T Nation

Roe v. Wade: 42 Years in the Past II


#1

I gave up on reading the whole previous thread after page 7 ; )

Of course laws reflect morality, so the argument that something is ok just its being legal is total dishonesty in my mind.

The newest data say that the majority of Americans oppose abortion. In a Republic, the majority of a population means very little.

I thought the only countries to outlaw abortion have been Ireland, Poland and Chile. When I was in Chile last, the tides there were changing to support the pro-death position.


#2

One more thing I wanted to say:

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

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

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

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


#3

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:

Of course laws reflect morality, so the argument that something is ok just its being legal is total dishonesty in my mind.

[/quote]

Who made that argument?

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

Edited to fix quotes


#4

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
I gave up on reading this whole thread after page 7 ; )

Of course laws reflect morality, so the argument that something is ok just its being legal is total dishonesty in my mind.

The newest data say that the majority of Americans oppose abortion. In a Republic, the majority of a population means very little.

I thought the only countries to outlaw abortion have been Ireland, Poland and Chile. When I was in Chile last, the tides there were changing to support the pro-death position.

[quote] Varqanir wrote: Ideally the law should reflect the common morality of the people for whom it is written.

The reason that much of Levitical law no longer applies is because we no longer consider many of the things proscribed to be immoral, and no longer consider many of the things commanded to be moral.

Sodomy laws have been overturned in all states of the Union, as have laws against miscegenation. Slavery, which was once commonplace throughout the world, and entirely legal, is now illegal precisely because it has come to be thought of as immoral.

When the majority of people in the United States come to view abortion as immoral, then it will become illegal.

Just as it is now in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, North Korea, and Iran.[/quote][/quote]

Actually, it’s a few more than Ireland and Chile. These are the states that have either a limited (Mexico) or an absolute (Malta) ban on abortion. Strange that Vatican City isn’t on the list.

Afghanistan
Andorra
Angola
Antigua & Barbuda
Bangladesh
Bhutan
Brazil
Brunei Darussalam
Central African Rep.
Chile
Congo
Cote d’Ivoire
Dem. Rep. of Congo
Dominica
Dominican Republic
Egypt
El Salvador
Gabon
Guatemala Guinea-Bissau
Haiti
Honduras
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Ireland
Kiribati
Laos
Lebanon
Lesotho
Libya
Madagascar
Malawi
Mali
Malta
Marshall Islands
Mauritania Mauritius
Mexico
Micronesia
Myanmar
Nicaragua
Nigeria
Oman
Palau
Panama
Papua New Guinea
Paraguay
Philippines
San Marino
Sao Tome & Principe
Senegal
Soloman Islands
Somalia
South Sudan
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Suriname Syria
Tanzania
Timor-Leste
Tonga
Tuvalu
Uganda
United Arab Emirates
Venezuela
West Bank & Gaza Strip
Yemen

Edit: and now I see I was mistaken about North Korea and Saudi Arabia. Ah well.


#5

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

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

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

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

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

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


#6

Varqanir -

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

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

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

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

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

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


#7

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

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

[quote]Varqanir wrote: Actually, it’s a few more than Ireland and Chile. These are the states that have either a limited (Mexico) or an absolute (Malta) ban on abortion. Strange that Vatican City isn’t on the list.

Afghanistan
. . . .
Yemen

Edit: and now I see I was mistaken about North Korea and Saudi Arabia. Ah well.[/quote]


#8

[quote]pat wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, you would go with a coin flip?


#9

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don’t have an answer.


#10

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don’t have an answer.[/quote]

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

I’m just playing the bad guy by answering the hypothetical, because it doesn’t establish personhood, irrelevant of “value”. Making a choice here, horrid as it is, doesn’t make one person not a person, just makes that person shit out of luck, so to speak.


#11

[quote] kneedragger wrote:

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

[/quote]

Vatican City is a sovereign city state. Italian law does not apply there. Interestingly, the Vatican doesn’t believe in capital punishment describing it as “cruel and useless”. And they recently changed the laws to allow a maximum of no more than 35 years for any offence. So they would not extradite someone to another country if they might face the death penalty.


#12

And the Vatican does have laws against abortion:

See under “National Laws” and “Holy See”.


#13

Can you answer why The Vatican is not on the list then?


#14

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Can you answer why The Vatican is not on the list then?

[/quote]

I can only guess. Maybe because it’s only a list of “countries” whereas Vatican City is a “city state”.


#15

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

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

I’m just playing the bad guy by answering the hypothetical, because it doesn’t establish personhood, irrelevant of “value”. Making a choice here, horrid as it is, doesn’t make one person not a person, just makes that person shit out of luck, so to speak. [/quote]

What the hypothetical does is this: It forces people who normally refuse to answer, or who answer untruthfully (not you, by the way), to answer this question: “Is the destruction of a minute-old embryo morally equivalent to the destruction of a five-year-old child?”

Some say no. Some say yes. Neither is necessarily wrong. But, unlike the stupid pro-choice denial that an embryo is both human and alive, this approach to the discussion at least identifies an argument that is legitimate and not-automatic.

You made the point earlier that this doesn’t mean that it is morally acceptable to destroy the embryo. Quite right. But it is a particular step toward a particular line of inquiry, one that is more fruitful than 99.999% of the abortion debate that takes place here in PWI.


#16

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


#17

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#18

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#19

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#20

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.