Unbreaking American Hearts

[Sunstone]

Some decisions are too important to be made by people who think primarily in terms of morality when making decisions -- too important to be made by "moral people". Abortion is one of those decisions.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Some decisions are too important to be made by people who think primarily in terms of morality when making decisions -- too important to be made by "moral people". Abortion is one of those decisions.

Does primarily thinking in terms of morality have to entail not analyzing risks and benefits in a rational manner? That is, if a concept of morality were based on logic and consideration of modern scientific evidence, then why would primarily relying on it when making decisions about abortion, for example, be a problem?

 

[columbus]

I sincerely wish we had known about Planned Parenthood at the time. But we were good Catholic kids in the late 70s. We didn't know anything.

PP is a political football. If you want to prevent abortions support PP. They do it well.

Tom

 

[Sunstone]

Does primarily thinking in terms of morality have to entail not analyzing risks and benefits in a rational manner? That is, if a concept of morality were based on logic and consideration of modern scientific evidence, then why would primarily relying on it when making decisions about abortion, for example, be a problem?

There are many life circumstances for which morality, by it's very nature, is not nuanced enough to deal with in the wisest possible manner. Abortion is often enough among those life circumstances. The Buddhist concept of "skillful behavior" or "skillfulness", and situation ethics, are far wiser than holding to this or that set of morals. At least, that's been my experience.

 

[Debater Slayer]

There are many life circumstances for which morality, by it's very nature, is not nuanced enough to deal with in the wisest possible manner. Abortion is often enough among those life circumstances. The Buddhist concept of "skillful behavior" or "skillfulness", and situation ethics, are far wiser than holding to this or that set of morals. At least, that's been my experience.

I think the concept of science-based morality that Sam Harris espouses is the closest thing to a model of morality that can rationally address topics like abortion. It seems to me that such a model overlaps in more than one way with models that categorize behaviors and actions as "skillful" and "unskillful."

But I have probably gotten into a different subject, so that's for another thread. This one isn't really about contemplations on philosophical concepts.

 

[LuisDantas]

Some decisions are too important to be made by people who think primarily in terms of morality when making decisions -- too important to be made by "moral people". Abortion is one of those decisions.

Uh? I will need some help to understand that, Phil.

There are many life circumstances for which morality, by it's very nature, is not nuanced enough to deal with in the wisest possible manner. Abortion is often enough among those life circumstances. The Buddhist concept of "skillful behavior" or "skillfulness", and situation ethics, are far wiser than holding to this or that set of morals. At least, that's been my experience.

Aren't you then saying that morality is ill defined instead?

 

[Nyingjé Tso]

I am neither fascist nor totalitarian in my opinion. I just simply believe that what I see as murder should be illegal.

Then it is only your opinion. Not a universal rule. Not something that concerns all humans or society. This is only your opinion. It is not a obvious rule of something like gravity, no, just YOUR opinion.

And you are suggesting to elevate this specific opinion of yours into a law.

I think it's part of the definition of totalitarianism where a single entity or person seek to control every aspect of the lives of people based on his/her/it sole beliefs and opinions.

 

[Revoltingest]

Then it is only your opinion. Not a universal rule. Not something that concerns all humans or society. This is only your opinion. It is not a obvious rule of something like gravity, no, just YOUR opinion.
And you are suggesting to elevate this specific opinion of yours into a law.
I think it's part of the definition of totalitarianism where a single entity or person seek to control every aspect of the lives of people based on his/her/it sole beliefs and opinions.

This seems a rather selective criticism of ZooGal. We all see things which we'd like to have the law prohibit. (And we all disagree about many of those things.) Does that make us all totalitarians? Of course not, since such fascism is more about the breadth of such laws, how onerous they are, & the population's objection to them. ZooGal can advocate for illegalizing (neologism here) what she considers murder without being a fascist.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This seems a rather selective criticism of ZooGal. We all see things which we'd like to have the law prohibit. (And we all disagree about many of those things.) Does that make us all totalitarians? Of course not, since such fascism is more about the breadth of such laws, how onerous they are, & the population's objection to them. ZooGal can advocate for illegalizing (neologism here) what she considers murder without being a fascist.

I consider destroying a musical instrument to be a form of murder.

I'm not joking here. I have a strong feeling that a musical instrument is a special - maybe sacred - thing and that something "rubs off" from the people who make it and play it. If I believed in souls, I would say that a musical instrument has one. I find it gut-wrenching to watch someone smash a guitar.

All that being said, I don't think smashing guitars should be illegal. I realize that I don't have a basis for my position other than my gut feeling, so I don't seek to impose it on other people.

And I do think that I would be something akin to a fascist if I tried to make this form of "murder" illegal.

 

[Nyingjé Tso]

This seems a rather selective criticism of ZooGal. We all see things which we'd like to have the law prohibit. (And we all disagree about many of those things.) Does that make us all totalitarians? Of course not, since such fascism is more about the breadth of such laws, how onerous they are, & the population's objection to them. ZooGal can advocate for illegalizing (neologism here) what she considers murder without being a fascist.

No intention to insult here, was just bouncing on what Sun said earlier in the first page of the tread.

The reason is important. Why would X think that Y is bad and should be illegal ? If there was a reasonable, or a scientific reason (for exemple, if it is detrimental for health, or provoke physical problems etc) then it would be a very nice and valid opinion. But the main problem is that it is based on a selective idea of morality and concepts of what is "good" and what is "bad" that is arbitrary dictated by the religious preferences of individuals. I would prefer such laws to have their basis is logic and science rather than in the abstract and selective morality of a single religion, that's just it. And that's just my opinion also.

I would prefer womens to abort unwanted or malformed unborn childrens rather than force them to come to term and force them to live with those unwanted childs that, I am sure, will be far from happy and loved. I would prefer womens to abort unwanted childrens rather than hear more stories than there are already about womens that gave birth in secret and killed their baby in the freezer (and yes, it happens more than you think).

And again, without any hostility intended, I don't think the catholic church in general is the best to impose those kind of rules regarding treatement of babies and abortion when there are so, so, so many skeletons in their cupboard on those subjects. My grandfather can attest of that, do you want to know how many dead babies skeletons he found on some catholics nuns monasteries ? I will personally not accept any rules or listen to the arguments of any leader of anything that is not able to follow their own rules.

And what would it change actually, to make abortion illegal ? It will just be the great comeback of the home made unhygienic abortions ! Do you know how to abort a woman with a coat hanger ? It was common here when abortion was illegal. And it was very dangerous. But working. And many desperate womens had to rely on this. Forbidding something will not make it dissapear, it's just the open door to more unwated and unexpected drifting.

Better basing something on understanding and logic rather on "morality" dictated by a religion or a group of people. But honestly, I don't know how it would work in america, knowing that it is a very christian state. This is when I see this that I think I am happy to live in a secular country.

 

[Revoltingest]

No intention to insult here, was just bouncing on what Sun said earlier in the first page of the tread.

To portray someone else as a "totalitarian fascist" (when they aren't) is pretty insulting.

The reason is important. Why would X think that Y is bad and should be illegal ? If there was a reasonable, or a scientific reason (for exemple, if it is detrimental for health, or provoke physical problems etc) then it would be a very nice and valid opinion. But the main problem is that it is based on a selective idea of morality and concepts of what is "good" and what is "bad" that is arbitrary dictated by the religious preferences of individuals. I would prefer such laws to have their basis is logic and science rather than in the abstract and selective morality of a single religion, that's just it. And that's just my opinion also.

Much of US law isn't based upon logic or science. It's often just a majority consensus based upon feelings, culture, or religion. Examples: blue laws, dress codes, speech codes, organ selling, prostitution, statutory rape, military draft. There is no agreed upon definition of when life begins, & even if there were, we'd still have other complications. "Selective morality" is a term often wielded when someone else's selective morality conflicts with our own selective morality.

I would prefer womens to abort unwanted or malformed unborn childrens rather than force them to come to term and force them to live with those unwanted childs that, I am sure, will be far from happy and loved. I would prefer womens to abort unwanted childrens rather than hear more stories than there are already about womens that gave birth in secret and killed their baby in the freezer (and yes, it happens more than you think).

I agree with you on this. We share this selective morality.

And what would it change actually, to make abortion illegal ? It will just be the great comeback of the home made unhygienic abortions ! Do you know how to abort a woman with a coat hanger ? It was common here when abortion was illegal. And it was very dangerous. But working. And many desperate womens had to rely on this. Forbidding something will not make it dissapear, it's just the open door to more unwated and unexpected drifting.

I agree with these good reasons, but we must recognize that you & I don't believe abortion to be "murder".

Better basing something on understanding and logic rather on "morality" dictated by a religion or a group of people. But honestly, I don't know how it would work in america, knowing that it is a very christian state. This is when I see this that I think I am happy to live in a secular country.

Logic is useful, but ultimately we're using premises which are illogical personal preferences. I look at things thru the lens of libertarian values, & end up being pro-abortion, but I know that my values aren't "logical" or "the truth".

I notice that many posters who trumpet that logic & science are on their side don't actually practice either.
It's more about the comforting belief they're all on the same team. (Yeah, I'm doing it....I'm generalizing.)

 

[BSM1]

I consider destroying a musical instrument to be a form of murder.

I'm not joking here. I have a strong feeling that a musical instrument is a special - maybe sacred - thing and that something "rubs off" from the people who make it and play it. If I believed in souls, I would say that a musical instrument has one. I find it gut-wrenching to watch someone smash a guitar.

All that being said, I don't think smashing guitars should be illegal. I realize that I don't have a basis for my position other than my gut feeling, so I don't seek to impose it on other people.

And I do think that I would be something akin to a fascist if I tried to make this form of "murder" illegal.

I agree with you. However, if the sonogram shows a Fender Strat (even if it's a vintage '59) then abortion should be mandatory.

 

[Revoltingest]

I consider destroying a musical instrument to be a form of murder.

Fortunately, there will never be enuf consensus to enact your view into law.

I'm not joking here. I have a strong feeling that a musical instrument is a special - maybe sacred - thing and that something "rubs off" from the people who make it and play it. If I believed in souls, I would say that a musical instrument has one. I find it gut-wrenching to watch someone smash a guitar.
All that being said, I don't think smashing guitars should be illegal. I realize that I don't have a basis for my position other than my gut feeling, so I don't seek to impose it on other people.
And I do think that I would be something akin to a fascist if I tried to make this form of "murder" illegal.

"Fascism" is not so simple as this or that particular item is made sacred. But we do have "sacred" objects which have extraordinary legal protections, eg, eagle feathers. This doesn't make us fascist....we face far more dangerous factors than that, eg, omnipresent surveillance, security theater.

 

[Nyingjé Tso]

I look at things thru the lens of libertarian values, & end up being pro-abortion, but I know that my values aren't "logical" or "the truth".

I don't know what is a libertarian, sorry, I can't really understand what you mean :sorry1:

I notice that many posters who trumpet that logic & science are on their side don't actually practice either.
It's more about the comforting belief they're all on the same team. (Yeah, I'm doing it....I'm generalizing.)

Are you saying this because I am religious/theist ?

Being a theist doesn't mean rejecting logic and science, especially when my religion have absolutely no problem with any of the two and is actually pretty supportive to them

I know you said you were generilizing, was just wondering seeing the circumstances.


I just say two things: I do not agree it is right for a religious group to impose laws like this based on their own morality values and the second thing is, I don't actually care that people abort and some other don't. If we cut the pear in half and let people that want to abort doing it, and the others that don't want to abort not doing it, wouldn't the problem be solved ? Why do mr or ms.X that are pro life and refuse to abort even care about mr and ms.Y that want to abort for reasons ? Why is there even a need to care about other's people personal life when it comes to those kind of "problems" ? I mean, there sure are worst things to worry about, don't you agree ? Is abortion a imminent danger to the human race or a treat to international relashioships ? I am worried that people worry and put so much emphasis on those kind of "problems" whereas there are so much huge problems left uncared and that can lead humanity to great difficulty.

^ Of course, this above is only my personal opinion. I am just sharing it, I am absolutely not trying to impose any point of view over you or anyone else, and this, being only an individual opinion, should not be elevated or justified as a law or truth.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't know what is a libertarian, sorry, I can't really understand what you mean :sorry1:

Quick summary: We favor maximal social & economic liberty, with minimal government control over us.

Are you saying this because I am religious/theist ?
Being a theist doesn't mean rejecting logic and science, especially when my religion have absolutely no problem with any of the two and is actually pretty supportive to them
I know you said you were generilizing, was just wondering seeing the circumstances.

I wasn't criticizing you. I meant to put in such a disclaimer, but I forgot to.
For the record: I don't believe that we heathens are generally smarter or more logical than theists.

You might spot specific examples of science being flashed as a mere badge of authority in RF.
Watch for someone citing that statistics, science or logic are on one's side, yet the facts
(if even cited) aren't even part of a cogent argument.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I don't know what is a libertarian, sorry, I can't really understand what you mean :sorry1:

What Scientology is to religion, Libertarianism is to politics. Think Ayn Rand

 

[Revoltingest]

What Scientology is to religion, Libertarianism is to politics. Think Ayn Rand

Oh, how our fevered foes love to mischievously describe us.
Btw, Ayn Rand loathed libertarians.

 

[kashmir]

Unbreaking American Hearts | National Review Online

I found this pro-life article about Planned Parenthood to be very interesting. I thought some of you on here might enjoy it as well. Personally, I believe that abortion ought to be completely illegal.

I agree as well.
At least late term is now illegal, even though it still happens.

I will prob get shot down for this, but I believe an abortion should come with an added cut and tied off tubes thing.
If a female can murder her unborn child, then she should have to give up rights to ever "accidentally" get pregnant and do it again.

To me, there is no such thing as an accidental pregnancy.
What, did the guy slip and fall and land on a naked female?
"opps, sorry about that, it was an accident."
The words we are looking for is ...
"careless actions for 18 secs of pleasure resulting in an unwanted child to be murdered"

 

[CynthiaCypher]

To me, there is no such thing as an accidental pregnancy.
What, did the guy slip and fall and land on a naked female?

No. He decided to rape her.

 

[Nyingjé Tso]

You might spot specific examples of science being flashed as a mere badge of authority in RF.
Watch for someone citing that statistics, science or logic are on one's side, yet the facts
(if even cited) aren't even part of a cogent argument.

Oh then I get what you mean now, and yes I understand you're right.

I know you didn't mean any critisize or anything don't worry, I just wanted to clarify and understand what you were meaning.

And I'm not really into politics. I have interest in it for general culture purpose and to stay in touch with what's happening around, but I prefer not to be involved more than necessary (like being with a party or more on one side than another etc...) I don't put my trust in any of them. Buuuuut that's not the subject of this tread