Oh God No! The beginning of the end for sensible politics in the UK?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Whaleboy




They're fuelled by economic reality, often acutely so, but not caused. They're caused invariably by human stupidity and those able, through upbringing or indoctrination, to exploit that.

I don't see any connection between morality and stupidity. Children and stupid adults have conventional morality or non at all, but adults are capable of deciding what is right and wrong for themselves. They just tend to do so in a way that benefits themselves.

[Whaleboy]

I just find thinking in terms of "right" and "wrong" to be akin to wearing a t-shirt with the word "stupid" in big black colourful letters. Yes it's self interest, with a double-figure intelligence quotient.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes, but making a judgement on whether a system is sustainable is not a moral one.

Of course it is. Communists say capitalism isn't sustainable and will result in widespread revolution. Why? Because of their moral beliefs. Capitalists say the same thing in relation to Commuist states. The 'facts' can be colored to fit ones moral viewpoint.

[Clear Skies]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
big black colourful letters

[Whaleboy]

[MikeH]

If the Tories win the election I'll eat my trousers.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Zulu Elephant


They're not based on moral precepts at all. They're based on economic debates.

The two are not mutually exclusive, especially if you consider the growth of Fair Trade.


In the 19th Century, free trade principles espoused by the British Empire meant that many people died of famine and disease because it was not thought 'immoral' to hold on to stores of food that could have fed thousands starving in Ireland and India.

Moral precepts, or the lack of them, may inform how you trade and with whom.

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by Zulu Elephant
As i said before, its not the specifics of policy that worries me. Its the irresponsibility of using moral issues for party advantage at election time - once you do that, its all down hill to the culture wars and moral single issue voting that ruins American elections.

well to me this doesn't look like a party political issue. the leaders of the main parties (and charles kennedy ) have stated their personal views on the subject but every MP in parliament will vote based on their own beliefs, not on any party line.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Shyeah, right. Because none of them will adopt a traditional "Hanger and Flogger" stance (as opposed to their true beliefs) in order to gain a career boost, right?

[Clear Skies]

Originally posted by MikeH
If the Tories win the election I'll eat my trousers.

The latest MORI poll has them within two points of Labour (39-37, with the Lib Dems on 18%) but states that as a nationwide swing this would be sufficient only to reduce Labour's majority to around 90 seats.

Swing finally looking up for Conservatives

On a uniform swing across the country, it shows that to win, the Tories would have to poll 45 percent to Labour's 33 percent, a 12 point lead, while holding the Liberal Democrats to 18 percent, a point lower than last time.

Looks like your pants might yet be safe.

ICM (generally more reliable, IIRC) has a three-point gap between the two main parties (37-34) and the Lib Dems on 21%, as opposed to MORI's 18%.

There's the Budget yet to come, of course; that'll surely help Labour's standing. Say what you like about Brown (and I frequently do), the guy can deliver a budget.

[MikeH]

Oooh. A mere 90 seat majority! .

[Clear Skies]

I know, can you believe they're even talking about it in those terms?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Yes, but making a judgement on whether a system is sustainable is not a moral one.

Of course it is. Communists say capitalism isn't sustainable and will result in widespread revolution. Why? Because of their moral beliefs. Capitalists say the same thing in relation to Commuist states. The 'facts' can be colored to fit ones moral viewpoint.

You're wrong Imran. Read a book.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Drogue

What would you say if the women could have labour induced early, say at 25 weeks or so, why life is possible outside the womb. Should the women be allowed to have the baby born early?

Then, suppose, as would be easily possibly at that stage, the baby were to catch a disease and die. Since the cause of death was disease, would the women be at fault?

It's the only sensible reply to my post of all. Very good question.
I guess it has to be balanced, but in general I'm leaning towards "yes" in the first question.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
And I'm closer to being Elvis than my grandmother, because of my gender.

Difference between your grandma&yourself and an egg is somewhat bigger.

And no, the law does not have to force morality on anyone, merely stop others forcing theirs.

A conviction that forcing morality upon others is evil is morality as well. Also, You're wrong that it's only about protecting from forcing morality upon others. It's about protecting people from any harm by others: but it's morality that tells us what is harm, and how should we fight it.

If an embryo is not a person then it is incapable of having morality forced upon it, in the same manner as any inanimate object.

Embryo is a person. Why do you think it is not?
Also, there are many adult people incapable of having morality forced upon it.

Actually is it, it is her body being used for sustainence and protection, she is essentially the host, and the prerogative of any host is to kick out the guest. Secondly, you say "killing it", as though it was murder. That can only apply to persons, since I cannot murder a geranium no? You must establish that all foetuses are persons, and not presume it as you currently do.

I presume foetusi are persons, and You presume they are not, and I have more rights in my stance. I think that something with human DNA, capable of pain, of dreaming, of hearing etc is a person.
Also, the law protects animals, and they are not persons as well.
Can You kick out the guest?
Lets say You are in German-occupied France. Your position is enough strong to not be too much afraid of being accused of helping Jews. Yet, You're not willing to share your house with any,
and when You discover one hiding, You hand him out
to Germans.
Would it be all right?
No. And in the case of abortion, it's even worse, for most often You've invited the guest yourself, most often You do not risk anything, the time is shorter, and it's a child, not to mention your own child.

Originally posted by Sava

Sava, the master of sophisticated discussion.

Originally posted by Sava
In that case, monkeys are closer to human adults than to eggs.

yes they are. And that's why it would be a crime to kill a monkey, and it's not illegal to smash an egg.

Originally posted by Zulu Elephant
Law isnt about forcing morality on others. Its about balancing competing interests (basically what government is for) to allow people to live together and escape Hobbes' "State of Nature"

Exactly. And what morality is about? "Balancing interests". Why so? Why is balancing interests good and "state of nature" wrong? It's morality.
Law is morality in practice.

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
The morality of it is somewhat irrelevant really. The procedure exists, it was done before it was legal, and it will be done after it is made illegal. If you make it illegal, women will still have abortions, but they'll have them done unsafely and badly, with coathangers and fists and unsterile backalley operating theatres.

Lets make adult murder legal as well, then. Murdered will feel less pain (we can supersede the old-fashioned knives with lethal injections), and murderers will not stain their coats.
You can not stamp out evil completely - that doesn't mean You should not fight it.

[Whaleboy]

It's about protecting people from any harm by others: but it's morality that tells us what is harm, and how should we fight it.

All of which assumes that the abortion (the foetus is the "one" upon whom you suppose is having morality forced) is killing a person as opposed to a bunch of cells that we kill in our daily lives all the time. You have yet to make that point, but your argument is built on it. We are attacking that assumption, you are not defending it. Merely restating your argument does not make it so.

Embryo is a person. Why do you think it is not?

I presume foetusi are persons, and You presume they are not

I do not presume it, I conclude it. If you accept that there is a distinction between the qualifications of lifeform, person, and being, and that the relevant ones here are lifeform and person (killing the later = murder) then you need a means to determine that line. Cognitive capacity, a functioning nervous and cerebral system to aid communication (demonstrable or known consciousness) are ways to tell that exist. They don't go into metaphysical religious bull**** like the "soul" that in reality means nothing here, these are ways we tell if anything is conscious according to us. None of these are present in a bunch of essentially inanimate cells. Yes they subscribe to the definition of "lifeform", like bacteria; but it cannot be a person ergo aborting it is not murder. As for a foetus that is about the born, that is a different matter, but since most abortions are in the first trimester iirc that's not so much of an issue.

I think that something with human DNA, capable of pain, of dreaming, of hearing etc is a person

What if I have a nosebleed? Is the contents of my tissue a human?

What if you're unconscious and unable to feel pain? Are you human?

What if you've had brain damage and can't dream... are you a human?

What if you are deaf? Does that mean you are suddenly less human?

A bunch of embryonic cells are incapable of feeling pain, have no cerebrum in which to dream, and cannot sense as we do. What is there to distinguish it from say, the skin on the back of my hand. The potential to become another human perhaps... well ok then. What of then the millions of sperm a guy destroys every day when he either masturbates, or allows them to die naturally in his body (sperm has a lifespan of about three days? in the mans body). Or what about a woman who loses an egg every time she has a period. Is my toilet the scene of a genocide thrice a day, and is Tampax worse than Hitler? Your definitions just don't hold water.

Lets say You are in German-occupied France. Your position is enough strong to not be too much afraid of being accused of helping Jews. Yet, You're not willing to share your house with any,
and when You discover one hiding, You hand him out
to Germans.
Would it be all right?

In your example, no. But can an embryo be compared to a human adult? Of course not! It'd be more like flushing the toilet in Nazi-occupied Paris.

No. And in the case of abortion, it's even worse, for most often You've invited the guest yourself, most often You do not risk anything, the time is shorter, and it's a child, not to mention your own child.

All of which *again* rests upon the assumption that the foetus is a child, which is the very assumption that is under attack but you are providing no evidence for it. You have thus far failed to show how it is a child and the burden of proof is now on you to do so.

Exactly. And what morality is about? "Balancing interests". Why so? Why is balancing interests good and "state of nature" wrong? It's morality.
Law is morality in practice.

No it isn't. In a society where the state and the church are separate, the law exists to maintain equilibrium in society and prevent harm, morality is presumed to be more individualistic and subjective, hence why atheistic societies are usually more libertarian than theocracies... consider the modern UK as opposed to Saudi Arabia or Inquisition-era Spain. Obvious exception to that is the USSR for numerous reason but that's another story.

Lets make adult murder legal as well, then. Murdered will feel less pain, and murderers will not stain their coats.
You can not stamp out evil completely - that doesn't mean You should not fight it.

Which again might just stand up if you had established that the foetus is a human person, which you haven't. Burden of proof is on you, and until you do so one must presume that it is not. Ignore my arguments, so the question is left open however, then it comes down to a simple choice... a contraversial procedure performed in clean, safe, clinical environments by professionals with counselling and support afterwards, or some failed med student from Albania in a dusty back room with a coat hanger. Tough call.