**2012 Election Day thread**

[Jenksismyhero]

SS, I have an extraordinary amount of respect for your intellect and your debating prowess. You usually seem to have a very good handle on most issues, and this one is no different.

 

That being said, I just find this scientific/moralistic approach to be a bit grotesque.

 

Look, we all know what nature's course is when a woman becomes impregnated. To attach some sort of timeline to the process in an attempt to make oneself feel better about when it is morally acceptable to artificially end that process seems to be sort of a cop out to me.

 

I've always thought the more authentic approach is to be honest with ourselves about what is really at stake here and admit that creating a life brings an incredible responsibility to those (and many times not those) responsible. It is a tremendously complex decision as to whether or not the parent(s) and/or others have the resources, the ability, the education and maturity to handle such an awesome responsibility.

 

Now I understand that many will say the life of the baby trumps all the other considerations, which is why we have gone down this path of making some sort of psuedo scientific/moralistic judgment as to when life actually begins - because these judgments have the ability to alleviate that conundrum. But that seems to me to really just be pulling the wool over one's eyes in an effort to displace or offset guilt.

 

Why don't we just admit that as human beings we have some pretty awesome responsibilities that we have to become better stewards of? This isn't to say we should all go out and get snipped, but honestly, this situation is what it is, and what it isn't, is one where science should be able to make us feel better about looking the other way.

 

There is a utilitarian approach to the issue, sure. We have justifiable homicides for the same reason. But we start with a baseline that murder is wrong, and work justifications from there. We don't start with "well, i mean is that REALLY murder? I mean, was that REALLY a person that was killed?"

[StrangeSox]

I appreciate the kind words, but I can't fully agree with that view of fetal development.

 

As I've pointed out before, if human life begins at conception, then 50% of humans are naturally aborted without anyone being aware at all. I see no moral reason to call naturally aborted zygotes humans in any sense of the word. There is some point between sperm-gets-into-egg and baby-is-born that it becomes something I'd call an actual human life just as worthy as you or I. I don't have a good, solid answer for what that point is. I am absolutely in agreement that science can't tell us when human life begins, it can only give us objective knowledge on some stages of development. Scientific knowledge informs us that fetal brains are essentially "brain dead" prior to 23 weeks, and so from that I can make a moral judgement that "brain activity" is what makes something a living human. Some politicians lately have said some pretty scientifically ignorant things regarding rape and pregnancy, but I've never claimed that people who view a 10-week-old fetus as a human being as rejecting science. It's completely a moral question.

[StrangeSox]

There is a utilitarian approach to the issue, sure. We have justifiable homicides for the same reason. But we start with a baseline that murder is wrong, and work justifications from there. We don't start with "well, i mean is that REALLY murder? I mean, was that REALLY a person that was killed?"

 

Was Terry Schaivo a human being like you or I that was "killed" when they finally unplugged the machines?

[iamshack]

There is a utilitarian approach to the issue, sure. We have justifiable homicides for the same reason. But we start with a baseline that murder is wrong, and work justifications from there. We don't start with "well, i mean is that REALLY murder? I mean, was that REALLY a person that was killed?"

I suppose I was approaching this more from a moralistic viewpoint than a legal standpoint.

 

Agreed that for legal purposes, we do need to draw some sort of line in the sand. I suppose it is the moralistic statements or arguments that evolve out of those legal lines in the sand that I become frustrated by.

 

I find it difficult to believe that one can assuage one's guilt about the issue by latching on to the legal demarcations.

 

That seems to be a bit of bs IMHO.

[iamshack]

Was Terry Schaivo a human being like you or I that was "killed" when they finally unplugged the machines?

And we can argue about these sort of situations until we die. I understand.

 

My point is that these situations are so incredibly complex, that very reasonable minds will always, always disagree. So to sit here and debate it in some effort to reach consensus is foolish.

 

Seems to me our efforts would be better put to use by seeking out more preventive measures.

[Jenksismyhero]

Was Terry Schaivo a human being like you or I that was "killed" when they finally unplugged the machines?

 

Well, she was a human being but not like you or I given her medical status, and yes, she was "killed" when the machine was unplugged. But again that goes to my point - the baseline is that she is alive and a human being and she was killed by choice. We can then decide the moral decision of whether or not that was justified.

[Jenksismyhero]

And we can argue about these sort of situations until we die. I understand.

 

My point is that these situations are so incredibly complex, that very reasonable minds will always, always disagree. So to sit here and debate it in some effort to reach consensus is foolish.

 

Seems to me our efforts would be better put to use by seeking out more preventive measures.

 

I agree with this but we also, at some point, have to decide how we're going to handle it as a society. And we further need to decide if government should be involved at all in those decisions (i.e., paying for those decisions).

[cabiness42]

And we can argue about these sort of situations until we die. I understand.

 

My point is that these situations are so incredibly complex, that very reasonable minds will always, always disagree. So to sit here and debate it in some effort to reach consensus is foolish.

 

Seems to me our efforts would be better put to use by seeking out more preventive measures.

 

Of course more preventive measures would help, but there are always going to be people who will be in that situation and we have to have some kind of line where the rights of the fetus supersede the rights of the woman.

[BigSqwert]

I agree with this but we also, at some point, have to decide how we're going to handle it as a society. And we further need to decide if government should be involved at all in those decisions (i.e., paying for those decisions).

With regards to abortion, we already have decided how we're going to handle this. See Roe V. Wade.

[StrangeSox]

If abortions should be illegal, what should be the punishment for the woman? The doctor?

[Jake]

If abortions should be illegal, what should be the punishment for the woman? The doctor?

 

I suppose the death penalty has to be considered. It is murder and it absolutely must be intentional and premeditated.

[iamshack]

I agree with this but we also, at some point, have to decide how we're going to handle it as a society. And we further need to decide if government should be involved at all in those decisions (i.e., paying for those decisions).

For sure. And I look at that as, what is the phrase, a necessary evil. But I certainly don't believe one can reach a "correct" moral conclusion from a legal line in the sand or go around lecturing others on what their own moralistic or spiritual position should be on something that is so, so grey.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

With regards to abortion, we already have decided how we're going to handle this. See Roe V. Wade.

 

5 people decided that. Not the country.

[Jenksismyhero]

If abortions should be illegal, what should be the punishment for the woman? The doctor?

 

What's the punishment for those same people for illegal abortions after the first trimester?

[StrangeSox]

I don't know and am not going to google it at work.

[cabiness42]

If abortions should be illegal, what should be the punishment for the woman? The doctor?

 

The woman? Zero. The felony should be performing the abortion, not obtaining it.

 

The doctor? Prison time + loss of medical license.

[iamshack]

If abortions should be illegal, what should be the punishment for the woman? The doctor?

Well, I don't think they should be illegal, but if you told me it had to be illegal, and I had to come up with a punishment, I would probably suggest some ridiculously obnoxious and complicated scheme....fallopian tubes tied until the mother determined she actually wanted to procreate, at which point she would then be bound to take the pregnancy to term and care for the child.

 

[StrangeSox]

How is she not an accomplice to the murder?

[iamshack]

The woman? Zero. The felony should be performing the abortion, not obtaining it.

 

The doctor? Prison time + loss of medical license.

Which leads to women performing their own gruesome surgeries...

[Soxbadger]

And similarly, the complete lack of morals/ethics about life that cause said right wingers to be literally fearful of the direction of this country.

 

I could say the same thing about right wingers who believe in the death penalty. How can you let humans decide whether another human is deserving of life or death?

 

So shouldnt I be really fearful of the direction of the country?

 

The bottom line is that you can have your morals and I can have my morals. I dont make you kill fetuses, you dont make me kill potentially innocent prisoners. Seems fair.

 

I guess that is the leap I cant make. I cant force my morals on other people. Just because I am adamant in my belief that I am right, I dont force other people to do it, because its not for me to decide. If you want to know what makes me fearful, its when people want to legislate morality. We need less people thinking that they should be telling people how to live their life, not more.

[cabiness42]

Which leads to women performing their own gruesome surgeries...

 

That's going to be incredibly rare. There are hardly any documented cases of that happening before abortion was legal.

 

[cabiness42]

I could say the same thing about right wingers who believe in the death penalty. How can you let humans decide whether another human is deserving of life or death?

 

So shouldnt I be really fearful of the direction of the country?

 

The bottom line is that you can have your morals and I can have my morals. I dont make you kill fetuses, you dont make me kill potentially innocent prisoners. Seems fair.

 

I guess that is the leap I cant make. I cant force my morals on other people. Just because I am adamant in my belief that I am right, I dont force other people to do it, because its not for me to decide. If you want to know what makes me fearful, its when people want to legislate morality. We need less people thinking that they should be telling people how to live their life, not more.

 

Great, no legislating morality. Rape, theft, and murder are now all legal.

 

[StrangeSox]

Which leads to women performing their own gruesome surgeries...

 

Illegalizing abortion will be just as successful as illegalizing drugs. Which is to say that it will be completely unsuccessful and cause material harm instead.

[iamshack]

That's going to be incredibly rare. There are hardly any documented cases of that happening before abortion was legal.

Why on earth would there be documented cases?

[cabiness42]

Illegalizing abortion will be just as successful as illegalizing drugs. Which is to say that it will be completely unsuccessful and cause material harm instead.

 

That's a terrible analogy. It takes a lot more effort for a person to get an illegal abortion than to get illegal drugs.