Obama and Abortion

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Emphasis added... it still ends up being a moral argument in the end.

That people can make it into one does no mean is must or is inevitabily one, anymore than eating animals is inherently or inevitably a moral argument.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by GePap


Slavery was finaly abolished when the prevailing view became that slavery was imoral. Obviously that thought wasn't that "obvious", specially given that slavery was part of human society for most of its existance, and many of the holy books that people still claim to believe are infalible roundly supported that institution.

morality is not static nor absolute, never was, never will be.

So you are saying that slavey was good and moral before people decided it wasn't?

This is obviously false.

JM

[GePap]

Originally posted by Elok
Only men can rape (in the classical, penetrative sense, as opposed to general sexual harassment/assault); why should women have any say in society's treatment of an act they will never commit? Sure, women are often the targets of rape, but then a fetus can be either gender too--or no gender at all in rare cases.

Wow, point for coming up with the most offensive false comparison. Kudos.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by GePap


That people can make it into one does no mean is must or is inevitabily one, anymore than eating animals is inherently or inevitably a moral argument.

Eating animals is on some level a moral argument. However, the vast majority of people agree that animals don't have some right to live/etc.

This isn't the case for humans, the vast majority of people agree that humans do have a right to live. And the government's prime purpose is to protect that right. That is why we give up so many of our rights to the government.

JM

[Elok]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
They are legislating their morality on the babies lives, by saying that they don't have a right to life unlike all other humans.

Ah yes, "legislating morality." Love that phrase. As if every criminal law doesn't impose values by force on people who might not share them...

[GePap]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


So you are saying that slavey was good and moral before people decided it wasn't?

This is obviously false.

JM

Obviously false? In what sense? You think humans were moral imbeciles for the 5000 years that they carried out slavery and supported it as an insitution?

At one point most societies in the world accepted the morality of slavery. As material conditions changed, this view changed, and today most societies accept the immorality of slavery.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


My point is that we have decided as a society to give the power of decision making over to elected Representatives. If we allow them (and don't mind) power over making decisions about punishments they will never be subject to, then why are we making a fuss over giving the male members of that body power over abortion? It appears to be a double standard. Either give them power over neither or both.

We allow elected representatives the power to make decisions for society out of practicality. It's not impractical to only allow women to decide abortion issues.

[Jon Miller]

We have learned more about morality on that issue, and changed our view based on it. Yes, on the issue of slavery we are more moral than our ancestors. Except that we allow it to continue in the form of wage slavery/etc.

I thought that you were a post-enlightenment person, and recognized that society has advanced in the last 5000 years.

JM

[Elok]

Originally posted by GePap
Wow, point for coming up with the most offensive false comparison. Kudos.

Thanks, but there's nothing false about it. You say that only those physically capable of committing an act should be able to rule on its legality. Which is idiotic. The legitimate (or arguably legitimate) societal concerns for the aborted fetus are ignored. If you want something less loaded, try "only rifle and shotgun owners should write the hunting regulations" or "only those with drivers' licenses should write the traffic laws." I merely aimed for the closest equivalent in terms of strictly biological limitations; sorry there aren't more things men can do and women can't.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I thought that you were a post-enlightenment person, and recognized that society has advanced in the last 5000 years.

JM

Look at his avatar.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Elok
Only men can rape (in the classical, penetrative sense, as opposed to general sexual harassment/assault); why should women have any say in society's treatment of an act they will never commit? Sure, women are often the targets of rape, but then a fetus can be either gender too--or no gender at all in rare cases.

Seriously, at least use a winky instead of a smile. That's just vulgar.

[Jon Miller]

Slavery, women being without rights, solving issues by beating eachother over the head, rape being perfectly legal, and other things aren't equal to our current ideals (although they may sometimes be equal to our current practice).

JM

[Elok]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Seriously, at least use a winky instead of a smile. That's just vulgar.

Why? I didn't intend anything "winky" when I said it. I would have used or but, thanks to Mobius, they're badly overused. So I went with a simple

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
We have learned more about morality on that issue, and changed our view based on it. Yes, on the issue of slavery we are more moral than our ancestors. Except that we allow it to continue in the form of wage slavery/etc.

I thought that you were a post-enlightenment person, and recognized that society has advanced in the last 5000 years.

JM

Actually it was never considered moral to enslave equals. Slavery became illegal when more people started considering slaves as equals.

Fetuses are not our equals. That's pretty clear.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Elok


Thanks, but there's nothing false about it. You say that only those physically capable of committing an act should be able to rule on its legality. Which is idiotic. The legitimate (or arguably legitimate) societal concerns for the aborted fetus are ignored. If you want something less loaded, try "only rifle and shotgun owners should write the hunting regulations" or "only those with drivers' licenses should write the traffic laws." I merely aimed for the closest equivalent in terms of strictly biological limitations; sorry there aren't more things men can do and women can't.

Women don't "commit" pregnancy. They become pregnant. sorry if you are unable to see the clear difference in that.