[Discussion] Logical perspective on abortion

[Joe Black]

That was the main point of his lecture: What is the unborn? And he gave logical, philosophical, and ethical reasons for his perspective. But of course people discredit anything he says (very possibly without even hearing what he has to say) because he's a Christian or whatnot.

And my whole point was that is up to legislation, but there is no point in forcing women to give birth,and it's their conscience. But some people don't want to listen because they are Christians Lol

 

[Aim64C]

People always complaining about personal affairs yet they can't complain about real problems.

1.) Education

Too many people in the world don't have a proper education

What denotes a "proper" education?

Who gets to decide what a "proper" education is?

Just because someone chooses to believe things you disagree with does not mean they need to be brainwashed to believe otherwise.

Before you fly off the handle - review my previous posts in this thread.

And my whole point was that is up to legislation, but there is no point in forcing women to give birth,and it's their conscience. But some people don't want to listen because they are Christians Lol

Better than dealing with Muslims, honestly.

I think what many people need to step back and realize is that the law is not a means by which to enact morality.

I don't think it's moral to have a "girl on the side" - should we make that illegal? How many years should the guy spend in jail for it? Or should we just execute him on the spot?

In my previous posts - I was arguing based on the ethics/morality of Abortion - and basically making the argument that it is between the person choosing abortion and God as to whether or not that is some kind of infernal sin. It is not our place to judge, and we were not tasked with the responsibility of preventing other people from sinning.

From the argument of morality versus legality - a simple principle can be applied:

"If it is such a good idea, then it will stand on its own merits without the need of force via the law."

Basically - if you consistently teach the same values - and those values have merit - then the validity of those values will end up being apparent to much of society and therefor adopted by society. That isn't to say there won't be a rejection of those values.... but making people who rebel against your chosen values criminals is not really going to stop them from rejecting the values and seeking to change the law.

Christians need to focus less on legislating morality and more on teaching morality and community outreach. They need to practice what they preach and let people know who they are via actions rather than attempting to impose conformity under threat of force by law.

Those of us who identify as Christian should focus more on teaching and counseling people to avoid the situation where they even consider abortion rather than trying to condemn the act of abortion.

Also, as Yow said - there is a lot of human trafficking that goes on in the U.S. that is largely unnoticed because people have no idea that it occurs or believe such things happen here (or elsewhere in the world). As such - we should strongly focus on putting an end to those.

Along with decriminalizing drugs - but that's another argument that devolves into "oh my god, people may do something I don't like and I won't be able to call the police on them."

 

[Joe Black]

What denotes a "proper" education?

Who gets to decide what a "proper" education is?

Just because someone chooses to believe things you disagree with does not mean they need to be brainwashed to believe otherwise.

Before you fly off the handle - review my previous posts in this thread.



Better than dealing with Muslims, honestly.

I think what many people need to step back and realize is that the law is not a means by which to enact morality.

I don't think it's moral to have a "girl on the side" - should we make that illegal? How many years should the guy spend in jail for it? Or should we just execute him on the spot?

In my previous posts - I was arguing based on the ethics/morality of Abortion - and basically making the argument that it is between the person choosing abortion and God as to whether or not that is some kind of infernal sin. It is not our place to judge, and we were not tasked with the responsibility of preventing other people from sinning.

From the argument of morality versus legality - a simple principle can be applied:

"If it is such a good idea, then it will stand on its own merits without the need of force via the law."

Basically - if you consistently teach the same values - and those values have merit - then the validity of those values will end up being apparent to much of society and therefor adopted by society. That isn't to say there won't be a rejection of those values.... but making people who rebel against your chosen values criminals is not really going to stop them from rejecting the values and seeking to change the law.

Christians need to focus less on legislating morality and more on teaching morality and community outreach. They need to practice what they preach and let people know who they are via actions rather than attempting to impose conformity under threat of force by law.

Those of us who identify as Christian should focus more on teaching and counseling people to avoid the situation where they even consider abortion rather than trying to condemn the act of abortion.

Also, as Yow said - there is a lot of human trafficking that goes on in the U.S. that is largely unnoticed because people have no idea that it occurs or believe such things happen here (or elsewhere in the world). As such - we should strongly focus on putting an end to those.

Along with decriminalizing drugs - but that's another argument that devolves into "oh my god, people may do something I don't like and I won't be able to call the police on them."

Yeah, laws alone can't enforce morals: and in some case, a law may not reflect the moral consensus of the majority. For example, in my country most people would agree to bring back death penalty, but the law abolished it. Or, many people think it's okay to cheat on taxes because the "greedy corrupt state" doesn't "deserve" it.

However laws do represent moral values. The word moral comes from Latin 'mos'- that is the singular of 'mores': that means something like tradition/customs. Originally the religious and secular norms were not separate: "ius" appeared later. The circle of private interactions to be regulated is reduced: however it still appears in laws. Like, 'good faith' as a general clausule. Or, our Civil Code explicitly says that immoral contracts are null. There is a wide judicial practice to interpret that. Or, usually at divorce, the innocent spouse have a better chance to get the kids than the one who cheated- because the moral development of kids should be considered as well (of course this is not the only factor: all circumstances are to be measured).

So I think that in the end it's impossible to deprive laws of all moral aspects- but morals can change by time and society. Abortion may be banned in some countries, due to not solely moral reasons but also birth control, for example.

 

[Aim64C]

Yeah, laws alone can't enforce morals: and in some case, a law may not reflect the moral consensus of the majority. For example, in my country most people would agree to bring back death penalty, but the law abolished it. Or, many people think it's okay to cheat on taxes because the "greedy corrupt state" doesn't "deserve" it.

However laws do represent moral values. The word moral comes from Latin 'mos'- that is the singular of 'mores': that means something like tradition/customs. Originally the religious and secular norms were not separate: "ius" appeared later. The circle of private interactions to be regulated is reduced: however it still appears in laws. Like, 'good faith' as a general clausule. Or, our Civil Code explicitly says that immoral contracts are null. There is a wide judicial practice to interpret that. Or, usually at divorce, the innocent spouse have a better chance to get the kids than the one who cheated- because the moral development of kids should be considered as well (of course this is not the only factor: all circumstances are to be measured).

So I think that in the end it's impossible to deprive laws of all moral aspects- but morals can change by time and society. Abortion may be banned in some countries, due to not solely moral reasons but also birth control, for example.

I think you can remove morality from laws.

Consider the purpose of secular law. The purpose of secular law is to preserve the functionality of the society it applies to. That means that any law shown to contribute to dysfunction can be repealed.

For example - criminalization of drugs.

The law can only penalize the free decision and action of people to consume a substance. It adds turns an addict with a behavioral problem mostly affecting himself into a criminal. Further, it empowers criminal elements with a monetary means by making production and distribution both illegal and unmonitored by industry standards or government authority. One can walk onto any highschool campus and likely be able to locate a source of heroine though I couldn't find a pharmacist supplying some from a locked cabinet that has been mass produced in hygienic facilities.

Therefor - the law contributes far more to dysfunction, even if one only considers the fact that it turns an addict into a criminal who can face prosecution as a consequence of seeking treatment.

Laws, also, cannot be used to prevent decisions - but should only be used to penalize behavior.

Personally - I believe the government should be allowed three options. The first is a monetary fine; this can be in the form of a required amount or a required service. The second is death - or exile, if another country wants him/her. The jury will deliberate for no longer than one day after the evidence is heard - a failure to reach a consensus amounts to a not-guilty verdict and the person is allowed to go home.

Show-trials that last for months are no better at 'finding the truth' than they were as six hour long affairs. Put the evidence down and let the jury decide if it and the crime are sufficient enough to condemn a man/woman to death. If not, don't deprive them of their liberty because you can "let them go if you're wrong."

Laws are there to punish disruptive behaviors to a mild degree and to remove those from society who are a danger to it.

While some of those will overlap with the moral primitives (don't steal, don't kill) - part of the purpose of societal norms and customs was to preserve the integrity of society. As many inner-cities are finding out, social norms and customs that involve stealing and destroying/killing whomever don't produce a very functional group of people.

 

[Cruciatus]

Will probably make a project of watching this tonight. . .thanks man. ^_^

 

[Joe Black]

I think you can remove morality from laws.

Consider the purpose of secular law. The purpose of secular law is to preserve the functionality of the society it applies to. That means that any law shown to contribute to dysfunction can be repealed.

For example - criminalization of drugs.

The law can only penalize the free decision and action of people to consume a substance. It adds turns an addict with a behavioral problem mostly affecting himself into a criminal. Further, it empowers criminal elements with a monetary means by making production and distribution both illegal and unmonitored by industry standards or government authority. One can walk onto any highschool campus and likely be able to locate a source of heroine though I couldn't find a pharmacist supplying some from a locked cabinet that has been mass produced in hygienic facilities.

Therefor - the law contributes far more to dysfunction, even if one only considers the fact that it turns an addict into a criminal who can face prosecution as a consequence of seeking treatment.

Laws, also, cannot be used to prevent decisions - but should only be used to penalize behavior.

Personally - I believe the government should be allowed three options. The first is a monetary fine; this can be in the form of a required amount or a required service. The second is death - or exile, if another country wants him/her. The jury will deliberate for no longer than one day after the evidence is heard - a failure to reach a consensus amounts to a not-guilty verdict and the person is allowed to go home.

Show-trials that last for months are no better at 'finding the truth' than they were as six hour long affairs. Put the evidence down and let the jury decide if it and the crime are sufficient enough to condemn a man/woman to death. If not, don't deprive them of their liberty because you can "let them go if you're wrong."

Laws are there to punish disruptive behaviors to a mild degree and to remove those from society who are a danger to it.

While some of those will overlap with the moral primitives (don't steal, don't kill) - part of the purpose of societal norms and customs was to preserve the integrity of society. As many inner-cities are finding out, social norms and customs that involve stealing and destroying/killing whomever don't produce a very functional group of people.

But freedom is also a moral value. If you say that people should be given as much freedom as possible- that also represents a moral philosophy. And then you need laws to secure that freedom. Thus you didn't remove moral aspects from law, just reduced it.

 

[Aim64C]

But freedom is also a moral value. If you say that people should be given as much freedom as possible- that also represents a moral philosophy. And then you need laws to secure that freedom. Thus you didn't remove moral aspects from law, just reduced it.

That is a functional observation.

Chinese Taoists, long before The Declaration of Independence that immortalized the phrase: "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" had the concept of "Wei Wu Wei" - action without action. This was born of the observation of many things in nature, and that there were natural times to exert one's self, and natural times to not exert one's self.

In their centuries of observing, they noticed that rulers who tried to do more to help their people often made things worse for them - while those who simply left their people alone tended to have the more prosperous people.

This is because, time and time again, the concept of central planning has been shown to be incapable of addressing the ever-changing needs of society.

Or, simply put - in socialism - people wait on bread. In capitalism - bread waits on people.

You must be registered for see images

Every functional evaluation has shown that imposing laws and large government are associated with reduced prosperity.

As such, no individual concerned with functionality would suggest that laws need be anything but that which is absolutely necessary to preserve the function of society.

 

[Power Bottom]

What denotes a "proper" education?

Who gets to decide what a "proper" education is?

Just because someone chooses to believe things you disagree with does not mean they need to be brainwashed to believe otherwise.

Before you fly off the handle - review my previous posts in this thread.



Better than dealing with Muslims, honestly.

I think what many people need to step back and realize is that the law is not a means by which to enact morality.

I don't think it's moral to have a "girl on the side" - should we make that illegal? How many years should the guy spend in jail for it? Or should we just execute him on the spot?

In my previous posts - I was arguing based on the ethics/morality of Abortion - and basically making the argument that it is between the person choosing abortion and God as to whether or not that is some kind of infernal sin. It is not our place to judge, and we were not tasked with the responsibility of preventing other people from sinning.

From the argument of morality versus legality - a simple principle can be applied:

"If it is such a good idea, then it will stand on its own merits without the need of force via the law."

Basically - if you consistently teach the same values - and those values have merit - then the validity of those values will end up being apparent to much of society and therefor adopted by society. That isn't to say there won't be a rejection of those values.... but making people who rebel against your chosen values criminals is not really going to stop them from rejecting the values and seeking to change the law.

Christians need to focus less on legislating morality and more on teaching morality and community outreach. They need to practice what they preach and let people know who they are via actions rather than attempting to impose conformity under threat of force by law.

Those of us who identify as Christian should focus more on teaching and counseling people to avoid the situation where they even consider abortion rather than trying to condemn the act of abortion.

Also, as Yow said - there is a lot of human trafficking that goes on in the U.S. that is largely unnoticed because people have no idea that it occurs or believe such things happen here (or elsewhere in the world). As such - we should strongly focus on putting an end to those.

Along with decriminalizing drugs - but that's another argument that devolves into "oh my god, people may do something I don't like and I won't be able to call the police on them."

Maybe being able to read and write and do basic math. Which millions can't do. :|

 

[Aim64C]

Maybe being able to read and write and do basic math. Which millions can't do. :|

It would appear as if I misinterpreted your post. I was under the impression you were referring to those who wish to ban abortion.

What you were intending was that the topic of education is infinitely more important than the topic of abortion.

Which I would agree.

There is no system the government needs to be removed from more so than education.

 

[Strawberry]

abortion should be allowed

 

[NineSNS]

So many bigger issues facing children that are already here. If people spent half as much effort advocating for their rights and proper treatment both in society and under the law, the issue stated here would probably be less frequent as a result.

 

[Retro Chaos]

The logical perspective is that it is their choice whether to abort or not.