As much as the subject probably churns your stomach, take some time to study anthropology of religion. You'll see that morality tends to shift with reality. Also look into studies critical of "culture of poverty" theories, usually focusing on the "value stretch" to see how this works on a micro level. Religions and morals tend to change subtly over time to accomodate changes in more tangible things. This is because morals are ultimately based on the rationality of human beings and their attempts to create systems reflecting that rationality.

Well the rules about who to feel empathy toward have to come from somewhere. Family, schools, military, media, churches... but the larger the population the greater the variance of institutions (unless you like police states) and the more chaos... the more likely we are to find incompetent institutions as well, that is assuming that competence is sustaining the values we have. To make up for this chaos, there needs to be some kind of a common structure. But alas, police control gets expensive and intrusive, religion does not remain static and tends to have a large number of dissenters, same with ideologies, and most other candidates. The challenge is figuring out how to contain this chaos in an inexpensive and unintrusive way, preferably a way that will increase people's sense of control over their lives and contribute to the economy. Thus people with no stake in society need a stake in society. And we should get as few people as possible to feel that they've lost their stake in society.
Ideology and socio-economic structure influence one another. The main difference is that you can't remove the structure and keep the ideology for long. You can change ideologies within a structure again and again. Structure controls the number of choices available in ideologies. And if you want to keep all choices open, you need to accept the consequences of anarchy.


Such laws are passed by the representatives chosen between finite choices picked usually by slim majority, not always fully agreed on all principles with by the people who vote them in, ignored by people who don't vote, and actually represent more of a mode than a majority. Generally the mode at a given snapshot in time at that, thus the back-and-forth motion. But anyway you look at it, regardless of how many people support laws, it has no bearing on whether it is affordable or sustainable to enforce all laws to full capacity. And most people don't seem to think about things like the amount of invasiveness necessary to enforce laws, thus all the complaining afterwards (either because there aren't enough cops or because there are too many).

But we don't consider the costs of enforcing all laws. We have to prioritize. The consensus against rape is much higher than the consensus against abortion, is it not? And there is no debatability about rape. It is an offense against another human universally agreed to be living. It seems the population is quite fractured as to whether a fetus is living or not. And who is more a danger to society: a serial rapist or a serial aborter? Neither problem will likely be solved at its roots through heavy incarceration, but it is important also to consider motive. Rapists are mallicious or at least power-hungry and either take their stake in society for granted or feel they've already lost it. Aborters are desparate, confused, and are in danger of losing stake in society. Aborters are generally law abiding people stuck in a position of moral ambiguity and two lousy choices, confused by the circling rhetoric around their heads. Also catching more rapists entails creating fewer abortions.

It does. But there is a great deal of profit to be made in showing off responsibility and virtue. Do you think corporations give to charity out of morality? Perhaps there is some, but do you actually believe that they don't have just a little inspiration from that ability to put signs up all over and get media coverage about it. They're not very secretive about it. Corruption on the other hand is done secretly. Good deeds are done for being shown off. And the only way to stop bad deeds is to be able to see them at all times.

Who's the one alive to make the decision? The child's dreams are irrelevant to the issue of rational choice because the child's dreams cannot lead to a decision. The argument here is about how people make choices not about how we'd like them to. Imagine being raised by someone who would have aborted you if it were legal. I can't imagine having too many good dreams.

Maybe she should be. But how exactly do you propose getting her to? Morals are not so deep-seated as people like to think. As much as people like to fantasize about it, I don't think many of us would be crucified for a belief. Killed maybe, but that's quick and then it's over. To have your life end long before you are going to die... now that's some scary $%!#. If you have the perspective that that is what is going to happen to you, you just might get a little bit irrational.
And wait a second... What do you think law enforcement does? It makes the person concerned about their own well-being. The difference is your method would have the person reluctantly accept the responsibility for the kid that is likely to be seen as a curse and resented. That is the outcome of lose-lose situations: minimal effort. What we presumably want as a society is for the mother to see having the kid as a positive thing and do a %$%#$% good job of raising him or her. That requires positive incentive. Aren't capitalists supposed to understand this entrepreneurial concept? It becomes clear that your interest is the preservation of the sanctity of the state's authority and the dominant ideal more than the actual outcome of the child's situation.
Thus the concept of using education and reason as a tool rather than enforced morality and law. If the potential aborter is more aware of options and consequences, she will act more rationally.

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside

Quite true.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

... no - if it is made illegal, then that simply means that it is illegal in that society.

It's a difficult subject on which to arrive at what is precisely 'right' or 'wrong' in any given instance, (which you seem intent on). There is a tension between the universal moral right to life of humans (for those of us who would wish it to be universally applied), and questions surrounding the mysteries of 'life' - conception, consciousness and its inception, mind, 'soul' and the denial or removal of 'these' from either potential or actual others. It is in the mystery that we can locate the tension, I feel.

Having no certain God to prompt me toward 'a truth bestowed', nor confidence in either scientific and/or philosophical arguements that might finally and with certainty resolve outstanding 'matters mysterious', I am loathe either to declare definatively 'for' or 'against', 'right' or 'wrong' (or, consequently, to preach to others on the matter).

I dont know; but I bow to all of the 'certain' ones here...

__________________
"A man's work is nothing but this slow trek to rediscover, through the detours of art, those two or three great and simple images in whose presence his heart first opened."

Each cell in your hand is part of a person (namely you). A zygote is the entirety of a person. That is the difference. Insects don't technically have brains; they have ganglia. A nervous system is necessary to feel pain but not to have some primitive consciousness. Bacteria and trees aren't animals. All animals have a consciousness. This is the core of the matter: A zygote is a human cell. Either it is a part of the mother or a distinct individual. It has distinct DNA, therefore it is not part of the mother. I was fiercely secular two years ago but I held to the same ideas. A zygote, being a genetically distinct animal, has consciousness by definition #2. I don't know enough science to explain how a zygote has consciousness, but I do know that since a zygote has distinct animal DNA, no scientific findings are consistent with the idea that a zygote might not have consciousness. Therefore, the burden of proof is on pro-choice people to prove that there is an exception to the laws of science as we understand them.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

This is weird. It has turned primarily into an argument of people with varying degrees of pro-life philosophy and different ideas of how to apply that philosophy.

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside

Yep. I'm just sitting back and watching. It's fascinating.

__________________
Man up.

Maybe. But that wasnt your criteria. Your criteria were "human" and "living". Cells in my hand fit that criteria.

Semantics. A brain is just an advanced nervous system. Insects have a nervous system that functions as a brain. Zygotes do not. A zygote does not even have what an insect has.

Explain to me where you think consciouness resides then, if not the brain.

Prove it.

That does not make it a person. That does not mean it posessess a consciousness.

How do you determine that it has a consciousness? It seems to me as if you are simply making an assumption without evidence. Prove me wrong.

Then how do you know it has one?

I am not sure where you got the idea that it has a consciouness by default. You are making the claim, you are expected to provide the proof.

1) I am not pro-choice.

2) The burden of proof is on you, since you are making a claim contrary to the evidence.

The evidence is that the zygote cannot be self-aware because it cant think (it has no brain). You are saying this is wrong. You must provide proof.

If someone chops the head off a body, but keeps the body alive via artificial means...is that body still a person in your opinion?


Didnt you just say that each society makes it's own decisions? Now you are saying it is absolute...that each society DOESNT make it's own decisions. Which is it?

Because it is an important issue. People's lives are at stake.

In other words...you refuse to take a moral stand either way. I wish I could say I was surprised.

__________________
My Political Blog (Last post Feb 14) - My MySpace Page

By that logic, why have laws at all?

Rape is wrong. Slavery is wrong. In any time and under any conditions.

Says who? Empathy is inherent; I dont cause pain to people because I empathize with them. Because I would not want that pain caused to me. I dont see why it is a stretch to assume that this would be true for other types of morality.

My family was actually very racist while I was growing up. Why did I not turn out racist?

Not in our democracy, where you can vote for almost anyone. Compromise is another expression of morality.

For example: I would never vote for a racist candidate...no matter how aggressive his foreign policy was, or how friendly he was to the gay agenda. The fact that he is racist is an automatic deal killer. It is something I will never compromise on.

That is a part of my morality.

For the moment. Keep in mind there was a time when there was not a clear consensus on slavery either.

The definition of "human" has changed before. See above.

Perhaps they simply have not heard a convincing argument yet. That was certainly the case with me. At one point I was rabidly pro-choice. The media is not what changed my mind.

Everyone agrees the fetus is living. Not everyone agrees that it is a person. That is the real argument.

The aborter is killing someone. The rapist is not (usually).

They are both alive. The mother is simply the one with the power.

You could make the exact same argument with a 1 day old newborn in place of the fetus. Does the newborn no longer count as "alive" simply because the mother has the power?

Again, see the argument above. Explain to me how a 1 day old infant would not apply to that situation.

Straw man. The child can be adopted out. Then it is no longer the mother's problem. It is not as if newborns have a hard time finding homes. There's a waiting list for them.

The law is a good start.

Thats like saying "Well, maybe that man shouldnt molest so many children...how do you propose getting him to stop"? Is your answer that we should just make it legal to molest children and hope we can convince him not to do it?

The fact that a rapist may honestly believe that rape is ok doesnt mean it should be legal.

But that is Hyperbole. Because her life is not really going to "end"...it might be harder than it was before, but it is ridiculous to say that it is at an "end".

The child should not be killed just because it will cause problems for the mother.

Not when lives are at stake. Sorry.

Few capitalists will support gain when it comes at the cost of innocent life.

If you say so. You're entitled to your opinion, but I dont agree.

I agree completely.

__________________
My Political Blog (Last post Feb 14) - My MySpace Page

Actually, I stated that something must be human, living and genetically distinct to be a person. I can't prove that a zygote has consciousness, but technically I can't prove that anyone has consciousness. Consciousness was the wrong word, since it implies some sort of non-physical experience of the world. All that matters to me is that a zygote is alive, human, and genetically distinct. In that way, if any of us have a "consciousness", a zygote does as well, since that is all that we can prove about ourselves.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

We know that you need brain activity to be self aware. And we CAN prove that much through artificial means.

But in any event, your statement is still wrong, since you are now saying that you CANT prove anyone has a consciousness. Not that you can prove it.

no, Consciousness implies some kind of thought or feeling. Thoughts and feelings are electro-chemical responses. That means they require hardware to function (a brain, nervous system, or both). A Zygote has no hardware to house a consciousness. Therefore, it is not possible that it has one.

Well...my criteria are a little more demanding than your's then. A zygot is not = to a 3 year old child. The 3 year old is a person, the zygote is not.

Um...no.

A tomato seed doesnt = a tomato, even though it might eventually turn into one if it is allowed to grow. A Zygote doesnt posess eyes, even though it might posess eyes if it is allowed to grow to maturity.

A zygote therefore doesnt posess consciousness, just because adult humans are conscious. Your logic makes no sense.

__________________
My Political Blog (Last post Feb 14) - My MySpace Page