How does the murder of a person who you don't know affect you? Abortion IS death! How the hell do you know what the majority of citizens accept as moral?
That argument didn't do anything to prevent the Holocaust or Slavery. Pharaoh in Egypt, and Herod (King of Judea under the Roman Empire) slaughtered all the babies, and society kept going on pretty much just as before. Your argument is not a foolproof one.
Death happens. It is a fact of life. What's your point? Death, in & of itself, is not a crime. Nor is, in the absolute sense, abortion. You somehow didn't follow the argument. Why is killing someone out of hatred, a crime, but killing someone in self-defense, "justified?" No, that's not it. Think a little bit longer... The answer, is because THAT IS WHAT THE LAW SAYS. All right, I'm gonna give you another chance: WHY does the law say that? Nope, try again. The law is as it is-- in a democracy, anyway-- because people have voted for legislators to REPRESENT THEM. And, as their representatives, they've decided which things should be legal, and which others, illegal. And, if the people disagreed, they could voice that to their representatives. And if their representatives didn't listen, & a majority of voters feel laws should be different, they have the option, at regular intervals, to elect others who will amend things in accordance with the majority of people's wills. While I, like everyone, recognize that more goes into it than just that, and that there are some issues in which the law is not in line w/ the mind of the people (which, of course, can change more quickly than the laws), the point is that LAWS, made by a democratically elected government, have the most opportunity for THEIR CONTROL, BY THE MAJORITY CONSENSUS of the voters of that place. No religion, of which I'm aware, puts its laws on a ballot, or allows them to be changed by elected officials who are directly answerable to the congregants. And even if it did, it would only represent the view of the church membership. So, in response to your assertion about abortion, despite your own feelings, the fact is that: murder is a crime but abortion, at least when conforming to certain guidelines, is not a crime. Hence, provably and unambiguously, it is not murder. You might just as well tell me that wishing someone ill is murder. Or that stepping on a bug is murder. And even if I were to feel that way, I would realize that it would not make it true, as in, applicable to, & enforceable upon, all others. So, to answer your question directly (though it will entail some redundancy), if one wishes to know the long-standing, MAJORITY view of what is considered moral by any people with a truly representational government-- though no source is perfect-- the BEST WAY, by far, is to examine the laws of those people. And, at least for now, abortion is demonstrably NOT murder. If one has a certain belief that he wishes others to also live by, that person works toward having it enshrined in law. If one wants all their own views of right & wrong to be regarded as fact by others, that person aspires to become a dictator.
The question then would be what exact category abortion falls under. Accidental, self-defense, necessary (i.e. like in a war) ? Or does Abortion conveniently fall under its own completely separate special category? The latter would be rather suspicious. Might make some people think you are just making up excuses for abortion.
FYI, I was not making the argument that laws can't be broken, or that a system of laws cannot be subverted, as happened in Nazi Germany. As I have just recently joined this thread, on abortion (in case you were confused), I had not realized it had already reached the, "Holocaust," stage of decay. As for the actions of the PHARAOH of Egypt, or the KING of Judea, under the Roman EMPIRE (which-- FYI, again-- means that it was headed by an Emperor {which is, by definition, a dictator}) they have absolutely nothing to do with laws in a DEMOCRACY (made by a democratically-elected legislature, in case you're still having difficulty keeping up). Did you not realize that was what I was saying? Let's see how obtuse I was about that point-- Oh, I guess it was my fault, for not emboldening the words democratic nation. My apologies. So now we've cleared up that you have, here, no argument whatsoever. As for American slavery: I stand by the implications of my argument; namely, the fact that slavery was legal in the United States was directly reflective of a majority attitude, at least for the better part of the time that it had endured in the former colonies, now U.S., that there was nothing, "wrong," with slavery (as hard as it is for modern minds to come to grips with that concept). With democratic governments, changes do not come as swiftly as in dictatorships (which is what Nazi Germany became, 6 mos. after Hitler was appointed Chancellor). It was only toward the end of U.S. slavery that opinion against slavery got anywhere close to majority; that certainly was not the case at the onset of our Civil War, though it may have reached majority status in the North, yet that would be hard to say, at least from what I know of it. In fact, it might be impossible to prove when the idea, that slavery was morally wrong, represented the view of a majority of Americans; but I'd venture it was not until a good spell after the War had ended. Here is something else you confused from my argument. I will explain this to you-- though, again, I think this should have been clear, which is not the same as saying agreeable, but should have been comprehended-- however, if my argument continues to go over your head, I don't intend to be forever explaining the obvious to you, so I recommend you switch to less-challenging reading material (or get a study-buddy). My saying that something is accepted by the majority as, "right," is not the same as my confirming that it IS right; the mere fact that both laws & public opinions change (see slavery) should make that a given. My point had been that everyone is entitled to their own ideas of right & wrong. Just because something is legal, does not mean that one need go along with it. But for things that a democratic society (I remembered to embolden) deems wrong enough to make illegal, while not proving that it is wrong, it strongly suggests that it is the view of the majority, in that (democratic) society, that it is wrong. Therefore, even if you do not agree, you are subject to the penalties attendant to that act. So do you have any comments that apply to what I actually said?
You want another example? Pre-Israelite Canaanite societies commonly baked their babies alive inside clay pots, as a human sacrifice to their idol-god Molech. This was seen as acceptable and normal in that ancient society.
I'm giving you a pass on this comment-- which you would probably describe as asinine, based on my past experience with you-- because you posted it just before my reply to your last comment. Hopefully that should make this point abundantly clear, provided your mind is capable of its, "subtlety." This thread does not apply to any choice I will need to make FOR MYSELF; the clear implication is: what do we think the law should be? That law would apply, if we are hypothesizing it to be a national law (& w/ fantastically speculative hypotheses, why go small?), to the women of America, at large. So point #1 is that I don't feel that I, personally, have the right to enforce my, individual, views on someone else. That is, however, not the same as not having an opinion (I know, subtle, right?). But my view would have its basis in, what I would believe to be, the sentiments of a MAJORITY OF AMERICANS. In other words, I have, at no time in this thread, tried to make excuses for anything. My step #2 would be a consideration of the what general guidelines could be established regarding overall, consistent, public opinion. (Do I need to embolden each of those terms, for you to take note of them?) One of the best tools to gauge that opinion, as I explained previously, is to look at established LAW. I don't feel the need to make, "excuses," for the law. If, however, I was arguing against a law (which I have been known to do), I would understand that the onus would fall upon me, to discredit it, prior to any supporters of the law having any compulsion to defend it. Until I had given good reason to question it, the other side needs only state, "that's the law." Its defense (in a democratic nation) is implied (but I'll explain it, one last time, for you, kazenatsu): a national law did not become the law arbitrarily, or by chance. It had to be debated over & voted upon by two different chambers of Congress, & then either be signed by the President, or else have a 2/3rds majority in Congress re-vote to over- ride him. And all the people debating & voting are popularly-elected. While this is no guarantee of popular approval, it's a hell of a lot closer to one than anything else I can think of, certainly more so than any particular religious denomination's view on the matter (regardless of what book, from which they draw that view, unless it is a book of U.S. legal code).
And those were democratic governments?-- "asked and answered (already)." What a bizarre thing to cite as applicable to the U.S. in 2020.
That's besides the point. Although perhaps an interesting one. Are you claiming if those societies had suddenly been turned into democracies, the majority of the people might have organized themselves and banned this evil? If it was not the will of the majority, why did apparently none of their kings ban the practice? The practice was very widespread in that society, and done openly enough that the Israelites (foreigners to that land) knew it was a common practice. You proposal that over 50% of the population would have been willing to stand up and stop it, if the choice had been given to them, is at least a plausible one, though I suspect not a likely one. Even if only 10% of the population was doing it, it's still hard to imagine the other 51% would have stood up to stop them. They were probably "minding their own businesses", and didn't care so much, as long as the baby wasn't someone who was related to them. There's actually one specific account (2 Kings 3:27) where this practice of human sacrifice is described.
This is getting tiresomely redundant. It is not BESIDE the point, it has BEEN my point! The governments of DEMOCRACIES represent their electorate's views, DICTATORIAL forms of government, regardless of the leader's title or other particulars, DO NOT. In fact, they do just the OPPOSITE: they are the originators of the views (or claimed passers-on of the edicts from some Divinity) which the people must then represent. I have been more than clear on this point. Recalling the difficulty you had correctly writing your thought, in your Ayn Rand thread, I have to ask, now, do you also have reading difficulties? This time, your comment came after I'd replied with what's above. And yes, in answer to the rest of this, most recent post, of course, if ancient Canaanite women had the power to vote, & the people believed, as do the citizens of all democracies, that it was both their right & their obligation to govern themselves, they would NOT have voted to cook their babies in clay pots. Do YOU have any doubts about this?
Oh My God. You're asking me why people's KINGS, were not faithful servants of their subjects? Honestly? Well, if you asked those rulers, I suspect they might say that doing what the people thought best, sounded to them like it would take all the fun out of being a King. Aren't you the one who argued that, if you were God, you would indulge your resentments by casting all those who'd, "hurt," you (which is inconsistent w/ the idea of God, so maybe, "offended, insulted, disappointed, or pissed you off" are more accurate descriptions) into a Hell you would create, to make them suffer?
I missed this argument of yours. That is a patently ridiculous comparison. I cited the scientific facts, used by the Supreme Court to determine that a fetus that had not reached the stage where-- even with extraordinary, mechanical & medical assistance-- it could survive outside its mother's womb, could not, at that point be considered fully-human & distinctly separate from its mother. In other words, their ruling does not create an exception to the already-existing laws against murdering another person. It was their ruling that, at this early stage, a mother's fetus was not yet deemed its own person, not due to any prejudices about its behavior or perceived, "character," but concluded from the medical science. What is your basis to speculate the Court making a ruling, not only that it was all right for, analogously as possible, the parents of homosexuals to kill them, but that other citizens were compelled to join in (it wasn't perfectly clear, but it seemed to me that the law you were suggesting would amount to a mandatory gay-hunt)? I might just as well ask you, if the Bible told you, definitively, that you must go forth & slay every homosexual you meet, would you do it? Your imagined law does not sound, to me, like any ruling that our Supreme Court, based on the Constitution, could credibly, or even possibly, make. Religious texts, & leaders, on the other hand, have a rich history of calling for the heads of non-believers. And they have made these decrees, not through legal arguments, in the main, but with MORAL ones. Food for thought, since you felt this was such an important point.
Why is it that with any other law, or freedom taken away, none of you could give a hoot, but suddenly when it comes to abortion you are all screaming meemies? I go on and on in this forum trying to tell you all how your freedoms are being, or recently have been, taken away, chipped away little by little, as the present condition becomes normalized, but judging by the near complete lack of responses, none of you care. A cynic might say all you cared about is the right to unabashed sex (and mental-altering drugs, but that's another story). I can really see all of humanity descending into the state depicted in Planet of the Apes, or H.G. Wells' The Time Machine.
Nevertheless, you would obviously have a moral argument against a law in which gay people were executed by the state for being gay. Exactly, and it is counter moral arguments which would be used to combat such decrees, right?
And what is your view on child-support? Because if you are going to exempt men from all liability, while simultaneously forcing any pregnant woman who has, for any reason, not aborted her fetus by the 13th week, to carry it to term, your opinion sounds a whole lot more like, "what works for Daggdag," than a logical argument. That is, by giving all financial responsibility, in addition to the physical responsibility, to the woman, you remove any pretext of your perspective having been given thoughtful consideration, and so dismiss all sense of its credibility, showing only an extremely chauvinistic bias.
Just as counter-legal arguments could VERY EASILY be made against your imaginary, & unrealistic, law. But you didn't answer what you'd do if the Bible said to kill gays. Make a counter-moral argument against it? How, if you get your morals from the Bible? Put into real-life terms, what Biblical laws, carrying as much weight as a law requiring the killing of gays-- so, in other words, we're not talking about some dietary restrictions in Leviticus; YOU speculated a law which would go against what IS considered a capital crime, by the real law-- so what CAPITAL OFFENSE, in the Bible, have you made because of moral objection? And if your answer is that you have not had any moral objections to anything that important in the Bible, it kind of under-cuts the credibility of your claim that you would raise those objections, if... The law, on the other hand, has NEVER required me to do anything I considered immoral. And I have broken laws that I considered to be illegal in their underpinnings, or lack thereof. So, it seems, your argument has no clothes.
How does the murder of a person who you don't know affect you? Then why did you say, "there are laws against these things", one of which in your list was "death?" What do you mean "in the absolute sense?" What happened to killing someone not out of hatred and also not in self-defense? Another chance? When the hell did you previously ask this? And what are you asking anyway? Why does the law say WHAT? Why the hell did you ask a question, and then immediately follow with "nope" as if I answered you? How very strange. What the hell? Hitler was elected wasn't he? Are you okay with what he decided should be legal, and what should be illegal? You seem to be under the impression that the US legislature passed the right to abortion. Pretty much every religion has that for the rules/laws of their various institutions, just not for the actual religious doctrine itself, or the 'religious laws', which I assume is what you mean by "law." And for the most part, the religious doctrine will be used to justify the specific rules/laws. For example, a Christian church might have a law which says that no employee can be in a same sex relationship, and this would be justified by what the Bible says about homosexuality - but the Bible itself says nothing about church employees. I didn't say that abortion is murder according to the law. No pro-life person says that just because they "feel" that abortion is wrong, this means that it makes it "true" and therefore it should be "applicable to, & enforceable upon, all others." Except the Supreme Court has nothing to do with "representational government."
You didn't confirm if you would have a moral argument against a law in which gay people were executed by the state for being gay. If the Bible said to kill gays, I wouldn't be a Christian. Can you rephrase?
Chris 155au, I've had no reason, in our prior encounters, not to like you. However, in this thread, while I have been answering all your remarks directed to me, I've asked that you give me the time to actually compose a comprehensive, cohesive, & cogent description of my views; yet you continually pepper me, impatiently, w/ questions that use up the time in which I could, otherwise, compose that essay. Further, I take pains to make my replies well-explained, yet you seem not to be paying much attention or focusing much effort on trying to understand them; on top of all that, the comments you expect me to reply to are not always very clear or fleshed out. I don't imagine that, barring any change, I will be continuing this much longer. But let us use this reply of yours as an example. In response to: "And, personally, I find it wrong to force others to abide by beliefs they do not hold, in cases when the behavior directly affects no one outside of those involved with it, i.e., when it is not clearly in the, over-riding, public interest." (That's clearly expressed, isn't it?) That's not very well phrased, as a question. It's meaning, as well as your intent/point is less than crystal clear. I guess the ridiculous question you are asking is why would murder affect me, if I don't know the person. And I'm not sure if you are talking about the statutory crime of murder, or are merely referring to abortion, in these terms. Can you not express your thought from the realization that I don't know what you are thinking, therefore you must explain it to me? Because, either way you mean it, it's a somewhat non-sequitur response to : if whatever a person wants to do has no real effect on anyone but themselves, I don't feel that I have (read: anyone should have) the right to force them to comply with my feelings about what they are doing. In terms of one possibility of what you may be asking: your comment is kind of my point; a woman I don't know, aborting her fetus, does not affect me, so I feel it's none of my business. If, instead, you were asking how a murder-- & for clarity's sake, let's stick to the universal understandings of words: "abortion" or "termination of pregnancy," e.g., for abortion; & "murder" or "killing," etc., for a legally-defined homicide-- affects me, it clearly undermines public safety. If people could get away with murder, that would likely loosen up others' reservations, when they are perhaps in a murderous mood. But allowing women to choose not to carry their fetuses to term, I fail to see as presenting any weakening of the legal taboos that protect me, or that protect other women's unborn children. So, if neither of those answers your question, it is your own obscurity in phrasing which is to blame. _________________________________ DEFinning said: ↑ Death happens. It is a fact of life. What's your point? Death, in & of itself, is not a crime. Since we were talking about ABORTION, and I had just said that the only time the law should get involved in someone's private affairs (that were not legitimately anyone else's concern-- if you're not sure what I mean, look at the section just above this one), was when it was clearly in the, "over-riding public interest." So the next comment was in anticipation of your saying that protecting fetuses from harm or destruction/death was in the public interest. I said: I thought my meaning would be understood, based partly on the ludicrousness of reading it the way you apparently did: that there could be laws against any harm coming to a person, and against them ever dying! Forgive me if the implication of, "through the violent act of another person--" which there are laws against-- did not get through to you, but it seems to me that I write quite a bit in my replies, so like to be able to cut explanations that seem to be unnecessary. I didn't imagine your reading as a credible alternative. So that's what I meant, which I can see now, you would not have recognized my extending, in the subsequent sentence, about what we actually were discussing was a matter of legality. Granted, I was now eager to finish, & so taking bigger jumps.To recap, I was saying that naturally, preventing assault & murder are in the public interest, which is why there are laws against them. But there is no law against abortion, just as a practice. That is, there may be laws against late-term abortions, but, "abortion," in & of itself, is not like, "assault," or, "homicide," capiche? This is the answer to your next question: You know what, that's as far as l can get through your questions, tonight. My point had been that, though you may consider a fetus a human being from the moment of conception, which is therefore capable of being murdered, everyone in the country does not accept that designation. And the Supreme Court, upon consideration of the medical, biological evidence, did not support that interpretation, either. Their reasoning was that, until a fetus could survive, outside of its mother (with artificial aids), it was not considered a human being that could then be murdered, at least in regard to its mother deciding to abort it. And, based on how many women have had abortions, this seems a pretty popular understanding of the non-separate nature of a fetus, during the early stages of development. That is why I'd said that, because the law is meant to apply to all, regardless of religious beliefs, or lack thereof, using some particular religious faith's teaching about when human life actually begins cannot be used to substitute for a more tangible, measurable, scientific, basis. And that's as far as I can force myself tonight. I will repeat that I think this would be a much more productive, interesting conversation-- & would feel a lot less like a chore, to me, if I may be frank-- if you could occupy yourself in some other way than questioning me about what IS NOT MY THESIS, but allow me a short respite in order to post my take on abortion which, then, you can subject to your full scrutiny.
Abortion wouldn't have to be called anything other than abortion. However, IF you need a term then "self defense" would work nicely …
1; child support is not the same thing as alimony. Child support must be used only for the benefit of the child and if a parent believes that child support isn't being used properly they can sue their former spouse, and in some jurisdictions even have child neglect charges filed, if they have evidence that the child is going without necessities because of the money not being used properly. 2; in several States the standards of both child support and alimony are very much a double standard. Several states do not require a woman to pay child support if her ex-husband has custody of the children. Nor most states require a woman who makes more money than their former spouse to pay alimony to them. There is a clear double standard which is supported and promoted by feminist in both cases.
No, Hitler was NOT elected. Members of the NAZI Party were elected into Germany's version of Parliament, the Reichstag, and Hitler was eventually appointed as Prime Minister by the President, von Hindenburg. There were all kinds of back room machinations & power struggles going on which led to this, which I, myself, just found out about through an excellent program, currently airing on PBS, called Rise of the Nazis. You may still be able to catch a repeat of episode 2, which covers the 6 month period from the time of Hitler's appointment until the end of German democracy. New episodes air Tuesdays. I highly recommend it. It is centered around a group of specialized historians, each giving their own take on different aspects of, & players in, the story. It's extremely interesting, & informative. It IS the doctrinal BELIEFS to which I was referring, because those are the equivalent of our society's laws, in which are implied, that society's mores, their ideas of right & wrong. If you, then, don't believe that, it's good, & unexpected, to hear it. That's very good, to hear. And yes, of course, I would not only have, but act on, my opposition to such an unbelievable development. I wanted to end with this one, because it seems like your best objection to my argument, so far. (Note: I have not really been making my argument, thus far, only parrying with you over certain principles, in the abstract. As I mentioned in my last response, I will relish the chance to discuss these principles as they relate to my actual argument, once I make it). So, there are several things that the argument that, the people don't elect the Supreme Court, fails to consider. 1) On the state level, ballot initiatives are common. These put questions, on specific issues, directly before the voters. These questions can sometimes be about changes that contradict Federal law, as with the states which have, "legalized," marijuana. Though there was some federal interference, at first-- however, as more & more states followed suit, this caused the federal government to back off its own enforcement of our laws, in those states, which I maintain would be their only practical recourse. So many states already have, de facto legalization of marijuana w/o either a law passing Congress or action by the Supreme Court. I'll mention that this principle applies to other things, as well. Though, with regard to marijuana, the Supreme Court not only NEVER ruled that it should be illegal, but NEVER ruled that it WAS LEGAL for the federal government TO BAN IT. But this is for a different thread. 2) Besides direct-democracy, ballot-initiatives to circumvent a Supreme Court that is not in tune with the will of the people, there is also, of course, the AMENDMENT PROCESS in which citizens, when there is a strong enough majority, can change their governing document (which the Court must use as the basis for its decisions). This, of course, only occurs in a democracy, such as ours. 3) Thirdly, the Court's perception of the attitudes of the people does come into play, in their decisions, for various reasons. On some issues, it is vital that the Court view the changed perspective of the contemporary citizenry, verses what it had once, or historically, been. An example of this is the Court's legalization of same-sex marriage (the Oberfell decision). While the basis for it was always there, it seems less than likely the Court would have found, the way it did, if not for the drastic, recent shift in the attitude of the general population, with regard to this issue. Another factor that, unofficially, impacts at least some members of the Supreme Court, is the desire to have their authority respected. The Chief Justice, particularly, would usually be loathe to see a lot of efforts like ballot initiatives & movements for Constitutional Amendments which speak to an abandonment of looking toward the Court, primarily, for the resolution of Constitutionally-based conflicts. Certainly, I'm not saying that the Justices would make rulings that could not be supported with precedent, as they should not. But, to paraphrase the saying that relates to cat-cuisine, there's more than one way, to read the Constitution. (If the cat reference was confusing, I'll admit right now, that was my fault; but that allusion is unimportant to my argument). An example is when Obamacare came up before the Roberts' Court, & the Chief Justice bent over backwards to help the Administration in negotiating this challenge. The Court did find, as it should have, that it was unConstitutional to mandate that everyone need buy private insurance. Roberts actually suggested, however, how the $700 fine might be justified (which has now, just recently been overturned, & yet the rest of the law has been left standing). This is an indication that the Court recognizes the current healthcare crisis, and, some elements on it, at least, do not want to let their Institution be seen as completely isolated from the nation & people, whose Constitution they are ruling on. 4) Finally, there is, of course, the power of public opinion to sway Presidents as to WHO they nominate to the Court. Examples of this are Pres. Donald Trump's promise to only nominate Justices that are opposed to Roe v. Wade. Also, the promise of Biden (& I think it had also been a promise of Hillary's, had she been elected) to only nominate Justices who support the Roe ruling. And that seems an appropriate place, for this thread, to leave this post.
