Roe v. Wade: 42 Years in the Past II

[Varqanir]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Varqanir wrote:

What would would you say the solution is, other than the good old Four Horsemen?

You go first. [/quote]

I did, in response to Beans’ protest that he could not compare pigeons to people.

[Varqanir]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

I’m not sure if this is varq’s comment or kneedragger’s, but I wanted to point out that much of Mosaic law is not about “morality” as is generally understood today but rather ritual observance. For example, someone mentioned the hand washing stuff and described it as a “hygienic” practice. Whilst it may certainly have hygienic results it was intended as a “spiritual” cleaning as opposed to a physical cleaning.

Edited to fix quotes[/quote]

It was Varq’s.

The Mosaic law and the Levitical law are not exactly the same. You are correct though – the LL concerned much of itself with ceremony and civil matters and not necessarily morals.[/quote]

Good to know.

I’m sure that the male homosexual community will be thrilled to learn that the Levitical prohibition on “lying with a man as with a woman” was a ritual and ceremonial rule that only ever applied to ancient Israelites. Please let Fred Phelps know.

Not to mention the witches. I’m sure that misunderstanding about the “do not suffer a witch to live” thing was a bit of a concern.

[Varqanir]

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Your list of countries are the ones that have restrictions in place, just like America. Restrictions mean nothing. Ireland, Poland and Chile have total bans on abortion. And like I said, I know Chile’s laws are changing to accept birth control and abortion to follow.

I cannot offer anything about why the Vatican is not on the list, other than they are a walled enclave within the city of Rome, therefore within Italy.[/quote]

No, actually this is a list of countries in which abortion is BANNED. As in, ILLEGAL. As in, you will be prosecuted if you get one, or attempt to get one.

And as SexMachine pointed out, the Vatican is a sovereign state. The pope is the head of state, and they are a member of the United Nations. They did not make the list because they do not outright ban abortion, evidently.

[Varqanir]

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Varqanir -

So if a slum occurs then there are too many people? So that justifies abortion? Do I understand you correctly?

I visited the slums of Santiago, does that count for anything? Please provide actual proof that overpopulation is more of a problem than say global warning. Global warming is a total sham so I cannot wait for your empirical evidence.

How many men exist in China because of their one child policy? Where do you think the future will take them?

[quote] Varqanir wrote: Yes. Anyone who thinks that overpopulation is “not that big of a deal” needs to visit the slums of Calcutta, or Jakarta, or Hong Kong, or Mexico City.

The technocrats have been racing against the pressures of exponential population growth for centuries, but these have been stopgaps if anything. The map above is instructional. It is a representation of the world with the nations re-scaled based on their population figures. I would like to see something similar for regions in the US. I can predict that anyone who says overpopulation is not a problem for the world is simply someone who is living where overpopulation is not a problem currently for them.

Another thing to consider about the map is that India is set to overtake China as the most populous country on earth. This is a direct result of famously draconian controls on reproduction on China’s part, and the total lack of them on India’s.[/quote][/quote]

You have it backwards.

If there are too many people, there will be a slum. I don’t think abortion is the answer, but I do believe that giving women control of their reproductive systems is. The mark of a poor, ignorant society is the belief that a woman is little more than chattel, property of her father and then her husband, and good for one thing: makin’ babies. A simplistic reading of whatever scriptures are preached in the community backs this up.

As I said to Beans, if you educate poor women, and emancipate them from being human breedstock, then overpopulation, and by extension poverty, will take care of itself in two generations.

But no. Christianity and Islam both seem to want poor, uneducated people to make as many babies (more poor uneducated people) as they can.

A cynical man might say this functions to keep the churches and mosques full.

Global warming? What does that have to do with anything?

[smh_23]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

I disagree – I think it means exactly what V said. But if the hypothetical is simply too tainted by the commendable bias of your being a loving family man, you can abstract it: You are making the same choice, but the people in question – the mother, 5-year-old, and embryo – are all strangers to you.

If you would still choose the death of the embryo over the death of the 5-year-old – as I’m close to certain you would – then you believe the latter’s life to be more valuable than the former’s. Perhaps, even, you believe the latter (and not the former) to be fully a person.

I see it not as a question of value but rather you save the one that is more easily saveable.

In other words, since hypotheticals are all the rage here: two men are holding guns, one to each of your twin daughters. One daughter is standing next to you right there in Connecticut (or which ever one of dem lil bitty states you live in) and the other is in a Calcutta slum. Which one do you try and save?[/quote]

Try and save? Like in a Liam Neeson movie? “More easily saveable?” These are nonsensical alterations to the thought experiment, and they miss the point by a mile and a half. The question is whether the destruction of the one is morally equivalent to the destruction of the other. If yes, then you shouldn’t be able to choose. If no, then you should. That’s it: nobody is suggesting that you make one choice over another.

And if you don’t think the thought experiment is fair, you haven’t thought hard enough about one of your most fundamental moral-politic convictions.

Edited.

[pat]

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
One more thing I wanted to say:

If we all really and truly believed that the two live humans at issue were actually on equal footing, and that the embryo was entitled to full rights of personhood, I personally think you would need to flip a coin to make the decision.

Nah… I could do the same thing with two grown adults.

It’s a cost benefit analysis really. “Which of these two people has more potential and a greater chance of ROI as things stand right now”.

Oprah v Lindsey Lohan? Oprah all day baby.
My Garbage man v Investment Banker? Garbage men are the most underrated hero’s in America.
Feinstein v Bloomberg? Can I choose both?

You know what I’m saying? Being able to sit here an admit I can remove moral judgement from a hypothetical doesn’t make one not a person, just makes it a lessor business decision. [/quote]

The point of the hypothetical seems to imply that most people would choose the elder child based on the fact that the younger is somehow lesser. But all it does is illustrate a hopeless scenario. Which child do you choose, all else being equal. There are only wrong answers, no right one. Either way, someone dies.
It’s no different than the mother caught in the flood with 2 children and she can only save one. Which should she choose? I reckon the one who behaves better, I don’t know. There’s no right answer, only wrong ones of equal wrongness.
The presented hypothetical only shows that a tragedy is about to occur. [/quote]

So, you would go with a coin flip? [/quote]

I don’t have an answer.[/quote]

No, you certainly do have an answer. You’re none answer is the answer. And it is the moral one.

I’m just playing the bad guy by answering the hypothetical, because it doesn’t establish personhood, irrelevant of “value”. Making a choice here, horrid as it is, doesn’t make one person not a person, just makes that person shit out of luck, so to speak. [/quote]
lol… You got me there. I chose not to decide, therefore I still have made a choice. So, since both options suck shit. I choose not to decide.

[pat]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

I disagree – I think it means exactly what V said. But if the hypothetical is simply too tainted by the commendable bias of your being a loving family man, you can abstract it: You are making the same choice, but the people in question – the mother, 5-year-old, and embryo – are all strangers to you.

If you would still choose the death of the embryo over the death of the 5-year-old – as I’m close to certain you would – then you believe the latter’s life to be more valuable than the former’s. Perhaps, even, you believe the latter (and not the former) to be fully a person.

I see it not as a question of value but rather you save the one that is more easily saveable.

In other words, since hypotheticals are all the rage here: two men are holding guns, one to each of your twin daughters. One daughter is standing next to you right there in Connecticut (or which ever one of dem lil bitty states you live in) and the other is in a Calcutta slum. Which one do you try and save?[/quote]

I suppose your pointing out that the scenarios are technically similar?

[pat]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]confusion wrote:
What isn’t going to change,regardless of argument or protest? Abortion has been legal for 40+Years and will remain so. Attempts to change the law will fail. Period. To many,that is a sad end. To me,its just a reality.[/quote]

I disagree. Abortion laws have been increasing. Things are tightening up. More folks now understand what was not necessarily understood in 1973, i.e., a child in the womb is a living, thinking, heart-beating, brain active, pain feeling human being.

I think things will come around just like in the mid-19th century in regards to slavery. The abolition movement had teeth then and it does once again.[/quote]

Exactly. You misunderestimate the measure of our resolve. We won’t stop, ever. Our movement grows as does the pressure. We will not only make it illegal, we will succeed in reducing the amount of abortions regardless of the law. We have gotten laws past, we will continue to work on every facet.

[Varqanir]

[quote]pat wrote:
I chose not to decide, therefore I still have made a choice.
[/quote]

Did you mean to quote Rush’s Freewill?

Freewill - Rush

[countingbeans]

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
The question is whether the destruction of the one is morally equivalent to the destruction of the other. If yes, then you shouldn’t be able to choose. If no, then you should. That’s it: nobody is suggesting that you make one choice over another.

[/quote]

I guess, but I don’t know.

I mean the question is putting people in an unwinnable position re: morals. You can’t actually answer the question and have any moral standing at all. So I’m not sure I take it as a decider of moral equivalents at all.

I guess is because I’m looking at it from a “realistic” rather than “principled” point of view. Life is full of a lot of things that put people in a “shades of gray” situation.

[confusion]

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
The question is whether the destruction of the one is morally equivalent to the destruction of the other. If yes, then you shouldn’t be able to choose. If no, then you should. That’s it: nobody is suggesting that you make one choice over another.

[/quote]

I guess, but I don’t know.

I mean the question is putting people in an unwinnable position re: morals. You can’t actually answer the question and have any moral standing at all. So I’m not sure I take it as a decider of moral equivalents at all.

I guess is because I’m looking at it from a “realistic” rather than “principled” point of view. Life is full of a lot of things that put people in a “shades of gray” situation. [/quote]

I wonder if anyone “figures it out” using these types of thought experiments?

[pat]

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
I chose not to decide, therefore I still have made a choice.
[/quote]

Did you mean to quote Rush’s Freewill?

Freewill - Rush

Yep. Great song too. I am a Rush nerd.