Abortion: Yes or No?

[Valley Oak]

Is abortion a morally acceptable practice? Is it murder? Should women have access to abortion? Under any circumstances? How late, if at all?

Although there are many questions surrounding this issue, the poll will be limited to a simple 'yes' or 'no' answer from participants.

You may write in your own option, if you wish.

Edward

[AnnaLisaW]

The decision to have an abortion is a deeply personal one. Maybe it is murder. Maybe some fathers think they are protecting their unborn children. Here's something to think about:
If a person comes into my home and threatens me and my loved ones with harm, do I have the right to remove him by any means necessary? How so when that person enters my body? Was it rape, incest, coercion? With our legal system, we cannot ask a woman to prove how she got pregnant before we allow her to seek assistance. If it's not my home; if it's not my body; it's not my decision.

What is the father's choice? Make sure the woman wants your baby BEFORE you have sex. If you don't want a child, don't let her get pregnant. The male chooses first; he makes his choice at conception.

[Valley Oak]

Dear Anna,

I very strongly support a woman's right to choose. I also support abortions being paid for publicly so they are 100% free to any woman, especially the poor, who cannot afford it and often end up giving birth to a rapist's child or a simple accident (we all have accidents when it comes to sex).

Any unplanned pregnancy, especially one that results from rape or incest, is nothing more than a parasite and should be treated as such: elimination.

In Sisterhood/Brotherhood,

Edward


The decision to have an abortion is a deeply personal one. Maybe it is murder. Maybe some fathers think they are protecting their unborn children. Here's something to think about:
If a person comes into my home and threatens me and my loved ones with harm, do I have the right to remove him by any means necessary? How so when that person enters my body? Was it rape, incest, coercion? With our legal system, we cannot ask a woman to prove how she got pregnant before we allow her to seek assistance. If it's not my home; if it's not my body; it's not my decision.

What is the father's choice? Make sure the woman wants your baby BEFORE you have sex. If you don't want a child, don't let her get pregnant. The male chooses first; he makes his choice at conception.

[OrchardDweller]

Why should abortions be paid for publicly? You mean with taxpayers' dollars? Do you think it's fair to make others, who might feel deeply that abortion is wrong, pay for someone else's abortion?

How is a woman getting pregnant from having sex an "accident" that should be "eliminated" like a "parasite". You think maybe that's what nature intended; you have sex and then sometimes you get pregnant!

Technically some would think abortion to be murder, considering that a foetus has legal right, yes.
Morally, well, that would depend entirely on one's morals..

Respectfully,
The parasite that got away



Dear Anna,

I very strongly support a woman's right to choose. I also support abortions being paid for publicly so they are 100% free to any woman, especially the poor, who cannot afford it and often end up giving birth to a rapist's child or a simple accident (we all have accidents when it comes to sex).

Any unplanned pregnancy, especially one that results from rape or incest, is nothing more than a parasite and should be treated as such: elimination.

In Sisterhood/Brotherhood,

Edward

[Valley Oak]

Are you the result of a rape or incest?

Edward


Why should abortions be paid for publicly? You mean with taxpayers' dollars? Do you think it's fair to make others, who might feel deeply that abortion is wrong, pay for someone else's abortion?

How is a woman getting pregnant from having sex an "accident" that should be "eliminated" like a "parasite". You think maybe that's what nature intended; you have sex and then sometimes you get pregnant!

Technically some would think abortion to be murder, considering that a foetus has legal right, yes.
Morally, well, that would depend entirely on one's morals..

Respectfully,
The parasite that got away

[OrchardDweller]

Not that I'm aware of. I was certainly "unplanned" though. My mother, who already had 2 children, was well into her forties when she discovered she was pregnant. And she had another "accident" (my sister) 3 years later!


Are you the result of a rape or incest?

Edward

[Valley Oak]

If you are so against abortion then why don't you vote against it in this poll?


Not that I'm aware of. I was certainly "unplanned" though. My mother, who already had 2 children, was well into her forties when she discovered she was pregnant. And she had another "accident" 3 years later!

[OrchardDweller]

I agree with Anna, that abortion is a deeply personal choice. Therefore I cannot vote yes or no on your poll. I mean, allowed by whom? The government? I feel the government has no authority to either ban or 'allow' (fund) abortion.

What made me respond to you is your choice of language when you say that any unwanted pregnancy is a parasite to be eliminated. Some might disagree.
Personally I find it disrespectful to Life itself.


If you are so against abortion then why don't you vote against it in this poll?

[Valley Oak]

Truth is that you are not being forthright about your principles. You speak as if you were a "closet anti-choicer."



I agree with Anna, that abortion is a deeply personal choice. Therefore I cannot vote yes or no on your poll. I mean, allowed by whom? The government? I feel the government has no authority to either ban or 'allow' (fund) abortion.

What made me respond to you is your choice of language when you say that any unwanted pregnancy is a parasite to be eliminated. Some might disagree.
Personally I find it disrespectful to Life itself.

[OrchardDweller]

Truth is I cannot and will not decide for someone else that abortion is right or wrong. What I think about it personally doesn't matter.
I most definitely feel that the government has no business getting involved in this issue, i.e. a federal ban on or funding of abortion. If that's the choice I'm given, I say that's a false choice. There are other ways.


Truth is that you are not being forthright about your principles. You speak as if you were a "closet anti-choicer."

[Valley Oak]

You speak in riddles. Your "other ways" sound a lot like giving the baby up for adoption (after the mother carried the unwanted parasite for 9 fucking months).

Fact is that we live in a country with laws and people like you and I pass those laws. If you want to play the game of "I won't make that decisions for anyone else" then go right ahead but you sound like Peter Pan becuase you refuse to deal with reality. The law is the law and the law is very, very real, whether you like it or not.

My position is clear:
A woman has a right to choose and it should be funded, guaranteed, and protected by the government, especially for poor women who cannot afford an abortion!

Edward



Truth is I cannot and will not decide for someone else that abortion is right or wrong. What I think about it personally doesn't matter.
I most definitely feel that the government has no business getting involved in this issue, i.e. a federal ban on or funding of abortion. If that's the choice I'm given, I say that's a false choice. There are other ways.

[ThePhiant]

Well OD, roble still considers you a parasite
he hasn't called your mother a whore yet, but who knows.............
what other choices do you have a mind?


Truth is I cannot and will not decide for someone else that abortion is right or wrong. What I think about it personally doesn't matter.
I most definitely feel that the government has no business getting involved in this issue, i.e. a federal ban on or funding of abortion. If that's the choice I'm given, I say that's a false choice. There are other ways.

[ThePhiant]

you are contradicting yourself.
a country has laws, yes
but we don't have rights outside those laws
only as a result of those laws
so don't forget people change, laws change



You speak in riddles. Your "other ways" sound a lot like giving the baby up for adoption (after the mother carried the unwanted parasite for 9 fucking months).

Fact is that we live in a country with laws and people like you and I pass those laws. If you want to play the game of "I won't make that decisions for anyone else" then go right ahead but you sound like Peter Pan becuase you refuse to deal with reality. The law is the law and the law is very, very real, whether you like it or not.

My position is clear:
A woman has a right to choose and it should be funded, guaranteed, and protected by the government, especially for poor women who cannot afford an abortion!

Edward

[Valley Oak]

I'm not clear on the "contradiction" you say you have observed. If you care to, please elaborate.

I will try to give some response to what you said. OD is wimping out on giving a straightforward and honest reply. He is against abortion but is afraid to say so. Anyone who appreciates the fact that any female has a fundamental right to an abortion does not beat around the bush the way he does. But at the same time he doesn't have the courage to stand up and say out loud that he is against abortion, like most anti-choice people do.

I apologize if I have indeed called him a "parasite." That's are strong word. I was trying to get a point across when I used the metaphor of a parasite and he took it personally because apparently, if I remember OD's message correctly (and maybe I don't) he said that he was unplanned.

It was perhaps this that he was referring to but that seems like a quibble to me. I might have to go back and edit that original message of mine, the one that OD responded to.

Indeed, OD's mother, it seems at least, made the decision to keep the child once she learned that she had become pregnant. But the important point here is that OD's mom (apparently) had no desire to try to abort the child. But we would need OD's confirmation on this to be sure (if he knows it and is willing to be honest about it).

No, Phiant, I will not call OD's mother a whore.

Edward



you are contradicting yourself.
a country has laws, yes
but we don't have rights outside those laws
only as a result of those laws
so don't forget people change, laws change

[OrchardDweller]

You speak in riddles. Your "other ways" sound a lot like giving the baby up for adoption (after the mother carried the unwanted parasite for 9 fucking months).

Well, that's one option. Another would be prevention through education and birth control. Still another would be for people who strongly feel that abortion should be funded, to organize, and start a private fund, maybe together with pro-abortion doctors, to provide abortions for free or at a reduced cost for those who otherwise couldn't afford it. This way, those who believe abortions should be funded can fund it themselves, and the people who are opposed to abortion are not forced to fund it with their tax dollar.

Leave the out the middleman (the govt) - it's not cost effective, they are inefficient, and they are corrupt.


Fact is that we live in a country with laws and people like you and I pass those laws. If you want to play the game of "I won't make that decisions for anyone else" then go right ahead but you sound like Peter Pan becuase you refuse to deal with reality. The law is the law and the law is very, very real, whether you like it or not.

I am aware of laws, Edward. That does not mean I agree with all laws or that all laws are necessary. I believe that abortion is a personal issue, not an issue for the federal government. I believe an all-encompassing ruling such as Roe v. Wade is dangerous, considering it could be overturned. Then where will the people who want to have an abortion be? It should be a decision between the individual and her doctor, without involvement from the government.


My position is clear:
A woman has a right to choose and it should be funded, guaranteed, and protected by the government, especially for poor women who cannot afford an abortion!

I believe that my position is clear as well: abortion is a personal issue, not an issue for the federal government. I do not believe that it should be funded by the government because "funded by the goverment" actually means funded by American tax payers, a great number of whom are against abortion.

By the way, where are they going to get this money for the government to fund abortions? Are you aware that we have a 9 trillion dollar debt, with 70 trillion due in entitlements? Are you aware that we are currently borrowing 2.5 billion dollars a day from the Chinese and Japanese, just to fund our current bloated government and their endeavors? Our economy and currency are on the verge of collapse. Food and energy costs are sky rocketing, and one out of ten in Sonoma County aren't able to pay their mortgage anymore. I think people who believe that the government can just keep printing money and taxing people are the Peter Pan's who don't deal with reality.

[AnnaLisaW]

It is possible to be Pro-Choice and Anti-Abortion.
A woman can CHOOSE not to have an abortion but still allow another the RIGHT to make her own choice.

As far as paying for it goes, I don't have a problem with my taxes going to end unwanted pregnancies that would end up on public assistance for the next 18 years (or longer if the child is not healthy and well-raised.) HMO's and insurance companies would rather pay for an abortion than a pregnancy so only the uninsured use public funds for abortions.

[ThePhiant]

:Yinyangv:


I'm not clear on the "contradiction" you say you have observed. If you care to, please elaborate.

the instant you are born, you fall under the laws of the US constitution.
you have no rights outside of this
it is your obligation to know all the laws
ignorance is no defense

in fact the president claims you don't even have rights under the constitution unless he approves it.


I will try to give some response to what you said. OD is wimping out on giving a straightforward and honest reply. He is against abortion but is afraid to say so. Anyone who appreciates the fact that any female has a fundamental right to an abortion does not beat around the bush the way he does. But at the same time he doesn't have the courage to stand up and say out loud that he is against abortion, like most anti-choice people do.OD gave a very nuanced opinion, which you are unfortunately not able to hear because you are so blinded by your own righteousness


I apologize if I have indeed called him a "parasite." That's are strong word. I was trying to get a point across when I used the metaphor of a parasite and he took it personally because apparently, if I remember OD's message correctly (and maybe I don't) he said that he was unplanned.do you think anybody who was born ASKED to be born????


It was perhaps this that he was referring to but that seems like a quibble to me. I might have to go back and edit that original message of mine, the one that OD responded to.A Quibble????????????
you are calling everybody born that wasn't planned a Quibble????????
if you want to be antagonistic that is OK, but just own it!!!


Indeed, OD's mother, it seems at least, made the decision to keep the child once she learned that she had become pregnant. But the important point here is that OD's mom (apparently) had no desire to try to abort the child. But we would need OD's confirmation on this to be sure (if he knows it and is willing to be honest about it)did she want to have an abortion????
was OD wanted after the fact????
does everyone have to consider abortion???/


No, Phiant, I will not call OD's mother a whore. well, maybe you should call her and apologize in person.

:yinyang:

[alanora]

I find myself wondering about how/if being unplanned or unwanted or the product of coercion or other such emotional environments at the time of conception and in utero alter the emotional and/or physical life of the subsequent person. Must be at least a few theses floating around......it seems like a good place to gather needed information for an informed opinion, not to seem preferential to the cerebral or anything as emotional reaction is also valid, just harder for me to corral into coherence. What is it like to grow up knowing you are the product of rape, having an angry instead of loving conception. Or that your mother tried to end your life but failed. These must have an impact on the kid/person to be eh, even if it is in the form the formative relationship takes. Then to decide whether these permutations of life are to be "allowed" and by whom is more story yet. How is one impacted if the information is witheld? Still in effect? ta dah....more questions and no answers. It is a woman's choice to be sure..........:idea: Happy sunday show all you waccolanders


:Yinyangv:



the instant you are born, you fall under the laws of the US constitution.
you have no rights outside of this
it is your obligation to know all the laws
ignorance is no defense

in fact the president claims you don't even have rights under the constitution unless he approves it.
OD gave a very nuanced opinion, which you are unfortunately not able to hear because you are so blinded by your own righteousness

do you think anybody who was born ASKED to be born????

A Quibble????????????
you are calling everybody born that wasn't planned a Quibble????????
if you want to be antagonistic that is OK, but just own it!!!

did she want to have an abortion????
was OD wanted after the fact????
does everyone have to consider abortion???/

well, maybe you should call her and apologize in person.

:yinyang:

[Neshamah]

Abortion is generally wrong. The killing of any living thing, whether human or animal is murder unless that killing is justified. I think killing chickens for food is justified, but the justification threshold for killing humans is much higher, (though not as high for a fetus as it is for an infant or adult.)

My position is both pro-choice and pro-life. (Of course, I don't know any pro-choicers, not even Peter Singer, who would consider themselves anti-life or pro-death, so I admit the terms are kind of silly.)

My difference with the mainstream pro-choice position is that I think the choice comes a little earlier in the process. If a man or woman freely chooses to have sex, then they both should be prepared for the possibility of a pregnancy.

Having said all that, I am still saying "Yes" on the poll because abortion is not something that the federal or state governments should legislate.

If a woman's choice is pre-empted by rape, it is most unlikely that the rapist will be caught and convicted during the first trimester. Furthermore, consider a man who has consexual sex with a woman on the understanding that he will be there for her if she gets pregnant, and then that man abandons her. Morally, there is no significant difference between that and rape. However, there is no legal recourse. In any case, the woman is still justified in killing the fetus.

There are other circumstances that justify some abortions. If the government restricts abortion at all, it risks the greater evil of forcing rape victims to raise the children of rapists, or go through the emotional agony of bearing a child only to give it up for adoption.

That was a little rushed; I know I will have to come back and defend my positions. : )


~ Neshamah

[AnnaLisaW]

The comment was made that "the child is not the offender."

It does not become a "child" until it is born. Before that point, it is a fetus. Ascribing a soul to the fetus is a crutial point in the anti-abortion argument. To say a fetus has a soul, implies that it is a sentient being. At what point the fetus becomes a sentient being is also debatable. If you believe that the spirit, or "soul" enters the body at conception, then in the case of non-consentual sex, it too, is the offender. It is willing to enter a unwelcoming host in order to have life perhaps in the same way as a starving man will break into my home for a loaf of bread. Killing is killing. If you threaten my life or the health and safety of my family, do I have the right to kill you?
Personally, I believe that my children's spirits were present at conception and that abortion is a form of murder. I still firmly believe that a woman should have the right to decide for herself if she will have an abortion. The consequences are between her and her God.

Side note: I was appalled to learn that some doctors were taken into court for refusing to perform abortions. I believe that denies the doctor's freedom of religion. An abortion is a simple procedure and doctors are well paid for it. As long as abortion is legal, there will be plenty of doctors willing to perform the service for a fee.

[Rucira]

I SAY NO. so your not all unanimous. and im not christian neither. the unblessed, r ucira:wink::heart::heart::heart::heart::heart::heart::heart::heart::heart::):

[Rucira]

Killing is fine so long as ur a politician or hungrey. Therefore those of us who are not politicians should EAT THEIR UNBORN CHILDREN after aborting them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! muahahaaaaaaaaaaa:Yinyangv:
FIGHT HUNGER. EAT UNBORN LITTLE PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:idea:


Abortion is generally wrong. The killing of any living thing, whether human or animal is murder unless that killing is justified. I think killing chickens for food is justified, but the justification threshold for killing humans is much higher, (though not as high for a fetus as it is for an infant or adult.)

My position is both pro-choice and pro-life. (Of course, I don't know any pro-choicers, not even Peter Singer, who would consider themselves anti-life or pro-death, so I admit the terms are kind of silly.)

My difference with the mainstream pro-choice position is that I think the choice comes a little earlier in the process. If a man or woman freely chooses to have sex, then they both should be prepared for the possibility of a pregnancy.

Having said all that, I am still saying "Yes" on the poll because abortion is not something that the federal or state governments should legislate.

If a woman's choice is pre-empted by rape, it is most unlikely that the rapist will be caught and convicted during the first trimester. Furthermore, consider a man who has consexual sex with a woman on the understanding that he will be there for her if she gets pregnant, and then that man abandons her. Morally, there is no significant difference between that and rape. However, there is no legal recourse. In any case, the woman is still justified in killing the fetus.

There are other circumstances that justify some abortions. If the government restricts abortion at all, it risks the greater evil of forcing rape victims to raise the children of rapists, or go through the emotional agony of bearing a child only to give it up for adoption.

That was a little rushed; I know I will have to come back and defend my positions. : )


~ Neshamah

[Rucira]

the unborn are just parasites right? heh heh? they cant survive without that blood cord from their navel to the innards of the most unfortanate host female. we should all avoid unwanted pregnancies by sewing our vaginas shut ! get the rapists rubber phony vaginas or train them to f... chunks of liver to avoid this sort of consequence.




:Yinyangv:



the instant you are born, you fall under the laws of the US constitution.
you have no rights outside of this
it is your obligation to know all the laws
ignorance is no defense

in fact the president claims you don't even have rights under the constitution unless he approves it.
OD gave a very nuanced opinion, which you are unfortunately not able to hear because you are so blinded by your own righteousness

do you think anybody who was born ASKED to be born????

A Quibble????????????
you are calling everybody born that wasn't planned a Quibble????????
if you want to be antagonistic that is OK, but just own it!!!

did she want to have an abortion????
was OD wanted after the fact????
does everyone have to consider abortion???/

well, maybe you should call her and apologize in person.

:yinyang:

[decterlove]

Here's the real issue on abortion to me and I do not offer it lightly. I've never shared it publicly before but I think the Wacco readers can handle it whether or not anyone even remotely agrees with my articulation.

First there are too many. All efforts should be made to reduce their numbers. This is similar...please don't take offense at the analogy...to the number of dogs and cats that are put down in this country. In an industrial society we are able to kill on an industrial scale. Nuff said.

The real central issue to me deeply reflects my belief in reincarnation and an afterworld. The question to be asked is does the fetus suffer a great deal in its' rejected attempt at incarnation? Does the soul experience an emotional rejection from the soul that has perhaps "agreed" to birth it and does the soul attempting incarnation experience an uncomfortable limbo condition after the abortion. I have no idea what the answer is to these two questions.

I hope my conceptual framework especially does not offend or upset anyone that has actually had an abortion. I do believe ultimately in a woman's right to choose and that she should have access to the best medical care she needs.

An interesting side note to the above ideas is it is my understanding that Japanese Catholics who are influenced by Shintoism also incorporate the concept of reincarnation into their Catholicism and are much less bothered by abortion than Christians in other cultures.

And many even in this culture choose to practice some sort of spiritual ritual to regain balance for the mother and perhaps address the spiritual condition of the fetus as well. It's just not talked about that much.

It's my belief that this unspoken and perhaps in many people's minds intellectually illegitimate concern, is ultimately at the heart of the issue and will only be resolved when enough people become capable of navigating the psychic realms and observing souls after they have been aborted.

[Willie Lumplump]

The killing of any living thing, whether human or animal is murder unless that killing is justified.
I think this moral stance would come unravelled if you really thought it through. First, "any living thing" takes in a lot of territory, and humans and other animals are only part of that territory. Second, it places animals such as tapeworms and roly-poly bugs on the same level with human beings. And third, it sets up a situation where anyone who kills an animal could legitimately be accused of murder since there will always be some people who believe that the killing was unjustified. I'm sure it would be possible to come up with a long list of difficulties.

[Willie Lumplump]

Why should abortions be paid for publicly? You mean with taxpayers' dollars? Do you think it's fair to make others, who might feel deeply that abortion is wrong, pay for someone else's abortion?
Many people feel deeply that it is wrong for the Federal government to levy an income tax. Should these people not be required to pay their taxes? Many other people (like me) feel deeply that it is wrong to levy regressive taxes such as sales taxes. Should I therefore be excused from paying such taxes?

[Sonomamark]

Here we go again, OrchardDweller. You libertarians just don't get this thing about the "greater good", do you? It's all about you.

The harm to our society in having unwanted, neglected, abused children is almost incomprehensibly high. And the fact is that many such children aren't the right color to find adoption with the typical upper-middle-class white adopting family--or they're not given up for adoption, and instead are raised in squalor and abuse. So they grow up damaged, and they do damage. Through self-abuse and dependence on public services, through crime. It's not their fault, but they become a problem we all have to deal with. We pay in social services, medical services, policing, courts and prisons.

Now, your answer would probably be, well, shut down all the social programs and let them fend for themselves. And when one of them, starving or freaked on meth, put a shiv through your throat to steal your wallet and buy a hamburger, my social analysis would be that at some level, justice had been served. Because we're all in this together. You don't have to LIKE it, but you have a responsibility to everyone else in this society. Even the ones you don't like, don't know, and don't care about. That's why it is perfectly right that you be taxed and regulated. Because there is a COMMON good that must be balanced against your PERSONAL good.

At this stage in human history, less people is just good, period. I go farther than thinking people should be able to end unwanted pregnancies: I think they should be required to get a license--meaning, having to go through parenting classes and demonstrate capacity to raise children--in order to be ALLOWED to have a child. Otherwise, mandatory abortion.

I'm sure people will howl, but we are well past the point where we can tell ourselves comforting fairy tales about how "each child is a miracle". We're not miracles: we're animals. We eat, excrete, and consume resources like mad, especially here in the soft, pampered and entitled industrialized world. And every last one of us will drown in our own waste, if we don't start reproducing and consuming less, and soon.

It's time we stopped grasping at straws like "cosmic destinies" and really confront our nature as a species of large mammal on this planet. Things go extinct all the time. We can, too. Nothing in the Universe will even notice if we do. Whether or not we do is up to us.


SM



Why should abortions be paid for publicly? You mean with taxpayers' dollars? Do you think it's fair to make others, who might feel deeply that abortion is wrong, pay for someone else's abortion?

How is a woman getting pregnant from having sex an "accident" that should be "eliminated" like a "parasite". You think maybe that's what nature intended; you have sex and then sometimes you get pregnant!

Technically some would think abortion to be murder, considering that a foetus has legal right, yes.
Morally, well, that would depend entirely on one's morals..

Respectfully,
The parasite that got away

[Rucira]

how about if we abort sonomamark and his future offspring.:idea:

[Rucira]

women wanting abortion should be made to sign a promise that the dead childs rotting flesh be sold to cosmetics companies to be ground up to prevent wrinkles for postmenopausal women. :wink:

[Willie Lumplump]

The question to be asked is does the fetus suffer a great deal in its' rejected attempt at incarnation?
It's perhaps symptomatic of the times that often I can't distinguish between somebody who's putting me on and somebody who's attempting to be serious. In this case I must admit that I'm stumped.

[Willie Lumplump]

how about if we abort sonomamark and his future offspring.:idea:
Maybe you've been watching too much TV. There are problems in the world that can't be addressed through soundbites.

[Willie Lumplump]

Here we go again, OrchardDweller. You libertarians just don't get this thing about the "greater good", do you? It's all about you.
No, no, SonomaMark! Don't you see? Our end of the boat is sinking!

[Willie Lumplump]

women wanting abortion should be made to sign a promise that the dead childs rotting flesh be sold to cosmetics companies to be ground up to prevent wrinkles for postmenopausal women. :wink:
If this technology could be proven effective, I'm sure that many corporations would jump at the chance to exploit it.

[ChristineL]

I know several women who have requested sterilization after having two children. They were refused. They were told they were too young...Maybe, we could start by granting voluntary sterilization to any woman requesting it. That, along with better access to birth control and better education, might in itself cut down on the number of abortions performed every year.

I am pro-choice, with limitations. It is my belief that once the foetus has started moving on its own, it is wrong to abort it. Unless the mother's life is at stake, late term abortions should not be performed. I honestly don't know what I would have decided should I ever have become pregnant. I chose not to have children and used birth control judiciously. There were times in my life that having and bringing up a child would have been out of the question. I was not qualified financially, and certainly lacked in maternal instinct. Had I gotten pregnant, I know I would have chosen either to put the baby up for adoption and give it a chance at a better life than I could provide, or had an abortion. It would have been a very difficult decision.

Has anyone else noticed that the most avid and vociferous anti abortionists are men? Has anyone else noticed that they are not volunteering to take in these unwanted babies or provide for them in any way? I am also tired of lawmakers who not only want to reverse Roe vs. Wade, but do not want to make any exceptions even if carrying to term puts the mother's life at risk. Something about the life of the foetus being more important than the life of the mother (who may have existing children who need her) really bothers me.

I think the best bumper sticker I ever saw stated: "How can you trust me with a baby if you don't trust me with a choice?"

Christine

[ChristineL]

Something else to think about. Desperate women will seek a way to abort, legal or not.

The most powerful pro choice ad I ever saw was in "Ms" magazine some years back during previous attempts to overthrow "Roe vs. Wade": It showed a large picture of a metal coat hanger and stated: "To your daughter this is just a coat hanger, let's keep it that way."

Anyone else remember the days before legalized abortion? Did any of you know someone back then who ended up dead or scarred for life from a botched illegal abortion or an attempt with a coat hanger?

Christine

[Neshamah]

[quote=Willie Lumplump;44219]I think this moral stance would come unravelled if you really thought it through.

I did think it through. In my original post I said the threshold for killing humans is higher than the threshold for killing chickens. Reasonable people can disagree about where that threshold is. When I think this through I can propose a reasonable (though hardly unassailable) hierarchy as follows:

(1) Human adults and children over a few months old.
(2) Humans less than a few months old and late-term fetuses, the only difference being that the former is still connected to the mother, though in the wild there might be little practical difference. Killing a crying young infant to save the life of the mother from secret police is terrible but in my view justified.
(3) Early term fetuses.
(2?) Most higher mammals probably belong up there somewhere between early fetuses and humans over a few months old.
(4) Other animals probably belong lower than fetuses but higher than mushrooms, pine trees, and so forth.

Very early fetuses do not feel pain. Late term fetuses and very young infants feel pain but have no concept of themselves over time and do not feel any loss when they die. This also applies to all but the most complex animals.

II

This leads me to my second point. Death, whether to farm animals or to fetuses can cause pain, and even if I conclude killing my unborn child is a necessary evil, I should still see to it that I do not cause unnecessary pain.

Part of the problem in the whole abortion debate is that neither side is willing to concede anything. The anti-abortion crowd should at the very least focus on the father's responsibility. Women cannot conceive children by themselves and society therefore cannot require that I raise a child on my own if that was not my choice. Many in the pro-abortion crowd try to treat fetuses as though they are cancer cells. Overstating a case is a sure way to have it dismissed.

III

When a single central government controls a third of the money of society for the greater good, it has so much inertia that it becomes unresponsive to individuals and even groups numbering less than tens of millions of people or having hundreds of millions of dollars. It is true we can more efficiently promote the greater good by having the government manage everything for us, but once we have given government all the power to do good, we have also given it the power to do evil, and we will have a very hard time reclaiming that power.

I find it rather remarkable in the Presidential race that I hear all this talk about how no one likes the mainstream candidates, and yet no one is willing to make the sacrifices necessary to make the government smaller and more responsive to the people. We are a long way yet from dictatorship, but we have also strayed so far from democracy that I am not sure anyone really remembers what it is, or wants it back.

IV

Sonomamark,

Reproduction is a right. Humans who have reached sexual maturity have a natural right to become parents and raise their own children. That we do not teach or allow people the resources to become self-sufficient before 30 is our failing as a society, not their failing as individuals. I thought denying sex to people not yet ready to become parents was extreme, but forcing abortions on women who won't raise children to your standards takes you somewhere you probably do not want to go. If the government can arrest someone and force an abortion, what stops it from arresting someone and torturing them into adopting a different worldview or confessing to a "crime?" All of the above is already done in China. I'd hardly call that progressive.

Also, insinuating that OrchardDweller is selfish simply because he is not with you and your version of the greater government did not add to the discussion. I personally believe pure libertarianism goes too far and expects too much of individuals, just as communism goes to far in the opposite direction. However, the belief that people should care for each other rather than spending money so the government cares for us is anything but selfish.

~ Neshamah

["Mad" Miles]

All of the following are best read in context. But here are the basics:

William Shakespeare (https://www.artofeurope.com/shakespeare/index.html) - All the world's a stage (from As You Like It 2/7)

All the world's a stage, And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances; And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages.
At first the infant, Mewling and puking in the nurse's arms.
And then the whining school-boy, with his satchel And shining morning face, creeping like snail Unwillingly to school.
And then the lover, Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad Made to his mistress' eyebrow.
Then a soldier, Full of strange oaths and bearded like the pard, Jealous in honour, sudden and quick in quarrel, Seeking the bubble reputation Even in the cannon's mouth.
And then the justice, In fair round belly with good capon lined, With eyes severe and beard of formal cut, Full of wise saws and modern instances;
And so he plays his part.
The sixth age shifts Into the lean and slipper'd pantaloon, With spectacles on nose and pouch on side, His youthful hose, well saved, a world too wide For his shrunk shank; and his big manly voice, Turning again toward childish treble, pipes And whistles in his sound.
Last scene of all, That ends this strange eventful history, Is second childishness and mere oblivion,
Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.


William Shakespeare (https://www.artofeurope.com/shakespeare/index.html) - To be, or not to be (from Hamlet 3/1)

To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, And by opposing end them?
To die: to sleep; No more; and by a sleep to say we end The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks That flesh is heir to,
'tis a consummation Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep; To sleep: perchance to dream:
ay, there's the rub; For in that sleep of death what dreams may come When we have shuffled off this mortal coil, Must give us pause: there's the respect That makes calamity of so long life;
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,
The pangs of despised love, the law's delay,
The insolence of office and the spurns That patient merit of the unworthy takes, When he himself might his quietus make With a bare bodkin?
who would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscover'd country from whose bourn No traveller returns,
puzzles the will And makes us rather bear those ills we have Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;
And thus the native hue of resolution Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pith and moment With this regard their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action.


<TABLE width="100%" bgColor=#ccf6f6><TBODY><TR><TD class=play align=middle>The Tragedy of Macbeth <TR><TD class=nav align=middle>Act 5, Scene 5




</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time,
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

[Sonomamark]

Neshamah, just because you say reproduction is a right doesn't make it one, or mean that it should be one.

There are no "natural rights": Rights are social agreements, they're not coded into the fabric of the Universe. In 1915, women didn't have the right to vote. In 1250, serfs didn't have the right to leave the lands where they lived. We only have rights because we have decided as a society through a political process that we have them, and that's why some things we consider "rights" in this country are not enjoyed by people who live in others (and why gays in most states do not currently have the right to get legally married, even though I believe they should).

A right is a legal entitlement--if the law doesn't give it to you, you don't have it, however strongly you may think you should. However prejudiced we may be in favor of understanding certain kinds of entitlements and liberties as off-limits to social discussion, that does not mean that they are inherently so. Just because we have the ability to reproduce doesn't automatically give us the "right" to do so--we have the ability to kill one another, too, but nobody claims a "right" to do that. We only have the "right" to reproduce as much as we like because the consensus of our society is that this should be so.

At core, you're not really talking about rights. You're talking about your moral values: you believe that everyone should have the right to reproduce. That's your opinion. I'm sure you believe that a lot of people in the world should have rights they don't have, too; say, freedom of speech in China, or freedom of religion in Russia. In those cases I would agree with you. But these are opinions, and you know what they say about those.

What I'm saying is that at this stage in human history, I believe that we need to reconsider our orientation to reproduction as a right. It's not pretty, but the fact is that we are burying ourselves in little bundles of joy, and the writing is pretty clearly on the wall that if we go with your approach, our good intentions in just letting anyone pop out as many kids as s/he cares to will lead us straight to hell.

I'm under no illusion that the position I proposed could ever possibly be implemented, but getting all indignant about the "right" to bang out an endless succession of primates-- each of which can be expected to produce 11,000 gallons of urine over its lifetime, to name just one of the arm-long list of impacts--doesn't jibe well with the facts about our species' current situation.

What we could do, though, is provide a big tax incentive to not have children, and no deductions for having them. Reduce tax deductions on homes with more than two bedrooms. Provide universal health care for adults and one child, and require payment of a premium on any more. That kind of thing.

On the other topic, I stand by my post and suggest that you read all of OrchardDweller's. Libertarianism is, at root, the political ideology of selfishness, insisting on endless rights without corresponding responsibilities (like paying taxes and being subject to regulation which protects the common good). Airy suggestions that "people should help one another" without the primary institution they create in order to do so--government--are just smoke, and taken in their context (in which it was suggested that programs which help the poor get medical care be scrapped in favor of hopes of spontaneous and unmandated charity), they completely justify my characterization.



SM




[quote]Sonomamark,

Reproduction is a right. Humans who have reached sexual maturity have a natural right to become parents and raise their own children. That we do not teach or allow people the resources to become self-sufficient before 30 is our failing as a society, not their failing as individuals. I thought denying sex to people not yet ready to become parents was extreme, but forcing abortions on women who won't raise children to your standards takes you somewhere you probably do not want to go. If the government can arrest someone and force an abortion, what stops it from arresting someone and torturing them into adopting a different worldview or confessing to a "crime?" All of the above is already done in China. I'd hardly call that progressive.

Also, insinuating that OrchardDweller is selfish simply because he is not with you and your version of the greater government did not add to the discussion. I personally believe pure libertarianism goes too far and expects too much of individuals, just as communism goes to far in the opposite direction. However, the belief that people should care for each other rather than spending money so the government cares for us is anything but selfish.

~ Neshamah

[Willie Lumplump]

Has anyone else noticed that the most avid and vociferous anti abortionists are men?
Yes!

Has anyone else noticed that they are not volunteering to take in these unwanted babies or provide for them in any way?
I think this is a key observation. Anti-abortion morality is cost-free. You can not only be highly moral but advertise your high morals without it costing one red cent. You don't have to provide health care or housing for the mother and child. You don't have to buy food or clothes. You don't have to pay for day care. You don't have to pay for after-school programs to keep unwanted children off the street. All you have to do to be recognized as a person of high morals is carry a sign advertising your high morals. Surely, this must be the best of all possible worlds.


I am also tired of lawmakers who not only want to reverse Roe vs. Wade, but do not want to make any exceptions even if carrying to term puts the mother's life at risk.
And, of course, men don't run this risk, and the risk for healthy middle-class mothers is minimal. As always, it's the poor who are at risk, and who gives a flying f about them?

[Willie Lumplump]

I did think it through.
I think your elaboration makes a lot more sense than your initial statement.

Humans less than a few months old and late-term fetuses, the only difference being that the former is still connected to the mother
Late-term fetuses aren't connected to the mother?
[quote]The anti-abortion crowd should at the very least focus on the father's responsibility.
The anti-abortion crowd should focus on their own responsibility. It's easy enough to saddle a woman with a child that she can't support; it's a lot harder to step up to the plate and say, "I'm willing to be taxed to help take care of this problem."

no one is willing to make the sacrifices necessary to make the government smaller and more responsive to the people.
The neocons, including our president, are busy making the government smaller so that it doesn't have to be responsive to the people. Privatize the military. Privatize Social Security. Privatize homeland security. Privatize emergency management. Privatize public schools. When everything is privately run, the government will have no responsibilities to the people, and the Golden Age of Capitalism will have arrived.

We are a long way yet from dictatorship
You can be picked up at any time and thrown into a secret prison and tortured. Your right of habeus corpus which was gained in the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215 has been cancelled. If you survive the torture, when you get out of prison you will have no means of redress because that would threaten "national security." The American people favor the end of Israel's oppression of the Palestinians, they favor universal health coverage, they favor security of pensions, they favor the right to unionize, they favor an emergency effort to develop alternative energy sources, and they favor a speedy end to the war in Iraq. Yet none of these things is happening. Why? Because the government is owned by giant corporations, and this form of government, when combined with the wars and the torture and all the rest, is called "fascism." We are, right now, living in a dictatorship, but a dictatorship that operates mostly in subtle ways such as rotting our minds with consumerism and pop culture and carefully controlling what news we are allowed to hear (except for a few renegades such as Amy Goodman).

Reproduction is a right.
But that isn't the issue at hand. What's at issue is unrestricted reproduction. And you can claim all the reproductive rights you want, but when the earth reaches its carrying capacity, it's not going to care about your rights. When we run out of water, oil, and soil, and when global warming forces huge migrations away from equatorial regions into temperate zones, the laws governing your right to reproduce as much as you want will be those of Thomas Malthus.

Also, insinuating that OrchardDweller is selfish simply because he is not with you and your version of the greater government did not add to the discussion.
That wasn't an insinuation, it was a direct statement. And I don't know where you get the idea that SonomaMark called OD "selfish" because of a simple difference of opinion. SM gave a detailed rationale for his views. If you disagree, it's up to you to provide a rational argument. Your mere assertions won't add add anything worthwhile to the discussion.

However, the belief that people should care for each other rather than spending money so the government cares for us is anything but selfish.
Our quasi-fascist government is cultivating this belief in order to relieve itself and its corporate masters of any responsibility for providing for the general welfare as the constitution demands.

[Neshamah]

Sonomamark,

Morality is complex and reasonable people can disagree on both moral principles and their application. That does not make moral values the same as opinions. On that point we may just have to agree to disagree.

I do use the term "right" in a moral sense. The reason women should have the legal right to vote is because we have a moral right to participate in institutions that affect our welfare. The legal right to marry is probably best thought of has falling into a larger moral right to form relationships of our own choosing. I certainly support gay marriage and allowing married gay couples to adopt children.

Rights can be abused, and I concede reproductive rights are among them. The incentives/disincentives you've suggested are far superior to outright restrictions which should be a last resort reserved for things like the destruction of life and of the environment.

Concerning libertarianism, there needs to be a balance between anarchy and dictatorship. I think libertarianism is far too close to anarchy, but what we have now is far too close to dictatorship, or according to Willie Lumplump, is already a dictatorship. I think movement in a libertarian direction to make the government more responsive to the governed is exactly what is needed at present. The government has to regulate some things, including the environment, but it does not need to pour tax dollars into corporations that cannot earn those dollars themselves.

The government should be just one of many social organizations for the public benefit. If it is the only such organization, then it becomes unaccountable and turns into what we have today with the Bush administration.

~ Neshamah

[Neshamah]

Willie Lumplump,


[quote=Neshamah;44279]

Late-term fetuses aren't connected to the mother?

That was my error. I should have said the latter, not the former.

The neocons have made the government larger, despite eliminating programs that did not benefit the corporations that supported their election and tell them what to do. If we are going to have a government in the U.S. that is a net benefit to the world, or at least to its own people, we need to start by restricting its power to enforce the wills of tiny corporate minorities at the expense of everyone else. If we are already living in a dictatorship, then my case for a dose of libertarianism is that much stronger, so no argument there. We are not going to get what we want if we support continued expansion of the government we have.

I agree that rights entail responsibilities, but in places where the population is growing the fastest, there are still economic incentives to have more children not less. In much of the developing world, children as young as 7 are a net benefit to the family economy. Those families are not going to use contraceptives because it is not to their benefit. The richest country in the world is hardly justified in forcing them to do anything. Government interference in foreign countries destroyed self-sufficient economies and turned them into tools of corporations. Our government is making the world worse. Giving it more money and power is not the answer.

Change has to originate with individuals, and it will not happen until we've at least restored a media free of corporate and government manipulation.

~ Neshamah

[Willie Lumplump]

Morality is complex and reasonable people can disagree on both moral principles and their application.
Reasonable people can disagree on moral principles if the principles in question are reasonable, or at least plausibly so. But if a moral principle that places the future of the planet in danger is not unreasonable, how shall we define "unreasonable"?

[Willie Lumplump]

That was my error. I should have said the latter, not the former.
All fetuses, of whatever age, are connected to the mother. The fetal stage begins at the age of eight weeks and continues until birth.

Change has to originate with individuals, and it will not happen until we've at least restored a media free of corporate and government manipulation.~ Neshamah
But that's not to say that individuals can restore independent media. Individuals must act in concert to have any noticeable effect. The greatest of all concerts is government, but since that has been captured, we're in a real pickle. I'm afraid that I agree with Chalmers Johnson: There is no way out of this that leaves our present institutions intact. We're going to need first a catastrophe and then a revolution. We can only hope it will be peaceful.

[Sonomamark]

Neshamah, you've just shifted your position from your prior declaration. Now you're talking about what "should" be people's rights. Before, you were claiming "natural" rights, and I made a case that no such thing exists. You appear to be granting this.

So, to the question of morals versus opinions.

I notice that instead of offering any kind of analysis to support your contention that there is a difference between moral principles and opinions, you merely reassert it. I think I know why that is: because you can't.

Morals, political positions, tastes in clothing and all other positional choices boil down to internal development of axioms and criteria which guide our choices in dealing with situations where we have to pick among many possibilities: votes, behaviors, shirt selections. All develop through accumulation of experience and cultural education. Some feel more vitally important than others, either because they directly impact the condition of our lives or because they have a strong impact on how we feel about ourselves. Others are pretty lightweight: pick the wrong shirt, you can look for another one sometime in the future. Do something that you think is "wrong", and you feel badly about it. Others around you might, too, which is a big deal for a social animal like homo sapiens.

We may use different words for "positions we feel lightly enough about to possibly, maybe consider changing", which we call opinions, and "positions we (want to believe we) would never consider changing", which we call moral principles. But they're the same thing. They're stories we tell ourselves about the nature of the world, "right", "wrong" and our responsibilities to others. That's all.

Much of what people call their "morals" are so strongly held, in fact, that some find it offensive even to discuss or question them. But that doesn't mean that they're anything more than opinions. Christians think you have to accept Jesus as your whatever in order to be "saved"--they think it so strongly that it informs everything about what they think is right and wrong and (supposedly) drives their behavior. But that's still just an opinion. It's not not shared by everyone and most people don't agree with it.

Some people have a moral principle that people shouldn't eat pork, or shellfish, or any meat at all, for that matter. You think women had a "moral right" to vote and that's why they got it. But some people in other places believe every bit as strongly that women are inferior and must defer to men in all things. Much as you (and I, because my moral opinion is the same as yours in this case) might want to believe it, nothing makes "our morals" superior to "their morals". However intensely we believe these things, they're just beliefs.

One can just as easily believe their opposites with every bit as much moral fervor. It's not uncommon for people to completely flip-flop their moral principles over the course of their lives, in fact.

Now, if you're like me, you look for real-world indicators that point the way to the "right" thing to do. Rather than saying that my values are arbitrarily "good", I look for advancing measurable indicators like, say, sustainability and human happiness (in that order), my arguments rooted in an axiomatic assumption that values which promote these things as much as possible are superior to those which do not.

And that's why I'm comfortable saying, given the condition of the human species, that the question of reproductive entitlements should absolutely be on the table, and if that offends you, well, sorry, but my opinion is every bit as weighty and "moral" as yours is--and has the bonus kicker of being supported by facts.

I think this topic is challenging for Americans because it's such a come-down to understand that Americans' most treasured state--a self-congratulatory feeling of smug superiority--is self-delusion. More than anything, we love that bedtime story about how the cultural values we celebrate (freedom, democracy, &c) trump everyone else's. But there are many ways to live well and happily. Other cultures have found ways to live well and happily--and a lot more sustainably-- with quite different values than ours. And we use ours to delude ourselves a lot, cuing up the old march standard about "spreading democracy" to get the juices flowing before we go off again to massacre the weak and innocent.

The way to start getting away from that is to stop telling ourselves that our values are something more than just one way of looking at things.

Finally, on libertarianism, YES! I completely agree with everything you say here. I'm not on one of the poles, either: agents in market economies need to be regulated to protect the common good and the environment, but not nationalized and run under some Maoist innovation-crushing bureaucracy. In this, you and I are in the same place. I never said there should be ONLY governmental support for the poor.

But libertarians are not in the sensible middle, understanding both the strengths and necessary limits to market economies. They are 'way out at the end of the bell curve, advocating for frankly silly levels of deregulation and lack of personal accountability to the broader society. Which is what I've been saying.


SonomaMark





Sonomamark,

Morality is complex and reasonable people can disagree on both moral principles and their application. That does not make moral values the same as opinions. On that point we may just have to agree to disagree.

I do use the term "right" in a moral sense. The reason women should have the legal right to vote is because we have a moral right to participate in institutions that affect our welfare. The legal right to marry is probably best thought of has falling into a larger moral right to form relationships of our own choosing. I certainly support gay marriage and allowing married gay couples to adopt children.

Rights can be abused, and I concede reproductive rights are among them. The incentives/disincentives you've suggested are far superior to outright restrictions which should be a last resort reserved for things like the destruction of life and of the environment.

Concerning libertarianism, there needs to be a balance between anarchy and dictatorship. I think libertarianism is far too close to anarchy, but what we have now is far too close to dictatorship, or according to Willie Lumplump, is already a dictatorship. I think movement in a libertarian direction to make the government more responsive to the governed is exactly what is needed at present. The government has to regulate some things, including the environment, but it does not need to pour tax dollars into corporations that cannot earn those dollars themselves.

The government should be just one of many social organizations for the public benefit. If it is the only such organization, then it becomes unaccountable and turns into what we have today with the Bush administration.

~ Neshamah

[Sonomamark]

Actually, it DOES make moral values exactly the same as opinions. If reasonable people can disagree on them, it means there is nothing inherently weighted one way or another.

All you've said here is that you feel more strongly about your moral principles than about your other opinions, which makes sense, as we tend to use the word "opinion" for less-intensely felt opinions, and "moral principles" for more strongly-held ones.


SM




Sonomamark,

Morality is complex and reasonable people can disagree on both moral principles and their application. That does not make moral values the same as opinions.

[Zeno Swijtink]

Actually, it DOES make moral values exactly the same as opinions. If reasonable people can disagree on them, it means there is nothing inherently weighted one way or another.

All you've said here is that you feel more strongly about your moral principles than about your other opinions, which makes sense, as we tend to use the word "opinion" for less-intensely felt opinions, and "moral principles" for more strongly-held ones.


SM

The point of view of Neshamah - to wit, that there is a crucial difference between moral judgments and mere matters of taste - is laid out by Richard Paul of the Center for Critical Thinking, in this little online essay:

Three Categories of Questions: Crucial Distinctions (https://www.criticalthinking.org/articles/crucial-distinctions.cfm)

where he writes


Many pseudo critical thinking approaches present all judgments as falling into two exclusive and exhaustive categories: fact and opinion.

[Sonomamark]

Zeno, I'd say you have misinterpreted Paul's essay. Paul is agreeing with me that "moral principles" as developed by most people--as "pure" or abstract principles not subject to consideration in the context of real-world conditions--are opinions.

Paul argues that only in a selective scenario "with as many answers as there are different human preferences" is a judgment an opinion. In other words, he reserves the term "opinion" for a judgment completely uninformed by any information other than personal taste.

He presupposes that in the other two cases he presents, some sort of test will be applied; in the factual case, a test of the boiling point of lead, and in the case of those with "better or worse answers, such as 'how can we best address the most basic and significant economic problems of the nation today?'", the analysis of evidence to draw conclusions.

Empirically, we know that people embrace many "moral principles" to which they never apply any kind of test, even as a thought problem. Given that most people's "moral principles" are absorbed and accepted as axiomatic whole cloth instead of being a product of critical thought, such "moral principles" best fit Paul's third category: they're whims of taste or, as he would have it, opinions. Paul seems to assume that he's among people like himself when he frames his analysis, but most people aren't critical thinkers. They'll hold a deep core belief and defend it to the death without ever even considering that it may be hogwash. Abortion is a great example: people oppose abortion "on principle" and couldn't give a fig for the suffering and social damage they would bring about if they got what they wanted. It's as arbitrary, subjective and unconsidered an opinion as, say, deciding what color to paint the bathroom. They feel more strongly about it than about choosing a paint color, but strong feeling doesn't make an argument any more persuasive, or an opinion anything more than an opinion.

I have never suggested that, per Paul's criticism, "everyone's 'opinion' is of equal value." Rather, my opinion is that none of them are of value except insofar as they can reasonably be expected to lead to advancement of axiomatic positives such as the survival of the human species (which requires the health of the biosphere) and as much happiness among us as possible. To the degree that a position/moral principle/opinion (take your pick) examined in the light of reason does not pencil out as advancing these, I judge it lacking. And I arrived at these two axiomatic goals through examination of facts about the world and the human condition, not by swallowing them from my parents or having them forced into my ear in a church. They're pretty hard to argue.

I have no use for arbitrary abstract "moral principles" (opinions) because they always get mucked up by the complexity of the world. Let's take one we can probably all agree on: Don't kill people. Sounds good, a pretty good social rule. But...in self-defense? Or if the person is torturing someone you love? If they're dying anyway, you're starving in a lifeboat and need to eat to have a reasonable chance of survival? Starts to get a bit gray.

I do not ask, as Paul complains, "What if I don't like these standards? Why shouldn't I use my own standards?" Instead, I say, tell me the purpose that you believe will be served by holding the moral principle/opinion you defend. Then I can see if:


I support the purpose--if your goal is to climb over the other 143,999 Jehovah's Witnesses to get to be one of the ones entering the Kingdom, then we have nothing more to talk about.
Your expressed principle actually shows any reasonable likelihood of advancing the purpose. This goes back to indicators and evidence....thus, I am in a critical thinking context. Because I'm using evidence, analysis and reason to develop positions most likely to advance what my analysis tells me are the most important societal goals for a human animal on this planet at this time.

I'm on Paul's side of this argument: my point is to be factual, practical, and realistic, and to develop positions from there. The opposite position is to claim that there are arbitrarily "morally superior principles" which trump reason and are beyond question, just because people have strong feelings about them.



Mark


The point of view of Neshamah - to wit, that there is a crucial difference between moral judgments and mere matters of taste - is laid out by Richard Paul of the Center for Critical Thinking, in this little online essay:

Three Categories of Questions: Crucial Distinctions (https://www.criticalthinking.org/articles/crucial-distinctions.cfm)

where he writes

[Willie Lumplump]

I have no use for arbitrary abstract "moral principles" (opinions) because they always get mucked up by the complexity of the world. Mark
To me, the complexity of the world seems insufficient reason to abandon the search for moral principles that could be called, if not "absolute," then at least biologically based. In a previous thread I mentioned game theory which predicts, on mathematical grounds, that in any sizeable population there will be both "cooperators" and "cheaters." And ethological studies of our nearest evolutionary relatives confirm the predictions of game theory. To me these facts seem like a departure point for founding a system of morality that would be based in something more than just individual choice.

[Neshamah]

Just as some forms of geometry better explain certain phenomena in nature, some moral systems better account for our commonsense moral judgements (or stronlgy held opinions as Sonomamark calls them) such as causing someone else pain against her will is wrong, or extinction of a species is a bad thing. As long as facts play a role in moral reasoning, which I think everyone is conceding to some extent, we do not have to argue about the nature of morality in order to discuss restrictions on family planning.

I did not shift my position on natural rights. I think I said, or at least I meant to say that legal rights should reflect natural rights. People should be encouraged to exercise their natural rights responsibly. This is not the role of government. If the government dictates a monolithic morality for all, then the government itself has become a religion. Government should be limited to preventing dictatorships, and protecting the lives of those under its domain, whether voters or vegetation. When it does more, it risks becoming a dictatorship itself. We need to be creating national organizations completely independent of the government to bring about positive change. Many of the national organizations we have now were either created by the government or depend on the government for their continued existence, which means they do whatever the government tells them to do. The government needs some funding, but this should come primarily by taxing those things that are most harmful, which is why I think most of Sonomamark's suggestions for limiting overpopulation are sound.

My original point back in August was that I said 'yes' in the poll not because abortion is always or usually permissible, but rather because the government should stay out of abortion because it is too slow and clumsy to restrict all the times abortion is not permissible without also restricting it in times where it may be a moral imperative.

~ Neshamah

["Mad" Miles]

Neshamah,

If the government doesn't allow abortion, who will?

"Mad" Miles

:burngrnbounce:

[Sonomamark]

The problem with this theory, Neshamah, is that what constitutes "common sense" is for practical purposes entirely a product of culture. To Aztecs, it was "common sense" that you had to rip out the heart of a captive to keep the sun coming up. Here, it is "common sense" that people should have maximum latitude to develop and express themselves as individuals. In many other cultures--constituting a far higher proportion of the human population--it is "common sense" that you are an exponent of your family, clan or other group identity and your core task in life is to not stick out too much and to do your part in the role assigned you, be that a gender-based division of labor, a particular job function or whatever. Many cultures define those who aren't members of that culture--or even lower-class members of the same culture--as subhumans who can be killed at a whim. This was true in Europe until the 18th century--in some cases until the 19th. Many cultures couldn't care less about the extinction of species--take China, for instance, which understands environmental issues as at root matters of fairness among humans, and thinks that if you have to wipe out some species to give poor people a chance to live at a higher standard of living, it's only fair that you do that. Many cultures think that causing someone else pain against their will is a perfectly legitimate way of keeping people in line and maintaining social order, not only at a societal level, but in the household. American parents who spank are among them. You may not agree, but that's the nature of cultural relativism: just because we think we have the high moral ground doesn't mean we DO, it just means we think so.

It's nice to think there is something intrinsic about your core values, but there isn't. There are no "natural rights". If there were a "natural right" to live, people wouldn't die all the time, for stupid reasons, long before they would be expected to. It's every bit as "natural" that things you find immoral occur than that they do not. The only thing "unnatural" in this Universe would be some event which violated the laws of physics.

Even your position on "government dictating a morality for all", which I personally agree with, is just an opinion. In Iran, Alabama and Tibet prior to the Chinese invasion, they feel/felt differently.

I would argue that the concept of "natural rights" is not only fallacious, it's pernicious to the discussion, because it shifts into a vague realm of moral one-upsmanship from what should be a purely practical discussion. On a given policy question, it's pretty easy to figure out where everyone is at, see whether you agree with them and see if their position is really substantiated by facts if they just reveal the outcome they would like to achieve and the evidence and analysis that leads them to believe that their position will achieve it. When people start giving themselves merit badges for "standing up for natural rights", reason goes out the window. You say "reproduction is a natural right", and I say, "No it isn't--here's why." You say, "But yes, it is." There's nothing to discuss there--just an arbitrary assertion of opinion that's supposed to be taken as axiomatic. It's exactly the same process that fundamentalists use in accepting the Bible as a literal hand-off from God--rather than having to think, or substantiate the positions they advance, they just say that it's "the way God says it is", and shut their brains down.

"This is my position because it is moral law inherent in the nature of the Universe" is the polar opposite of discourse based in critical thinking.



SonomaMark




Just as some forms of geometry better explain certain phenomena in nature, some moral systems better account for our commonsense moral judgements (or stronlgy held opinions as Sonomamark calls them) such as causing someone else pain against her will is wrong, or extinction of a species is a bad thing. As long as facts play a role in moral reasoning, which I think everyone is conceding to some extent, we do not have to argue about the nature of morality in order to discuss restrictions on family planning.

I did not shift my position on natural rights. I think I said, or at least I meant to say that legal rights should reflect natural rights. People should be encouraged to exercise their natural rights responsibly. This is not the role of government. If the government dictates a monolithic morality for all, then the government itself has become a religion. Government should be limited to preventing dictatorships, and protecting the lives of those under its domain, whether voters or vegetation. When it does more, it risks becoming a dictatorship itself. We need to be creating national organizations completely independent of the government to bring about positive change. Many of the national organizations we have now were either created by the government or depend on the government for their continued existence, which means they do whatever the government tells them to do. The government needs some funding, but this should come primarily by taxing those things that are most harmful, which is why I think most of Sonomamark's suggestions for limiting overpopulation are sound.

My original point back in August was that I said 'yes' in the poll not because abortion is always or usually permissible, but rather because the government should stay out of abortion because it is too slow and clumsy to restrict all the times abortion is not permissible without also restricting it in times where it may be a moral imperative.

~ Neshamah

[Willie Lumplump]

it shifts into a vague realm of moral one-upsmanship from what should be a purely practical discussion.
But the existentialist position that the mind is a totally blank slate upon which culture can make its imprint is discredited by numerous studies. Our brains are hard-wired to favor, or even require, certain behaviors and disfavor others. We see this even in our non-human relatives. Chimps, for example, have a sense of fairness. It seems unlikely that they all learned this from their mothers, and even if they did, the capacity for a sense of fairness and the ability to learn it must also be, to some extent, genetically controlled. We see the same sense of fairness throughout all human cultures, although of course it's subject to corruption, particularly by sociopathic governments such as our own. I would argue that the hard-wiring of the human brain provides a natural basis for elaborating a comprehensive moral system. That's not to say that we should adopt all natural behaviors; some wouldn't be a satisfactory foundation for human society. But even so, I think that the bones of a natural moral system are there, and the practical view that you apparently favor could be grafted on to it.

[Sonomamark]

Willie, you and I usually agree on things, and I'm surprised to see you try to put words in my mouth.

I never said that "the mind is a totally blank slate".

I said there are no absolute "moral principles". And your post doesn't make the case that there are: our brains develop into what they are "hard-wired" to favor, and culture has a profound effect on what those factors turn out to be.

"Fairness" is a particularly bad example on your part: almost NO human cultures really believe in fairness. Most believe in the class and role structures they grow up with: born an Untouchable, you think you belong there, by and large.

Chimps don't, either. They'll make accommodating gestures to promote social calm, but that's not the same as "believing" in fairness. To say it is is flat-out anthropomorphizing.

Americans are obsessed with fairness. They really want to believe that there is a force of justice in the Universe which balances bad with good, wrong with right. But there isn't. John D. Rockefeller, Pot Pot and Joseph Stalin died in their sleep, old and untroubled.

Fairness is a delusion we need in order to think competitive capitalism is just. If we didn't recognize fairness, we'd have to cop to the fact that those who are born "haves" have every advantage in remaining haves, and those who are born "have-nots", even if they're geniuses, are likely to die in the gutter. The myth of capitalistic meritocracy requires our delusion about "fairness". But there isn't any, never has been, and it's certainly not "hard-wired" in our neurochemistry. All there are are strategies for survival.

If you're talking about the "tit for tat" game experiments, that's what the outcome proved. Not morals, but the effectiveness of strategy.

I'll say it bluntly: your suggestion that there is a "natural basis for elaborating a comprehensive moral system" is without any scientific basis. It's just wishful thinking.


SM


But the existentialist position that the mind is a totally blank slate upon which culture can make its imprint is discredited by numerous studies. Our brains are hard-wired to favor, or even require, certain behaviors and disfavor others. We see this even in our non-human relatives. Chimps, for example, have a sense of fairness. It seems unlikely that they all learned this from their mothers, and even if they did, the capacity for a sense of fairness and the ability to learn it must also be, to some extent, genetically controlled. We see the same sense of fairness throughout all human cultures, although of course it's subject to corruption, particularly by sociopathic governments such as our own. I would argue that the hard-wiring of the human brain provides a natural basis for elaborating a comprehensive moral system. That's not to say that we should adopt all natural behaviors; some wouldn't be a satisfactory foundation for human society. But even so, I think that the bones of a natural moral system are there, and the practical view that you apparently favor could be grafted on to it.

[Willie Lumplump]

Willie, you and I usually agree on things, and I'm surprised to see you try to put words in my mouth. I never said that "the mind is a totally blank slate".
No, but the only alternative is to believe that parts of the mind are hard-wired. And since man is a highly social animal, and since he has had to evolve behaviors that maintain the integrity of his social groups, and since at least some of those behaviors could be fairly described as "moral," it makes sense to believe that some of those moral behaviors are hard-wired. At least, that's how I reason it.

our brains develop into what they are "hard-wired" to favor, and culture has a profound effect on what those factors turn out to be.
I think you slipped a cog here. What are "those factors"?

"Fairness" is a particularly bad example on your part: almost NO human cultures really believe in fairness.
How often do parents in any culture allow one child at the dinner table to hog all the food? How often do siblings turn each other out into the cold on a freezing night? Much of the fairness I'm talking about occurs in family groups because kin-selection has promoted the adoption of fair behaviors that maximize a parent's chances of passing his genes along to successful offspring.

Chimps don't, either. They'll make accommodating gestures to promote social calm
And they'll get mad when one of their number takes more than his share of the food. The chimps know what share each member of the tribe has coming to him (or her), and if any member tries to hog too much, they object loudly.

but that's not the same as "believing" in fairness. To say it is is flat-out anthropomorphizing.
I think I detect some species prejudice here. A gorilla who was taught sign language at Stanford University (maybe this was the famous Koko?) was shown videotapes of prospective mates. She turned down one after the other, making her displeasure known through sign language. In one case she signed vigorously, "No, no. Unclean. Bad toilet, bad toilet." Finally she viewed a prospective mate who pleased her, and that male was brought to her. She chased him around for quite a long time, but eventually they got together.

Americans are obsessed with fairness. They really want to believe that there is a force of justice in the Universe which balances bad with good, wrong with right. But there isn't. John D. Rockefeller, Pot Pot and Joseph Stalin died in their sleep, old and untroubled.
But, as I recall, Rockefeller, Pol Pot, and Stalin weren't born into the same family.

Fairness is a delusion we need in order to think competitive capitalism is just.
We are a highly social species, and our ancestors had to evolve a sense of fairness to maintain the social habit which, along with intelligence, gave man an edge in the daily struggle for survival. Populations in which the genes favoring cooperative (read "fair") behavior were scarce didn't survive to become anybody's ancestor. Populations that had the requisite genes did survive, and the genes that we have came from them.

All there are are strategies for survival.
Exactly my point.

If you're talking about the "tit for tat" game experiments, that's what the outcome proved. Not morals, but the effectiveness of strategy.
But everything that we are is a strategy of some sort, and to the extent that our behaviors are genetically determined (some would say about 50%), they are products of successful strategies that worked for our ancestors. Fairness is a strategy. Cheating is a strategy. A social group can tolerate only so much cheating before it falls apart. Groups that fall apart don't reproduce and leave progeny that carry their failed genes. Groups that stay together do leave progeny, and that is the test of Darwinian fitness. Does all this sound like "wishful thinking" to you?

[Braggi]

Willie and Sonomamark, I think you guys are so close to agreeing you're picking out fly specs, but I'll offer some third party opinions anyway.

Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> Sonomamark wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/orangebuttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=44864#post44864)
Willie, you and I usually agree on things, and I'm surprised to see you try to put words in my mouth. I never said that "the mind is a totally blank slate".
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->No, but the only alternative is to believe that parts of the mind are hard-wired. And since man is a highly social animal, and since he has had to evolve behaviors that maintain the integrity of his social groups, and since at least some of those behaviors could be fairly described as "moral," it makes sense to believe that some of those moral behaviors are hard-wired. At least, that's how I reason it.

My dos centavos: I think there are three major influences on behavior. Genetics, conditions while in the womb, and conditions after birth. The genetics part our culture usually refers to "nature," what you, Willie, are referring to as "hard wiring." I think it's a lot more malleable than that even though it is cast in family history. I think all of the emotions of all the ancestors are squirreled away somewhere in the genetic code and it's so complicated we'll never be able to disassemble it all. It's all about feelings and the chemical properties that made up those feelings. These give us predispositions but they are not truly hard wired. We can overcome a lot of our genetic programming.

The conditions after birth we collectively refer to as "nurture" and are largely the effects of the clan, culture and society we grow up in. We teach soldiers, for instance, that it is noble to kill, and more importantly, to be killed, in service of comrades and country, even though the genetic predisposition screams out to most of us that this is wrong. The very imperative to stay alive can be overcome.

Perhaps most important, and the one our scholars and lay people seldom get around to contemplating, are the effects of time in the womb. This is where the primal elements are stirred into the form we know as human. All the while the chemical makeup of the mother's blood supply is feeding the developing fetus. That makeup is determined by her general health, her nutrition, her exposure to and consumption of various chemicals and drugs, and her emotional state. We all agree that emotional states vary with chemistry and the chemistry of the body is affected by emotional states. A woman who is mistreated and malnourished is likely to produce a "damaged" child. A woman who is well cared for and looks forward to a bright future and looks forward to welcoming the child into her family is much more likely to produce a child that is well balanced physically, mentally and emotionally.

I propose that the single most important thing we can do to insure our longevity on planet Earth is to do everything we can to make every pregnant woman feel well cared for and certain that she and her child will face a bright future.

In some cultures the way pregnant women are treated is quite shameful. In our country we put women who use "illicit" drugs in prison. How stupid is that? In some extremely patriarchal subcultures, pregnant women are kept away from the men folk and only fed on leftovers. If they produce a female child they may be beaten or divorced.

Willie, in the discussion of fairness, you asked where a sibling might be denied food while another gets fed. I have read that such scenarios are quite common in India where a family might have enough food to make the male children quite fat while female children are starved even though it is they who must prepare and serve the food.

I do believe a sense of fairness is inherent genetically, as you propose Willie. Natural selection argues for that. I don't, however, believe it's "hard wired." It can be culturally overcome and conditions in the womb, if severe enough, are factors that allows the Wisdom of our ancestors to be ignored.

Let's take good care of the pregnant ladies. I think our future depends on it.

-Jeff

[Willie Lumplump]

Willie, in the discussion of fairness, you asked where a sibling might be denied food while another gets fed. I have read that such scenarios are quite common in India where a family might have enough food to make the male children quite fat while female children are starved even though it is they who must prepare and serve the food.
I think there is something going on here akin to what in biology is called "typological thinking." I can explain most easily by an example. The long-horned beetles and the leaf beetles are closely related but usually quite recognizably distinct. Show me a beetle, and I can almost always tell you if it's one or the other family. But if you select out a morphological character and say that it identifies a specimen positively as either a long-horn or a leaf beetle, I can always find an exception. "Long-horns have long antennae." Yes, mostly, but I can find examples of long-horns with short antennae. "Leaf beetles have short antennae." Yes, mostly, but I can find examples of leaf beetles with long antennae. In fact, not only does no single character define the difference between the two families, there is no complex of characters that defines the difference in every case. But we cannot conclude that therefore long-horns and leaf beetles should be placed in the same family. So the fact that you can cite a counter-example for every example that I give doesn't unduly distress me.

[Neshamah]

If cultural relativism is true, then we can adopt whatever moral opinions suit us. We can collectively decide that limiting population growth trumps all other objectives. Starving pregnant ladies will achieve this aim much more quickly than taking care of them. In cultural relativism there is no basis to object to this other than, "In my opinion, causing suffering is distasteful." (Which of course relies on the assumptions that starving causes suffering and that the feelings of pregnant ladies matter.) In cultural relativism, there is nothing to make your opinion any better than any other opinion because any argument you might base your opinion on is itself another opinion. So there is nothing to discuss.

Sooner or later, all we know or think we know comes back to an axiom. Our brains are only privy to a limited amount of information from the outside world, and how we process that information is based on and thus limited by language. If we cannot know with certainty whether an axiom is true, then what do we do? We adopt axioms based on their practical application. Some axioms we adopt because the human brain cannot conceive otherwise. Other axioms, including moral ones, are somewhat more flexible. Cultural relativism, even if true, is a totally impractical basis for any kind of moral discussion.

By applying logic to common sense morality, we can see that the beliefs of some cultures (human sacrifice for example) are inferior to the beliefs of
others, just as the Ancient Egyptian belief that the ratio of a circle's circumference to its radius is 3 is inferior to my calculator's "belief" that it is 3.14159265359. (Of course this assumes they understood true circles as Euclid did.) The errors that manifest in our common sense morality have more to do with lack of information than with our moral assumptions. Some cultures saw nothing wrong with killing outsiders because they did not know (or pretended not to know) those outsiders were just as human as themselves. Aztecs considered being sacrificed a great honor because they incorrectly assigned future benefits to it. (Admittedly many of the people they sacrificed were likely sacrificed for their own good contrary to their wishes.) Few would tolerate how we treat animals on factory farms today if we knew anything about it.

I do not think anyone on this thread is proceeding from pure cultural relativism. (Though if I were ever to become a troll, I would attempt it. :wink:)


~ Neshamah

[Willie Lumplump]

If cultural relativism is true, then we can adopt whatever moral opinions suit us. We can collectively decide that limiting population growth trumps all other objectives. Starving pregnant ladies will achieve this aim much more quickly than taking care of them. In cultural relativism there is no basis to object to this other than, "In my opinion, causing suffering is distasteful." (Which of course relies on the assumptions that starving causes suffering and that the feelings of pregnant ladies matter.) In cultural relativism, there is nothing to make your opinion any better than any other opinion because any argument you might base your opinion on is itself another opinion. So there is nothing to discuss.
All the consequences of moral relativism, however negative, are not in themselves good counter-arguments because truth is independent of the consequences of truth. However, I think that extreme, negative consequences are good reasons to seek a rational basis for a system of morals that are well-grounded in some reality and can therefore be considered absolute in some sense.
By applying logic to common sense morality, we can see that the beliefs of some cultures (human sacrifice for example) are inferior to the beliefs of others. The errors that manifest in our common sense morality have more to do with lack of information than with our moral assumptions.I really like the sound of this. I'm not sure exactly how it relates to my own views, but I like it.

[Sonomamark]

Willie, another way of saying "biologically based" would be "survival positive", which necessarily means "situationally strategic" rather than hard-and-fast rules. In other words, "absolute moral principles" are the contrary of biologically-based, real-world successful approaches.

I'm with you on game theory, but you need to remember that oversimplified mathematical models do not and cannot catch all nuances of highly complex situations. For example: in humans, pair bonding to create family economic/rearing units is a necessary strategy. This is true of a number of other species as well which are generally monogamous in behavior. However, in ALL such species, a significant portion of offspring can be shown to have been fathered by some other male than the male in the paired relationship. This was discovered in humans shortly after WW II, when world-wide blood typing studies found that everywhere, even the most traditional, male-dominated and conservative societies, about 10% of children born were not sired by their "fathers". The findings were so scandalous that they were suppressed for years.

There's a reason for this: it hedges the species' bets in case a given male has bad genes.

My point is that while the "absolute" principle of loyalty, faithfulness, etc., would appear to be reinforced by biological imperatives of creating economically successful conditions for child rearing, there are caveats, exceptions and escape clauses which are also biological in nature. The stripped-down oversimplicity of game theory, while it may point generally toward truth, cannot encompass contextual variations in a way which specifically puts its finger on it.

Morals do not exist in a vacuum--they are decisions which must be made in context. Contexts vary, so an act may be "moral" in one situation but "immoral" in another. There are no absolutes in this regard, nor principles which can be considered valid outside of their context. Morality does, indeed, come down to individual choices, not abstract principles.



SM


To me, the complexity of the world seems insufficient reason to abandon the search for moral principles that could be called, if not "absolute," then at least biologically based. In a previous thread I mentioned game theory which predicts, on mathematical grounds, that in any sizeable population there will be both "cooperators" and "cheaters." And ethological studies of our nearest evolutionary relatives confirm the predictions of game theory. To me these facts seem like a departure point for founding a system of morality that would be based in something more than just individual choice.

[Sonomamark]

No, Willie: the alternative is to recognize that the mind develops through potentiation of its genetic proclivities by the context of its environment as it grows up. It's BOTH nature and nurture. Generally, yes: the species couldn't survive if we didn't have proclivities which help us to cohere socially and raise our offspring. But in different contexts, different behaviors--some of them which in other contexts are likely to be viewed as "immoral"--actually advance the likelihood of survival and may in fact be moral.

Back closer to the original topic, there are plenty of societies in this world in which the level of individual liberty expected by the typical American would be considered completely unacceptable. Most traditional societies are included in this category. In such societies, you are expected to be a part of the larger whole, whether you feel it adequately expresses your personal nature or not. Does this mean that these societies are "immoral" because they don't conceptualize our understanding of "rights and morality"? Does it mean that no one in these societies can possibly be happy, or a good person? Of course not. But if you put an American into the behavioral constraints and limited set of choices that a person in one of these societies experiences, s/he would be feel oppressed. Because these things aren't hard-wired. They're cultural, and situational.

When you ask "what are those factors", I thought it was obvious: they are the values and norms to which the person subscribes, which are a product of their brains' development in the context of their culture and personal experience. And your throwaway line re: Pol Pot & Co. doesn't address the point, which is that there is no inherent "fairness" in the Universe and even the concept of fairness is a cultural construction. I don't know how you can even argue the point. There are thousands of examples of cultures which accept as completely normal that one gender of child be preferred, that one color of skin have privilege, that one class of people hog the resources and have life and death power over all others. And that's just "the way it is".

Finally, on Darwin: groups that kill all their competitors for resources survive to have progeny, too--thus, this behavior promotes Darwinian fitness. You think that's a "hard wired moral principle"?


SM


No, but the only alternative is to believe that parts of the mind are hard-wired. And since man is a highly social animal, and since he has had to evolve behaviors that maintain the integrity of his social groups, and since at least some of those behaviors could be fairly described as "moral," it makes sense to believe that some of those moral behaviors are hard-wired. At least, that's how I reason it.

I think you slipped a cog here. What are "those factors"?

How often do parents in any culture allow one child at the dinner table to hog all the food? How often do siblings turn each other out into the cold on a freezing night? Much of the fairness I'm talking about occurs in family groups because kin-selection has promoted the adoption of fair behaviors that maximize a parent's chances of passing his genes along to successful offspring.

And they'll get mad when one of their number takes more than his share of the food. The chimps know what share each member of the tribe has coming to him (or her), and if any member tries to hog too much, they object loudly.

I think I detect some species prejudice here. A gorilla who was taught sign language at Stanford University (maybe this was the famous Koko?) was shown videotapes of prospective mates. She turned down one after the other, making her displeasure known through sign language. In one case she signed vigorously, "No, no. Unclean. Bad toilet, bad toilet." Finally she viewed a prospective mate who pleased her, and that male was brought to her. She chased him around for quite a long time, but eventually they got together.

But, as I recall, Rockefeller, Pol Pot, and Stalin weren't born into the same family.

We are a highly social species, and our ancestors had to evolve a sense of fairness to maintain the social habit which, along with intelligence, gave man an edge in the daily struggle for survival. Populations in which the genes favoring cooperative (read "fair") behavior were scarce didn't survive to become anybody's ancestor. Populations that had the requisite genes did survive, and the genes that we have came from them.

Exactly my point.

But everything that we are is a strategy of some sort, and to the extent that our behaviors are genetically determined (some would say about 50%), they are products of successful strategies that worked for our ancestors. Fairness is a strategy. Cheating is a strategy. A social group can tolerate only so much cheating before it falls apart. Groups that fall apart don't reproduce and leave progeny that carry their failed genes. Groups that stay together do leave progeny, and that is the test of Darwinian fitness. Does all this sound like "wishful thinking" to you?

[Sonomamark]

Well, not quite: we can adopt whatever moral opinions suit us and will still advance our ability to collectively survive. Look around the world, and you'll see that's how people operate. Their values vary tremendously, but in the case of each culture, whatever values they have selected hang together as a coherent whole which succeeds in supporting the culture's survival. So there is a real-world grounding for determination of acceptable action, but it's a pragmatic one, not a "moral" one. The same action may be moral in one instance and immoral in another, so there clearly isn't any absolute written in the stars.

You are absolutely correct: the primary reason not to starve the pregnant is that it is our cultural value that this would be distasteful (others include that some may actually give birth to malnourished children which will consume more resources in terms of health care, etc.). There is no inherent reason not to do so except in the case of the woman's mate (whose biological marching orders are to get his genes into the next generation and, therefore, the limbic system of whom is constantly cranking out the chemicals that he experiences as love and caring for the woman) and others who similarly feel social connection with her. This complication can be avoided by preventing the pregnancy in the first place.

This is not to say that I disagree with opposition to cruelty--I don't. But that doesn't mean I'm going to fall in love with my own values and start proclaiming them as having some "inherent truth". I'd prefer to live in a world where people aren't cruel to one another, and that's as far as it goes.

There is nothing inherent in the Universe which decrees that cruelty is "bad". There are lots of cultures throughout the world where blood sports, gladitorial games and gruesome executions are or have been public entertainment. We're one of them: take the fighting out of hockey, and the league would go out of business. Turn the NFL into touch football, and likewise. Not to mention cage fighting, "wrestling", and the endless parade of blood-soaked sadism movies like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

Nonetheless, this culture has more or less decided as a cultural value that cruelty is a bad thing unless it's "just pretend" or limited by rules in a "game". I think that's a good thing, and I wish we went further with it.

But it's still just an opinion. The only thing that makes one such conclusion any "better" than another is how you feel about it.

It is when you try to equate moral values to a mathematical constant that you really go off the boards, in my opinion. Pi is pi--it just IS, we have no choice about it. We have plenty of choice about morals, and have thousands of cultures to examine which exhibit a tremendous, contradictory range of values and practices, from infanticide to vegetarianism. They aren't "absolutely" culturally relativistic, as you would put it, because all are constrained by physical realities of having to have social rules that support their survival. But it's only the material that creates such constraint. Ideas are just ideas in the absence of material limits. The material IS the axiom, because it is that which does not change no matter what opinion we have about it.


SM


If cultural relativism is true, then we can adopt whatever moral opinions suit us. We can collectively decide that limiting population growth trumps all other objectives. Starving pregnant ladies will achieve this aim much more quickly than taking care of them. In cultural relativism there is no basis to object to this other than, "In my opinion, causing suffering is distasteful." (Which of course relies on the assumptions that starving causes suffering and that the feelings of pregnant ladies matter.) In cultural relativism, there is nothing to make your opinion any better than any other opinion because any argument you might base your opinion on is itself another opinion. So there is nothing to discuss.

Sooner or later, all we know or think we know comes back to an axiom. Our brains are only privy to a limited amount of information from the outside world, and how we process that information is based on and thus limited by language. If we cannot know with certainty whether an axiom is true, then what do we do? We adopt axioms based on their practical application. Some axioms we adopt because the human brain cannot conceive otherwise. Other axioms, including moral ones, are somewhat more flexible. Cultural relativism, even if true, is a totally impractical basis for any kind of moral discussion.

By applying logic to common sense morality, we can see that the beliefs of some cultures (human sacrifice for example) are inferior to the beliefs of
others, just as the Ancient Egyptian belief that the ratio of a circle's circumference to its radius is 3 is inferior to my calculator's "belief" that it is 3.14159265359. (Of course this assumes they understood true circles as Euclid did.) The errors that manifest in our common sense morality have more to do with lack of information than with our moral assumptions. Some cultures saw nothing wrong with killing outsiders because they did not know (or pretended not to know) those outsiders were just as human as themselves. Aztecs considered being sacrificed a great honor because they incorrectly assigned future benefits to it. (Admittedly many of the people they sacrificed were likely sacrificed for their own good contrary to their wishes.) Few would tolerate how we treat animals on factory farms today if we knew anything about it.

I do not think anyone on this thread is proceeding from pure cultural relativism. (Though if I were ever to become a troll, I would attempt it. :wink:)


~ Neshamah

[Valley Oak]

Ron Paul is against abortion. His dirty tactic to swing authority over abortion strictly to the states is a way to seriously undermine womens' right to choose.

Edward

[Valley Oak]

I am shocked to see that there are still so many people who persist in supporting Ron Paul for President. Ron Paul is against abortion!

Edward

[scorpiomoon]

[quote=OrchardDweller;35638]Why should abortions be paid for publicly? You mean with taxpayers' dollars? Studies have shown that especially in the inner city in poverty stricken areas, by supporting abortion with taxes you save money. This is because these unwanted children generally join gangs and commit some of the more violent crimes. So tracing abortion rates, crime rates and incarceration rates over a twenty year cycle will show why we should pay. I personally was not wanted and was told that I was not wanted by my father, who refused to contribute. My anguish was eased by the fact that I had loving grandparents with money and housing and love. Had I not had these other options as so many inner city children-- they grow up struggling in the streets. Any of us could be a statistic here. Why not ask the more "christian" question. Until all unwanted children are adopted into more healthy households where love and attention are a priority, I find the question here ridiculous. Also, what about over population? If there were no food in this world to feed this child (this is where we are headed, over the long run) Should we not show a little more latitude and intelligence when dealing with the question. Allow the individual mother to make her decision. If all the pro-life folks will kindly adopt the crack babies from Chicago then they will get my attention. Until that time I find their motivations to be more about controlling young women and men and their sexuality (impossible) than about life or murder. How about the starving AIDS victims in Africa whose lives hang on the thread of our "pro-life" foreign policy? "Pro-lifers" aren't sending enough cheap medicine or food to help those poor folks that I can see, they are saying "don't have sex." That's sort of like saying "don't breathe"
its impossible. The anti-abortion rule will make more children to grow up to fight and die in bloody war. Die in war for steadily dwindling resources, whether it be oil, or food or land or water. More flocks of uneducated and underfed people. Just what we need!!

[Valley Oak]

Abortion must become a legally protected and publicly funded right for all women of all ages. Anything less is the same primitive, religious crap as always.

Edward



[quote=OrchardDweller;35638]Why should abortions be paid for publicly? You mean with taxpayers' dollars? Studies have shown that especially in the inner city in poverty stricken areas, by supporting abortion with taxes you save money. This is because these unwanted children generally join gangs and commit some of the more violent crimes. So tracing abortion rates, crime rates and incarceration rates over a twenty year cycle will show why we should pay. I personally was not wanted and was told that I was not wanted by my father, who refused to contribute. My anguish was eased by the fact that I had loving grandparents with money and housing and love. Had I not had these other options as so many inner city children-- they grow up struggling in the streets. Any of us could be a statistic here. Why not ask the more "christian" question. Until all unwanted children are adopted into more healthy households where love and attention are a priority, I find the question here ridiculous. Also, what about over population? If there were no food in this world to feed this child (this is where we are headed, over the long run) Should we not show a little more latitude and intelligence when dealing with the question. Allow the individual mother to make her decision. If all the pro-life folks will kindly adopt the crack babies from Chicago then they will get my attention. Until that time I find their motivations to be more about controlling young women and men and their sexuality (impossible) than about life or murder. How about the starving AIDS victims in Africa whose lives hang on the thread of our "pro-life" foreign policy? "Pro-lifers" aren't sending enough cheap medicine or food to help those poor folks that I can see, they are saying "don't have sex." That's sort of like saying "don't breathe"
its impossible. The anti-abortion rule will make more children to grow up to fight and die in bloody war. Die in war for steadily dwindling resources, whether it be oil, or food or land or water. More flocks of uneducated and underfed people. Just what we need!!

[Valley Oak]

I must reiterate the following:

Abortion needs to remain a legally protected and publicly funded right for all women of all ages. Anything less is the same primitive, religious crap as always.

Edward


[quote=Valley Oak;47472]Abortion must become a legally protected and publicly funded right for all women of all ages. Anything less is the same primitive, religious crap as always.

Edward

[Lenny]

How can something "remain legally protected"? I don't think that is possible in our form of government, is it?

Oh, and a position may be constructed that such a counter perspective is not only "primitive, religious crap". And I am not going to make it here or now. Not enough time, nor agreement on our language, let alone the syntax of the argument.


I must reiterate the following:

Abortion needs to remain a legally protected and publicly funded right for all women of all ages. Anything less is the same primitive, religious crap as always.

Edward


[quote=Valley Oak;47472]Abortion must become a legally protected and publicly funded right for all women of all ages. Anything less is the same primitive, religious crap as always.

Edward