NationStates Jolt Archive

Six posts up. Read it.
BTW-none of us cacn be right or wrong, except to those who think similarly, so I just wanted to make clear I wasn't trying to really say Ii was right, just to make you guys see my point.

You don't want it to be law, and it was obscure. You wanted me to know this because? What does that do towards responding to what I said, If you've made your belief known, it's been shown illogical, we've obviously seen it if we've seen the problem. Why do you (or did you) carry it on for so long?

As I have said bbefore THE FETUS DOES NOT HAVE RIGHTS. the person it will become has rights which i believe apply to it.I believe that since it is impossible to tell which pregnancies will actually end in birth, we must assume that all of them will. the rights i would give person that one of those pregnancies is bound to result in would force us to give the benefit of the doubt to all of them.
And im not trying to escape my own arguement, I'm just trying to calm your arguements down a bit.

Your logic makes no sense.

By your 'logic', we have to grant the same protections of law to EVERY person in the world, because you can never be sure who might become a US citizen 'in the future'.

I can't see the US government voting to protect the 'right to bear arms' for detainees in protective 'enemy combatant' custody, for example... so, it is hypocrisy to cliam similar 'conditional' support for the as-yet-unborn.

I mean, even if someone could be right, it isn't going to be me. EVERYBODY'S trying to disprove me in some way. If I come up with some way to re-state my argument, i'll come back. Or if i can supporrt someone else's with a fact. What I believe also has to do with my perception of time (please don't quote that out of context) but I wanted to point a few things out in my argument before I pretty much stop defening it
-It has nothing to do with outlawing abortion
-it really needs to be discussed in speech to be explained properly
-it has to do with what the person just might become, not what they are, or what they are dependant on
-and, since the mother already had some choice in the matter, it doesn't define abortion as an alternative to contraceptives
-to you guys, it might seem illogical, but i see it as having been badly explained. i blame myself for my defeat. Well, it would be my fault anyway...
I just don't have the time to re-explain it the right way
Maybe if I come up with a new way to defend myself, I'll drop a post

I mean, even if someone could be right, it isn't going to be me. EVERYBODY'S trying to disprove me in some way. If I come up with some way to re-state my argument, i'll come back. Or if i can supporrt someone else's with a fact. What I believe also has to do with my perception of time (please don't quote that out of context) but I wanted to point a few things out in my argument before I pretty much stop defening it
-It has nothing to do with outlawing abortion
-it really needs to be discussed in speech to be explained properly
-it has to do with what the person just might become, not what they are, or what they are dependant on
-and, since the mother already had some choice in the matter, it doesn't define abortion as an alternative to contraceptives
Maybe if I come up with a new way to defend myself, I'll drop a post

Because they see a problem, or just because. Scientists get their idea peer-reviewed (AKA everyone tries to prove them wrong). Unless you restate the arguement without the arguement from potential:
-it has to do with what the person just might become, not what they are, or what they are dependant on
It's still going to be torn apart. I've never dealt with somthing illogical that became logical through the spoken word, likely just an excuse. Just type what you say.

Because they see a problem, or just because. Scientists get their idea peer-reviewed (AKA everyone tries to prove them wrong). Unless you restate the arguement without the arguement from potential:

It's still going to be torn apart. I've never dealt with somthing illogical that became logical through the spoken word, likely just an excuse. Just type what you say.
no time dinaverg! i've got a 20 slide powerpoint to finish by tomorrow!
but if i were to talk to you, I'd be able to defend myself and point out more about my views than I can now. I'd need to type 60 wpm and i really cant

no time dinaverg! i've got a 20 slide powerpoint to finish by tomorrow!

...Ummm....okay...I guess.

I do not believe the fetus has rights. I believe the person it will become ( what's all this about "-- maybe -- if they're lucky -- "?) has rights. If there was more than a slight probability that it would not survive birth, i would not have to assume that it will eventually become conscious. Take for example something I read earlier in here. I am 14. I cannot vote. In 4 years, I will almost definetly be able to vote. (barring car accidents, severe food poisoning, etc. *knock on wood*)But right now, I cannot vote. If you apply my point of view to this, you do not get a situation in which the 14-year-old me can vote, but where the 14-year-old is allowed to exist until he is able to.
Anyway, this is my opinion. That,way up there,^ is yours. It is almost impossible for us to really convince each other online, verbal communication is necessary for that. All I want to do is tell people why I think what I do and learn why they think their own way.

To quote my (and likely everyone else's, too) grandfather: opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. You have every right to your opinion. The problem is that it is not support by science, caselaw, or any philosophy pertinent to issues of competing rights in the western world. You could be of the opinion that you'll be president of the US some day, but if you're a brit, you're SOL.

To quote my (and likely everyone else's, too) grandfather: opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. You have every right to your opinion. The problem is that it is not support by science, caselaw, or any philosophy pertinent to issues of competing rights in the western world. You could be of the opinion that you'll be president of the US some day, but if you're a brit, you're SOL.

Indeed. Unless Arnie pulls teh win...

if you also oppose abortion, no matter what the reason, then why are wee arguing? I don't want to outlaw abortion, I already said that somewhere a few pages back. I guess I didn't make it clear enough, it was kind of obscure.

The word you're looking for is unclear. Please stop raping the English language.

Well, let me try to patch some of them up.
i believe that the fetus is the property of the person it will become, and since we cannot be sure it will become a person, we must assume that it will.

Fair enough, then it can use the resources and organs of the person it will become, but not the organs and resources of the person I am.

I mean, even if someone could be right, it isn't going to be me. EVERYBODY'S trying to disprove me in some way. If I come up with some way to re-state my argument, i'll come back. Or if i can supporrt someone else's with a fact. What I believe also has to do with my perception of time (please don't quote that out of context) but I wanted to point a few things out in my argument before I pretty much stop defening it
-It has nothing to do with outlawing abortion
-it really needs to be discussed in speech to be explained properly
-it has to do with what the person just might become, not what they are, or what they are dependant on
-and, since the mother already had some choice in the matter, it doesn't define abortion as an alternative to contraceptives
-to you guys, it might seem illogical, but i see it as having been badly explained. i blame myself for my defeat. Well, it would be my fault anyway...
I just don't have the time to re-explain it the right way
Maybe if I come up with a new way to defend myself, I'll drop a post

What is so nuanced about your argument that written correspondence cannot properly illuminate your opinion?

Indeed. Unless Arnie pulls teh win...

Hell, considering what happened the last time an Austrian immigrant became president of an industrialized nation, I'll shoot him my own damned self if that happens.

Hell, considering what happened the last time an Austrian immigrant became president of an industrialized nation, I'll shoot him my own damned self if that happens.

Hey, now.... that was an isolated incident, and Arnie has been proven without a doubt, to be almost certainly mostly probably not involved in, or trelated to, too deeply, any of 'that kind of thing'..... ;)

Hey, now.... that was an isolated incident, and Arnie has been proven without a doubt, to be almost certainly mostly probably not involved in, or trelated to, too deeply, any of 'that kind of thing'..... ;)


Ahh well, at least he is marginally more aware of his surroundings that Reagan...

What is so nuanced about your argument that written correspondence cannot properly illuminate your opinion?
I'm just not as good in writing as i am in speech, ok? So in order to facilitate my slow typing, i shortened my argument and didn'tdo it right. If i tried to fix it now, you guys would ridicule me more for flip-flopping.

I'm just not as good in writing as i am in speech, ok? So in order to facilitate my slow typing, i shortened my argument and didn'tdo it right. If i tried to fix it now, you guys would ridicule me more for flip-flopping.

Well, in the future, let your blood pressure go down, think out your response, and type it carefully. No one here worth responding to is going to fault you for taking the time to post out a fully formed, well reasoned response. I can tell you from experiance that shooting from the hip tends to leave you with a bullet in the foot.

Also, I'd like to make a friendly observation. Very few people are better at speaking than they are at writing. You might believe that you are, but as you move through life and progress to larger and larger ponds, you will discover that your previous success was due more to your opponents than your skill. You're still young, take the time to hone your writing skills, it will serve you well later in life. There are few places better suited to practicing persuasive writing than a board like this.

I'm just not as good in writing as i am in speech, ok? So in order to facilitate my slow typing, i shortened my argument and didn'tdo it right. If i tried to fix it now, you guys would ridicule me more for flip-flopping.

Eh, he's right, your opponents you got to speak to most likely weren't cream of the crop. If you really did fix your reasoning I wouldn't see any reason to ridicule you, people just usually change to another equally bad arguement. Also, you're on a forum, not instant messaging, you can take your time.

thank god I live in england. I can have all the abortions I want, for free, and no one gives a shit. except I dont have a uterus. goddamn wasted opportunity.

I'm just not as good in writing as i am in speech, ok? So in order to facilitate my slow typing, i shortened my argument and didn'tdo it right. If i tried to fix it now, you guys would ridicule me more for flip-flopping.

Let me just point out, by the way, that very few people ever change their opinions on the forum.

To my way of thinking, changing your opinion in a scenario like this, because you discover that your previous stance was wrong, is a strong gesture... not a mark of weakness.

Well, let me try to patch some of them up.
i believe that the fetus is the property of the person it will become, and since we cannot be sure it will become a person, we must assume that it will.
The problem with this argument is that you can't leave your property wherever you want. If you leave your property in someone else's house, he can remove it.

Say you had a dog. Your dog goes on my property for one reaxson or another. It is well within my rights to remove it from my lawn.

Besides, if there is an abortion, the rights of the person who might become are null and void since the foetus will definitively not become a person now.

thank god I live in england. I can have all the abortions I want, for free, and no one gives a shit. except I dont have a uterus. goddamn wasted opportunity.

Go out and have some fun - get someone pregnant.

I'm just not as good in writing as i am in speech, ok? So in order to facilitate my slow typing, i shortened my argument and didn'tdo it right. If i tried to fix it now, you guys would ridicule me more for flip-flopping.
Like Grave n Idle said, changing your argument in response to reasonable counter-argument is not a sign of weakness. It's part of the reason for having debates like these -- to test the strength and validity of our ideas. If you take some time to read through all of the counter-arguments you've received here, you might try to reword your original argument to withstand our attacks, or you might decide that your original argument was wrong and change your mind. Both are equally intelligent and responsible decisions.

And if you really want to make a clear statement, why don't you write it offline, take as much time as you like to make it as perfect as you can, and then post it? If this thread is dead by then, start a new thread. A well presented argument is worth waiting for.

Only if you choose to think about things morally. I don't. Im a pragmatist, and I understand that my moral system is not one for everyone. The thought process of a woman considering abortion is not really something I can accurately understand. That leaves me with the law.

Legally, a prohibition against abortion except in the case of rape or incest is unenforceable. Any woman could lie and say she had been raped and there would be no way for the government to prove otherwise. Asking the women to provide proof would be a pretty serious infringement upon their rights and it would seriously limit the number of women with legitimate claims of rape who could apply (legallt proving rape is a very difficult thing). That leaves you with three choices: complete prohibition on all abortions (already ruled unconstitutional), abortion on demand (the current state), or a token law which is unenforceable (which virtually guarantees that the law won;t even make it to SCOTUS).

Beyond that, there are more serious issues at hand. Abortion rights are not simply about the right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy. The issue of abortion has serious implications for personal and medical sovereignty rights, as well as issue of personal ownership and the limitations of government power. Even if you feel that abortion is wrong, giving the government the authority to investigate medical procedures, stop ones it disapproves of, violate privacy rights, and tell you what you can do with your body is a bad idea. The implications go to the core of liberty in the western world and the nature of that liberty. If one cannot be secure in one's own body then all of our other rights come into question.

This is the real world, not Sunday school. Every action has consequences and most of those consequences cannot even be imagined at the time that the action is being considered. There are leaders in every country, charismatic people who gain the respect and admiration of the people, who seek to establish tyranny and violate the rights of the people. Every inch you give, every new power you grant, every right you compromise gives the forces of tyranny and totalitarianism one more weapon in their arsenal. Even good leaders do stupid things that violate the rights of the citizen occasionally. Somewhere a line must be drawn.

OK... your points are all pretty good, but they are mostly about rights, and what a gov't role should/shouldn't be. If you look at my post, I was careful to point out that... "Whether government has any role in all of this is another question altogether."

What I posted about was what a person should do. You tried to immediately dismiss what I said by claiming my arguments are only valid if "...you choose to think about things morally. I don't. Im a pragmatist..."

Problem is, you then try to bolster your position by using all sorts of moral judgements: privacy should be respected; tyranny is bad; liberty is good; people's "rights" aught not be violated; etc. Truth is, at the core all of these are moral judgements. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with using these implied judgements in your arguments, I just think you aught to be more honest with yourself and admit what you are doing. I actually believe that moral justification is not only useful, but necessary in any meaningful discussion of important issues.

I happen to mostly agree with the moral assertions you made in your arguments, implicitly or explicitly, and I think that's is why I mostly agree with your positions on what the role of government aught to be. My argument was only about what a woman aught to do, regardless of any legal considerations.

Problem is, you then try to bolster your position by using all sorts of moral judgements: privacy should be respected; tyranny is bad; liberty is good; people's "rights" aught not be violated; etc. Truth is, at the core all of these are moral judgements. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with using these implied judgements in your arguments, I just think you aught to be more honest with yourself and admit what you are doing. I actually believe that moral justification is not only useful, but necessary in any meaningful discussion of important issues.

Ok, let me rephrase. I'm only interested in valid moral stances. Moral judgements based on the law and the basic philosophy of our nation are fine. We have the source material, we have enshrined it in law and constitution. Moral judgements based on religious texts are not welcome.

I happen to mostly agree with the moral assertions you made in your arguments, implicitly or explicitly, and I think that's is why I mostly agree with your positions on what the role of government aught to be. My argument was only about what a woman aught to do, regardless of any legal considerations.

Not to be dismissive, but what you think women ought to do only applies to your uterus and to a non-binding discussion with those who seek your advice. Beyond that, I view any assertion of what someone "ought" to do as veiled tyranny, especially when the OP here dealt with laws being used to find a back-door band on abortions.

Considering the fact that we've got the biggest and best Navy and Air Force, you shouldn't get too comfortable.

Best would be an overstatement, given two of your fighters almost collided with a passenger aircraft recently in UK airspace, due to them flying 2000 ft higher than they were instructed too and then going to the wrong radio frequency etc. Or better yet the two artillery batteries that locked on to each other during Op Telic (op Iraqi freedom or some such name for the Americans) And the sheer number of "friendly fire" incidents involving American forces (attacking British tank columns, shooting down helicopters carrying high ranking NATO officers, bombing your own troops shooting at allied aircraft etc.) its become a bit of a running joke amongst British forces that if your involved in an operation with American forces you should be more worried about being shot by them than the enemy. Also British Infantry generally regard American infantry (with the exception of the US marine corps who are supposedly ok) as being extremely poorly trained and unprofessional, bordering on incompetent.

...We have the source material...

What is your source?

...what you think women ought to do only applies to your uterus and to a non-binding discussion with those who seek your advice...
That's only true if you are a moral relativist. I'm not. I believe that there is actual Truth despite what I, or you, happen to believe. I think we "ought" to do the right thing (and there really is a true, right thing).

"...if your involved in an operation with american forces you should be more worried about being shot by them than the enemy. Also British Infantry generally regard american infantry (with the exception of the US marine corps who are supposedly ok) as being extremly poorly trained and unproffesional, boardering on incompitent.".

I've marked a few of your errors in just a portion of your post... Are we (Americans) to really take this criticism of being "incompitent" (sic) with any seriousness?

What is your source?


That's only true if you are a moral relativist. I'm not. I believe that there is actual Truth despite what I, or you, happen to believe. I think we "ought" to do the right thing (and there really is a true, right thing).
But do you think it's right to others to force do what you think is the right thing?

That's the whole crux of this debate.

Does "ought to do" translate into "ought to be made to do" in your view?

I've marked a few of your errors in just a portion of your post... Are we (Americans) to really take this criticism of being "incompetent" (sic) with any seriousness?

Fair one, typed it in a hurry, just before hitting the sack, hence the errors. That said though, the contents are correct, at least from a British military point of view. In addition the stated incidents are a matter of record and I’d imagine that a web search would probably turn up references to them. As to the "being more afraid of being shot by Americans than by the enemy" part that is actually a fairly common joke within the British armed forces. Its also interesting to point out that the American "Rangers" recorded the worst ever time on both the French foreign legion assault course, and the Royal Regiment of Wales assault course down in that training area that is a little corner of hell (the Cambrians). British infantry generally do not view the Americans as particularly competent, and in competitions such as the Nijmegen marches (Holland), the Cambrian patrol (British Army’s premier Infantry Comp, South Wales which numerous nations take part in), and Westpoints annual infantry competition, the Americans generally get the floor wiped with them. The annual competition at Westpoint is actually nicknamed the Sandhurst cup over here as Sandhurst has never actually NOT won it since its inception. But this is getting a little off track given that this is an abortion debate, my original note was just a rant at a rather arrogant American "Hell yeah we'll just beat the crap out of you with our Navy etc. the biggest and best.... ad nauseum". Oh and just in case, if you note any mistakes in the above please check using English - English rather than American - English as I know full well that this post is not misspelled, (just to head off any anal retentive posts).

What is your source?

We have the constitution, the rule of law, and accumulated precedent.

That's only true if you are a moral relativist. I'm not. I believe that there is actual Truth despite what I, or you, happen to believe. I think we "ought" to do the right thing (and there really is a true, right thing).

Ding ding ding, give this man a cigar. See, here is the problem with absolute truth, no one really ever agrees on much. Beyond that, absolute truth is so often tied into religion that it just makes the whole argument kind of moot. Thats why we have laws. Laws are the Truth in a non-theocratic society.

Those people really do scare me. I'm just glad that the Atlantic separates them from me.


Rub it in, why don't you. :(

If people don't want children than they should use birthcontrol. It's widely available, and easily accesible in most pharmacies and even gas stations... I don't think abortion should be allowed because unless the mother's life is in danger the child can be given for adoption and have a great life.

Fair one, typed it in a hurry, just before hitting the sack, hence the errors. That said though, the contents are correct, at least from a British military point of view... ...British infantry generally do not view the Americans as particularly competent, and in competitions such as the Nijmegen marches (Holland), the Cambrian patrol (British Army’s premier Infantry Comp, South Wales which numerous nations take part in), and Westpoints annual infantry competition, the Americans generally get the floor wiped with them...
OK, sorry if I seemed a bit nit-picky about your post. I know this is a message board, not an English exam. It's just that the mistakes* in that particular post sort of took all the steam out of any points you were trying to make. I think I actually agree with your points, and I surely share your distaste for arrogance. Please don't let the original arrogant ranter color your view of all Americans. There are jerks everywhere, and I certainly don't want his attitude to be taken as representative.

If what you are saying is true (and I have no reason to doubt), then the US has a lot of work to do. I don't think we should settle for doing any less than our best, though I don't really view it as a competition (my army's better than your's!). There are many ways to measure excellence, and size is irrelevant when you are talking about quality. Besides, the better we can become the better we all are for it. Maybe I'm naive, but I feel a strong kinship with the UK and like to think that we are sort of on the same team. I like it when the UK does well, and I feel it when bad things happen to Her.

The annual competition at Westpoint is actually nicknamed the Sandhurst cup over here as Sandhurst has never actually NOT won it since its inception.
Just FYI: West Point's competition, is officially known as The Sandhurst Competition. It has been held for 39 years, and in it's present form for 18. And though you did have a good run (Sandhurst squads won from 1994-2004), last year it was won by the Canadiens. Either way, you should never get too complacent: The US won the Americas Cup for 132 straight years, and just as we were starting to get smug, Dennis Connor lost it for us in 1983. (Curses!)

if you note any mistakes in the above please check using English - English rather than American - ...
*OK. Just can't let that pass. Last time I checked, Americans speak English, not "American", and the things I highlighted are considered mistakes in both the US and in the UK.

...We have the source material, we have enshrined it in law and constitution...
What is your source?
We have the constitution, the rule of law, and accumulated precedent.
OK. First you say that you have "enshrined" the source material in law and constitution, and then you turn around and say that the source material is the law and constitution. Which is it?

The paper, or the words written on it, can't be the source for the beliefs which they express. It's obvious to me that the beliefs are something quite separate, and must predate the moment they were committed to paper using words.

I'm wondering what is the source of your "valid moral stance" (your words), not where they happen to be written down.

OK... your points are all pretty good, but they are mostly about rights, and what a gov't role should/shouldn't be. If you look at my post, I was careful to point out that... "Whether government has any role in all of this is another question altogether."

What I posted about was what a person should do. You tried to immediately dismiss what I said by claiming my arguments are only valid if "...you choose to think about things morally. I don't. Im a pragmatist..."

Problem is, you then try to bolster your position by using all sorts of moral judgements: privacy should be respected; tyranny is bad; liberty is good; people's "rights" aught not be violated; etc. Truth is, at the core all of these are moral judgements. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with using these implied judgements in your arguments, I just think you aught to be more honest with yourself and admit what you are doing. I actually believe that moral justification is not only useful, but necessary in any meaningful discussion of important issues.

I happen to mostly agree with the moral assertions you made in your arguments, implicitly or explicitly, and I think that's is why I mostly agree with your positions on what the role of government aught to be. My argument was only about what a woman aught to do, regardless of any legal considerations.

The issue you are going to run into here, is that you are quibbling over terminology.

What you are saying are 'morals' here, can also be described as logical results of our civilisation... could be described as social pragmatism.

Is a 'right to privacy' a moral option? You might argue that... but I'd say it is one of those little conveniences that allows members of a society to slide by each other every day.... one of the types of 'grease' in the 'gears' of our culture.

I've marked a few of your errors in just a portion of your post... Are we (Americans) to really take this criticism of being "incompitent" (sic) with any seriousness?

If the best argument you can come up with to defend against this attack... is spelling and grammar, you MIGHT want to re-think your stance.

OK. First you say that you have "enshrined" the source material in law and constitution, and then you turn around and say that the source material is the law and constitution. Which is it?

The paper, or the words written on it, can't be the source for the beliefs which they express. It's obvious to me that the beliefs are something quite separate, and must predate the moment they were committed to paper using words.

I'm wondering what is the source of your "valid moral stance" (your words), not where they happen to be written down.

The words can't be the source of the beliefs which they express, eh? What about the bible? Wait, I know the answer, God wrote it, he is the source, blah blah blah.


Oughts based on opinions that come from God aren't welcome, we gave theocracy and divine right a shot, turned out that those who claimed to be God's servants were just as corrupt and dishonest as every other tyrant. Now, we build our society for the benefit of the individual. So, when you get down to brass and tacks, morality comes from the law, the other way around is an abomination in any free society.

I see where you're going. Where does the constitution come from? Well, it comes from a group of men that became so angry with the state of things in their society that they felt the only redress they had left was to shoot police (and eventually soldiers) until the King who claimed dominion over them gave up trying to bring them to heel. Once they had kicked the royals off the continent they set about trying to build a new society, and the rules they set are the constitution. Where did their beliefs come from? Well, a great variety of sources, some religious, most not. If you look at the logic and the philosophy of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence you see that the secular elements won out. Beyond that, you have case law and precedent which, again, shows the secular elements winning. This is a society built on laws. Those laws are guided by the values enshrined in the Constitution which, in turn, stem from a combination of reason classical liberal philosophy.

So, where does that leave abortion? Like all things in a free society the morality comes from the freedom to make the choice, not which choice is made.

*OK. Just can't let that pass. Last time I checked, Americans speak English, not "American", and the things I highlighted are considered mistakes in both the US and in the UK.

OK I bow to your greater knowledge on certain points. I should probably have thought twice about my original post, as it was obviously a tad inflammatory. Just a note on the final point though, whilst you were correct on the errors in my first post (which I freely admit) my statement regarding English - English and the so called American - English (refer to Microsoft for THAT name) there are actually a whole host of differences in spelling, use of language names etc. etc. between the English generally spoken through out the UK and the Commonwealth and that spoken in America. Generally these are referred to as Americanisms over here. A simple example of spelling would be centre and center and an example of use of language would be pants and pants i.e. in the US taken to mean trousers and in the UK taken to mean underwear. The last one did cause some amusing situations in the UK, notably when a US company put notices in a UK office requesting that female members of staff refrain from wearing pants to work. Other examples would be knickers, aluminium (US Aluminum), but the point of my reference to this was to prevent any further nit picking over spelling. The sited examples above are very basic ones as I really cannot be bothered going through the dictionary, but you should look into it as there are a surprising number of differences. Anyway hopefully this should end this rather long winded side track, and hopefully I haven't caused too much animosity. Oh and I went back and corrected my original post ;).

OK. First you say that you have "enshrined" the source material in law and constitution, and then you turn around and say that the source material is the law and constitution. Which is it?

The paper, or the words written on it, can't be the source for the beliefs which they express. It's obvious to me that the beliefs are something quite separate, and must predate the moment they were committed to paper using words.

I'm wondering what is the source of your "valid moral stance" (your words), not where they happen to be written down.
Yes, first the founders of this nation developed the idea that they didn't want churches dictating law and that they didn't want government dictating prayer, and then they wrote that bit about the government neither abridging nor establishing religion. As a result, religion gets to practice freely without government interference AND all US laws are secular.

So, obviously, the "source for the beliefs" is the combined thought processes of the men who created this government and wrote the constitution that runs it. Their ideas are ideas with which I happen to agree, and therefore I don't care where they got them from. I assume that, since they were very smart men, they combined quite a lot of information in order to create new ideas of their own. That's what free people who think for themselves do. And since we have seen that their ideas are good enough to build and sustain a powerful nation, I am not going to require them to reach ever farther back into the past for some ultimate outside authority to justify their thought process or their morals to me.

Just like I don't need to justify my morals to you.

...when you get down to brass and tacks, morality comes from the law, the other way around is an abomination in any free society."
If morality comes from the law, we can just change the law to make anything we want moral. How about murder? Next theft! Maybe throw rape in there somewhere too!
I think this line of reasoning is absurd and the real abomination would be to follow it throught to it's natural conclusion.
Morality must be found outside the law. The laws merely codifythe morality of the society that enacts them.

If morality comes from the law, we can just change the law to make anything we want moral. How about murder? Next theft! Maybe throw rape in there somewhere too!
I think this line of reasoning is absurd and the real abomination would be to follow it throught to it's natural conclusion.
Morality must be found outside the law. The laws merely codifythe morality of the society that enacts them.

Agreed. Laws are enforced from without. Morality is enforced from within. Morals that are imposed upon other people have no meaning.

OK I bow to your greater knowledge on certain points. I should probably have thought twice about my original post, as it was obviously a tad inflammatory. Just a note on the final point though, whilst you were correct on the errors in my first post (which I freely admit) my statement regarding English - English and the so called American - English (refer to Microsoft for THAT name) there are actually a whole host of differences in spelling, use of language names etc. etc. between the English generally spoken through out the UK and the Commonwealth and that spoken in America. Generally these are referred to as Americanisms over here. A simple example of spelling would be centre and center and an example of use of language would be pants and pants i.e. in the US taken to mean trousers and in the UK taken to mean underwear. The last one did cause some amusing situations in the UK, notably when a US company put notices in a UK office requesting that female members of staff refrain from wearing pants to work. Other examples would be knickers, aluminium (US Aluminum), but the point of my reference to this was to prevent any further nit picking over spelling. The sited examples above are very basic ones as I really cannot be bothered going through the dictionary, but you should look into it as there are a surprising number of differences. Anyway hopefully this should end this rather long winded side track, and hopefully I haven't caused too much animosity. Oh and I went back and corrected my original post ;).Truce! No animosity at all. :) I never said there weren't differences, just that we speak "English" here too. I actually think the differences I know about are pretty interesting. There are some here who pronounce aluminum with an "i" (aluminium), and I always thought that was just a mistake. Now I know where it comes from.

...I don't need to justify my morals to you.On this much, at least, we agree. You need only justify them to yourself & your conscience.

Agreed. Laws are enforced from without. Morality is enforced from within. Morals that are imposed upon other people have no meaning.I don't quite agree. I think that morals that are imposed upon other people are called "laws."

(the following added)
Actually, after reading that, it's not quite right. Morals imposed upon other people can be lots of things, most of them bad, but I still think that laws are a method of codifying, and imposing, the agreed upon morals of the society. Laws are morals codified.

Morality must be found outside the law. The laws merely codifythe morality of the society that enacts them.
Morality is something that the individual has to make up for themselves. What people consider good and evil, right and wrong is up to the individual alone.

Laws are merely an attempt by a government either claiming to or actually representing the people to find a common denominator so we can all live together. Usually by what the majority thinks is a good idea, and by some sort of underlying ideological guidelines (in the US, that is the primacy of the individual).

In other words, murder, theft and rape are considered by most if not all people to be wrong. Therefore, it is illegal. Furthermore, they are violations of other individuals' lives or property.

Abortion is nothing like that. Most don't consider it wrong (no matter how vocal the minority may be), and the only violation of the individual would be if you outlawed it and took that choice from the woman.

On this much, at least, we agree. You need only justify them to yourself & your conscience.
Which I do with ease.

Morality is something that the individual has to make up for themselves. What people consider good and evil, right and wrong is up to the individual alone.

Laws are merely an attempt by a government either claiming to or actually representing the people to find a common denominator so we can all live together. Usually by what the majority thinks is a good idea, and by some sort of underlying ideological guidelines (in the US, that is the primacy of the individual).

In other words, murder, theft and rape are considered by most if not all people to be wrong. Therefore, it is illegal. Furthermore, they are violations of other individuals' lives or property.

Abortion is nothing like that. Most don't consider it wrong (no matter how vocal the minority may be), and the only violation of the individual would be if you outlawed it and took that choice from the woman.
True.

Adding to just one of your very true points: Few laws are actually moral laws. Most laws are technical rules that are designed to avoid conflict or unfairness or to remedy conflict/unfairness in social interactions. So, for every law against murder, there are hundreds of laws governing property, employment, money, etc., etc. Most of these exist in the hope of preventing murder. :)

I don't quite agree. I think that morals that are imposed upon other people are called "laws."

(the following added)
Actually, after reading that, it's not quite right. Morals imposed upon other people can be lots of things, most of them bad, but I still think that laws are a method of codifying, and imposing, the agreed upon morals of the society. Laws are morals codified.

I would say that most of my thinking in this case stems from "A Clockwork Orange". Rendering people incapable of commiting immoral acts doesn't make them moral people. By passing morals as legislature, that appears to be the aim: making people moral by rendering them incapable of commiting immorality.

I guess in the case of these people the Stem cells that were supposed to be the brain became a bible instead.

To me, until it can think, it isn't a Baby.

I kind of agree.

On this much, at least, we agree. You need only justify them to yourself & your conscience.
Though it occurs to me: If you really agree that people don't have to justify their morals to you or anyone else, then why did you question the source of someone else's moral stance on issues?

EDIT: In other words, if people don't have to justify their morals, why even ask where morals come from?

Though it occurs to me: If you really agree that people don't have to justify their morals to you or anyone else, then why did you question the source of someone else's moral stance on issues?

EDIT: In other words, if people don't have to justify their morals, why even ask where morals come from?
That is a very good point there.

Rendering people incapable of commiting immoral acts doesn't make them moral people.
The point is that there are no immoral people. There is no definitive wrong, because it's all up to the individual.

I learned that a while ago on these very pages in dozens of discussions I had about whether or not taxation is theft. It came down to a question of morality, of opinion - there was no right or wrong.

Extrapolate the same thing to us: Is an Aztec Priest immoral because he saves his people by sacrificing a 15 year old boy? Is a Roman woman immoral because she's so bored that she has an orgy with an entire barnyard?

You can't make a person a moral person because they already are. They have their own individual set of morals, and who am I to tell which one is the correct one?

The only thing we can do is make sure that nobody gets hurt - or to quote the age-old phrase:
"Your rights end where those of others begin."

The point is that there are no immoral people. There is no definitive wrong, because it's all up to the individual.

I learned that a while ago on these very pages in dozens of discussions I had about whether or not taxation is theft. It came down to a question of morality, of opinion - there was no right or wrong.

Extrapolate the same thing to us: Is an Aztec Priest immoral because he saves his people by sacrificing a 15 year old boy? Is a Roman woman immoral because she's so bored that she has an orgy with an entire barnyard?

You can't make a person a moral person because they already are. They have their own individual set of morals, and who am I to tell which one is the correct one?

The only thing we can do is make sure that nobody gets hurt - or to quote the age-old phrase:
"Your rights end where those of others begin."
This is why I tend to reject morals arguments.

I prefer ethics. Ethics are only a little less subjective than morals, but they have the advantage of being consistent and a bit more impersonal. They're really just sets of rules, and a person can easily make up their own, as long as they follow them. An ethical person is at least consistent, whether they personally are good or evil, so you at least know where you stand with them and how to deal with them. Unethical people, no matter how moral, can never be trusted because they won't follow rules even of their own making.

And isn't that what society really is -- a set of generally agreed upon rules that people choose to follow for mutual benefit?

If morality comes from the law, we can just change the law to make anything we want moral. How about murder? Next theft! Maybe throw rape in there somewhere too!
I think this line of reasoning is absurd and the real abomination would be to follow it throught to it's natural conclusion.
Morality must be found outside the law. The laws merely codifythe morality of the society that enacts them.

Morality is defined by the society. Several societies HAVE had 'moral' rape... one only has to look at the Viking conquerors, or the Hebrew's in Canaan.

The point is that there are no immoral people. There is no definitive wrong, because it's all up to the individual.

I learned that a while ago on these very pages in dozens of discussions I had about whether or not taxation is theft. It came down to a question of morality, of opinion - there was no right or wrong.

Extrapolate the same thing to us: Is an Aztec Priest immoral because he saves his people by sacrificing a 15 year old boy? Is a Roman woman immoral because she's so bored that she has an orgy with an entire barnyard?

You can't make a person a moral person because they already are. They have their own individual set of morals, and who am I to tell which one is the correct one?

The only thing we can do is make sure that nobody gets hurt - or to quote the age-old phrase:
"Your rights end where those of others begin."

I think we're on different issues here. The issue as I see it is whether or not laws can be used to create morals. Morals are accepted as a matter of personal choice. It would be like someone pointing a gun at your head, saying "Don't move!" and then concluding that you respected them as a human being.

That is a very good point there.
Thanks. :) It just irks me when people start carrying on about the source of morals. It always implies that one source is better than another. So, if I take all my ideas of good and evil from the mysticism of ancient Egypt and because of that I believe it is wrong to commit murder, does that mean I have no morals because ancient Egypt is the wrong source, according to some people? :rolleyes:

In other words, murder, theft and rape are considered by most if not all people to be wrong. Therefore, it is illegal.My point exactly: Laws are the codified morals of a society (at least in a democracy)
Abortion is nothing like that. Most don't consider it wrong (no matter how vocal the minority may be), and the only violation of the individual would be if you outlawed it and took that choice from the woman.Not true. Most don't consider it the government's business, while at the same time agreeing that it is usualy wrong:
A December poll conducted by Zogby International, a respected nonpartisan polling firm, confirms that, by a 53% to 36% margin, the public supports the statement, "Abortion destroys a human life and is manslaughter. (http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=6982)

Though it occurs to me: If you really agree that people don't have to justify their morals to you or anyone else, then why did you question the source of someone else's moral stance on issues?

EDIT: In other words, if people don't have to justify their morals, why even ask where morals come from?The poster had said that the "source materials" are enshrined in the constitution & laws, and later said that the constitution & laws are the source materials. That doesn't make any sense. I merely pointed out that the documents that contain beliefs are not themselves the beliefs which they contain. I then asked where the beliefs came from. I asked because I was curious, and because I think it sparks a good line of thought. I never, not for a second, asked anyone to justify their morals.

Morality is defined by the society. Several societies HAVE had 'moral' rape... one only has to look at the Viking conquerors, or the Hebrew's in Canaan.You are making my point: Making something a law doesn't make it moral. The morals have to come from somewhere else. Just because a society decides to make rape legal doesn't make it moral.

You are making my point: Making something a law doesn't make it moral. The morals have to come from somewhere else. Just because a society decides to make rape legal doesn't make it moral.

I said nothing about law... the 'morals' of a society are peculiar to that society, in that place, at that time.

What may be 'immoral' in your culture, may be 'moral' in mine.

Insisting that morals have soem 'root' beyond the societies they come from, is to argue the need for a 'god' or 'god'-type being... some arbiter above mortal morality. And, that is where you run into problems... because an all powerful god would imply a universal moral code, and one is not seen, and has never been seen.

Example - the Christian church considers the Hebrew 'god' to be their own... and yet, 'Christian morality' differs from the Hebrew morality recorded in Hebrew scripture... for example: it would be considered 'immoral' in modern Christian society to wish for your enemies to have their children dashed against rocks; it would be considered 'immoral' to take slaves, or execute prisoners; It would be considered 'immoral' to rape the women of your conquered enemies, or to ride farm machinery over their infants.

If morality comes from the law, we can just change the law to make anything we want moral. How about murder? Next theft! Maybe throw rape in there somewhere too!
I think this line of reasoning is absurd and the real abomination would be to follow it throught to it's natural conclusion.
Morality must be found outside the law. The laws merely codifythe morality of the society that enacts them.

Interesting use of creative quoting.

See, if you are going to look for external sources of morality, you have two choices. The first choice is to look to religion, the ethics and edicts of much disputed deities. As I have said again and again, I do not find that to be acceptable. The second choice you have, and the one to which the west has turned, is to look towards philosophy.

The essential core of classical liberalism (the point of view which has been most influential in American history) is fairly simple: allow the individual to be free so long as their freedom does no concrete damage to the freedom of another. Sometimes that can get sticky, but it is generally a fairly simple equation to follow.

Now, you have accused me of being willing to allow murder and theft into our legal system by changing the laws, but don't all societies do that? Even in the most individualistic nation on earth we have justafiable homicide. We allow murder when it fits into the system, when it is acceptable. What about theft? google the words "eminant domain" or "adverse possession."

Even beyond that, look at the document that acts as both the moral authority of our legal system and the basis of our laws. The constitution is not easily changed. While it is theoretically possible to legalize outright murder, actually doing so would require a radical and significant shift in the makeup and moral opinion of our society. You see my explaination of our laws justifying themselves as some form of dangerous moral relativism because you seek an external moral absolute. That is your right as someone of faith. I, however, am more of a pragmatist.

I don't believe in an external moral absolute, I only believe in a brutal and uncaring world. What morals we find are internal, they come from the work and minds of mankind. I feel that this fact makes them even more precious, as morality represents mankind not conforming to some great cosmic plan, but refusing to be an animal and transcending our base natures. Being moral creatures in a world that has never seen such a thing is being a race of creators, and that is a far more wonderful and fantastic accomplishment than simply bowing to the whims of an archetype shaking it's fist at you from thousands of years away.

Most people who call themselves "Pro Life" are also Pro Death Penalty. If you can't see the problem with that, there's something wrong with your brain.

"Pro Life"=Anti Choice=Anti Freedom=Unamerican.

No one has the right to tell another person what they can't or can do to their own body. NO ONE.

And if something like this is ever going to be regulated, only women should be allowed to vote on the decision, men's opinions have no place in the debate, as it does not affect them.

p.s. and before alot of you start jumping to conclusions I am a man, and I am a Catholic. If I can keep my eyes on my own business and leave everyone else alone to theirs, then so can you.

I refuse to read the entirety of this thread, as it is FAR too long. I think I just want to gwet my opinion out there. I am pro-choice. Pro-lifers both amuse and annoy me. Although, truth be told, I think that calling me "Pro-killing babies" might be more accurate than "Pro-choice." Not to say that a collection of cells is a child. I just hate kids.

:D

Now, you have accused me of being willing to allow murder and theft into our legal system by changing the laws, but don't all societies do that? Even in the most individualistic nation on earth we have justafiable homicide. We allow murder when it fits into the system, when it is acceptable. What about theft? google the words "eminant domain" or "adverse possession."I didn't accuse you of being willing to allow any such thing. I only pointed out that it doesn't really make sense to say that morality comes from the law, because that would mean we could then change the law to anything we wanted to be moral. It doesn't work like that. I say that there is something external to the law that defines morality. For example, it is always wrong to murder* people, torture babies, rape your buddie's wife, etc. These are extreme examples, but they only illustrate that some things are wrong regardless of what the law, or any given society, happens to say. By the way, I don't believe there has ever been a society that has said that any of those are good things, which is support for my contention that they exist somewhere outside of society. We don't get to make morality up, but it's up to us to try to live up to what we know to be moral. Just so there's no confusion, I'm not accusing you of wanting to do or to allow any of those things, they are just examples of things that are immoral.

*("Justifiable homocide," by definition, is not murder.)

Even beyond that, look at the document that acts as both the moral authority of our legal system and the basis of our laws. The constitution is not easily changed. While it is theoretically possible to legalize outright murder, actually doing so would require a radical and significant shift in the makeup and moral opinion of our society. You see my explaination of our laws justifying themselves as some form of dangerous moral relativism because you seek an external moral absolute. That is your right as someone of faith. I, however, am more of a pragmatist.The constitution is the basis of our law, but it is not our moral authority. Rather, it's authority is derived from our morality.
I don't believe in an external moral absolute, I only believe in a brutal and uncaring world. What morals we find are internal, they come from the work and minds of mankind. I feel that this fact makes them even more precious, as morality represents mankind not conforming to some great cosmic plan, but refusing to be an animal and transcending our base natures. Being moral creatures in a world that has never seen such a thing is being a race of creators, and that is a far more wonderful and fantastic accomplishment than simply bowing to the whims of an archetype shaking it's fist at you from thousands of years away.I understand what you are saying, but I just can't agree. If our only source of authority is ourselves, then it is impossible to transcend "our base nature," or to fall below it, to even call it base, or to recognize the virtue of transcending it. We could only be "what we are." How could we be otherwise?

I didn't accuse you of being willing to allow any such thing. I only pointed out that it doesn't really make sense to say that morality comes from the law, because that would mean we could then change the law to anything we wanted to be moral. It doesn't work like that. I say that there is something external to the law that defines morality. For example, it is always wrong to murder* people, torture babies, rape your buddie's wife, etc. These are extreme examples, but they only illustrate that some things are wrong regardless of what the law, or any given society, happens to say. By the way, I don't believe there has ever been a society that has said that any of those are good things, which is support for my contention that they exist somewhere outside of society. We don't get to make morality up, but it's up to us to try to live up to what we know to be moral. Just so there's no confusion, I'm not accusing you of wanting to do or to allow any of those things, they are just examples of things that are immoral.

*("Justifiable homocide," by definition, is not murder.)

You argue that there are great external moral truths, but I have some trouble with that claim. Animals, even those very closely related to us, are routinely viscious and cruel. Murder is known to virtually all of the great apes and aggressive infanticide as a strategy for removing the children of competing males is well documented in chimapnzee communities. What makes us different? A social structure made more complicated by a slightly more evolved brain? A greater accumulation of knowledge stemming from language? A soul?

As for moral absolutes in this world, I can point to examples of virtually any crime you can name that are considered moral by their society. Raping your neighbor's wife? Under certain circumstances thats fine in rural Pakistan, they even have Sharia courts to hand down the sentance. After all, in a society where women are property and honor is everything, what better way to punish a family for devaluing the property of another than the rape of their women. Torturing babies? Take a gander at "female circumcision" in Africa, ok, so generally it isn't babies, just children, but I'd consider that even worse. Murdering people? How many regimes in history have murdered innocents? The 20th century alone has probably claimed more than 100 million lives in the name of ethnic cleansing, and thats only considering people who actually died. Rapes, maimings, and assaults have been suffered by many more.

All of these things are terrible, and I find them to be morally repugnant. I feel that any society that engages in such behavior is beneath me, I feel that they are savage, but that doesn't make them go away. How can moral absolutes exist in a world where entire societies have embraced such horrors? You might call these examples extreme, but they are not the actions of isolated individuals but of entire cultures. Where does that leave moral absolutes?

The constitution is the basis of our law, but it is not our moral authority. Rather, it's authority is derived from our morality.

Honestly, what is the difference? We hold people to the standards of our laws, they are raised to understand them, the constitution is held in higher esteem than most holy books. More to the point, the constitution is an example of our changing morality. When it was first written, slavery was accepted practice. Some people believed so strongly that africans were inhuman chattle that they were willing to go to war to protect their right to own people. The war didn't end those beliefs, and neither did a shift in the law. The constitution changed, the rules changed, and eventually the morality of society came in line. Today, you would be hardpressed to find someone who would support the owning of another human being.

So, what caused the shift?

I understand what you are saying, but I just can't agree. If our only source of authority is ourselves, then it is impossible to transcend "our base nature," or to fall below it, to even call it base, or to recognize the virtue of transcending it. We could only be "what we are." How could we be otherwise?

By evolving. Human beings do not need a God to elevate them.

Yes. I see. But your forgetting. When you had sex, you made your decision that you would have sex. Pregnancy and birth are consequences of sex. People are not free to choose the consequences of their actions, it is an unchanging fact.

Aaaah, here we come to the crux of the matter. Consequences. You want to control women regarding their sexual movements by ensuring that as a penalty for having sex, you become pregnant, never mind condoms, birth control, morning after pills, etc, etc. You want pregnancy as a punishment.

When you can give birth to a kid of your own, maybe you'll have a bit more weight to your argument. But in actuality, you wouldn't. Because you'd be advocating behavioral slavery.

"I don't agree with your views so you MUST follow mine. Or else!"

Ignoring the biological issues in such an operation, how'd you like it if it became mandatory if men became required by law to have a womb surgically implanted and forced to carry a child to term if they slept around or just slept with anyone for that matter that resulted in conception.

Seems only fair.

It's a trap!

http://elitemrp.net/iat/previews.htm