Obama and Abortion

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Impaler[WrG]
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.

I actually believe this is a more moderate position than GePap's. I have absolutely no problem with this, but GePap seems to think that the woman's judgment should have more weight because pregnancy can only impact her... not that the moral judgments would be equal between her and I.

[Ben Kenobi]

They used to hang horse thiefs. Is it right to hang horse thiefs now?

If you don't support capital punishment for thieves, why do you support capital punishment for unborn children? It makes no sense to me.

All I was arguing is that the thief gets a trial by jury, whereas the unborn does not. If you are against capital punishment, you should automatically be against abortion.

Morals change, and along with it the Law changes as well. What is and isn't considered murder changes with it.

Then why is it wrong to kill other people?

nothing but the good will and self-interests of your neighbors protects you from them, or them from you.

So it would be ok if I killed you and nobody saw me?

Given the STATE the power to make abortion illegal does nothing to diminish the power of said STATE. Are you for or against capital punishment?

Yes, it does. Stating that killing people is wrong protects people from the arbitrary action of the government to kill people it doesn't want. If the state can arbitrarily take personhood away from some people, then there is nothing stopping them from doing so to others.

[GePap]

Originally posted by 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?

I actually believe this is a more moderate position than GePap's. I have absolutely no problem with this, but GePap seems to think that the woman's judgment should have more weight because pregnancy can only impact her... not that the moral judgments would be equal between her and I.

Not quite in either case, because I was not speaking about morality. I don't think abortion should be primarily a moral debate, because there is no absolute morality and thus moral judgements by themselves are equivalent in this case, meaning no solution based on moral arguments is possible.

Also, the consequences of any societal position on abortion affect women as they simply can't affect men. This is why I rejected all these other comparisons people put forth. No man can EVER go to prison for having sought an abortion, because no man will ever have to seek an abortion. The real world actual consequences of abortion policy fall on women in ways they simply can never and will never affect men. In making sensible abortion policy free of all the moralistic claptrap that has kept this nation stuck going nowhere for thirty-five years, women should have the lead because they are the ones who will be directly affected. Men have the "luxury" of sitting to the side and passing judgement. That is not to claim of course that there is any consensus amongst women, and many clearly want to make this a moralisitic debate.

Abortion should be handled as a health care policy system. The way to minize abortions, which si what everyone wants is to assure that we minimize unwanted pregnancies, and ensure women can get good gyconological care, and if they chose to terminate pregancies soon after finding out they are pregnant, then they must be free to do so.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
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).

I don't believe that's right. The purpose of contract law is to ensure that people honor their contracts. If it encouraged people to break contracts the courts would be overwelmed with cases.

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

I'm thinking that the pregnancy is an accident caused by the sex. But the women isn't negligent because she took precautions and wasn't reckless.

[Solomwi]

Originally posted by Kidicious

I don't believe that's right. The purpose of contract law is to ensure that people honor their contracts. If it encouraged people to break contracts the courts would be overwelmed with cases.

No, Imran's exactly right there. The purpose of contract law is to make sure the injured party (and sometimes even the breaching party) still gets the benefit of the contract when a breach occurs. It really makes no difference whether Party A gets that benefit because Party B honored the contract or because B breached and covered A's damages.

If we agree that I'm going to stripmine your land, and restore it to its previous condition afterward, and at the end of mining operations, the restoration would cost me $10,000 but only increase the value of your land by $500, contract law allows me to pay you the $500 dimunition of value and breach the contract by not restoring your land. The court won't make me spend $10,000 to give you $500 worth of benefit, which is the type economically efficient breach Imran was talking about.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Solomwi

No, Imran's exactly right there. The purpose of contract law is to make sure the injured party (and sometimes even the breaching party) still gets the benefit of the contract when a breach occurs. It really makes no difference whether Party A gets that benefit because Party B honored the contract or because B breached and covered A's damages.

If we agree that I'm going to stripmine your land, and restore it to its previous condition afterward, and at the end of mining operations, the restoration would cost me $10,000 but only increase the value of your land by $500, contract law allows me to pay you the $500 dimunition of value and breach the contract by not restoring your land. The court won't make me spend $10,000 to give you $500 worth of benefit, which is the type economically efficient breach Imran was talking about.

Which seems morally correct to me because you paid the $500. What moral code would expect someone to do the restoration?

[Solomwi]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Which seems morally correct to me because you paid the $500. What moral code would expect someone to do the restoration?

One that makes sure people honor their contracts. I'm not saying anything about the morality aspect of Imran's statement or your response. I'm showing you that contract law does, indeed, encourage breach in some situations.

I'm also, by the way, reading "I don't think that's right" to mean you think what Imran said is incorrect, not that you think what he described is morally wrong.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well that would be "honoring the contract", no? Maybe the party that allowed to strip mine the land really wanted the land restored and that was worth more to them than the $500 increase in land value (allowing their kids use of a lawn, whatever).

People tend to get pissed at economically efficient breaches, because they don't think its fair. They bargained for something, so the other party should provide it, regardless of how much it costs them.

[Maniac]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Which seems morally correct to me because you paid the $500. What moral code would expect someone to do the restoration?

Environmentalism.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Well that would be "honoring the contract", no? Maybe the party that allowed to strip mine the land really wanted the land restored and that was worth more to them than the $500 increase in land value (allowing their kids use of a lawn, whatever).

People tend to get pissed at economically efficient breaches, because they don't think its fair. They bargained for something, so the other party should provide it, regardless of how much it costs them.

Ok. The point I'm trying to make here is that the claim that abortion is immoral doesn't seem to be similar to the rest of societies morals.

Sure some people might not be happy with the law, but most people agree with it.

[Solomwi]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

People tend to get pissed at economically efficient breaches, because they don't think its fair. They bargained for something, so the other party should provide it, regardless of how much it costs them.

I'm guessing every 1L contracts class has at least one student who indignantly argues the unfairness of efficient breach for as much of the class as the professor will allow, then continues to argue it in the halls the rest of the day with anyone who'll listen, which is usually only fellow 1Ls.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Solomwi
I'm guessing every 1L contracts class has at least one student who indignantly argues the unfairness of efficient breach for as much of the class as the professor will allow, then continues to argue it in the halls the rest of the day with anyone who'll listen, which is usually only fellow 1Ls.

It is usually more than one, though... especially at, shall we say, more liberal schools. Efficient breaches, after all, do benefit the side that is more well off.

[Solomwi]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui




It is usually more than one, though... especially at, shall we say, more liberal schools. Efficient breaches, after all, do benefit the side that is more well off.

True. We had three, if memory serves, and Cumberland isn't exactly a bastion of liberal thought. I think I just chuckled and browsed the OTF on my laptop when the debate started in mine.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Solomwi
I'm also, by the way, reading "I don't think that's right" to mean you think what Imran said is incorrect, not that you think what he described is morally wrong.

I don't consider it morally wrong. I took a Business Law class in college. That's about the extent of my knowledge. So I seem to remember now what you are talking about.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ok. The point I'm trying to make here is that the claim that abortion is immoral doesn't seem to be similar to the rest of societies morals.

What makes you say that? There are people who reject the whole notion of objective morality, who would say that saying abortion is immoral is no different then saying anything else can in fact be immoral.

What makes you think that saying abortion is immoral is any different then any other moral statement?

Sure some people might not be happy with the law, but most people agree with it.

You mean Roe? It wasn't ratified by a constitutional amendment, so what makes you think that a majority of the people have supported Roe at any point in time?

The majority wants some form of restriction on abortion, which Roe does not provide. Roe permits abortions through all nine months.