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

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Britain has sensible politics?

Says the man from the country with the '(Im)Moral Majority' , bad actors and ex-wrestlers as state governors and Pat Buchanan and Jerry Falwell & Al Sharpton.


The political circus has come to town..... and brought the freaks and geeks and Sideshow Bob too.

[Whaleboy]

Simple. The "potential" child is alive, and the mother doesn't become a murderer.

No. Unless you dislike the idea of eating fish?

I am not sure how different that is in the UK

Other than the Christians there is no real conflict over it... we don't really have the kind of culture wars that the US does over particular political issues. The opinion I usually encounter (and bare in mind I'm biased pro-Abortion) is indifferent. It's not murder, it's not contraception (for economic and health reasons), and to each her own.

every egg and sperm are also alive.

Not true, at least in the strict sense. I use a distinction between lifeform, person and being. That is to say that any kind of living organic tissue is life, so that goes from single celled amoeba to humans... it's not really a useful definition unless you want to avoid killing any kind of lifeform, which is biologically impossible for us if we wish to survive. Person is a sentient, intelligent being, such as all post natal human beings (that's not debatable), and some higher mammals. Being is basically just me, a Cartesian concept that's not really all that useful here. The debate here is of the line to be drawn between lifeform and person, whereupon killing cells becomes murder. Give me a reason for a few cells being a person and you can consider abortion murder. No such reason exists, beyond religious masturbation, so abortion is not murder.

The political circus has come to town..... and brought the freaks and geeks and Sideshow Bob too.

Sideshow Bob

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Not true, at least in the strict sense.

Under your definitions then they are alive (lifeforms), just not persons.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Like Tories, in fact.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Odin





I am annoyed when the anti-choice people think they can force thier own morality on others. If you are against abortion than don't get one. And the "you're a distroying a life" is also BS, every egg and sperm are also alive.

A fetus is closer to an adult human than to egg.
You HAVE to force your morality upon others. That's what law is about. The question is what morality You're forcing, not if You're doing that.

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp

It also says we have sufficient levels of sophistication to progress beyond single-issue politics, you internet-posting glove puppet.

Indeed, You need a high level of sophistication to write a post like that. You must have got tired. Go to bed, take a rest.

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Bull, it's the womans perogative if she wants to bear it.

No it is not. She can not stop bearing it but by killing it.

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by Heresson
A fetus is closer to an adult human than to egg.
You HAVE to force your morality upon others. That's what law is about. The question is what morality You're forcing, not if You're doing that.

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.

[Zulu Elephant]

You HAVE to force your morality upon others. That's what law is about. The question is what morality You're forcing, not if You're doing that.

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"

[Imran Siddiqui]

Law isnt about forcing morality on others. Its about balancing competing interests

You say po-tay-toe, I say po-tah-toe...

[Zulu Elephant]

You say po-tay-toe, I say po-tah-toe...

Saying this imples that you think that balancing interests and imposing morality are the same thing. Care to explain?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Zulu Elephant
Saying this imples that you think that balancing interests and imposing morality are the same thing. Care to explain?

Of course they are the same! Balancing interests, pah! In the end someone imposes their morality other others. They have to. That's what law is. In balancing interests, one has to win out. When that law is passed, that morality is preeminent.

[Zulu Elephant]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Of course they are the same! Balancing interests, pah! In the end someone imposes their morality other others. They have to. That's what law is. In balancing interests, one has to win out. When that law is passed, that morality is preeminent.

What on earth are you talking about? Balancing interests is not the same as imposing morality. And balancinginterests is just that - a BALANCE - not a one sided winner takes all.

If we decide that taking something from someone without their consent is immoral then taxes would be immoral (maybe they are in a strict sense) - but instead of imposing this morality, we balance the public interest with the private interest and avoid a 0% tax that would lead to the fall of society.

I know thats not a perfect example (I'll try to think of a better one) but the point stands up.

[Sava]

A fetus is closer to an adult human than to egg.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Zulu Elephant
What on earth are you talking about? Balancing interests is not the same as imposing morality. And balancinginterests is just that - a BALANCE - not a one sided winner takes all.

If we decide that taking something from someone without their consent is immoral then taxes would be immoral (maybe they are in a strict sense) - but instead of imposing this morality, we balance the public interest with the private interest and avoid a 0% tax that would lead to the fall of society.

I know thats not a perfect example (I'll try to think of a better one) but the point stands up.

The 'balance' ends up in a law. You are imposing someone's morality on other people. In your tax example, we decide to balance interests of people wanting to keep the money they earn and society needing money to function. That law is imposition of morality! The libertarian who thinks all taxation is theft is having someone else's morality put upon him. The socialist who thinks property is theft is having someone else's morality put upon him.

Balancing interests is as much an imposition of morality as one person deciding he is going to impose his own personal morality as law. Balancing interests is just imposing more people's morality upon society. Just because more people are involved doesn't make the imposition of morality any less.

[Whaleboy]

Under your definitions then they are alive (lifeforms), just not persons.

True but I doubt that's the sense he meant it seeing as how this "alive" doesn't distinguish between you and me, and a stick insect.

A fetus is closer to an adult human than to egg.
You HAVE to force your morality upon others. That's what law is about. The question is what morality You're forcing, not if You're doing that.

And I'm closer to being Elvis than my grandmother, because of my gender. But that doesn't make me so. And no, the law does not have to force morality on anyone, merely stop others forcing theirs. 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.

No it is not. She can not stop bearing it but by killing 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.

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by Sava

He's playing "count the chromosomes" I think.