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

[Sava]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat

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

In that case, monkeys are closer to human adults than to eggs.

[Zulu Elephant]

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.

They're not having morality imposed on them. They're having reality imposed upon them - the laws currently in place do not there to impose morality on society as you would suggest, but to ensure the smooth running of the economic and social systems we have.

[C0ckney]

errr, how is this a massive issue?

michael howard supports the limit for abortions being lowered by 4 weeks, no doubt in light of medical advances. charles kennedy has voted for 22 weeks (2 weeks lower) before and is now unsure because of advances in medicine. tony blair wants to keep the current 24 week limit. wow.

all three parties are giving their MPs a free vote, as they have alway done, so i really don't see why certain people here are getting their knickers in a twist about this.

[Immortal Wombat]

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

That is a reasonable conclusion from a moral perspective.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat

That is a reasonable conclusion from a moral perspective.

which is why some people's "morality" is not based in reality.

my mom has a saying for things like this... it's called, "****ed reasoning"

[Zulu Elephant]

Originally posted by C0ckney
errr, how is this a massive issue?

michael howard supports the limit for abortions being lowered by 4 weeks, no doubt in light of medical advances. charles kennedy has voted for 22 weeks (2 weeks lower) before and is now unsure because of advances in medicine. tony blair wants to keep the current 24 week limit. wow.

all three parties are giving their MPs a free vote, as they have alway done, so i really don't see why certain people here are getting their knickers in a twist about this.

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.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Zulu Elephant
They're not having morality imposed on them. They're having reality imposed upon them - the laws currently in place do not there to impose morality on society as you would suggest, but to ensure the smooth running of the economic and social systems we have.

No, they are having morality imposed on them. The 'smoth running of the economic and social systems' is an opinion, is it not? Some people say if we lower taxes, it'll be better. Some say if we raise taxes, it'll be better. Both positions (and the status quo position as well) are based on moral precepts.

It is ALL about imposing morality. You can call it 'reality', but that simply another code word for morality.

[Zulu Elephant]

Some people say if we lower taxes, it'll be better. Some say if we raise taxes, it'll be better. Both positions (and the status quo position as well) are based on moral precepts.

They're not based on moral precepts at all. They're based on economic debates. If I say higher taxes, if used to raise the spending power of the majority and create a better trained workforce, will benefit everyone, that is not a moral stance - its a point of view based on my opinion on reality. If I said lower taxes encourage people to work harder and enable business to reinvest make for a better, more efficient economy, that again is not a moral argument.

If you claim that saying these things is the same as expressing a moral point of view then you are claiming that EVERY argument or debate that ever existed is a moral one.

[Imran Siddiqui]

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

You say po-tay-to, I say po-tah-to. Economic debates are wholy based on morality.

If I say higher taxes, if used to raise the spending power of the majority and create a better trained workforce, will benefit everyone, that is not a moral stance

Of course it is. Your 'opinion of reality' is colored by your morality. You believe that higher taxes would be good because of your moral beliefs that taxation is not theft and that it is better to give more to the poor and that would help everyone. Not everyone agrees with your morality.

If you claim that saying these things is the same as expressing a moral point of view then you are claiming that EVERY argument or debate that ever existed is a moral one.

Bingo... at least for those that get at structuring society (determining law, policy, etc).

[Zulu Elephant]

You say po-tay-to, I say po-tah-to. Economic debates are wholy based on morality.

I dont believe that there is anyone out there who believes that, say, Communism can achieve all its goals, improve the lot of everyone and would make for better economic growth and stablility and yet refuses to votes for it/support the cause on purely moral grounds. Similarly I dont believe that there are any Communists that believe that Capitalism is inherently more efficient, stable and makes for a better economy than Communism but object to it on purely moral grounds.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I dont believe that there is anyone out there who believes that, say, Communism can achieve all its goals, improve the lot of everyone and would make for better economic growth and stablility and yet refuses to votes for it/support the cause on purely moral grounds.

You don't get it. The moral ideas influence the economic beliefs. If you are more inclined to believing that everyone should be equal or people should make as much money as they can, your economic views will be colored with that underlying moral principle.

Similarly I dont believe that there are any Communists that believe that Capitalism is inherently more efficient, stable and makes for a better economy than Communism but object to it on purely moral grounds.

There are plenty of Commies that believe Capitalism is more efficient, but it is too cruel to be sustainable. You can argue Marx is one of those people.

[Zulu Elephant]

There are plenty of Commies that believe Capitalism is more efficient, but it is too cruel to be sustainable. You can argue Marx is one of those people.

Yes, but making a judgement on whether a system is sustainable is not a moral one. It is an opinion come to after considering the forces and work and contradictions inherent in the system - a rational analysis of the facts resulting in a prediction of unsustainability. Saying Capitalism is cruel is a moral judgement but saying that it is too cruel to be sustainable is not.

You don't get it. The moral ideas influence the economic beliefs. If you are more inclined to believing that everyone should be equal or people should make as much money as they can, your economic views will be colored with that underlying moral principle.

I understand what you are saying but, getting back to the origional topic, if opinions on economic policy are subconsciously coloured by an individuals morals, they are still massively influenced by analysis of the economic facts and hand. Anti-abortion policy is a much more barefaced imposition of morality - based on pure morality.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I dont believe that there is anyone out there who believes that, say, Communism can achieve all its goals, improve the lot of everyone and would make for better economic growth and stablility and yet refuses to votes for it/support the cause on purely moral grounds.

You don't get it. The moral ideas influence the economic beliefs. If you are more inclined to believing that everyone should be equal or people should make as much money as they can, your economic views will be colored with that underlying moral principle.

The opposite is more accurately true. Moral beliefs are caused by economic reality.

[Whaleboy]

Moral beliefs are caused by economic reality

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.

[Drogue]

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

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?