Abortion

[Sees]

I don't think morality has anything to do with it. A huge portion of the law isn't about right and wrong but about keeping society functional.

If there is no sense of right or wrong then a society can't function very well.

How do people decide what should be deemed legal or illegal? Some detached sense of justice somehow unrelated to moral and ethical principles/values that "just is"?

Do you think the way you come up with your personal outlook on morality is that different from the way laws are determined? They are created the same.

 

[Cephus]

If there is no sense of right or wrong then a society can't function very well.

How do people decide what should be deemed legal or illegal? Some detached sense of justice somehow unrelated to moral and ethical principles/values that "just is"?

Do you think the way you come up with your personal outlook on morality is that different from the way laws are determined? They are created the same.

I think we're really losing the discussion here. When we originally started talking about morality, it was in terms of things being objectively right or wrong, not of things being subjectively and personally right or wrong. If you're going to just define morality as what any individual happens to think on a particular day, or what a particular society happens to think on a particular day, then you're no longer talking about morality as far as I'm concerned. This is especially the case because, I think it was columbus but I can't even be sure of that anymore so forgive me if I'm misremembering, but he was arguing that society was getting more and more moral as time went on, that we were approaching a form of perfect morality, but how can you even argue that if morality is just individual or group opinion of what is right or wrong right his minute?

 

[Sees]

I think we're really losing the discussion here. When we originally started talking about morality, it was in terms of things being objectively right or wrong, not of things being subjectively and personally right or wrong. If you're going to just define morality as what any individual happens to think on a particular day, or what a particular society happens to think on a particular day, then you're no longer talking about morality as far as I'm concerned. This is especially the case because, I think it was columbus but I can't even be sure of that anymore so forgive me if I'm misremembering, but he was arguing that society was getting more and more moral as time went on, that we were approaching a form of perfect morality, but how can you even argue that if morality is just individual or group opinion of what is right or wrong right his minute?

How universal, absolute, or strongly held different stances are doesn't really define whether or not they are moral stances.
I don't see how there is a qualifier that morality need be solidified, permanent, static lines drawn in the sand based on set in stone religious or philosophical positions.

I think people/s go through a process of refining their morality - even when it comes to things seen as set in stone or Divine, they still tend to refine the interpretation and appropriate application. That reflects the development of law also, for good reason.

 

[columbus]

, I think it was columbus but I can't even be sure of that anymore so forgive me if I'm misremembering, but he was arguing that society was getting more and more moral as time went on, that we were approaching a form of perfect morality,

No, you added the part about perfection.
I only pointed out that as morality became more rational, fewer human beings are considered nonpersons due to a characteristic that they have. Nothing about approaching perfection.
I even pointed out that I wasn't saying that.
Tom

 

[Smart_Guy]

Souls got in whenever stuff became alive, if they exist. Living things have them. They don't "get" them.

Science, at this stage, is not going to help. Because nobody knows what a soul is, despite people often talking like they do.
Tom

Um, contradiction in the two lines here?

 

[Cephus]

No, you added the part about perfection.
I only pointed out that as morality became more rational, fewer human beings are considered nonpersons due to a characteristic that they have. Nothing about approaching perfection.
I even pointed out that I wasn't saying that.
Tom

If you are constantly getting better, as you assert, then you have to be approaching some goal, which I'm pointing out doesn't exist. I don't think you can defend that morality is becoming rational at all.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Here is why I am so supportive of Planned Parenthood.
They will get you this stuff and the information needed to use it without regard for your ability to pay. It is not all that they do, but it is a big part of it.
So when someone wants to cut funding for PP, thinking that it will reduce abortion, I get a little angry.
No, let me be more honest. I get furious and want to break things! PP stops abortion! Sermons and "purity rings" and ignorance don't!
Tom

Please demonstrate here what abortion rates were before Roe v. Wade and then after, thus proving how billions of dollars sent to PP and toward sex education and other government initiatives have "stopped" abortion.

Thank you.

 

[columbus]

Um, contradiction in the two lines here?

Sorry that I was unclear. I meant my qualifier "if they exist" to explain that.
I do believe in soul. I see that as what distinguishes a living thing from a dead thing. An ameba has some, a fish has lots more, humans have the most(as far as we know).
So I find it irritating when people draw arbitrary lines on the subject. Whether it is implantation, heartbeat, four months, brain waves, viability, or first breath, these are all abitrary lines drawn when we don't know what we are talking about.
It isn't that I am claiming knowledge, I'm just pointing out how arbitrary these lines are.

I do not trust human beings when they start drawing lines that divide people into groups and deciding which ones matter.
Tom

 

[columbus]

If you are constantly getting better, as you assert, then you have to be approaching some goal, which I'm pointing out doesn't exist.

No, not at all. You are the one who keeps bringing up perfection.
Perfection might be possible if the human situation stayed the same. But it doesn't. The goals keep moving, faster than we can keep up.
The biggest moral issues we face today didn't really exist quite recently.
Population pressure
Biosphere degradation/ climate change
Weapons tech
just to name a few of the major ones. Smaller ones include
Abortion
End of life
Advertising

These issues either didn't exist for most of human history or weren't recognized. And we don't deal with them well, if at all. Because our moral codes are slow to change, and the world is changing faster and faster. We're getting better at morality. But we are still falling behind.

I don't think you can defend that morality is becoming rational at all.

I think it is. Bigotry, the dismissal of a human being, is less than it used to be.
And, here in the USA, I see extending some human worth to the unborn is the next step up on that score.
Tom

 

[Noa]

To the original post: it does not follow that spontaneous early miscarriages constitute abortion in any sense whatsoever.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Sorry that I was unclear. I meant my qualifier "if they exist" to explain that.
I do believe in soul. I see that as what distinguishes a living thing from a dead thing. An ameba has some, a fish has lots more, humans have the most(as far as we know).
So I find it irritating when people draw arbitrary lines on the subject. Whether it is implantation, heartbeat, four months, brain waves, viability, or first breath, these are all abitrary lines drawn when we don't know what we are talking about.
It isn't that I am claiming knowledge, I'm just pointing out how arbitrary these lines are.

I do not trust human beings when they start drawing lines that divide people into groups and deciding which ones matter.
Tom

It think it is clear to me now what you mean.

Cool

 

[SomeRandom]

Please demonstrate here what abortion rates were before Roe v. Wade and then after, thus proving how billions of dollars sent to PP and toward sex education and other government initiatives have "stopped" abortion.

Thank you.

Umm usually underground or illegal activity is generally only recorded when someone is caught. So the rates would only reflect a portion of actual abortions that were caught by police. So I sincerely doubt you could get actual factual numbers of illegal abortions which occurred prior to Roe Vs Wade.

Can't speak of PP but from what I gather again, how do you record abortions which are prevented? They don't exist in the first place, so how do you record something like that? I suppose the drop in unwanted teen pregnancies and abortions in areas with comprehensive safe sex education vs the higher rates of such things in Abstinence only education in other areas?

 

[Noa]

We do know that comprehensive sex education has a better track record limiting teen pregnancy than abstinence-only education. This has been demonstrated countless times.

 

[Cephus]

We do know that comprehensive sex education has a better track record limiting teen pregnancy than abstinence-only education. This has been demonstrated countless times.

Of course, it depends on how it's done. If you're just doing God-talk nonsense, of course it isn't going to work. If you lay out the facts in detail, you'll have better luck. But nobody wants to tell kids that having sex can and often does lead to unwanted, life-ruining pregnancies and life-destroying sexually transmitted diseases.

 

[Noa]

Of course, it depends on how it's done. If you're just doing God-talk nonsense, of course it isn't going to work. If you lay out the facts in detail, you'll have better luck. But nobody wants to tell kids that having sex can and often does lead to unwanted, life-ruining pregnancies and life-destroying sexually transmitted diseases.

Actually, there are many people that want to tell young people that. There are also many that wish it were mandatory to do so in any public school. Sadly, our federalist system makes that not feasible at the current time.

 

[columbus]

Please demonstrate here what abortion rates were before Roe v. Wade and then after,

First, let me point out the most obvious problem with your post. RvW and PP are completely different things.
Even if PP were defunded into oblivion RvW would remain the law. And if RvW were changed to put some sensible restrictions and consequences on irresponsible sex, PP would still provide extremely important services.
In fact, if every potential parent in the USA suddenly decided to be responsible about procreation, PP would get buried under the crowd. What people don't seem to grasp is that PP is about prevention, not abortion. There just isn't any way to count the abortions that are prevented.
Tom

 

[Cephus]

Actually, there are many people that want to tell young people that. There are also many that wish it were mandatory to do so in any public school. Sadly, our federalist system makes that not feasible at the current time.

I agree. You have many people on the right who only want to spew God-nonsense and many on the left who don't want to interfere with the rampant sexual escapades of teens. Both sides have an agenda. Making responsible decisions based on unbiased facts is not it.

 

[leibowde84]

The soul is the eternal essence of your being. The soul animates a temporary physical body in the earthly life, and continues to live in spirit form when the body dies. It has no material substance, but does have form and substance as well as the mind, memories, and senses, which function independently of physical organs.

So, animals have souls as well, then. As they meet all of these requirements.

 

[Noa]

many on the left who don't want to interfere with the rampant sexual escapades of teens.

Nonsense.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I agree. You have many people on the right who only want to spew God-nonsense and many on the left who don't want to interfere with the rampant sexual escapades of teens. Both sides have an agenda. Making responsible decisions based on unbiased facts is not it.

Good thing I'm here then--on the right and making responsible decisions based on facts. Facts are to come ahead of feelings or even faith for true Christians!