Pregnancy is different because the baby is literally living inside of its mother. I think that a person's body is their absolute domain.
Did you see the Simpson episode where Wigam (what's his name? - the police guy) tells Homer he can do whatever he wants to someone who comes into his house? So then Homer's like "hey Ned, come over" and grabs a club. And as Ned walks over Chief Wiggam says "it doesn't work if you invite them in".
Same principle here. A woman - or any person - has absolute sovereignty over their own domain unless they are the ones responsible for bringing someone else there. It's like (and this is a weird, stretched example - but a valid one) if I were to kidnap somebodys small child and surgically insert it into myself - does that mean I can do whatever the hell I want with it? Because now it's in me? NO - because I'm responsible for it being there in the first place, so I can't play that card.
Same deal.
And finally, don't act like in American law or morality you can do whatever you want with your own body. You can't inject certain substances and you can't commit suicide. There are limits here.
So again, BECAUSE the child is inside the woman as a result of of the woman's own choice the "my body" argument is not as valid, and the childs right to LIVE trumps the womans (self-compromise) right to have dominion over her own body (for a limited period of time).
One more thing. Imagine we could create an artificial womb - what then? I'd say a woman has the right to expel the child, but would then (as with a man) by financially obligated to it. You can't just create a kid and walk away.
Saying that God didn't create morality, he simply chooses to alway do good certainly gets you out of the theological question, but it opens up a lot of argumentws about morality as you now need a *reason* why an action is good or evil, you can't just answer "God says so".
You're absolutely right. And as long as we're this far off-topic, why should I be bothered in moving from abortion to theology?
First of all, I'd like to point out that I never liked the arbitrariness of morality existing "because God says so". So although it certainly is more complicated, at least we have the possibility to remove the arbtirariness from the equation.
Most people have a simple rule: "ewww, icky" is evil, otherwise good. This is not a rational rule. Presumably you have a rational rule?
I'm not going to tell you that I have a completely rational rule. Instead, I'll tell you what my philosophical inspiration is, and where I'm working on from there. First of all, I was most impressed with Simone deBeauvoir's theory that freedom could serve as a basis for all morality. She did some very impressive work at tying it all down to a single root cause. Whatever led to human freedom was "good" and whatever took away from it was "evil". It was kind of left as implied that freedom is inherently superior to lack of freedom. I'd go with that.
I'm just not sure if freedom is really low-level enough. In my own work, I'm trying to make sense of a deeper level - existence or growth. The will to develop, to grow is fundamentally good. The lack of will to grow is evil. Of course that's rather abstract, so getting from there to ordinary rules like "be honest" is going to involve a lot of work. The details, such as I have them developed, are beyond the scope of a slashdot post.
Finally - the general theory I have for morality is that it is more akin to laws of physics than to legal laws. Laws of physics are inherent to that nature or structure of the universe. I believe morality is also intrinsic to the universe - although in a different sense. This is in contradistinction to the idea of morality by divine fiat - which is clearly modelled after the legal-law paradigm.
So, it's not perfect by any stetch of the imagination, but it's what I'm working with and it seems more compelling to me than "good is good because god says so".
You're grossly misrepresenting this entire issue in order to score rhetorical points.
1. No abortion law would force a woman to do anything with her body. It would simply restrict doctors from performing abortions. This isn't just a word trick. It's the difference between forcing someone to do something (which laws rarely do) and simply restricting a class of surgical procedures - which is relatively routine.
2. It's not like pregancy is some weird procedure that incapacitates a woman. I'm not saying it's easy. But it's not like your life just stops when you're pregnant. (How do I know? My wife is pretty far along right now, that's how I know.)
3. resumably, then, the mother would be raising it? Only if she wants to. Once the 9-months are up, the mother can either find relatives to help, or she can give the child up for adoption. Even if you make abortion as birth-control illegal, we're still talking about 9 months period. After that the woman has no obligations that she does not assume herself. This makes this statement: So the father has to send a check, while the mother's life is consumed by care of the child moot.
It comes to this: if a man and a woman have consensual sex they are taking risks. Included among the risks are: getting your heart broken, getting an STD, and getting pregnant. Once there is a pregnancy, there is another human life. The primary objective of good gov't (according to Jefferson) is to protect human life. The child, as a human, has a right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". So you have to ask which right takes precedence - the right of the child to live, or the right of the mother to convenience and comfort for the next 9 months? Right to life, in my opinion, takes precedence.
Making a baby takes two people. Alice and Bob. If a baby is made Alice can override Bob's desires for that baby one way or the other. So Alice has deciding power. However,if Alice keeps the baby, Bob has an obligation, either to be the caregiver or to pay child support. So Alice has all power, but Bob still has to pay for Alice's decision. That's a double standard.
Furthermore, I agree that child support is not punitive. But it is about holding people responsible for their actions. We hold men responsible for their actions, but we offer women an "out". This is a further double standard. They both made the same decision (have sex) but their options, powers, and obligations are sharply different.
I believe abortion does have consequences. Look up "post abortion syndrome" - a variant of post-traumatic stress disorder. I'm not tyring to punish people - and certainly not single young women facing unexpected pregnancy. I know abortion is it's own punishment. I'd rather not have young women in that position in the first place.
So my arguments for making it illegal are for two reasons.
1. As long as it is legal, women will face intense pressure to choose it as an option. They don't get good info at clinics, their sig others or parents frequently want the "problem" "taken care of" and with abortion legal and only a fw hundred bucks the pressure to do the harmful thing (for the woman) is intense.
2. Most women (and men) assume that if something is legal it can't really be that awful. The worst part of Roe v. Wade wasn't making abortion legal - it was making it socially acceptable. I believe that women can make decisions for themselves if you give them the righ info - but you try passing an "informed consent" law in the face of NOW, NARAL, etc.
My ideal law would restrict abortion excpt in cases of rape, but there'd be no obligation to prove rape occurred. Because the important thing is to create an environment where women can be supported in their choices and have the infor to make those choices. Furhermore, the only person who would be breaking the law in an abortion, in my mind, would be the MD. The woman is already going through enough.
But then, if you believe anything can be wrong without bringing God into it, the you believe that God is not the origin of morality, which is not an idea that many theologicians of any faith are happy with, as it implies that God could do evil.
Well now you know why the other Christians never invite Mormons to their parties. We believe God perfectly follows morality - not that he created it. After all - if he created morality doesn't that make him ultimately responsible for evil too?
You might argue that killing something that has no soul is cruel
Unless we want to debate theology, I just wouldn't bring the soul into it at all.
But then, it's the folks who argue that the soul enters the body at conception who wind me up
No really... I'm just not going to talk about souls!!!:-D
I didn't really try to start an abortion war (no, really, I didn't) I just responded to someone's flamebait with some flamebait of my own, and then things just went out of hand.
Here's what the Zoroastrians have to say on the subject (I've always liked that religion too): (if you don't want to read all of it the cliff notes is that they think it's bad)
The Vendidad is the "Book of Laws" for the Zoroastrian Faith. Here is what it says about abortion:
"9. If a man come near unto a damsel, either dependent on the chief of the family or not dependent, either delivered [married] or not delivered, and she conceives by him, let her not, being ashamed [of her adultery or fornication] of the people, produce in herself the menses, against the course of nature, by means of water and plants.
10. And if the damsel, being ashamed of the people, shall produce in herself the menses against the course of nature, by means of water or plants, it is a fresh sin as heavy [as her adultery].
11. If a man come near unto a damsel, either dependent on the chief of the family or not dependent, either delivered [married] or not delivered, and she conceives by him, let her not, being ashamed of the people [fearing the people will think her shameful], destroy the fruit in her womb.
12. And if the damsel, being ashamed of the people, shall destroy the fruit in her womb, the sin is on both the father and herself; the murder is on the the father and herself; both the father [of the child] and herself shall pay the penalty for wilful murder.
13."If a man comes near unto a damsel, either dependent on the chief of the family or not dependent, either delivered or not delivered, and she conceives by him, and she says, 'I have conceived by thee;' and he replies, 'Go then to the old woman and apply to her for one of her drugs, tha she may procure thee miscarriage;'
14. "And the damsel goes to the old woman and applies to her for one of her drugs, that she may procure miscarriage; and the old woman brings her some Banga, or Shaeta, a drug that kills in the womb or once that expels out of the womb, or some other of the drugs that produce miscarriage and says, 'Cause thy fruit to perish!" and she causes her fruit to perish; the sin is on the head of all three: the man, the damsel, and the old woman." (Vendidad, Fargard 15: 2a:9-12, 2b:13-14) http://www.angelfire.com/mo/baha/zoroastrianism.ht ml
The Shinoists seems to have a weird acceptance of abortion. They apparently accept that abortions will be done, but then apologize to the aborted in special shrines: http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9610/desmond .html Go figure.
I agree that it's a unique situation, and the idea of forcing a woman to carry her child for 9 months seems anti-feminist.
But keep in mind that if a man and woman have sex and she gets pregnant we have no problem as a society saying that the man - like it or not - is resonsible for the kid for 18 years. So if a man wants the kid, but the woman doesn't - he's S.O.L. And if he doesn't want the kid, but she does, he's also S.O.L.
I agree that, in general, no one should have to use their body in a way they don't want to. But I also believe in consequences. If a man impregnates a woman - he damn well better pay up for 18 years. He gets to live with the consequences of his action. All I'm saying is that a woman should also be treated as a rationale, thinking human being. It's paternalistic and sexist to hold men responsible for their actions and to treat women like irresponsible children. So where is the real anti-feminism? (Keep in mind that the vast majority of early suffrage-era feminists called abortion "child murder" and accurately predicted that it would be used as a tool to further sexualize and dehumanize women if it was legalized.)
As long as we allow abortion-on-demand in our society we continue to hold men and women to a double standard. It's benevolent sexism, but it's still sexism.
Anywhere that more children means more economic success will be predominantly anti-abortion. Anywhere that children are instead an economic burden will be OK with abortion.
There's a grain of truth in what you say. Modern western europeans just don't have children. Perhaps because they are an economic burden, perhaps because there's something soulless and nihilistic about modern wester civilization. I'm sure we could have an interesting discussion on the topic.
But how does this reflect the morality of the question? Do you think the Holocaust would have happened had Germany not been at war? Would there have been gas chambers had Germany been at peace and prosperous? (Hint - the answer is between "not as likely" and "no possible way").
Anti-semitism always correlates to economic problems in a country. Does this make it right? Does it make it acceptable? Even if your simplified hypothesis is right, being able to say who is likely to do something or why they are likely to do it isn't very likely to answer the question of whether the thing should be done or not.
Theological aside: Mormon doctrine specifies that little children are innocent, and none of them go to Hell.
This is the interesting thing, however, I believe that doctrine but I don't really expect anyone else to. So I would not expect the US - or any nation - to make laws based on that (or any other) religious belief of mine. I'm not interested in living in a theocracy - not even a Mormon one. (Although if I had to pick I'd probably go with Mormonism becase at least a fundamental tenent of our religion is freedom of religion (including atheism) for everybody. But still, I'd rather just avoid theocracy all together*.)
So as far as the abortion argument goes I leave God and religioun out of it. You're not interested in my religious convictions and - from a policy standpoint - I don't think you should be. Ensoulment, to me, is a sideshow that has nothing to do with the ethics, economics, and politics of this issue.
Slavery is wrong without bring God into it, anti-semitism is wrong without bringing God into it, Jim Crowe laws are immoral without bringing God into it, and abortion is wrong without bringing God into it. It's a question of human rights. That's where my abortion argument starts and ends. There's just no reason to bring Jesus into this (no matter what I happen to think or believe about Him).
when a person is growing inside your body, you should be able to do what you please about it
I would agree with this, except for the fact that a fetus doesn't appear inside a person by magic. As long as we're talking about consensual sex, I think that changes the issue. And the truth is that the vast majority of American abortions are just birth-control. It's abortion-as-birth-control that I have a problem with.
You break it, you buy it. How hard is that to understand (and it should apply to man AND woman).
Do you think it makes you look cool to call bullshit at biological facts? Go to wikipedia and look up fetal development yourself. I don't have time to waste convincing you of facts you can find in any decent encylopedia, textbook, etc.
Yes it is a parasite, it relies on the mother until it gets out of the womb
Oh wow - that's edgy and creative there. Did you get that straight from Agent Smith in the first matrix movie, or did you think it up all on your own?
Oh wait, maybe by "host" you mean another human? OK, that works. How parasitic were you when you were 1 year old? Would you have done really well on your own? When you were 8. Hell - for all I know you still live in your parents basement.
So:
1. A parasite is someone that depends on a host for life. 2. A human infant depends on a host (generally called "parents") for life. C1. A human infant is a parasite. 3. It's ok (for the host) to kill a parasite. C2. Infaticide is OK.
You're fine with that, right? Or now do you want to start distinguishing between endo- and ecto- parasites?
Note that I'm only playing with your dumb-ass argument, which is essentially an incredibly stupid version of James Rachels more famous pro-abortion argument involving a violin-player. If you want to actually read the argument you're ripping off, maybe we can start to talk. But you'll have to get comfy with the fact that James actually does support infanticide, and that his argument actually doesn't defend abortion-as-birth control.
Err... "broader base of support"? I've accounted for about 60% of the world population (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Religions) That's pretty broad.
But you want broader? I'll toss in the Hinduism as well (for another 14% of the world's population):
induism teaches that abortion is a great crime and one of the worst sins. It is one of the six kinds of murder described in Hindu culture.
Now we're at 74%. Broad enough yet? Let's throw in the Sikhs. I've always admired their religion so even if we only get another.36% of the world's population, lets go for it.
Abortion is generally forbidden in Sikhism, as it interferes in the creative work of God - who created everything and is present in every being.
Most Sikhs accept that life begins at conception (one reference is found on page 74 of the Guru Granth Sahib).
So pretty much every single religion I can find is historically opposed to abortion. But maybe it's just religion in general you have a problem with? That would hardly be uncommon here on Slashdot. In which case I reiterate my initial point: the religous views were easy to find and served as a good baseline for how abortion is seen by lots of different cultures and societies around the world.
1. Some people actually do by the "clump of cells" tripe. Most of my post was copy-paste anyway, so I don't mind putting the info out there.
2. The only thing that bugs is me is that my post was modded off-topic three times whereas his post - certainly no more on-topic than mine - hadn't been downmodded a single time (last time I checked). Not that slashdot politics are a surprise to me, but it's still annoying. I know I was off-topic at that point, and don't mind the downmod itself.
Anyway, your point is well-taken, I guess. In general I try not to feed trolls, but I guess sometimes I just can't help it.
This debate is only in the U.S. The rest of the Western world got over it a long time ago, women's rights are a fact of life, and yes, it's commonly accepted that abortion isn't a form of murder. Sorry to burst your bubble.
This may shock you to your core, but the phrase "the rest of the Western world" is not the same as the phrase "the rest of the world". While it may be true that socialist western europe has little issue with abortion, this doesn't mean the issue is non-controversial.
Here's a sampmling of religious opinions from around the world:
Most orthodox religious groups are opposed to abortion, some viewing it as murder * Christians, including both the Catholic Church and evangelical Christian churches, usually hold this position. Some Christian churches that have become more theologically liberal in the last century hold a pro-choice stance. * Buddhists also usually take an anti-abortion stance, citing the Pali Canon which states that life begins at conception. Moreover, in Buddhism killing of, say, a mosquito, would be a direct breach of the precept which forbids destruction of life. However, they also consider that abortion is preferable if the woman's life is at risk. * Islam generally has the stance that if the woman's life is at stake, abortion is permissible under the principle of Shari`ah, the lesser of two evils. Moreover, there are a number of traditional scholars which state that quickening is a sign that the soul has entered the fetus. Otherwise, there is a wide range of positions within Islam. Abortions are usually not prohibited through the fourth month. * Judaism traditionally holds life (including the life of a fetus) as sacred, and does not permit abortion on demand. However, it sanctions (or mandates) abortion under some circumstances, namely when the woman's life is threatened.
So that's, Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, and Judaism being (for the most part, not without controversy) against abortion. Oh yeah - it's a settled issue all right. I'm aware that that's just religous organizations, but the point of this list is not that religious people are against abortion, but that anti-abortion sentiment crosses many social, religious, and regional divides.
Add to that the fact that a lot of south and central american, eastern european, african and asian nations are vehemently opposed to abortion and we come to the inescapable position that anyone who thinks that a non-controversial issue in western europe is by definition a settled issue is cultural imperialist with a rather myopic world view.
That whooshing sound was not a low-flying plane. It was the point, sailing overhead.
The entire piece you responded to point-by-point was nothing but satire. I read a bizarrely over-the-top liberal point of view, I responded with a bizarely over-the-top conservative point of view.
The fact that the post was not sincere should have been obvious by the fact that I managed to follow the post I was satirizing almost word-for-word.
I've never been downmodded so thoroughly in my life. Hahahahahaha. At least now I know that should I ever opt for a life of trolling, I'm apparently really, really good at it.
A - I was trying to be appropriately radical, not reasonable. The stuff I was writing isn't my actual belief. It's my actual beliefs magnified beyond recognition. I'm conservative, but that was over the top (on purpose). However...
B - Clump of cells? You are REALLY uninformed.
* Day 1 - conception takes place. * 7 days - tiny human implants in mother's uterus. * 10 days - mother's menses stop. * 18 days - heart begins to beat. * 21 days - pumps own blood through separate closed circulatory system with own blood type. * 28 days - eye, ear and respiratory system begin to form. * 42 days - brain waves recorded, skeleton complete, reflexes present. * 7 weeks - photo of thumbsucking. * 8 weeks - all body systems present. * 9 weeks - squints, swallows, moves tongue, makes fist. * 11 weeks - spontaneous breathing movements, has fingernails, all body systems working. * 12 weeks - weighs one ounce. * 16 weeks - genital organs clearly differentiated, grasps with hands, swims, kicks, turns, somersaults, (still not felt by the mother.) * 18 weeks - vocal cords work - can cry. * 20 weeks - has hair on head, weighs one pound, 12 inches long. * 23 weeks - 15% chance of viability outside of womb if birth premature.* * 24 weeks - 56% of babies survive premature birth.* * 25 weeks - 79% of babies survive premature birth.*
To put this in perspective, the most common American abortion procedure is performed in the 8 - 12 week range. So, at that point, we've got a "clump of cells" with a beating heart, a "clump of cells" with it's own circulatory system, a "clump of cells" that can suck its thumb, a "clump of cells" with brain waves, a "clump of cells" with all major body parts present (arms, legs, fingers, toes, head, heart, lungs, stomach, etc.). By the end of the time range of suction aspiration (after 12 weeks they need to manually rip the fetus apart and then vacuum because the vacuum (29 times more powerful than one in your house) is not powerful enough to rip the fetus into bits anymore without being exteremly dangerous to the mother) the body systems are not only present, but functional. You have an interesting definition of "clump of cells".
If you want to see deeply disturbing pictures of what this "clump of cells" looks like after suction aspiration (most common method of abortion) then go here: http://www.lifesite.net/abortiontypes/. This site is NOT work safe, and it is not for the faint of heart. I don't recommend going there, I just leave it as an option.
Since bribery is still really not illegal in the US, Funny celebrity money still plays a role in government (in addition to the role of corporate funny money).
The result: We need to kill babies to have free time to take our Prius on trips to Starbucks for our latte's, and so people can go to anti-war rallies and learn about the magical being that really wants to to believe in socialism^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^W the unbelievable.
First off, I'll withdraw the point about you being in the majority. I may have misread your post.
Secondly, I disagree strongly with your contention that original arguments are not worthy of special consideration. You object to Timothy's selection becaseu the posts were original, as opposed to being "more correct, valid, informed, or popular". Your first obvious error is the idea that you have passed arbitrary judgment on the correctness of the posts Timothy selected. If you are so confident in you ability to inerrently lift from the morass of a tangled argument those points of view which are unambiguously "correct" than A - it's no wonder you're a university professor, B - there's no chance that I'm going to be able to reason with you. Most people who take discussion seriously would believe that it is only through discussion and the mutual disclosure and examination of competing points of view that both parties have a shot at coming closer to what is correct. If you don't need a discussion to see what is correct, then I'm curious as to why you are involved in the discussion at all? Just slumming it with those of us who lack omnisience?
Now, returning to the original point, I'd say that originality is in fact a critically important criteria when deciding which view points to look at. And here is the reason. I concure that, as a general rule, minority opinions tend to be minority for a reason. Let's just say 99% of the time for the sake of discussion. So in a given argument it's 99% likely that the majority opinion is more valid. That's fine.
But what happens when you get to the 1% where the majority is incorrect? Where is the correct (or more correct) opinion? It is, by definition, in the minority. Thus it is a critical flaw to assume, as you seem to do, that minority opinions are less valid. In a status quo kind of way you'll be OK, but in terms of actually improving knowledge you're going to have a 100% failure rate.
Of course I realize this isn't exactly what you said. You state: their argument can stand on its own without special treatment, if it cannot, it deserves to fall into obscurity. (and I'm going to assume you mean this in general and not just this particular instance). But how, I ask, are minority opinion supposed to "stand on their own" in the face of people who believe they don't get special attention? What is this "special attention" you speak of? Surely an idea published in a book has received special attention versus an idea that someone has to spread by word of mouth, right? So we should not publish minority opinions? This is the practical side of the issue. Without special treatment how are minority opinions supposed to be effectively spread? And if not dispersed through the population, then the majority opinion remains the majority by default - and not by virtue of the argument itself. So you need to give minority opinions room to air for the sake of majority opinions as well as for the sake of minority opinions.
There's a philosophical aspect as well, however, that I believe is more fundamental. What it comes down to is this: humility. The greatest and most oft-repeated mistake of educated people, in my opinion, is the refusal to admit the infinitude of human ignorance. You can know what you know (I know my name). You can know things you don't know (I know I don't know your name). But the truly important discoveries are going to come from the things you don't even know you don't know. Obviously I can not give an example for myslef, but an example from history would be radiation. Gravity was a known phenomena (things fall) and so it was possible to ask questions about it (as the earliest philosopher-naturalists did). But no one even know that radiation existed, and so no one knew to go looking for it. Imagine what other natural phenomena might exist right now that we don't even know to ask about or look for.
Those things that you don't know you are ignorant of are boundless, and it is precisely those types of ideas th
We all know that the knee-jerk reaction of everyone (clearly including yourself) was to basically scream out "AHHH!!! CENSORSHIP!!! TEH INTERWEB IS UNDER ATTACK!!!" It's not as though we didn't all read the hordes of people criticizing the decision (myself among them).
What timothy did was to notice that some of the dissenters (who were mostly swept away in the tide of people who think like you do) actually made compelling points. So he drudge some of these compelling points and now instead of having 100 posts that say what we know most people think, we have a good look at the 5 posts that bring a new perspective.
How can this be a bad thing? You're already in the majority, nobody is censoring your opinion, it's just a chance to look at voices that were otherwise kind of lost in the crowd. I'm sorry if you are still suffering from some kind of post-traumatic stress from middle school (Jocks and facebook users can burn in hell) but I think this is just an example of an editor doing a very good job of editing.
Slashdot Mirror
Pregnancy is different because the baby is literally living inside of its mother. I think that a person's body is their absolute domain.
Did you see the Simpson episode where Wigam (what's his name? - the police guy) tells Homer he can do whatever he wants to someone who comes into his house? So then Homer's like "hey Ned, come over" and grabs a club. And as Ned walks over Chief Wiggam says "it doesn't work if you invite them in".
Same principle here. A woman - or any person - has absolute sovereignty over their own domain unless they are the ones responsible for bringing someone else there. It's like (and this is a weird, stretched example - but a valid one) if I were to kidnap somebodys small child and surgically insert it into myself - does that mean I can do whatever the hell I want with it? Because now it's in me? NO - because I'm responsible for it being there in the first place, so I can't play that card.
Same deal.
And finally, don't act like in American law or morality you can do whatever you want with your own body. You can't inject certain substances and you can't commit suicide. There are limits here.
So again, BECAUSE the child is inside the woman as a result of of the woman's own choice the "my body" argument is not as valid, and the childs right to LIVE trumps the womans (self-compromise) right to have dominion over her own body (for a limited period of time).
One more thing. Imagine we could create an artificial womb - what then? I'd say a woman has the right to expel the child, but would then (as with a man) by financially obligated to it. You can't just create a kid and walk away.
-stormin
Saying that God didn't create morality, he simply chooses to alway do good certainly gets you out of the theological question, but it opens up a lot of argumentws about morality as you now need a *reason* why an action is good or evil, you can't just answer "God says so".
You're absolutely right. And as long as we're this far off-topic, why should I be bothered in moving from abortion to theology?
First of all, I'd like to point out that I never liked the arbitrariness of morality existing "because God says so". So although it certainly is more complicated, at least we have the possibility to remove the arbtirariness from the equation.
Most people have a simple rule: "ewww, icky" is evil, otherwise good. This is not a rational rule. Presumably you have a rational rule?
I'm not going to tell you that I have a completely rational rule. Instead, I'll tell you what my philosophical inspiration is, and where I'm working on from there. First of all, I was most impressed with Simone deBeauvoir's theory that freedom could serve as a basis for all morality. She did some very impressive work at tying it all down to a single root cause. Whatever led to human freedom was "good" and whatever took away from it was "evil". It was kind of left as implied that freedom is inherently superior to lack of freedom. I'd go with that.
I'm just not sure if freedom is really low-level enough. In my own work, I'm trying to make sense of a deeper level - existence or growth. The will to develop, to grow is fundamentally good. The lack of will to grow is evil. Of course that's rather abstract, so getting from there to ordinary rules like "be honest" is going to involve a lot of work. The details, such as I have them developed, are beyond the scope of a slashdot post.
Finally - the general theory I have for morality is that it is more akin to laws of physics than to legal laws. Laws of physics are inherent to that nature or structure of the universe. I believe morality is also intrinsic to the universe - although in a different sense. This is in contradistinction to the idea of morality by divine fiat - which is clearly modelled after the legal-law paradigm.
So, it's not perfect by any stetch of the imagination, but it's what I'm working with and it seems more compelling to me than "good is good because god says so".
-stormin
You're grossly misrepresenting this entire issue in order to score rhetorical points.
1. No abortion law would force a woman to do anything with her body. It would simply restrict doctors from performing abortions. This isn't just a word trick. It's the difference between forcing someone to do something (which laws rarely do) and simply restricting a class of surgical procedures - which is relatively routine.
2. It's not like pregancy is some weird procedure that incapacitates a woman. I'm not saying it's easy. But it's not like your life just stops when you're pregnant. (How do I know? My wife is pretty far along right now, that's how I know.)
3. resumably, then, the mother would be raising it? Only if she wants to. Once the 9-months are up, the mother can either find relatives to help, or she can give the child up for adoption. Even if you make abortion as birth-control illegal, we're still talking about 9 months period. After that the woman has no obligations that she does not assume herself. This makes this statement: So the father has to send a check, while the mother's life is consumed by care of the child moot.
It comes to this: if a man and a woman have consensual sex they are taking risks. Included among the risks are: getting your heart broken, getting an STD, and getting pregnant. Once there is a pregnancy, there is another human life. The primary objective of good gov't (according to Jefferson) is to protect human life. The child, as a human, has a right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". So you have to ask which right takes precedence - the right of the child to live, or the right of the mother to convenience and comfort for the next 9 months? Right to life, in my opinion, takes precedence.
-stormin
I didn't realize there was something soulless and nihilistic about making sure your family isn't larger than you can afford to support.
When you can prove that this in any way follows from what I've written, I will bother to respond to the rest of your post.
-stormin
I'll clarify the double standard.
Making a baby takes two people. Alice and Bob. If a baby is made Alice can override Bob's desires for that baby one way or the other. So Alice has deciding power. However,if Alice keeps the baby, Bob has an obligation, either to be the caregiver or to pay child support. So Alice has all power, but Bob still has to pay for Alice's decision. That's a double standard.
Furthermore, I agree that child support is not punitive. But it is about holding people responsible for their actions. We hold men responsible for their actions, but we offer women an "out". This is a further double standard. They both made the same decision (have sex) but their options, powers, and obligations are sharply different.
I believe abortion does have consequences. Look up "post abortion syndrome" - a variant of post-traumatic stress disorder. I'm not tyring to punish people - and certainly not single young women facing unexpected pregnancy. I know abortion is it's own punishment. I'd rather not have young women in that position in the first place.
So my arguments for making it illegal are for two reasons.
1. As long as it is legal, women will face intense pressure to choose it as an option. They don't get good info at clinics, their sig others or parents frequently want the "problem" "taken care of" and with abortion legal and only a fw hundred bucks the pressure to do the harmful thing (for the woman) is intense.
2. Most women (and men) assume that if something is legal it can't really be that awful. The worst part of Roe v. Wade wasn't making abortion legal - it was making it socially acceptable. I believe that women can make decisions for themselves if you give them the righ info - but you try passing an "informed consent" law in the face of NOW, NARAL, etc.
My ideal law would restrict abortion excpt in cases of rape, but there'd be no obligation to prove rape occurred. Because the important thing is to create an environment where women can be supported in their choices and have the infor to make those choices. Furhermore, the only person who would be breaking the law in an abortion, in my mind, would be the MD. The woman is already going through enough.
-stormin
But then, if you believe anything can be wrong without bringing God into it, the you believe that God is not the origin of morality, which is not an idea that many theologicians of any faith are happy with, as it implies that God could do evil.
:-D
Well now you know why the other Christians never invite Mormons to their parties. We believe God perfectly follows morality - not that he created it. After all - if he created morality doesn't that make him ultimately responsible for evil too?
You might argue that killing something that has no soul is cruel
Unless we want to debate theology, I just wouldn't bring the soul into it at all.
But then, it's the folks who argue that the soul enters the body at conception who wind me up
No really... I'm just not going to talk about souls!!!
-stormin
Yeah, I had kind of the same reaction. Big deal.
I didn't really try to start an abortion war (no, really, I didn't) I just responded to someone's flamebait with some flamebait of my own, and then things just went out of hand.
But it's been fun.
-stormin
OK, whatever. I'm happy to oblige.
t ml
d .html Go figure.
Here's what the Zoroastrians have to say on the subject (I've always liked that religion too): (if you don't want to read all of it the cliff notes is that they think it's bad)
The Vendidad is the "Book of Laws" for the Zoroastrian Faith. Here is what it says about abortion:
"9. If a man come near unto a damsel, either dependent on the chief of the family or not dependent, either delivered [married] or not delivered, and she conceives by him, let her not, being ashamed [of her adultery or fornication] of the people, produce in herself the menses, against the course of nature, by means of water and plants.
10. And if the damsel, being ashamed of the people, shall produce in herself the menses against the course of nature, by means of water or plants, it is a fresh sin as heavy [as her adultery].
11. If a man come near unto a damsel, either dependent on the chief of the family or not dependent, either delivered [married] or not delivered, and she conceives by him, let her not, being ashamed of the people [fearing the people will think her shameful], destroy the fruit in her womb.
12. And if the damsel, being ashamed of the people, shall destroy the fruit in her womb, the sin is on both the father and herself; the murder is on the the father and herself; both the father [of the child] and herself shall pay the penalty for wilful murder.
13."If a man comes near unto a damsel, either dependent on the chief of the family or not dependent, either delivered or not delivered, and she conceives by him, and she says, 'I have conceived by thee;' and he replies, 'Go then to the old woman and apply to her for one of her drugs, tha she may procure thee miscarriage;'
14. "And the damsel goes to the old woman and applies to her for one of her drugs, that she may procure miscarriage; and the old woman brings her some Banga, or Shaeta, a drug that kills in the womb or once that expels out of the womb, or some other of the drugs that produce miscarriage and says, 'Cause thy fruit to perish!" and she causes her fruit to perish; the sin is on the head of all three: the man, the damsel, and the old woman." (Vendidad, Fargard 15: 2a:9-12, 2b:13-14)
http://www.angelfire.com/mo/baha/zoroastrianism.h
The Shinoists seems to have a weird acceptance of abortion. They apparently accept that abortions will be done, but then apologize to the aborted in special shrines: http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9610/desmon
-stormin
I agree that it's a unique situation, and the idea of forcing a woman to carry her child for 9 months seems anti-feminist.
But keep in mind that if a man and woman have sex and she gets pregnant we have no problem as a society saying that the man - like it or not - is resonsible for the kid for 18 years. So if a man wants the kid, but the woman doesn't - he's S.O.L. And if he doesn't want the kid, but she does, he's also S.O.L.
I agree that, in general, no one should have to use their body in a way they don't want to. But I also believe in consequences. If a man impregnates a woman - he damn well better pay up for 18 years. He gets to live with the consequences of his action. All I'm saying is that a woman should also be treated as a rationale, thinking human being. It's paternalistic and sexist to hold men responsible for their actions and to treat women like irresponsible children. So where is the real anti-feminism? (Keep in mind that the vast majority of early suffrage-era feminists called abortion "child murder" and accurately predicted that it would be used as a tool to further sexualize and dehumanize women if it was legalized.)
As long as we allow abortion-on-demand in our society we continue to hold men and women to a double standard. It's benevolent sexism, but it's still sexism.
-stormin
Anywhere that more children means more economic success will be predominantly anti-abortion. Anywhere that children are instead an economic burden will be OK with abortion.
There's a grain of truth in what you say. Modern western europeans just don't have children. Perhaps because they are an economic burden, perhaps because there's something soulless and nihilistic about modern wester civilization. I'm sure we could have an interesting discussion on the topic.
But how does this reflect the morality of the question? Do you think the Holocaust would have happened had Germany not been at war? Would there have been gas chambers had Germany been at peace and prosperous? (Hint - the answer is between "not as likely" and "no possible way").
Anti-semitism always correlates to economic problems in a country. Does this make it right? Does it make it acceptable? Even if your simplified hypothesis is right, being able to say who is likely to do something or why they are likely to do it isn't very likely to answer the question of whether the thing should be done or not.
-stormin
Theological aside: Mormon doctrine specifies that little children are innocent, and none of them go to Hell.
This is the interesting thing, however, I believe that doctrine but I don't really expect anyone else to. So I would not expect the US - or any nation - to make laws based on that (or any other) religious belief of mine. I'm not interested in living in a theocracy - not even a Mormon one. (Although if I had to pick I'd probably go with Mormonism becase at least a fundamental tenent of our religion is freedom of religion (including atheism) for everybody. But still, I'd rather just avoid theocracy all together*.)
So as far as the abortion argument goes I leave God and religioun out of it. You're not interested in my religious convictions and - from a policy standpoint - I don't think you should be. Ensoulment, to me, is a sideshow that has nothing to do with the ethics, economics, and politics of this issue.
Slavery is wrong without bring God into it, anti-semitism is wrong without bringing God into it, Jim Crowe laws are immoral without bringing God into it, and abortion is wrong without bringing God into it. It's a question of human rights. That's where my abortion argument starts and ends. There's just no reason to bring Jesus into this (no matter what I happen to think or believe about Him).
-stormin
* this is why I do not live in Utah
when a person is growing inside your body, you should be able to do what you please about it
I would agree with this, except for the fact that a fetus doesn't appear inside a person by magic. As long as we're talking about consensual sex, I think that changes the issue. And the truth is that the vast majority of American abortions are just birth-control. It's abortion-as-birth-control that I have a problem with.
You break it, you buy it. How hard is that to understand (and it should apply to man AND woman).
-stormin
I call bullshit.
Do you think it makes you look cool to call bullshit at biological facts? Go to wikipedia and look up fetal development yourself. I don't have time to waste convincing you of facts you can find in any decent encylopedia, textbook, etc.
Yes it is a parasite, it relies on the mother until it gets out of the womb
Oh wow - that's edgy and creative there. Did you get that straight from Agent Smith in the first matrix movie, or did you think it up all on your own?
Oh wait, maybe by "host" you mean another human? OK, that works. How parasitic were you when you were 1 year old? Would you have done really well on your own? When you were 8. Hell - for all I know you still live in your parents basement.
So:
1. A parasite is someone that depends on a host for life.
2. A human infant depends on a host (generally called "parents") for life.
C1. A human infant is a parasite.
3. It's ok (for the host) to kill a parasite.
C2. Infaticide is OK.
You're fine with that, right? Or now do you want to start distinguishing between endo- and ecto- parasites?
Note that I'm only playing with your dumb-ass argument, which is essentially an incredibly stupid version of James Rachels more famous pro-abortion argument involving a violin-player. If you want to actually read the argument you're ripping off, maybe we can start to talk. But you'll have to get comfy with the fact that James actually does support infanticide, and that his argument actually doesn't defend abortion-as-birth control.
-stormin
But you want broader? I'll toss in the Hinduism as well (for another 14% of the world's population):
Now we're at 74%. Broad enough yet? Let's throw in the Sikhs. I've always admired their religion so even if we only get another
So pretty much every single religion I can find is historically opposed to abortion. But maybe it's just religion in general you have a problem with? That would hardly be uncommon here on Slashdot. In which case I reiterate my initial point: the religous views were easy to find and served as a good baseline for how abortion is seen by lots of different cultures and societies around the world.
-stormin
Two things.
1. Some people actually do by the "clump of cells" tripe. Most of my post was copy-paste anyway, so I don't mind putting the info out there.
2. The only thing that bugs is me is that my post was modded off-topic three times whereas his post - certainly no more on-topic than mine - hadn't been downmodded a single time (last time I checked). Not that slashdot politics are a surprise to me, but it's still annoying. I know I was off-topic at that point, and don't mind the downmod itself.
Anyway, your point is well-taken, I guess. In general I try not to feed trolls, but I guess sometimes I just can't help it.
-stormin
This may shock you to your core, but the phrase "the rest of the Western world" is not the same as the phrase "the rest of the world". While it may be true that socialist western europe has little issue with abortion, this doesn't mean the issue is non-controversial.
Here's a sampmling of religious opinions from around the world:
So that's, Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, and Judaism being (for the most part, not without controversy) against abortion. Oh yeah - it's a settled issue all right. I'm aware that that's just religous organizations, but the point of this list is not that religious people are against abortion, but that anti-abortion sentiment crosses many social, religious, and regional divides.
Add to that the fact that a lot of south and central american, eastern european, african and asian nations are vehemently opposed to abortion and we come to the inescapable position that anyone who thinks that a non-controversial issue in western europe is by definition a settled issue is cultural imperialist with a rather myopic world view.
-stormin
Wow... are you having a bad day? Or are you just an angry person?
I think you need to put the keyboard down, go outside, and stand in the sunshine for a few minutes.
-stormin
Exactly what are you advocating?
That whooshing sound was not a low-flying plane. It was the point, sailing overhead.
The entire piece you responded to point-by-point was nothing but satire. I read a bizarrely over-the-top liberal point of view, I responded with a bizarely over-the-top conservative point of view.
The fact that the post was not sincere should have been obvious by the fact that I managed to follow the post I was satirizing almost word-for-word.
I'm sorry that passed you by.
-stormin
Oh, right, I'm off topic and the guy above me... he was on topic? Please! At least downmod us together! Let's have some equality here people!
Apparently people in this thread just really don't like me.
-stormin
Hey - don't look at me. I was provoked!
-stormin
WOOOHOO!!!!
I've never been downmodded so thoroughly in my life. Hahahahahaha. At least now I know that should I ever opt for a life of trolling, I'm apparently really, really good at it.
-stormin
A - I was trying to be appropriately radical, not reasonable. The stuff I was writing isn't my actual belief. It's my actual beliefs magnified beyond recognition. I'm conservative, but that was over the top (on purpose). However...
n t1.php#week1 or just do a google images search for "fetal development".
B - Clump of cells? You are REALLY uninformed.
* Day 1 - conception takes place.
* 7 days - tiny human implants in mother's uterus.
* 10 days - mother's menses stop.
* 18 days - heart begins to beat.
* 21 days - pumps own blood through separate closed circulatory system with own blood type.
* 28 days - eye, ear and respiratory system begin to form.
* 42 days - brain waves recorded, skeleton complete, reflexes present.
* 7 weeks - photo of thumbsucking.
* 8 weeks - all body systems present.
* 9 weeks - squints, swallows, moves tongue, makes fist.
* 11 weeks - spontaneous breathing movements, has fingernails, all body systems working.
* 12 weeks - weighs one ounce.
* 16 weeks - genital organs clearly differentiated, grasps with hands, swims, kicks, turns, somersaults, (still not felt by the mother.)
* 18 weeks - vocal cords work - can cry.
* 20 weeks - has hair on head, weighs one pound, 12 inches long.
* 23 weeks - 15% chance of viability outside of womb if birth premature.*
* 24 weeks - 56% of babies survive premature birth.*
* 25 weeks - 79% of babies survive premature birth.*
To put this in perspective, the most common American abortion procedure is performed in the 8 - 12 week range. So, at that point, we've got a "clump of cells" with a beating heart, a "clump of cells" with it's own circulatory system, a "clump of cells" that can suck its thumb, a "clump of cells" with brain waves, a "clump of cells" with all major body parts present (arms, legs, fingers, toes, head, heart, lungs, stomach, etc.). By the end of the time range of suction aspiration (after 12 weeks they need to manually rip the fetus apart and then vacuum because the vacuum (29 times more powerful than one in your house) is not powerful enough to rip the fetus into bits anymore without being exteremly dangerous to the mother) the body systems are not only present, but functional. You have an interesting definition of "clump of cells".
If you want to see deeply disturbing pictures of what this "clump of cells" looks like after suction aspiration (most common method of abortion) then go here: http://www.lifesite.net/abortiontypes/. This site is NOT work safe, and it is not for the faint of heart. I don't recommend going there, I just leave it as an option.
If you want happier, and in my opinion more educational pictures, go here: http://www.pregnancy.org/pregnancy/fetaldevelopme
-stormin
Since bribery is still really not illegal in the US,
Funny celebrity money still plays a role in government (in addition to the role of corporate funny money).
The result: We need to kill babies to have free time to take our Prius on trips to Starbucks for our latte's, and so people can go to anti-war rallies and learn about the magical being that really wants to to believe in socialism^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^W the unbelievable.
Or something. Just lay off the crack, will you?
-stormin
First off, I'll withdraw the point about you being in the majority. I may have misread your post.
Secondly, I disagree strongly with your contention that original arguments are not worthy of special consideration. You object to Timothy's selection becaseu the posts were original, as opposed to being "more correct, valid, informed, or popular". Your first obvious error is the idea that you have passed arbitrary judgment on the correctness of the posts Timothy selected. If you are so confident in you ability to inerrently lift from the morass of a tangled argument those points of view which are unambiguously "correct" than A - it's no wonder you're a university professor, B - there's no chance that I'm going to be able to reason with you. Most people who take discussion seriously would believe that it is only through discussion and the mutual disclosure and examination of competing points of view that both parties have a shot at coming closer to what is correct. If you don't need a discussion to see what is correct, then I'm curious as to why you are involved in the discussion at all? Just slumming it with those of us who lack omnisience?
Now, returning to the original point, I'd say that originality is in fact a critically important criteria when deciding which view points to look at. And here is the reason. I concure that, as a general rule, minority opinions tend to be minority for a reason. Let's just say 99% of the time for the sake of discussion. So in a given argument it's 99% likely that the majority opinion is more valid. That's fine.
But what happens when you get to the 1% where the majority is incorrect? Where is the correct (or more correct) opinion? It is, by definition, in the minority. Thus it is a critical flaw to assume, as you seem to do, that minority opinions are less valid. In a status quo kind of way you'll be OK, but in terms of actually improving knowledge you're going to have a 100% failure rate.
Of course I realize this isn't exactly what you said. You state: their argument can stand on its own without special treatment, if it cannot, it deserves to fall into obscurity. (and I'm going to assume you mean this in general and not just this particular instance). But how, I ask, are minority opinion supposed to "stand on their own" in the face of people who believe they don't get special attention? What is this "special attention" you speak of? Surely an idea published in a book has received special attention versus an idea that someone has to spread by word of mouth, right? So we should not publish minority opinions? This is the practical side of the issue. Without special treatment how are minority opinions supposed to be effectively spread? And if not dispersed through the population, then the majority opinion remains the majority by default - and not by virtue of the argument itself. So you need to give minority opinions room to air for the sake of majority opinions as well as for the sake of minority opinions.
There's a philosophical aspect as well, however, that I believe is more fundamental. What it comes down to is this: humility. The greatest and most oft-repeated mistake of educated people, in my opinion, is the refusal to admit the infinitude of human ignorance. You can know what you know (I know my name). You can know things you don't know (I know I don't know your name). But the truly important discoveries are going to come from the things you don't even know you don't know. Obviously I can not give an example for myslef, but an example from history would be radiation. Gravity was a known phenomena (things fall) and so it was possible to ask questions about it (as the earliest philosopher-naturalists did). But no one even know that radiation existed, and so no one knew to go looking for it. Imagine what other natural phenomena might exist right now that we don't even know to ask about or look for.
Those things that you don't know you are ignorant of are boundless, and it is precisely those types of ideas th
Talk about overreaction.
We all know that the knee-jerk reaction of everyone (clearly including yourself) was to basically scream out "AHHH!!! CENSORSHIP!!! TEH INTERWEB IS UNDER ATTACK!!!" It's not as though we didn't all read the hordes of people criticizing the decision (myself among them).
What timothy did was to notice that some of the dissenters (who were mostly swept away in the tide of people who think like you do) actually made compelling points. So he drudge some of these compelling points and now instead of having 100 posts that say what we know most people think, we have a good look at the 5 posts that bring a new perspective.
How can this be a bad thing? You're already in the majority, nobody is censoring your opinion, it's just a chance to look at voices that were otherwise kind of lost in the crowd. I'm sorry if you are still suffering from some kind of post-traumatic stress from middle school (Jocks and facebook users can burn in hell) but I think this is just an example of an editor doing a very good job of editing.
-stormin