Is abortion wrong?

[Sy Borg]

h_k_s:

I found out from Greta that the problem is not on your end. Someone is working to fix it. Once it is fixed I think it will be easy to figure out.

And Greta has found out that she was wrong and h_k_s has been checking the "Disable BB Code" checkbox for reasons unknown. Mea culpa :)

[Fooloso4]

And Greta has found out that she was wrong and h_k_s has been checking the "Disable BB Code" checkbox for reasons unknown. Mea culpa

And Fooloso4 has found out that he was wrong. h_k_s I sent you a PM to see if you need assistance.

[h_k_s]

[quote=Fooloso4 post_id=324612 time=1543350827 user_id=43314]

In my opinion, despite all his talk of originalism, Scalia misinterpreted the second amendment. A prime example of judicial activism. I have discussed this on another thread.
[/quote]



In that case @Fooloso4 you simply agree with the minority dissent and you disagree with the majority in Heller.

On a split decision like this anything goes.

During Colonial times crime was not the major issue for gun ownership. It was instead oppression by the English Crown.

Today it is no longer oppression by the English Crown.

Today it is crime on the streets. Crimes committed by individuals and gangs. Crimes by all races of perpetrators.

Ergo the only way for the 2nd Amendment to be useful in this crime environment is for "bear" to be interpreted as "bear on your person" as opposed to "bear in your parlor."

But even giving your viewpoint that much credit, about the parlor, the 2nd Amendment prohibits any kind of infringement. And therefore taking this literally, no gun laws are legal.

[h_k_s]

h_k_s:

I found out from Greta that the problem is not on your end. Someone is working to fix it. Once it is fixed I think it will be easy to figure out.

And Greta has found out that she was wrong and h_k_s has been checking the "Disable BB Code" checkbox for reasons unknown. Mea culpa :)

Ok I fixed it. Thanks Greta.

[Fooloso4]

h_k_s:

In that case @Fooloso4 you simply agree with the minority dissent and you disagree with the majority in Heller.

I am not sure what “simply” indicates here. There are problems with Scalia’s interpretation - his treatment of the clause regarding a well regulated militia, his insertion of but arbitrary application of “in common use”.

During Colonial times crime was not the major issue for gun ownership. It was instead oppression by the English Crown.

The second amendment addresses the security of a free state not the security of an individual. A foreign power is not the only threat to a free state. In colonial times the weapons available to the military were the same weapons available to the citizens. It was possible for the citizens to fight both foreign and domestic powers. There was no standing army, hence the need for a well regulated militia. The citizens can no longer defend the state unless it possesses the same weapons available to the military. The Scalia court saw the danger of this and inserted an arbitrary standard “common use”, a move that ran contrary to his own standard of how the law should be interpreted, that is, as someone at that time would have understood that law.

And therefore taking this literally, no gun laws are legal.

And yet, there are gun laws.

None of this speaks to the question of whether abortion is wrong, but does address the problem of the law and raises the question of whether the same kind of judicial activism will be at work with abortion laws.

[h_k_s]

h_k_s:

In that case @Fooloso4 you simply agree with the minority dissent and you disagree with the majority in Heller.

I am not sure what “simply” indicates here. There are problems with Scalia’s interpretation - his treatment of the clause regarding a well regulated militia, his insertion of but arbitrary application of “in common use”.

During Colonial times crime was not the major issue for gun ownership. It was instead oppression by the English Crown.

The second amendment addresses the security of a free state not the security of an individual. A foreign power is not the only threat to a free state. In colonial times the weapons available to the military were the same weapons available to the citizens. It was possible for the citizens to fight both foreign and domestic powers. There was no standing army, hence the need for a well regulated militia. The citizens can no longer defend the state unless it possesses the same weapons available to the military. The Scalia court saw the danger of this and inserted an arbitrary standard “common use”, a move that ran contrary to his own standard of how the law should be interpreted, that is, as someone at that time would have understood that law.

And therefore taking this literally, no gun laws are legal.

And yet, there are gun laws.

None of this speaks to the question of whether abortion is wrong, but does address the problem of the law and raises the question of whether the same kind of judicial activism will be at work with abortion laws.

Yup we got off track from the abortion issue. But the point remains that there are issues which the U.S Constitution does not address, such as abortion, which either require further action on the part of Federal legislators to make it a bona fide legitimate Federal issue, such as an amendment, or else it is appropriate to leave it be as a State issue such as the 10th Amendment prescribes.

Roe V. Wade is clearly legislative activist bad law by the SCOTUS. So we are currently stuck procedurally with bad Federal law on this.

But as to the question of whether abortion is "right" or "wrong", meaning moral or immoral, is hard to call philosophically and ethically.

Do you violate the woman's freedom to legislate procedures either at the Federal or State level to take away her free will in the matter?

Or do you allow the living fetus to be killed?

On tough questions like this one there probably is no right or wrong answer. This probably lies somewhere in the middle category of neither right nor wrong -- neither moral nor immoral -- simply due to the complexity of the question.

[Fooloso4]

h_k_s:

Roe V. Wade is clearly legislative activist bad law by the SCOTUS.

It may appear clear to you but not to others.

On tough questions like this one there probably is no right or wrong answer. This probably lies somewhere in the middle category of neither right nor wrong -- neither moral nor immoral -- simply due to the complexity of the question.

We are basically in agreement on this, although I do not think it is because of the complexity of the question but because of differences that cannot be bridged.

[cavacava]

Is Abortion wrong?

I think it depends. Following Thomson's argument a woman's right to her body trumps the fetus. She supports her argument with the following thought experiment, which for the sake of argument accepts that the fetus is a person:

You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you

It has been pointed out that there is a big difference between having consensual sex resulting in the conception of a child, and being unwilling attached to an unconscious violinist and I agree with this to some extent, however I don't agree with this in cases when the mother's life is in danger, or when the child is the result of a rape. I am less decided about cases where a couple use all the correct prophylactics and still manage to get pregnant. I think women have the right to defend their bodies and this right has greater force than the right of the fetus,

[LuckyR]

Is Abortion wrong?

I think it depends. Following Thomson's argument a woman's right to her body trumps the fetus. She supports her argument with the following thought experiment, which for the sake of argument accepts that the fetus is a person:

You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you

It has been pointed out that there is a big difference between having consensual sex resulting in the conception of a child, and being unwilling attached to an unconscious violinist and I agree with this to some extent, however I don't agree with this in cases when the mother's life is in danger, or when the child is the result of a rape. I am less decided about cases where a couple use all the correct prophylactics and still manage to get pregnant. I think women have the right to defend their bodies and this right has greater force than the right of the fetus,

Firstly, since "wrong" is way too blunt of a term for use in this forum, you'd have to counter inquire: wrong compared to what? Wrong compared to coercing a competent adult to give up her autonomy? My answer would be: no, abortion is less wrong, thus it is more wrong to deprive a competent adult human of their autonomy.

Secondly, if one agrees that competent adult humans have the right to autonomy, which folks are free to disagree with, BTW, then that right should not hinge on the use, nonuse or failure of birth control.

Or in your analogy, kidnapping of someone is more wrong (way, way, way more wrong IMO) than letting Nature take it's course.

[Sy Borg]

My cynical self figures that, if you don't abort foetuses then you will have more low class fodder to be mowed down on the battlefield or dangerous industries. The hard part is not spending anything to support the the young 'uns while keeping them from engaging in too much criminality until they can be called up and killed, injured, traumatised, poisoned or sent trigger happy on the battlefield.

[cavacava]

I think it depends. Following Thomson's argument a woman's right to her body trumps the fetus. She supports her argument with the following thought experiment, which for the sake of argument accepts that the fetus is a person:



It has been pointed out that there is a big difference between having consensual sex resulting in the conception of a child, and being unwilling attached to an unconscious violinist and I agree with this to some extent, however I don't agree with this in cases when the mother's life is in danger, or when the child is the result of a rape. I am less decided about cases where a couple use all the correct prophylactics and still manage to get pregnant. I think women have the right to defend their bodies and this right has greater force than the right of the fetus,

Firstly, since "wrong" is way too blunt of a term for use in this forum, you'd have to counter inquire: wrong compared to what? Wrong compared to coercing a competent adult to give up her autonomy? My answer would be: no, abortion is less wrong, thus it is more wrong to deprive a competent adult human of their autonomy.

Secondly, if one agrees that competent adult humans have the right to autonomy, which folks are free to disagree with, BTW, then that right should not hinge on the use, nonuse or failure of birth control.

Or in your analogy, kidnapping of someone is more wrong (way, way, way more wrong IMO) than letting Nature take it's course.

The subject of the thread is "Is Abortion Wrong?", not my words.

If one ought to be responsible for one's "free" actions, then one ought to be responsible for the results of such actions such as the fetus.

[Sy Borg]

"I think women have the right to defend their bodies and this right has greater force than the right of the fetus".

Very well put IMO.

[LuckyR]

Firstly, since "wrong" is way too blunt of a term for use in this forum, you'd have to counter inquire: wrong compared to what? Wrong compared to coercing a competent adult to give up her autonomy? My answer would be: no, abortion is less wrong, thus it is more wrong to deprive a competent adult human of their autonomy.

Secondly, if one agrees that competent adult humans have the right to autonomy, which folks are free to disagree with, BTW, then that right should not hinge on the use, nonuse or failure of birth control.

Or in your analogy, kidnapping of someone is more wrong (way, way, way more wrong IMO) than letting Nature take it's course.

The subject of the thread is "Is Abortion Wrong?", not my words.

If one ought to be responsible for one's "free" actions, then one ought to be responsible for the results of such actions such as the fetus.

I am aware that you didn't originate the thread, I was trying to cut you a break for having to deal with the overly casual and inaccurate title of it.

I don't know what you mean by "ought" but currently parents are not necessarily responsible for their progeny. We are all familiar with the practice of adoption.

[cavacava]

I don't know what you mean by "ought" but currently parents are not necessarily responsible for their progeny. We are all familiar with the practice of adoption.

By 'ought' I mean the ethical duty that one feels to act in a certain manner. I'am not sure I understand what you mean by "...parents are not necessarly responsible for their progeny..." The discussion is about abortion, two people had sex, and the woman got pregnant, how are they not responsible? I think that if they had consensual sex then they are ethical bound (freedom entails responsibility) to see the pregnancy though, even if they decide afterwards to give the child up for abortion. If the sex was non-consensual as in rape, or incest or if the mother's life becomes threatened or perhaps if their best prophylactic efforts fail then the woman's right over her body trumps the fetus's right and she is not ethically obligated to carry the pregnancy to term.

[h_k_s]

As I recall, Aristotle preferred aristocracy above all else in government and monarchy in 2nd place.

He did not hold democracy in high esteem for the same reasons that Herodotus also condemns it as rule by the mob.

In the USA as in most other democratic/republican nations democracy is held in very high esteem however on the assumption that as Ole' Abe said "You cannot fool all the People all the time."

As such, abortion or anything else is simply a matter of majority rule.

I think all of the U.S. females together with a few of the males all think and believe that abortion is ok.

Ergo it is "right". At least by definition.

Of course you would get a different answer if you asked the Pope in Rome.

But as Bertrand Russell once said, you must unequivocally separate your Religion from your Philosophy.