Obama and Abortion

[Imran Siddiqui]

Actually some people would (I actually know a few who would).

Regardless, no one would save a plant, even if it was their plant. They would save their cat. That implies something a bit more important.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Actually some people would (I actually know a few who would).

Regardless, no one would save a plant, even if it was their plant. They would save their cat. That implies something a bit more important.

I'm pretty sure that if someone saved a cat and let a human being die they would be arrested. But I'm not arguing that a plant is more important than a cat, so all of this discussion doesn't mean anything.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I'm pretty sure that if someone saved a cat and let a human being die they would be arrested.

Nope. There is no requirement that you affirmatively act to save a human, unless you have a legal duty to do so (say if you started to help).

[Elok]

Originally posted by GePap
Given how many times women's bodies reject fertilized eggs, I guess most abortions do happen without conscious acts form women. Just think how many human beings those evil nasty female bodies have killed!

GePap, are you trolling, being obtuse to annoy me, or just huffing something? We are, or were, discussing the passing of laws. Completely involuntary biological acts are not capable of being criminalized, nor would it make much sense since there would be no deterrent value.

If you're arguing that the malfunction potential of the human reproductive system somehow makes abortion more ethical, well, you could go into anaphylactic shock and die from a previously unknown allergy tomorrow. Or get cancer. Or develop diabetes, appendicitis, some sort of latent autoimmune disorder. Or or or. The risk of getting hosed by the human body is not unique to the unborn. They're more vulnerable to it, yes, but then they're also more vulnerable to sharp blows, alchohol poisoning, and pretty much everything else. It's a hazard of being really small and frail.

Also, since you brought up rape, clearly women getting pregnant is not always their choice. The popularity of contraception is yet another clear proof that most women would like the ability to have sex without the immense personal health risks of pregnacy.

No. ****. Sherlock. But there tend to be both acceptable and unacceptable means to any given acceptable end. For example, I'd like to see peace in the middle east, and the most effective and certain means to that end would be depopulating the region of human beings, perhaps via neutron bomb...

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Nope. There is no requirement that you affirmatively act to save a human, unless you have a legal duty to do so (say if you started to help).

That's interesting, yet people want to require women to support so called human life within their own body.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Kidicious
That's interesting, yet people want to require women to support so called human life within their own body.

Yes, this is entirely analogous. The law shouldn't require women to affirmatively act to save a fetus by not deliberately dousing it in saline to kill it.

Really, do you think before you post?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious
That's interesting, yet people want to require women to support so called human life within their own body.

Due to a moral belief (which btw, I don't share) that by agreeing to the sexual conduct, you have assumed a duty, the same as if you begin to help a person in distress, you have assumed a duty to help all the way through.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Elok


Yes, this is entirely analogous. The law shouldn't require women to affirmatively act to save a fetus by not deliberately dousing it in saline to kill it.

Really, do you think before you post?

I guess you don't think people deliberately fail to do something.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Elok


GePap, are you trolling, being obtuse to annoy me, or just huffing something? We are, or were, discussing the passing of laws. Completely involuntary biological acts are not capable of being criminalized, nor would it make much sense since there would be no deterrent value.

If you're arguing that the malfunction potential of the human reproductive system somehow makes abortion more ethical, well, you could go into anaphylactic shock and die from a previously unknown allergy tomorrow. Or get cancer. Or develop diabetes, appendicitis, some sort of latent autoimmune disorder. Or or or. The risk of getting hosed by the human body is not unique to the unborn. They're more vulnerable to it, yes, but then they're also more vulnerable to sharp blows, alchohol poisoning, and pretty much everything else. It's a hazard of being really small and frail.


No. ****. Sherlock. But there tend to be both acceptable and unacceptable means to any given acceptable end. For example, I'd like to see peace in the middle east, and the most effective and certain means to that end would be depopulating the region of human beings, perhaps via neutron bomb...

What are you going on about, and what line of arguement have you been following? I wasn't talking about passing laws, I was stating my belief that women should have a bigger say on the abortion debate given that it affects them far more viscerally than it will ever affect men.

That and the side arguments about the non-existance of absolute morality and then that brief debate on what creates sexism.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Due to a moral belief (which btw, I don't share) that by agreeing to the sexual conduct, you have assumed a duty, the same as if you begin to help a person in distress, you have assumed a duty to help all the way through.

Of course you don't share that belief. I'm sure you know enough about contract law to know how ridiculous that is.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Morality and contract law don't necessarily have to come together .

Besides, its not contracts that is in play there. It's torts.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Morality and contract law don't necessarily have to come together .

Can you give an example.

Besides, its not contracts that is in play there. It's torts.

Fine. What if the women uses protection?

[Impaler[WrG]]

If I might jump in (after reading the WHOLE thread mind you), it looks like Imran and a number of others have a distorted view of what GePap's position is, he seems to have conflated 'Deference' with 'Acquiescence'. I'll try to explain it as I see it, GePap please do clarify if I get this wrong.

Individuals make their own moral judgment on abortion, women make those judgments from a privileged position because only they become pregnant. Men should consider the moral judgments that women have made when making their own judgments because of the superior position those judgment were made from. Essentially this is a moral judgment on how to form moral judgments.

Because GePap is a staunch believer in the non-existence of absolute morality (as am I) he believe none of these judgments can possibly be 'correct' because their is no such thing. Everyones moral judgments are in essence equal once they have been made can be injected into the public sphere at that point. If others don't follow his policy of deference then he would judge their judgment process to be poor but would not deny them the right to make their judgments.

Dose that sum it up correctly?

As for my own position, I say that anything which is to be a law enforced by the power of the state is the right of every citizen of that state and only the citizens of that state to decided regardless of who is effected. I agree to an extent with GePap's policy of deference that those citizens should of their own volition think long and hard about those that will be most directly effected by their choices for example in deciding on rule governing accommodations y for the handicapped, all citizens have a right to an opinion but It would be immoral in my opinion for them not to consider the opinions and desires of the handicapped themselves.

[Maniac]

Originally posted by Impaler[WrG]
Everyones moral judgments are in essence equal

Originally posted by Fifty
Moral realism is the view that moral propositions have truth values, i.e. they are either true or false.

Moral anti-realism is the view that moral realism is false i.e. that moral propositions are not "truth functional".

Moral relativism is the view that the truth conditions for moral propositions vary according to who is uttering the proposition (specifically with regard to the predicate of the proposition, since the subject can always be context-sensitive when we use first person pronouns and such).

Moral absolutism is the view that the truth conditions for moral propositions do not vary according to who is uttering the proposition.

Are you a moral relativist or a moral non-realist?

In programming

Is bValue:

bTruthValueofMorality == 0/1 (realism)
or
bTruthValueofMorality == -1 (non-realism)
?

If your answer to this question is 0/1, then:

Is the function's name:

bool isValueTrue() const (absolutism)
or
void isValueTrue(int Person/Culture) (relativism)
?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Can you give an example.

Of course. The obvious one is that contract law does not bar the breaking of contracts. While morality may dictate that you stick to your word, contract law wants you to break the contract if it doesn't make economic sense for you to hold to it (after paying the some liquidated damages, of course).

Fine. What if the women uses protection?

I think the argument is that no protection is 100% foolproof and that's the risk you take.