your rhetorical.

What if it's a frog instead of a human being? 

Kill it, cut off the legs, serve the legs at French restaurant; charge $19.95, even though the chicken wings are $9.95 . . . and they taste alike. ;)

If government is to be able to protect individual liberties, there must be a concensus on something as fundamental as what qualifies someone as an individual to be protected.  And that is known as a moral judgment.

[right][snapback]91051[/snapback][/right]

I understand your usage, and I'll suggest that such is known as a legal definition. I tend to feel that "the law" is all too frequently amoral, while others simply feel that "the law is a ass." (sic)

Occhi