The Pro-choice argument to rule them all!!!
This topic is locked from further discussion.
The Founding Fathers heavily relied on John Locke's Social Contract theory when writing the Declaration of Independence and later the Constitution to justify their actions of rebelling against the King of England and setting the ground rules of the nation. Therefore, it is only fit that America should still abide by his writings and ideas to this day. Locke's Social Contract details the relationship between the government and the people. It says that without the government, people would be living in a state of nature (survival of the fittest) so the reason people give the government consent to rule them is because the government brings the populace out of a state of nature and into a state of order. A state of order is where the people willingly sacrifice certain rights (follow the laws), and in exchange the government's only job is to protect that population and promote utilitarianism (the greater good) to the best of its ability. That is the government's only, I repeat, ONLY function.
Now you may be wondering what this has to do with abortion, and I'll tell you. The main reason for anti-abortion or pro-life is because of moral and/or religious underpinnings. However, as John Locke's Social Contract theory states, it is not the government's job to decide what is and what is not moral. It is the government's job to do whatever means necessary to achieve the greater good, for example, locking a murderer up to prevent him from murdering again. The government is not there to decide for the people what is moral and what is not, the Social Contract, which our American government is based on gives the government ONLY the right to pass laws and take actions that protect the American people, not to make moral decisions for us.
Worse yet is the people who seek to abolish abortion based on religion. I shouldn't even be addressing this point, but there are those who believe this is a valid reason to make legal action. About 80% of America is identified as Christian, so that leaves 20%, or 1/5 of the nation that has no affiliation with any form of Christianity whatsoever. To make a law forcing a whole 1/5 of the nation to bide by the majority rule would not be promoting utilitarianism, as the best option so everybody gets what they want would be to offer a choice so that that 80% could be as against abortion in their own lives as they want, while the 20% could make their own choice in the matter, while leaves 100% of the U.S. citizens satisfied. And besides, America has a separation of Church and State, and I'd like to keep it that way. (Iran doesn't have a separation of Church and State, and looked what happened to the teacher that name the ****oom teddy bear Muhammad!)
Now, as mentioned before, it is the government's job to promote the greater good. Statistically speaking, most of the families that choose to abort are poorer families that simply can't afford another child. If the government forces the family to have that child the family could very well go into poverty, and all of a sudden it's the government's job to house and feed the family. Not to mention that abortion, if widely practiced, might balance out our nation's overcrowding, over-impoverished, and over-consumption of resources. Since the dawn of time, leaders have sought to find a solution to world hunger, and I believe that since abortion effectively controls expanding populations, this may very well be it. Also, this could be an effective crime deterant, as children from poor families are more likely to grow up to be criminals, and this may sound awful, but abortion can stop those criminals from ever existing.
Face it, from a pure emotionless standpoint, abortion is great. There's really no reason to abolish it, and when it serves to achieve the greater good, why would it even cross the minds of politicians in Washington to abolish it? Now morally, abortion is wrong, but it is not the government's job to evaluate moral decisions. Every individual person's moral is slightly different; no two people's moral conscience is the same. So, because of this, the government must leave moral decisions to each individual person, and not make it for them. I hope this has been a good read, and if you can find a sufficient counter to any of these arguments, I'll give you a cookie.
You people know that overturning Roe v. Wade won't instantly ban abortion nationwide, right?reagan80_basicthis isn't about Roe v. Wade. This is more about Congress passing legislation that would officially ban abortion
Okay, there was another thread about abortion recently, I KNOW, but that got me motivated enough to voice my own thoughts in a different thread. This'll be long-ish, but please read the whole thing before responding. Here it goes:
The Founding Fathers heavily relied on John Locke's Social Contract theory when writing the Declaration of Independence and later the Constitution to justify their actions of rebelling against the King of England and setting the ground rules of the nation. Therefore, it is only fit that America should still abide by his writings and ideas to this day. Locke's Social Contract details the relationship between the government and the people. It says that without the government, people would be living in a state of nature (survival of the fittest) so the reason people give the government consent to rule them is because the government brings the populace out of a state of nature and into a state of order. A state of order is where the people willingly sacrifice certain rights (follow the laws), and in exchange the government's only job is to protect that population and promote utilitarianism (the greater good) to the best of its ability. That is the government's only, I repeat, ONLY function.Agreed.
Now you may be wondering what this has to do with abortion, and I'll tell you. The main reason for anti-abortion or pro-life is because of moral and/or religious underpinnings. However, as John Locke's Social Contract theory states, it is not the government's job to decide what is and what is not moral. It is the government's job to do whatever means necessary to achieve the greater good, for example, locking a murderer up to prevent him from murdering again. The government is not there to decide for the people what is moral and what is not, the Social Contract, which our American government is based on gives the government ONLY the right to pass laws and take actions that protect the American people, not to make moral decisions for us.And as the government exists to protect the rights of the people under its constituency, it can (and is) argued that unborn children are still people. Generally, that's a personal question, because there can be no definitive answer. But, it seems logical that if an adult has the right to their own life, so should a baby.
Worse yet is the people who seek to abolish abortion based on religion. I shouldn't even be addressing this point, but there are those who believe this is a valid reason to make legal action. About 80% of America is identified as Christian, so that leaves 20%, or 1/5 of the nation that has no affiliation with any form of Christianity whatsoever. To make a law forcing a whole 1/5 of the nation to bide by the majority rule would not be promoting utilitarianism, as the best option so everybody gets what they want would be to offer a choice so that that 80% could be as against abortion in their own lives as they want, while the 20% could make their own choice in the matter, while leaves 100% of the U.S. citizens satisfied. And besides, America has a separation of Church and State, and I'd like to keep it that way. (Iran doesn't have a separation of Church and State, and looked what happened to the teacher that name the ****oom teddy bear Muhammad!)You have a bad habit of intertwining the illogical with the logical. To start off, we unfortunately live in a democracy. This means that inherent in our government system is the forcing of the 1/5 to abide by the rules set forth by the other 4. Personally, I'd prefer a straight, "my rights extend to the tip of your nose" system, but that's not we have here. Furthermore, we can not forget that it is quite possible to consider the unborn child still a person, and therefore by exercizing abortion, one is forcing their own beliefs at terrible costs to the individual.
Now, as mentioned before, it is the government's job to promote the greater good. Statistically speaking, most of the families that choose to abort are poorer families that simply can't afford another child. If the government forces the family to have that child the family could very well go into poverty, and all of a sudden it's the government's job to house and feed the family. Not to mention that abortion, if widely practiced, might balance out our nation's overcrowding, over-impoverished, and over-consumption of resources. Since the dawn of time, leaders have sought to find a solution to world hunger, and I believe that since abortion effectively controls expanding populations, this may very well be it. Also, this could be an effective crime deterant, as children from poor families are more likely to grow up to be criminals, and this may sound awful, but abortion can stop those criminals from ever existing.
You've spent the entire time, thus far advocating a government devoid of moral influence, and now you're saying that it's government's moral obligation to allow the dredges of society to do as they please, just so they don't lose their homes/die? That's awfully sympathetic and hypocritical of you.
Face it, from a pure emotionless standpoint, abortion is great. There's really no reason to abolish it, and when it serves to achieve the greater good, why would it even cross the minds of politicians in Washington to abolish it? Now morally, abortion is wrong, but it is not the government's job to evaluate moral decisions. Every individual person's moral is slightly different; no two people's moral conscience is the same. So, because of this, the government must leave moral decisions to each individual person, and not make it for them. I hope this has been a good read, and if you can find a sufficient counter to any of these arguments, I'll give you a cookie.
Length doesn't neccessarilly equal effectiveness in an argument.
hamstergeddon
1) I guess there's no real way to argue this, as I'll say life doesn't start until birth, and you'll say it starts at conception. This is all according to beliefs. But I can say that because a fetus is not self-aware, it cannot be considered human. We must also take a rather Makevellian (did I spell that right?) approach to this, in the sense that "the ends justify the means" and say that the prevention of this life could lead to the greater good.
2) Just because this is a democracy doesn't mean majority rule. Because the majority of the population is white, does that mean that minority groups' rights can be compromised? Obviously not. Majority rule only extends as far as to not encroach the rights of the minority.
3) The government should look at this purely from an emotionless standpoint, yes. It would be unjust to govern based on emotions or moral grounds, seeing as no two people's moral views and emotions are the same. And if we have to prevent some would-be lives in order to achieve the greater good, so be it! Makaveli, who you've name yourself after, authored The Prince. It states that the government must always makes decisions to obtain the greater good, no matter the means. The majority of society will benefit from abortion, and, although it seems morally repugnant, its the wisest course of action for the government to take.
4) At least I tried not to repeat the same point multiple times as other users' rants so commonly do
There must be something seriously wrong with society. We need to get our damn horomones back in place. God, we have balls dropping like a bad hail storm. We need some restrictions on keeping our pants on, it probably won't do much but we can always try. What the hell even started this teen sex fad anyways? aaaaarrrrggggg
well, disturbingly enough, they are talking about handing out condoms to students at my high school...
to Makevell:Please don't lump me together with the Christians and moral right. I'm a Satanist, but my stance seems logical to me.
1) I guess there's no real way to argue this, as I'll say life doesn't start until birth, and you'll say it starts at conception. This is all according to beliefs. But I can say that because a fetus is not self-aware, it cannot be considered human. We must also take a rather Makevellian (did I spell that right?) approach to this, in the sense that "the ends justify the means" and say that the prevention of this life could lead to the greater good.You're right on the first part, which is why it's impossible to form an end all argument on the topic. Your standard of life is extremely arbitrary, and I hope you see that. And, you continually contradict yourself. Should government be devoid of morallity, or not? You continually say yes, but then you say something like this, advocating the sacrifice of ones rights to the government so it can guide us toward what it deems "the greater good." What is the greater good should be the next question that comes to mind.
2) Just because this is a democracy doesn't mean majority rule. Because the majority of the population is white, does that mean that minority groups' rights can be compromised? Obviously not. Majority rule only extends as far as to not encroach the rights of the minority.Actually, it does. Sucks, doesn't it? That's why we're based around a constitution. Rights only exist if they are affirmed and enforced. Slavery was quite common (not just in our own country), but in one of the greatest democracies before us, Greece. Even now, "human rights" aren't universal. No country that refuses to recognize them is forced to uphold them.
3) The government should look at this purely from an emotionless standpoint, yes. It would be unjust to govern based on emotions or moral grounds, seeing as no two people's moral views and emotions are the same. And if we have to prevent some would-be lives in order to achieve the greater good, so be it! Makaveli, who you've name yourself after, authored The Prince. It states that the government must always makes decisions to obtain the greater good, no matter the means. The majority of society will benefit from abortion, and, although it seems morally repugnant, its the wisest course of action for the government to take.
Actually, I named myself after Tupac (alias Makaveli), not Machiavelli, the author you're referring to, who humorously enough spent his last days in prison and as a pig farmer. I'm doing my best not to take a moral stand, but rather a wholly logical one. If murder encroaches upon a person's right to his or her life, and if conception can be defined as the point at which humanity is defined (which is obviously the real issue at debate), then an abortion is murder and therefore illegal.
4) At least I tried not to repeat the same point multiple times as other users' rants so commonly do hamstergeddon
There must be something seriously wrong with society. We need to get our damn horomones back in place. God, we have balls dropping like a bad hail storm. We need some restrictions on keeping our pants on, it probably won't do much but we can always try. What the hell even started this teen sex fad anyways? aaaaarrrrggggg
You sort of awnsered your own question. Fads come and go and affect different age grounds and genders along the way. This sort of "sexual fad" is affecting kids between the ages of 13-21, and is mainly brought on through our society. These kids are preoccupied trying to 'score' with a girl.
[QUOTE="aaaaarrrrggggg"]There must be something seriously wrong with society. We need to get our damn horomones back in place. God, we have balls dropping like a bad hail storm. We need some restrictions on keeping our pants on, it probably won't do much but we can always try. What the hell even started this teen sex fad anyways? chrisrooR
You sort of awnsered your own question. Fads come and go and affect different age grounds and genders along the way. This sort of "sexual fad" is affecting kids between the ages of 13-21, and is mainly brought on through our society. These kids are preoccupied trying to 'score' with a girl.
I know, but was there some kind of volcanic event that started it all? When did it even rise to power? Was it MTV or something?
[QUOTE="chrisrooR"][QUOTE="aaaaarrrrggggg"]There must be something seriously wrong with society. We need to get our damn horomones back in place. God, we have balls dropping like a bad hail storm. We need some restrictions on keeping our pants on, it probably won't do much but we can always try. What the hell even started this teen sex fad anyways? aaaaarrrrggggg
You sort of awnsered your own question. Fads come and go and affect different age grounds and genders along the way. This sort of "sexual fad" is affecting kids between the ages of 13-21, and is mainly brought on through our society. These kids are preoccupied trying to 'score' with a girl.
I know, but was there some kind of volcanic event that started it all? When did it even rise to power? Was it MTV or something?
Good question. I am perplexed by this. I remeber guys talking about there sex lives in the locker room in high school. Always funny stuff. Glad i am out of that though.
[QUOTE="chrisrooR"][QUOTE="aaaaarrrrggggg"]There must be something seriously wrong with society. We need to get our damn horomones back in place. God, we have balls dropping like a bad hail storm. We need some restrictions on keeping our pants on, it probably won't do much but we can always try. What the hell even started this teen sex fad anyways? aaaaarrrrggggg
You sort of awnsered your own question. Fads come and go and affect different age grounds and genders along the way. This sort of "sexual fad" is affecting kids between the ages of 13-21, and is mainly brought on through our society. These kids are preoccupied trying to 'score' with a girl.
I know, but was there some kind of volcanic event that started it all? When did it even rise to power? Was it MTV or something?
it's pretty much always been this way. People try to act like it didn't happen when they were kids but it did (golden age syndrome). Today's mass media seems to be much more open about it than the past though. In the past unmarried teen mothers were shunned, and today they are still sort of shunned, but more accepted.
You're right on the first part, which is why it's impossible to form an end all argument on the topic. Your standard of life is extremely arbitrary, and I hope you see that. And, you continually contradict yourself. Should government be devoid of morallity, or not? You continually say yes, but then you say something like this, advocating the sacrifice of ones rights to the government so it can guide us toward what it deems "the greater good." What is the greater good should be the next question that comes to mind.
I don't understand how I am contradicting myself. Human rights are the foundation of the Social Contract. Human morality is something totally different, and the concept itself is so insubstantial and ethereal that it is impossible and unjust to make a law based on it.
Actually, it does. Sucks, doesn't it? That's why we're based around a constitution. Rights only exist if they are affirmed and enforced. Slavery was quite common (not just in our own country), but in one of the greatest democracies before us, Greece. Even now, "human rights" aren't universal. No country that refuses to recognize them is forced to uphold them.
No, it doesn't! The majority only rules as long as the rights of the minority are secure. Why do you think racial discrimination is illegal now? Because the majority doesn't get its way if it involves abridging a minority's rights, which is what is happening right now! Every U.S. citizen (18 or older) is entitled to the unalienable rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Having an abortion could fall under 'pursuit of happiness' since an unexpected pregnancy could get in the way of school, work or a social life for the woman that was impregnated.
Actually, I named myself after Tupac (alias Makaveli), not Machiavelli, the author you're referring to, who humorously enough spent his last days in prison and as a pig farmer. I'm doing my best not to take a moral stand, but rather a wholly logical one. If murder encroaches upon a person's right to his or her life, and if conception can be defined as the point at which humanity is defined (which is obviously the real issue at debate), then an abortion is murder and therefore illegal.
Oh :oops: didn't know the right spelling. And since, until science can prove when life actually starts, there's really no way of debating this. And there are some cases in which murder is justified. The "Make My Day Act" allows citizens to murder if their lives are threatened or a man is trespassing on their property. this goes to show that murder IS justified in some cases, and abortion may be one of them. (An unexpected baby can ruin your life).
-Makaveli-
[QUOTE="aaaaarrrrggggg"][QUOTE="chrisrooR"][QUOTE="aaaaarrrrggggg"]There must be something seriously wrong with society. We need to get our damn horomones back in place. God, we have balls dropping like a bad hail storm. We need some restrictions on keeping our pants on, it probably won't do much but we can always try. What the hell even started this teen sex fad anyways? jrhawk42
You sort of awnsered your own question. Fads come and go and affect different age grounds and genders along the way. This sort of "sexual fad" is affecting kids between the ages of 13-21, and is mainly brought on through our society. These kids are preoccupied trying to 'score' with a girl.
I know, but was there some kind of volcanic event that started it all? When did it even rise to power? Was it MTV or something?
it's pretty much always been this way. People try to act like it didn't happen when they were kids but it did (golden age syndrome). Today's mass media seems to be much more open about it than the past though. In the past unmarried teen mothers were shunned, and today they are still sort of shunned, but more accepted.
Yeah. Teen sexuality is not a fad it's always been here. Modern society just allows people to be more aboput about sex than in the past.Yeah. Teen sexuality is not a fad it's always been here. Modern society just allows people to be more aboput about sex than in the past.espoac
...And now the government finally realises it and starts censoring everything. I can't even enjoy watching my favourite Die Hard movie without half the words being edited out. They can't even decide on how much mature media they want us to watch. :x I wish they could just find the right balance where there's censorship, but not excess amounts.
[QUOTE="-Makaveli-"]I don't understand how I am contradicting myself. Human rights are the foundation of the Social Contract. Human morality is something totally different, and the concept itself is so insubstantial and ethereal that it is impossible and unjust to make a law based on it.
You're contradicting us by stating that it's the government's responsibility to lead us to "the common good." One's man good is another man's bad, so entrusting the government to do anything other than protect the rights of its citizens is imbibing government with the taint of morality.
No, it doesn't! The majority only rules as long as the rights of the minority are secure. Why do you think racial discrimination is illegal now? Because the majority doesn't get its way if it involves abridging a minority's rights, which is what is happening right now! Every U.S. citizen (18 or older) is entitled to the unalienable rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Having an abortion could fall under 'pursuit of happiness' since an unexpected pregnancy could get in the way of school, work or a social life for the woman that was impregnated.
Yes, it does. In a true democracy, as long as 50.0001 percent agrees to something, it is made law. Britain functions exactly like that, except they operate through elected officials. Parliament can pass a law stating wearing the color purple is punishable by death, and that's that. In fact, in our own system of government, the same is possible, but a constitutional ammendment is neccessary. But, it's wholly possible that, for instance, the American government can grant itself, with the help of roughly 70% of the population, the legal ability to launch its own holocaust. Your "Life, liberty..." quote is also from the declaration of indepence which holds no legal standing. And, you continually ignore the amazing ease with which a fetus can be labelled a human, whose rights, even by your argument, should be protected.
Oh :oops: didn't know the right spelling. And since, until science can prove when life actually starts, there's really no way of debating this. And there are some cases in which murder is justified. The "Make My Day Act" allows citizens to murder if their lives are threatened or a man is trespassing on their property. this goes to show that murder IS justified in some cases, and abortion may be one of them. (An unexpected baby can ruin your life).
One, science can't prove when life starts, because "life" is a subjective term. They can say, "oh, it respirates and maintains mobility within the womb," but its each individual's own call on whether it's "alive." Second, since when does the fact that something has passed through congress count as justification? For a long time, slavery was legal, so does that mean at the time, it was right? I don't know. But, most would say no.
hamstergeddon
I agree with you on the point of the Social Contract, though I reject the idea that abortion is morally wrong--you even said that people make different moral decisions and have different morals. Why the contradiction?CptJSparrow
I personally think abortion is wrong. However, it is a necessary evil.
[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"]I agree with you on the point of the Social Contract, though I reject the idea that abortion is morally wrong--you even said that people make different moral decisions and have different morals. Why the contradiction?hamstergeddon
I personally think abortion is wrong. However, it is a necessary evil. Yes, you personally believe it is wrong...in your initial post you said that abortion "is morally wrong," not that you personally believe it.
And from this point onward, you implicitly assume that utilitarianism or some other form of consequentialist ethics should govern public policy. Not everyone believes that today or believed it a couple hundred years ago, even if some of the Founding Fathers did. I don't presume to demolish the logical appeal of utilitarianism in one fell swoop. To that end, philosophers of different ethical persuasions have poured infinitely greater amounts of time and expertise than I possess. I am merely pointing out an important point of contention that you seem to have overlooked entirely.
The Founding Fathers heavily relied on John Locke's Social Contract theory when writing the Declaration of Independence and later the Constitution to justify their actions of rebelling against the King of England and setting the ground rules of the nation. Therefore, it is only fit that America should still abide by his writings and ideas to this day. Locke's Social Contract details the relationship between the government and the people. It says that without the government, people would be living in a state of nature (survival of the fittest) so the reason people give the government consent to rule them is because the government brings the populace out of a state of nature and into a state of order. A state of order is where the people willingly sacrifice certain rights (follow the laws), and in exchange the government's only job is to protect that population and promote utilitarianism (the greater good) to the best of its ability. That is the government's only, I repeat, ONLY function.
Now you may be wondering what this has to do with abortion, and I'll tell you. The main reason for anti-abortion or pro-life is because of moral and/or religious underpinnings. However, as John Locke's Social Contract theory states, it is not the government's job to decide what is and what is not moral. It is the government's job to do whatever means necessary to achieve the greater good . . .
hamstergeddon
I have proven in my OP that abortion does lead to the greater good.
America itself is not a true democracy. Does the phrase "limited government" (one of the six Constitutional principles) mean anything to you?
Until a fetus is born, it is part of the mother, and it is the mother's decision what to do with her body.
And I reinstate in response your last point that morality is not grounds for official legislation
And please truly address these arguments, instead of dodge around the main points
[QUOTE="hamstergeddon"]And from this point onward, you implicitly assume that utilitarianism or some other form of consequentialist ethics should govern public policy. Not everyone believes that today or believed it a couple hundred years ago, even if some of the Founding Fathers did. I don't presume to demolish the logical appeal of utilitarianism in one fell swoop. To that end, philosophers of different ethical persuasions have poured infinitely greater amounts of time and expertise than I possess. I am merely pointing out an important point of contention that you seem to have overlooked entirely.
The Founding Fathers heavily relied on John Locke's Social Contract theory when writing the Declaration of Independence and later the Constitution to justify their actions of rebelling against the King of England and setting the ground rules of the nation. Therefore, it is only fit that America should still abide by his writings and ideas to this day. Locke's Social Contract details the relationship between the government and the people. It says that without the government, people would be living in a state of nature (survival of the fittest) so the reason people give the government consent to rule them is because the government brings the populace out of a state of nature and into a state of order. A state of order is where the people willingly sacrifice certain rights (follow the laws), and in exchange the government's only job is to protect that population and promote utilitarianism (the greater good) to the best of its ability. That is the government's only, I repeat, ONLY function.
Now you may be wondering what this has to do with abortion, and I'll tell you. The main reason for anti-abortion or pro-life is because of moral and/or religious underpinnings. However, as John Locke's Social Contract theory states, it is not the government's job to decide what is and what is not moral. It is the government's job to do whatever means necessary to achieve the greater good . . .
Elraptor
but you cannot deny that it is the government's basic duties to provide the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people. Without this purpose the government might as well not exist
[QUOTE="hamstergeddon"][QUOTE="CptJSparrow"]I agree with you on the point of the Social Contract, though I reject the idea that abortion is morally wrong--you even said that people make different moral decisions and have different morals. Why the contradiction?CptJSparrow
I personally think abortion is wrong. However, it is a necessary evil. Yes, you personally believe it is wrong...in your initial post you said that abortion "is morally wrong," not that you personally believe it.
Well, its implied that when I say "It is morally wrong" I mean "I think that it's morally wrong"
What do you hope to accomplish by this?
makaveli: this argument is getting redundant.Indeed it is getting redundant, but you still fail to back up any of your groundless assumptions.
I have proven in my OP that abortion does lead to the greater good.
America itself is not a true democracy. Does the phrase "limited government" (one of the six Constitutional principles) mean anything to you?
Until a fetus is born, it is part of the mother, and it is the mother's decision what to do with her body.
And a reinstate from your last point that morality is not grounds for official legislation
hamstergeddon
Is an unborn baby a human? Well, hamstergeddon says no, so let's rewrite the books. Just because you affirm something doesn't make it true.
To the same degree, you fail, and will fail if you make an attempt, to define absolutely what common good is. No one can, which is why I'd prefer government to stay the hell out of any affairs not directly concerned with individual rights.
While I originally stated that America isn't a true democracy, you confused what I said, forcing me to expatiate on our form of government, which is not "limited" as you say, but theoretically infinite in bounds, dependent on the mindset of the populace- a fact which I demonstrated in the last post.
Meh, when it comes downto the nitty gritty abortion always ends up being a moral debate. The trouble is that morals are totally relative. There is no universal answer to the question, "Is abortion right or wrong?" And so we are condemed to argue the topic to death on OT forums to no great end whatsoever.
Form an opinion on whatever grounds you see fit. Elect officials that share your views and be done with it.
Well, its implied that when I say "It is morally wrong" I mean "I think that it's morally wrong"I had to be sure.
What do you hope to accomplish by this?hamstergeddon
To the same degree, you fail, and will fail if you make an attempt, to define absolutely what common good is. No one can, which is why I'd prefer government to stay the hell out of any affairs not directly concerned with individual rights.
-Makaveli-
EXACTLY! The government absolutely should stay the hell out of our affairs! The core value of this debate is how much a government can limit individuals, and the obvious answer is that it constitutionally cannot limit our rights since there is no way to prove that abortion is murder.
(And yes, the U.S. government is limited. I learned this first thing in my Freshman American government class!)
[QUOTE="Elraptor"][QUOTE="hamstergeddon"]And from this point onward, you implicitly assume that utilitarianism or some other form of consequentialist ethics should govern public policy. Not everyone believes that today or believed it a couple hundred years ago, even if some of the Founding Fathers did. I don't presume to demolish the logical appeal of utilitarianism in one fell swoop. To that end, philosophers of different ethical persuasions have poured infinitely greater amounts of time and expertise than I possess. I am merely pointing out an important point of contention that you seem to have overlooked entirely.
The Founding Fathers heavily relied on John Locke's Social Contract theory when writing the Declaration of Independence and later the Constitution to justify their actions of rebelling against the King of England and setting the ground rules of the nation. Therefore, it is only fit that America should still abide by his writings and ideas to this day. Locke's Social Contract details the relationship between the government and the people. It says that without the government, people would be living in a state of nature (survival of the fittest) so the reason people give the government consent to rule them is because the government brings the populace out of a state of nature and into a state of order. A state of order is where the people willingly sacrifice certain rights (follow the laws), and in exchange the government's only job is to protect that population and promote utilitarianism (the greater good) to the best of its ability. That is the government's only, I repeat, ONLY function.
Now you may be wondering what this has to do with abortion, and I'll tell you. The main reason for anti-abortion or pro-life is because of moral and/or religious underpinnings. However, as John Locke's Social Contract theory states, it is not the government's job to decide what is and what is not moral. It is the government's job to do whatever means necessary to achieve the greater good . . .
hamstergeddon
but you cannot deny that it is the government's basic duties to provide the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people. Without this purpose the government might as well not exist It's not that simple. For example, I could contend that, while government's central role is to protect society, the value of innocent human life--the value of personhood--should not be subordinated to the good of the collective. I could claim that preserving fundamental norms of right and wrong is also one of government's functions. So forth and so--these arguments can be made; your contention is not undeniable.
[QUOTE="-Makaveli-"]To the same degree, you fail, and will fail if you make an attempt, to define absolutely what common good is. No one can, which is why I'd prefer government to stay the hell out of any affairs not directly concerned with individual rights.
hamstergeddon
EXACTLY! The government absolutely should stay the hell out of our affairs! The core value of this debate is how much a government can limit individuals, and the obvious answer is that it constitutionally cannot limit our rights since there is no way to prove that abortion is murder.
(And yes, the U.S. government is limited. I learned this first thing in my Freshman American government ****) No, the core of this debate is whether or not an unborn child is a human. We both agree that your rights should extend to the tip of my nose, and vice versa. So, really what we're arguing is whether or not an unborn child should possess those same rights. Granted, niether of us will win, but at least know what you're failing to accomplish.
Oh, and seeing as you've gone through the intensive training regimen of "freshman American government ****" would you care to refute what I said a few posts up and tell me how the American government is wholly limited in its actions regardless of the mindset of the populace. If it pleases you, give me one thing that I as president could not do without the unwaivering support of, say 70 percent of the American people.
[QUOTE="hamstergeddon"][QUOTE="-Makaveli-"]To the same degree, you fail, and will fail if you make an attempt, to define absolutely what common good is. No one can, which is why I'd prefer government to stay the hell out of any affairs not directly concerned with individual rights.
-Makaveli-
EXACTLY! The government absolutely should stay the hell out of our affairs! The core value of this debate is how much a government can limit individuals, and the obvious answer is that it constitutionally cannot limit our rights since there is no way to prove that abortion is murder.
(And yes, the U.S. government is limited. I learned this first thing in my Freshman American government ****) No, the core of this debate is whether or not an unborn child is a human. We both agree that your rights should extend to the tip of my nose, and vice versa. So, really what we're arguing is whether or not an unborn child should possess those same rights. Granted, niether of us will win, but at least know what you're failing to accomplish.
Oh, and seeing as you've gone through the intensive training regimen of "freshman American government ****" would you care to refute what I said a few posts up and tell me how the American government is wholly limited in its actions regardless of the mindset of the populace. If it pleases you, give me one thing that I as president could not do without the unwaivering support of, say 70 percent of the American people.
You could not commit murder. You could not have an affair with a figure skater. You could not order all Jews to be put in concentration camps. The Supreme Court checks the president, and makes sure all of his actions are constitutional. And since it cannot be proven that an unborn child is actually alive, we should give citizens the benefit of the doubt (which our judicial system operates on) and let them do something, that while morally questionable, is fully in their right to do
The problem with that argument (that you might have addressed, I'm not sure), is that right-wingers argue that abortion = murder... and murderers should be in jail. It's a great argument, but it won't change any minds.Funkyhamster
As I've said earlier, benefit of the doubt. They can't prove its murder, and until they do, it shouldn't be considered murder
[QUOTE="-Makaveli-"][QUOTE="hamstergeddon"][QUOTE="-Makaveli-"]To the same degree, you fail, and will fail if you make an attempt, to define absolutely what common good is. No one can, which is why I'd prefer government to stay the hell out of any affairs not directly concerned with individual rights.
hamstergeddon
EXACTLY! The government absolutely should stay the hell out of our affairs! The core value of this debate is how much a government can limit individuals, and the obvious answer is that it constitutionally cannot limit our rights since there is no way to prove that abortion is murder.
(And yes, the U.S. government is limited. I learned this first thing in my Freshman American government ****) No, the core of this debate is whether or not an unborn child is a human. We both agree that your rights should extend to the tip of my nose, and vice versa. So, really what we're arguing is whether or not an unborn child should possess those same rights. Granted, niether of us will win, but at least know what you're failing to accomplish.
Oh, and seeing as you've gone through the intensive training regimen of "freshman American government ****" would you care to refute what I said a few posts up and tell me how the American government is wholly limited in its actions regardless of the mindset of the populace. If it pleases you, give me one thing that I as president could not do without the unwaivering support of, say 70 percent of the American people.
You could not commit murder. You could not have an affair with a figure skater. You could not order all Jews to be put in concentration camps. The Supreme Court checks the president, and makes sure all of his actions are constitutional. And since it cannot be proven that an unborn child is actually alive, we should give citizens the benefit of the doubt (which our judicial system operates on) and let them do something, that while morally questionable, is fully in their right to do Incorrect. With my unwaivering support, I've succeeded in passing the 28th ammendment- the combo presidential murder, figure skate banging, Jew-killing ammendment. The Supreme Court checks the president based on law (including the constitution), but law is subject to change, so our government is technically unbounded.
And, while I may fail to absolutely prove that an unborn child counts as a human, you will also fail to absolutely prove that, say, Carrot Top, a Lithuanian cab driver, or even you are human.
Whoever started the trend of thought here that claims that it cannot be determined whether or not an unborn child is alive, needs to take ninth grade biology; a fetus demonstrates all of the characteristics of life.CptJSparrowThat'd be the TC, and while noteworthy, one must ask oneself who is "random scientist" to say what distinguishes from life and non-life.
Whoever started the trend of thought here that claims that it cannot be determined whether or not an unborn child is alive, needs to take ninth grade biology; a fetus demonstrates all of the characteristics of life.CptJSparrow
So does a plant.
Listen if you're going to use abortion as birth control then you'll probably feel like crap. If you use abortion to fix a dire mistake, you'll be better off in the long run. If congress wants to take away the right that women have to terminate a partially born child because she'd die in the process, that's where I draw the line. I'd rather have my lady live than have a non-productive member of society bear the memory of her death.
Whoever started the trend of thought here that claims that it cannot be determined whether or not an unborn child is alive, needs to take ninth grade biology; a fetus demonstrates all of the characteristics of life.CptJSparrow
except for self-conscience and any form of thought whatsoever. Its the ability to think that sets me and you apart from a vegetable (an actual vegetable.)
Incorrect. With my unwaivering support, I've succeeded in passing the 28th ammendment- the combo presidential murder, figure skate banging, Jew-killing ammendment. The Supreme Court checks the president based on law (including the constitution), but law is subject to change, so our government is technically unbounded.And, while I may fail to absolutely prove that an unborn child counts as a human, you will also fail to absolutely prove that, say, Carrot Top, a Lithuanian cab driver, or even you are human.
-Makaveli-
Nope. Bill of rights forbids you to punish anyone without fair trial AND a later amendment forbids you from passing laws that discriminate against any races or religion. Bill of rights can't be amended, BAM! Supreme Court shoots down your amendment because its unconstitutional. You can't amend or abridge the bill of rights.
And I can prove that I'm human out of common sense. I have my own independant train of thought. Now your just being ridiculous
I can only assume you're referencing the principle of lenity or, less likely, a standard of proof. Either way, I think you're operating under a misapprehension. The principle of lenity gives defendants the benefit of the doubt when interpretations of a law (e.g., state or federal statute) are debatable due to ambiguity. Standards of proof vary from civil to criminal law, but either way they are measures of the strength of evidence needed for conviction, not an endorsement of moral laxity.
. . . And since it cannot be proven that an unborn child is actually alive, we should give citizens the benefit of the doubt (which our judicial system operates on) and let them do something, that while morally questionable, is fully in their right to do hamstergeddon
[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"]Whoever started the trend of thought here that claims that it cannot be determined whether or not an unborn child is alive, needs to take ninth grade biology; a fetus demonstrates all of the characteristics of life.hamstergeddon
except for self-conscience and any form of thought whatsoever. Its the ability to think that sets me and you apart from a vegetable (an actual vegetable.)
Incorrect. With my unwaivering support, I've succeeded in passing the 28th ammendment- the combo presidential murder, figure skate banging, Jew-killing ammendment. The Supreme Court checks the president based on law (including the constitution), but law is subject to change, so our government is technically unbounded.And, while I may fail to absolutely prove that an unborn child counts as a human, you will also fail to absolutely prove that, say, Carrot Top, a Lithuanian cab driver, or even you are human.
-Makaveli-
Nope. Bill of rights forbids you to punish anyone without fair trial AND a later amendment forbids you from passing laws that discriminate against any races or religion. Bill of rights can't be amended, BAM! Supreme Court shoots down your amendment because its unconstitutional. You can't amend or abridge the bill of rights.
And I can prove that I'm human out of common sense. I have my own independant train of thought. Now your just being ridiculousI'm not punishing them. Punishment implies some sort of wrong-doing on their part. I'm just killing them. With the legislation I've pushed through, I could argue that in any court in this country and win. Oh, and the figure skater has nothing to do with the bill of rights, so yay, polygamy for everybody!
"Common sense" isn't so common, and holds no grounds, legal or argumentative.
[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"]Whoever started the trend of thought here that claims that it cannot be determined whether or not an unborn child is alive, needs to take ninth grade biology; a fetus demonstrates all of the characteristics of life.-Makaveli-That'd be the TC, and while noteworthy, one must ask oneself who is "random scientist" to say what distinguishes from life and non-life. Not a single scientist...a scientific consensus, with my source being the International General Certificate of Standard Education curriculum, endorsed by the University of Cambridge.
[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"]Whoever started the trend of thought here that claims that it cannot be determined whether or not an unborn child is alive, needs to take ninth grade biology; a fetus demonstrates all of the characteristics of life.Funkyhamster
So does a plant.
[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"]Whoever started the trend of thought here that claims that it cannot be determined whether or not an unborn child is alive, needs to take ninth grade biology; a fetus demonstrates all of the characteristics of life.hamstergeddon
except for self-conscience and any form of thought whatsoever. Its the ability to think that sets me and you apart from a vegetable (an actual vegetable.) Humans are alive while vegetables are not?
Not a single scientist...a scientific consensus, with my source being the International General Certificate of Standard Education curriculum, endorsed by the University of Cambridge. CptJSparrowI believe you in that regard. But, concensus does not neccessarilly mean truth. I'm sure you could agree with that.
[QUOTE="hamstergeddon"][QUOTE="CptJSparrow"]Whoever started the trend of thought here that claims that it cannot be determined whether or not an unborn child is alive, needs to take ninth grade biology; a fetus demonstrates all of the characteristics of life.-Makaveli-
except for self-conscience and any form of thought whatsoever. Its the ability to think that sets me and you apart from a vegetable (an actual vegetable.)
Incorrect. With my unwaivering support, I've succeeded in passing the 28th ammendment- the combo presidential murder, figure skate banging, Jew-killing ammendment. The Supreme Court checks the president based on law (including the constitution), but law is subject to change, so our government is technically unbounded.And, while I may fail to absolutely prove that an unborn child counts as a human, you will also fail to absolutely prove that, say, Carrot Top, a Lithuanian cab driver, or even you are human.
-Makaveli-
Nope. Bill of rights forbids you to punish anyone without fair trial AND a later amendment forbids you from passing laws that discriminate against any races or religion. Bill of rights can't be amended, BAM! Supreme Court shoots down your amendment because its unconstitutional. You can't amend or abridge the bill of rights.
And I can prove that I'm human out of common sense. I have my own independant train of thought. Now your just being ridiculousI'm not punishing them. Punishment implies some sort of wrong-doing on their part. I'm just killing them. With the legislation I've pushed through, I could argue that in any court in this country and win. Oh, and the figure skater has nothing to do with the bill of rights, so yay, polygamy for everybody!
"Common sense" isn't so common, and holds no grounds, legal or argumentative.
I think this has digressed from the topic. My point stands that since we can give the benefit of the doubt and assume that an abortion isn't murder, abortion shouldn't be banned. It is not under the government's jurisdiction to impose such a sanction based on moral issues. I'll say it once more: let the people choose for themselves!
and to CptJSparrow: next time I eat a salad, should I consider it an abortion? If you are comparing a fetus to a vegetable, then maybe the government should outlaw the consumption of cabbage too!
[QUOTE="hamstergeddon"]I can only assume you're referencing the principle of lenity or, less likely, a standard of proof. Either way, I think you're operating under a misapprehension. The principle of lenity gives defendants the benefit of the doubt when interpretations of a law (e.g., state or federal statute) are debatable due to ambiguity. Standards of proof vary from civil to criminal law, but either way they are measures of the strength of evidence needed for conviction, not an endorsement of moral laxity.
. . . And since it cannot be proven that an unborn child is actually alive, we should give citizens the benefit of the doubt (which our judicial system operates on) and let them do something, that while morally questionable, is fully in their right to do Elraptor
My other opponents were comparing abortion to murder, so I responded with a benefit of the doubt. The point still stands that if it is uncertain whether a fetus can be considered "alive" or not the government should not take action since ultimately it is better to be lenient on individuals' rights than to falsely and unjustly take away someone's right
[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"] Not a single scientist...a scientific consensus, with my source being the International General Certificate of Standard Education curriculum, endorsed by the University of Cambridge. -Makaveli-I believe you in that regard. But, concensus does not neccessarilly mean truth. I'm sure you could agree with that. I definitely agree that consensus does not mean truth, though what kind of truth are we looking for in argument of definition?
[QUOTE="-Makaveli-"][QUOTE="CptJSparrow"] Not a single scientist...a scientific consensus, with my source being the International General Certificate of Standard Education curriculum, endorsed by the University of Cambridge. CptJSparrowI believe you in that regard. But, concensus does not neccessarilly mean truth. I'm sure you could agree with that. I definitely agree that consensus does not mean truth, though what kind of truth are we looking for in argument of definition?I can't speak for you, but I seek a suspension of accepted truth which lacks concrete, empirical backing.
You are the one who compared a fetus to a vegetable:and to CptJSparrow: next time I eat a salad, should I consider it an abortion? If you are comparing a fetus to a vegetable, then maybe the government should outlaw the consumption of cabbage too!
except for self-conscience and any form of thought whatsoever. Its the ability to think that sets me and you apart from a vegetable (an actual vegetable.)
[QUOTE="-Makaveli-"][QUOTE="CptJSparrow"] Not a single scientist...a scientific consensus, with my source being the International General Certificate of Standard Education curriculum, endorsed by the University of Cambridge. CptJSparrowI believe you in that regard. But, concensus does not neccessarilly mean truth. I'm sure you could agree with that. I definitely agree that consensus does not mean truth, though what kind of truth are we looking for in argument of definition?
There's no truth. When life starts is a matter of belief. And because there are so many conflicting opinions, it is unjust to make a law based on one of them.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment