30% of GOP Presidential Candidates do NOT believe in Evolution

[Damocles]

I'm not going to go on with this any further because I'm getting sucked into another abortion debate and I hate abortion debates. They tend to make me angry and I dislike getting angry. OTOH, your post is reasonable and deserves an answer. So, one last post and then I'm off this thread.

We are dealing with two separate questions here. One is the moral decision an individual -- a woman, in this case -- might make about a particular embryo or fetus. The other is the ethical and legal question of what behavior do we allow and what do we prohibit. I'm solely interested in the latter: the former takes care of itself, in my view.

The legal question can't be reduced to a discussion of potential, I don't believe. It's a question of individual rights and freedom. Given our legal and ethical heritage, there is only one question we can ask: at what point does the developing fetus gain legal personhood and the protection of law?

I, personally, prefer to keep the government out of it until such time that consensus is clear and irrefutable. Very few people wouldn't give a 35 or 36 week fetus legal status, for example: I'm quite willing to concede that consensus exists there.

And yet in many places abortions of such a fetus can be done legally. And I believe that the law does relate to the potential. It is what we use to relate the value of "rights", from this all things extend.

We have laws against drunk driving because of the potential loss of life, and regulate accordingly. If one is driving drunk and does take a life we consider it murder regardless of intent, because of the loss of the potential of the life taken. If we do not take potential interaction into account there is nothing at all to mourn. If one is driving drunk and takes a fetus regardless of what week, in some places, it can be considered murder. In others that potential has yet to find voice in law.

I think an attempt to separate potential from ethics is impossible, it is that thing by which we determine the value of what was taken through what we consider wrong action.

 

[Battleborne]

Well Put...

I, personally, prefer to keep the government out of it until such time that consensus is clear and irrefutable. Very few people wouldn't give a 35 or 36 week fetus legal status, for example: I'm quite willing to concede that consensus exists there.

Concensus alone is a dangerous criteria to use. Would you accept the practices of a society that permitted enfanticide if that society accepted it by concensus?

'Learn from History' The decline of the Roman Empire...anyone???

 

[OrnotBitwise]

I, personally, prefer to keep the government out of it until such time that consensus is clear and irrefutable. Very few people wouldn't give a 35 or 36 week fetus legal status, for example: I'm quite willing to concede that consensus exists there.

Concensus alone is a dangerous criteria to use. Would you accept the practices of a society that permitted enfanticide if that society accepted it by concensus?

No, I would not, but my opinion on such a question would be immaterial. I'm not a member of that society. Or am I? It depends on how insulur it really is.

Consider this. You talk about "a society" without specifying the circumstances. Just how isolated is this hypothetical society?

There have been such, from time to time. Infanticide has been practiced in some very densely populated nations. China, most notoriously. From my perspective, as a Western man of the 21st century, this is horrific. I'm not forced by circumstance to live under those conditions however. Consensus at the time when such things were practiced could not extend much beyond national borders.

Today, "society" includes all human beings on the planet, effectively. There's no way in which the global consensus would come to embrace such a practice. Any isolated society that tried to legalize it would be shunned and frozen out by the rest of the world. Possibly even conquered.

Our personal beliefs tend to reflect the societal consensus, to varying degrees, naturally. That's true because our personal beliefs are, to a large extent, determined by the consensus of that society in which we grow up.

 

[Battleborne]

Lol...

No, I would not, but my opinion on such a question would be immaterial. I'm not a member of that society. Or am I? It depends on how insulur it really is.

Consider this. You talk about "a society" without specifying the circumstances. Just how isolated is this hypothetical society?

There have been such, from time to time. Infanticide has been practiced in some very densely populated nations. China, most notoriously. From my perspective, as a Western man of the 21st century, this is horrific. I'm not forced by circumstance to live under those conditions however. Consensus at the time when such things were practiced could not extend much beyond national borders.

Today, "society" includes all human beings on the planet, effectively. There's no way in which the global consensus would come to embrace such a practice. Any isolated society that tried to legalize it would be shunned and frozen out by the rest of the world. Possibly even conquered.

Our personal beliefs tend to reflect the societal consensus, to varying degrees, naturally. That's true because our personal beliefs are, to a large extent, determined by the consensus of that society in which we grow up.

I thought you bowed out 'Professor' your post #78...sucked back in eh'???

 

[OrnotBitwise]

I thought you bowed out 'Professor' your post #78...sucked back in eh'???

That's the other reason I hate abortion threads: I have this horrible compulsion . . .

 

[Cancel7]

That's the other reason I hate abortion threads: I have this horrible compulsion . . .

Ornot, when did you become a professor? did you hide this from me because you know I have a thing for professors?

 

[IHateGovernment]

Today, "society" includes all human beings on the planet, effectively. There's no way in which the global consensus would come to embrace such a practice. Any isolated society that tried to legalize it would be shunned and frozen out by the rest of the world. Possibly even conquered.

I strongly disagree that there is one society that encompasses all the planet. There is a society of earth as a whole but it is more nebulous and not as effective on the life of an individual. There are also sub-societies whose customs may differ from what is the median norm in the world as a whole.

You have said you are not a fan of cultural homogeniety but you would indirectly support that if you said the concensus of the world society alone should be the determinant of whether something is allowed or not. Capital punishment is broadly accepted by most of the world's population but is roundly rejected in many western industrial pockets. Homogenized world opinion should not be the guide of what laws are made in a nation that may be composed of a society or societies that greatly differ from this so called world society.

 

[OrnotBitwise]

Today, "society" includes all human beings on the planet, effectively. There's no way in which the global consensus would come to embrace such a practice. Any isolated society that tried to legalize it would be shunned and frozen out by the rest of the world. Possibly even conquered.

I strongly disagree that there is one society that encompasses all the planet. There is a society of earth as a whole but it is more nebulous and not as effective on the life of an individual. There are also sub-societies whose customs may differ from what is the median norm in the world as a whole.

But it is the "society of Earth" that is, by definition, the ultimate arbiter of moral values. You and I say that infanticide is fundamentally wrong but that judgment has force only because the global consensus agrees -- or we agree with the consensus, more to the point.

You have said you are not a fan of cultural homogeniety but you would indirectly support that if you said the concensus of the world society alone should be the determinant of whether something is allowed or not. Capital punishment is broadly accepted by most of the world's population but is roundly rejected in many western industrial pockets. Homogenized world opinion should not be the guide of what laws are made in a nation that may be composed of a society or societies that greatly differ from this so called world society.

What else is there? I'm not entirely happy with the consensus in many instances -- capital punishment notable among them. All I can do, however, is to try to change that consensus.

 

[Battleborne]

Sorry but Capital Punishment is....

justified...when a person crosses the line and takes a life unjustified...well then they should loose theirs...ie: if some pervert raped and killed a child of mine...I would have no remorse if they were put to death...hell to be honest I would pray they let me take this persons life...with a baseball bat in a padded room...let me administer the death penalty...would it bring back my child..hell no...but it would guarantee that this perv would not do it again...and I would feel whole once again...just food for thought!

 

[IHateGovernment]

But it is the "society of Earth" that is, by definition, the ultimate arbiter of moral values. You and I say that infanticide is fundamentally wrong but that judgment has force only because the global consensus agrees -- or we agree with the consensus, more to the point.

No I still disagree with you. Societies as a whole cannot be arbiters of values. Societies may imbue individuals or collectives with that ability but it only becomes relevant in how that view is reflected in the actions of those agents.

As far as law goes and what an individual is permitted to do it is governments that wield the greatest power and governments reign over smaller societies. They are not agents of the world society and do not reflect the opinions of the world community but rather the opinions of the society they govern....usually.

What else is there? I'm not entirely happy with the consensus in many instances -- capital punishment notable among them. All I can do, however, is to try to change that consensus.

Thats fine but then it is inappropriate to use concensus as a justification of a thing but rather to simply say it the the source of the status quo.

 

[IHateGovernment]

justified...when a person crosses the line and takes a life unjustified...well then they should loose theirs...ie: if some pervert raped and killed a child of mine...I would have no remorse if they were put to death...hell to be honest I would pray they let me take this persons life...with a baseball bat in a padded room...let me administer the death penalty...would it bring back my child..hell no...but it would guarantee that this perv would not do it again...and I would feel whole once again...just food for thought!

When you say the purpose of justice is to make you feel better on an individual level or even a societal level that is a dangerous thing. Human life is not a commodity to be used or extinguished for your own personal therapeutic purposes. Killing a human being and thus elimination any potential benefit in that life is not overridden by the small and also fleeting satisfaction you may get by witnessing or causing the death of another.

 

[Battleborne]

Hummm...

justified...when a person crosses the line and takes a life unjustified...well then they should loose theirs...ie: if some pervert raped and killed a child of mine...I would have no remorse if they were put to death...hell to be honest I would pray they let me take this persons life...with a baseball bat in a padded room...let me administer the death penalty...would it bring back my child..hell no...but it would guarantee that this perv would not do it again...and I would feel whole once again...just food for thought!

When you say the purpose of justice is to make you feel better on an individual level or even a societal level that is a dangerous thing. Human life is not a commodity to be used or extinguished for your own personal therapeutic purposes. Killing a human being and thus elimination any potential benefit in that life is not overridden by the small and also fleeting satisfaction you may get by witnessing or causing the death of another.

All I can say is ...'Get Back to Me if and when something dreaded hits your family' This was hypothetical... mind ya... but I do know down deep what I would feel and how I would react...Ya never were in battle thats for sure...amazing how one reacts 'professor'...I love it when elitist scoled those who have faced death...experience 'professor' beats the classroom...and what would you suggest...counseling for a perv that crossed the line...hey take em' home with you and tell your family that you want to rehabilitate them.....enough said!

 

[OrnotBitwise]

But it is the "society of Earth" that is, by definition, the ultimate arbiter of moral values. You and I say that infanticide is fundamentally wrong but that judgment has force only because the global consensus agrees -- or we agree with the consensus, more to the point.

No I still disagree with you. Societies as a whole cannot be arbiters of values. Societies may imbue individuals or collectives with that ability but it only becomes relevant in how that view is reflected in the actions of those agents.

As far as law goes and what an individual is permitted to do it is governments that wield the greatest power and governments reign over smaller societies. They are not agents of the world society and do not reflect the opinions of the world community but rather the opinions of the society they govern....usually.

What else is there? I'm not entirely happy with the consensus in many instances -- capital punishment notable among them. All I can do, however, is to try to change that consensus.

Thats fine but then it is inappropriate to use concensus as a justification of a thing but rather to simply say it the the source of the status quo.

Again I ask: what other authority is there? Some sort of Platonic ideal which we can discern by pure reason? Religious authority, perhaps?

Without consensus, any assertion of moral authority is just verbal flatulence. It may be impressive but it doesn't amount to anything.

 

[Battleborne]

Again I ask: what other authority is there? Some sort of Platonic ideal which we can discern by pure reason? Religious authority, perhaps?

Without consensus, any assertion of moral authority is just verbal flatulence. It may be impressive but it doesn't amount to anything.

Well said...Classrooms are a short cut...however real life experience dictates a persons true identity...

 

[Lao Tse]

Again I ask: what other authority is there? Some sort of Platonic ideal which we can discern by pure reason? Religious authority, perhaps?

Without consensus, any assertion of moral authority is just verbal flatulence. It may be impressive but it doesn't amount to anything.

No. certain behaviors lead to greater survivability of the group. That is observable. you deny this truth , because you're a death worshipping, anti-life, nihilist. You can convince people for a time that morality is 100% arbitrary, but over the course of a generation or two, they will wise up and tell you to pound sand. Go pound sand.

 

[IHateGovernment]

All I can say is ...'Get Back to Me if and when something dreaded hits your family' This was hypothetical... mind ya... but I do know down deep what I would feel and how I would react...Ya never were in battle thats for sure...amazing how one reacts 'professor'...I love it when elitist scoled those who have faced death...experience 'professor' beats the classroom...and what would you suggest...counseling for a perv that crossed the line...hey take em' home with you and tell your family that you want to rehabilitate them.....enough said!

So me expressing an opinion makes me an elitist? Fine. I see that if you don't salivate at the opportunity to beat a person to death that means you wish to coddle violent criminals. That is your conclusion not mine. Life in prison is a sufficient way to deal with such people.

Our society will suffer however when our government caters to people's need for death and violence. It helps explain our foreign policy.

 

[IHateGovernment]

Again I ask: what other authority is there? Some sort of Platonic ideal which we can discern by pure reason? Religious authority, perhaps?

What is best is a mixed approach in order to allow for checks and balances. The people popularly select an elite to make laws. Those selected examine an issue and form policy based on cohesive logical reasoning given the fact available. They are not to merely act as rubber stamps for public sentiment.

 

[IHateGovernment]

You can convince people for a time that morality is 100% arbitrary, but over the course of a generation or two, they will wise up and tell you to pound sand. Go pound sand.

where would you say morality comes from if it is not merely a human construct?

 

[Battleborne]

***sneaks In***

All I can say is ...'Get Back to Me if and when something dreaded hits your family' This was hypothetical... mind ya... but I do know down deep what I would feel and how I would react...Ya never were in battle thats for sure...amazing how one reacts 'professor'...I love it when elitist scoled those who have faced death...experience 'professor' beats the classroom...and what would you suggest...counseling for a perv that crossed the line...hey take em' home with you and tell your family that you want to rehabilitate them.....enough said!

So me expressing an opinion makes me an elitist? Fine. I see that if you don't salivate at the opportunity to beat a person to death that means you wish to coddle violent criminals. That is your conclusion not mine. Life in prison is a sufficient way to deal with such people.

Our society will suffer however when our government caters to people's need for death and violence. It helps explain our foreign policy.

Really...so I am wrong by saying put pervs who cross the line outta their misery..and outta our lives is wrong...sorry but I worked in LE and ya can guarantee this perv will never see the light of day(I think not -history proves ya wrong)..I will pray for your children...and by the way it is way cheaper to eliminate this persons sorry life than pay for his/her upkeep in prison..you donate and guard them...not me...so sorry but being callus is sometimes the best approach!

 

[Lao Tse]

Really...so I am wrong by saying put pervs who cross the line outta their misery..and outta our lives is wrong...sorry but I worked in LE and ya can guarantee this perv will never see the light of day(I think not -history proves ya wrong)..I will pray for your children...and by the way it is way cheaper to eliminate this persons sorry life than pay for his/her upkeep in prison..you donate and guard them...not me...so sorry but being callus is sometimes the best approach!

these types save such callousness for the unborn.