| Author |
Topic:
Abortion: Official discussion v.4
|
Vaderize03
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Oct '99
|
Date Posted:
8/14/07 9:53am
Subject:
RE: Abortion: Official discussion v.4
|
We do lack a truly unified moral culture, outside of some general basic principles on murder, stealing, rape, etc.
Peace,
V-03
-----signature-----
"Bring your pretty face to my axe....."
B-O-H-I-C-A !! (that was funny DM!)
"I'm what Willis was talking about"
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Quixotic-Sith
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Jun '01
|
Date Posted:
8/14/07 10:29am
Subject:
RE: Abortion: Official discussion v.4
|
IceHawk-181 posted:
Quixotic-Sith posted:
If the majority decides something is wrong, it becomes illegal and is defined as morally wrong.
Legal =/= Moral.
If it were not so, then an action legal in one state and illegal in another would have simultaneous contradictory moral valuations.
Almost as if you would be looking at two divergent social units, each with its own defined sense of morality, and be forced to conclude that the United States lacks a truly unified moral culture...
There's a difference between nuance/moral complexity and moral relativism. I don't believe that this is a question of relative morals. Further, the point still stands that legal standards do not constitute moral standards.
-----signature-----
 Cressbeckler 2008!
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
MASTERPRENN
Title: JCC Man.
Awesome
Registered:
Dec '05
|
Date Posted:
8/14/07 11:35am
Subject:
RE: Abortion: Official discussion v.4
|
|
Though, in many cases, legal standards are formed from societal social standards, yes?
-----signature-----
God is a verb.
And your mom is a theory.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Vaderize03
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Oct '99
|
Date Posted:
8/14/07 12:54pm
Subject:
RE: Abortion: Official discussion v.4
|
Not necessarily.
For example, taking of human life isn't always legal murder.
There's the capital offense, 2nd and 3rd degree, voluntary and involuntary manslaughter, justifiable homicide, criminally negligent homicide, and so forth.
It isn't black and white.
Peace,
V-03
-----signature-----
"Bring your pretty face to my axe....."
B-O-H-I-C-A !! (that was funny DM!)
"I'm what Willis was talking about"
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Quixotic-Sith
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Jun '01
|
Date Posted:
8/14/07 2:23pm
Subject:
RE: Abortion: Official discussion v.4
|
MASTERPRENN posted:
Though, in many cases, legal standards are formed from societal social standards, yes?
Not really; case law produces an evolving body of law that is self-reflective (i.e., using existing precedents to inform current decisions), as in the U.S. system. Law also borrows from other jurisdictions, and has used cases and documents from other societies, too. Laws can be proposed that reflect social standards (seen more at the local and state level), but it would be mistaken to suggest that legal standards (or the bulk of them) are essentially socially relative (within a given culture). Cultural anthropologists and social theorists have noted that there are a number of "universal" cultural practices that are not localized to any particular society, but appear to be inimical to humanity.
-----signature-----
Cressbeckler 2008!
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Darth Mischievous
Registered:
Oct '99
|
Date Posted:
8/14/07 7:06pm
Subject:
RE: Abortion: Official discussion v.4
- Date Edited:
8/14/07 7:06pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Darth Mischievous
|
Quix The basis for the original ruling was flimsy. Therefore, the entire precendent law piled on top of it is not built upon a solid foundation. It crumbles with the foundation.
The unborn rights proponents would have no legal case to dispute were it done via the proper means.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Vaderize03
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Oct '99
|
Date Posted:
8/15/07 9:21am
Subject:
RE: Abortion: Official discussion v.4
- Date Edited:
8/15/07 9:22am (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Vaderize03
|
Come on, man.
You know as well as I do that "improper" in this sense is a republican buzzword.
It's "properness" cannot be measured against any objective standard, and therefore is not inherently "right" or "wrong".
In reality, I do agree with you that handling it legislatively would diminish a lot of the rancor surrounding not only the issue itself, but how it has been handled.
However, I stand by my assertion that overturning Roe will ultimately strengthen abortion rights, as it's opponents will be strongly encouraged by such a ruling and make the mistake of overreaching, triggering a backlash.
Peace,
V-03
-----signature-----
"Bring your pretty face to my axe....."
B-O-H-I-C-A !! (that was funny DM!)
"I'm what Willis was talking about"
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Espaldapalabras
Registered:
Aug '05
|
Date Posted:
8/15/07 3:47pm
Subject:
RE: Abortion: Official discussion v.4
|
Quix posted:
Science also tells us when there are qualitative differences between organisms/entities, which is meaningful in this question. If you were to take your position to it's logical conclusion, there ought to be no moral difference between an undifferentiated cluster of human cells versus a multicellular, fully formed eukaryote - after all, it also engages in the same metabolic processes we engage in (growth, reproduction, etc.). If you argue against this, then you are tacitly admitting that there is a meaningful distinction at some point between simply multicellular life and differentiated life.
Any cluster of human cells that given the right conditions has the ability to eventually form a fully formed human being is in my view morally different than any other similar group of cells that share very similar characteristics. The qualitative difference is the potential creation of a human life. Science can’t tell us at what point artificial intelligence becomes life, even if it can tell us at what point there ceases to be any meaningful difference between cognitive processes.
Quix posted:
What rights? When? Any deadline you set will be entirely arbitrary; I set a deadline at viability (the point at which the fetus can exist outside the mother) reflecting a change in moral status. I'd even be willing to consider the point of neuralation, as that begins the cognitive process. Other benchmarks, however, are meaningless from a moral sense (in the sense of moral agency, as before neuralation there is nothing that allows a "self" concept). Note that these are biological benchmarks; there is an appeal to science implicit to this, as these are demonstrable changes. What rights correlate with fertilization? First division? Second division? Envagination? Attachment? Placental development? Each of these is a separate stage of development; what is the political/moral consequence? What other standard of "development" would you use without implicitly linking it to the available science?
I actually don’t think that is a bad position. I understand that any deadline will always be arbitrary to someone else, just as many would say that your viability benchmark is arbitrary. I don’t know when the fetus becomes a person, but unless there is a good reason to do otherwise I think it is reasonable to say that the cluster of cells created at conception has some moral value beyond what we give to any other similar cluster of cells. That is a point at which society may have some interest in protecting, with increasing levels of public interest as the fetus develops. I do not believe abortion is murder, there is a definite difference between a fully formed human and a fetus.
Quix posted:
And I'm going to question how much actual exposure you have to "most pro-choice proponents" - from what you have disclosed on these boards, it doesn't sound like you've really seen the world (or the rest of the U.S.) enough to justify this claim. I could very easily be wrong, and I will happily retract that if I am mistaken. The point remains, however, that personal experience =/= data.
I have lived in Nevada, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Texas, Utah, Idaho, and the Dominican Republic and traveled to about 25 states. And just because I now live in Utah doesn’t mean I am sheltered, Salt Lake City has one of the most liberal mayors in the country. (which I am actively working to change  ) Even at my very conservative university there were still pro-choicers.
-----signature-----
A vote is like a rifle: its usefulness depends upon the character of the user.
Theodore Roosevelt
We should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe.
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
ShrunkenJedi
Registered:
Apr '03
|
Date Posted:
8/15/07 5:06pm
Subject:
RE: Abortion: Official discussion v.4
|
Espaldapalabras posted:
Quix posted:
And I'm going to question how much actual exposure you have to "most pro-choice proponents" - from what you have disclosed on these boards, it doesn't sound like you've really seen the world (or the rest of the U.S.) enough to justify this claim. I could very easily be wrong, and I will happily retract that if I am mistaken. The point remains, however, that personal experience =/= data.
I have lived in Nevada, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Texas, Utah, Idaho, and the Dominican Republic and traveled to about 25 states. And just because I now live in Utah doesn’t mean I am sheltered, Salt Lake City has one of the most liberal mayors in the country. (which I am actively working to change ) Even at my very conservative university there were still pro-choicers.
Pardon me, this is no criticism of you personally. But even if you've moved around a good deal, those all look like quite conservative places and not necessarily representative at all of the mainstream...
-----signature-----
Native Bostonian: I was rooting for the Red Sox before it was cool Fanficcer and Fanartist-- check the profile! My New Drabbles and Viggies: http://boards.theforce.net/the_saga/b10476/28153417/
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Vaderize03
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Oct '99
|
Date Posted:
8/16/07 9:43am
Subject:
RE: Abortion: Official discussion v.4
- Date Edited:
8/16/07 9:45am (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Vaderize03
|
Even at my very conservative university there were still pro-choicers.
Which tells me that:
a) Being pro-choice is not the fringe minority belief it is oftentimes made out to be. Indeed, close to 60% of Americans support not overturning Roe
and
b) While strong and prevalent, mainstream American conservatism is by no means the only accepted mode of thought in the US.
Peace,
V-03
-----signature-----
"Bring your pretty face to my axe....."
B-O-H-I-C-A !! (that was funny DM!)
"I'm what Willis was talking about"
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Espaldapalabras
Registered:
Aug '05
|
Date Posted:
8/17/07 12:15am
Subject:
RE: Abortion: Official discussion v.4
|
I see a huge difference between being pro-choice and being pro-Roe. For me Roe is more bad law than bad policy. It does just so happen to be both, which is why I care about overturning it.
If pro-choicers here in the US denounced Roe for the judicial overreach it was, and used their clear majority to push through pro-choice legislation in the individual states, I would not contend that it was badly created law. It would reflect the will of the people, and even though I would disagree with it I would accept it and shut up. Really liberals only have themselves to blame for the large anti-abortion movement because if they had first won over public opinion and then changed the laws, rather than foisting them on an unwilling populace, we would now look like Europe where there is virtually no active opposition to abortion because the pro-lifers realized they lost fair and square. Perhaps a few conservative states would have stricter laws than we currently have, but I am sure all the money we spend fighting over abortion could be put to use in busing the poor women of South Dakota to a more hospitable place.
Politically, Roe gave a religious reason for all those Evangelicals to make their voices heard and helped the conservative movement by giving them an issue that they were able to use very effectively, while letting the conservative leaders ignore it, and a host of other social welfare issues.
Quix, you seem to want to have scientists tell us when life begins and don't trust the uneducated masses, but if you are right then the masses will educate themselves and choose your way anyways.
I should admit I don't have an entirely coherent position on abortion in part because my mind is not entirely made up.
-----signature-----
A vote is like a rifle: its usefulness depends upon the character of the user.
Theodore Roosevelt
We should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe.
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
dizfactor
Registered:
Aug '02
|
Date Posted:
8/17/07 1:48pm
Subject:
RE: Abortion: Official discussion v.4
- Date Edited:
8/17/07 1:50pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
dizfactor
|
Espaldapalabras posted:
If pro-choicers here in the US denounced Roe for the judicial overreach it was, and used their clear majority to push through pro-choice legislation in the individual states, I would not contend that it was badly created law.
So, you're asking us to voluntarily forsake the legal and political high ground out of some sort of sense of ... what, exactly? So that we can win some smidgen of moral approval in your eyes?
It's insulting to think that we are that interested in your opinion of us, and it's naive to think that there's anything we could do to appease religious conservatives short of adopting your ideology wholesale. You can talk all you want about respecting the system and agreeing to disagree, but to be totally honest I don't feel that religious conservatives are bargaining in good faith. They're not good citizens who respect the rights of those who disagree with them and quietly abide by laws they disagree with. Every ounce of state power they manage to acquire they use without restraint to reshape the world in their image. I don't feel that if I were to surrender some legal advantage or political battle that they would respond in kind. They would, I think, press their advantage. They have no respect for anyone outside of their little cults, and so I don't feel any obligation to them.
What the neocons say about the dangers of trying to appease radical Islam holds doubly true for our very own homegrown religious extremists, but the difference between Sam Brownback and Osama bin Laden is that Sam Brownback can actually hurt me where I live. Religious conservatives are out to destroy my way of life, and frankly, I'm not inclined to give them any ground at all. We are in a war for control of the culture.
Espaldapalabras posted:
It would reflect the will of the people, and even though I would disagree with it I would accept it and shut up.
You might. Most anti-abortion people would not.
Espaldapalabras posted:
Really liberals only have themselves to blame for the large anti-abortion movement because if they had first won over public opinion and then changed the laws, rather than foisting them on an unwilling populace, we would now look like Europe where there is virtually no active opposition to abortion because the pro-lifers realized they lost fair and square.
The reason there's strong active opposition to abortion in the US and not in Europe is simply that religious social conservatives make up a much larger percentage of the population here than they do there. It has nothing to do with the way abortion was legalized. It's a result of the culture of toxic religious extremism here.
Espaldapalabras posted:
Quix, you seem to want to have scientists tell us when life begins and don't trust the uneducated masses, but if you are right then the masses will educate themselves and choose your way anyways.
It doesn't work that way. People as a whole accept the facts and arguments that confirm and reinforce their preexisting worldview. Barring exceptional circumstances, people are largely incapable of doing otherwise.
-----signature-----
"Play is going to be for the 21st century what steam was to the 19th century."
Julian Dibbell
"You gotta love an elite killing force that you can fool by putting on a hat."
Gryph
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Kimball_Kinnison
Registered:
Oct '01
|
Date Posted:
8/17/07 6:06pm
Subject:
RE: Abortion: Official discussion v.4
|
dizfactor posted:
It's insulting to think that we are that interested in your opinion of us, and it's naive to think that there's anything we could do to appease religious conservatives short of adopting your ideology wholesale. You can talk all you want about respecting the system and agreeing to disagree, but to be totally honest I don't feel that religious conservatives are bargaining in good faith.
Hold on a moment. You are acting as though either someone agrees with you on abortion or they are a "religious conservative". That is a false dichotomy. There are non-religious abortion opponents, for one.
Of course, it's a lot easier for you to simply dismiss the opposing viewpoint if you blame it all on "religious conservatives". It saves you from actually having to think about their arguments, doesn't it?
Kimball Kinnison
-----signature-----
You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM
Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW
I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven
Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Espaldapalabras
Registered:
Aug '05
|
Date Posted:
8/17/07 11:33pm
Subject:
RE: Abortion: Official discussion v.4
|
Diz, your attitude is just as much to blame for the political devisiveness in our society as is the extremist evangelicals. You are just as bad as Bush, really. So because you have the legal advantage, however it was taken does not matter because you can't trust the other side to not go the other extreme.
They're not good citizens who respect the rights of those who disagree with them and quietly abide by laws they disagree with.
And neither are you.
If what you have to say is true, then democracy cannot work, and Bush is right to grab whatever power he can because if he doesn't then Hillary is going to turn the country into a communist hippy playground.
Thankfully I think most Americans are just as sick of liberals like diz as they are of crazy neocons. I hope for a civil society where we trust each other enough to abide by the rule of law and sacrifice short term ideological gains so that our laws are created in a manner which all reasonable people may abide by them. If we can't do that, then there isn't much point in subscribing to democracy.
Economist piece, probably by some religious nut that wants to control everyone
-----signature-----
A vote is like a rifle: its usefulness depends upon the character of the user.
Theodore Roosevelt
We should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe.
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Fire_Ice_Death
Registered:
Feb '01
|
Date Posted:
8/18/07 4:58am
Subject:
RE: Abortion: Official discussion v.4
- Date Edited:
8/18/07 4:59am (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Fire_Ice_Death
|
|
You need to sign up to view the rest of the article. It'll only show the subhead. I don't think a civil society is likely to come about until all extremists are gone. Although the main thrust seems to be by religious extremists so 'giving an inch and they'll take a mile' will apply. And diz is right on one point: when conservative bible thumpers have the advantage legally they tend to hold onto it like with gay marriage and such. So, where he is coming from isn't all that irrational, even if he does sound extreme in presenting his thoughts.
-----signature-----
Humor is my shield. Sarcasm my sword.
The Changing Face of America: What can brown do for you?
Gamertag: FIDo Almighty
Remember: Frank Miller hates you.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
