How exactly am I a part of the decline of western civilization?
I actually would like to know that myself. I know he was quoting someone who said pro life people are victimized, but this person went far beyond that.
How exactly am I a part of the decline of western civilization?
Binary labels such as "human being" or "not human being" aren't as important to me as the derived value based on the perception of other people relative to the being. If you're looking for me to say "okay, I must admit that the flayed carcass of a fetus is indistinguishable from the flayed carcass of a newborn" you're not really getting much of value, because I don't think that highly of the right-to-life of newborns just because they have been born either. There is no magic that happens when a fetus passes through the womb and starts breathing air, but much has been made of the importance of this event, and it is a convenient reference point for the argument. The worth of the thing is made in other value judgments. I believe it would be a mercy rather than an atrocity to terminate the life of an infant with significant health or development problems, but I don't pretend to have the right to make that decision for other people.1) Again, the stage of development has nothing to do with the humanity of a human being. I know you don't care. But since you brought it up. It seems to me that you have to go through some pretty significant mental gymnastics to look at the dismembered body of a fetus- head, legs, arms, etc, and say with a straight face, "That is not a human being". Well what exactly is it then, a potato? To go ahead and Godwin the thread, its like showing a picture of emaciated, murdered Jews and saying, "Yeah but to a Nazi they aren't really people. You are just trying to exploit people's emotions". The fact that such pictures cause strong emotional reactions does not invalidate the argument.
There will always be a line drawn and categories made where things on one side are entitled to certain protections, and things on the other side are not entitled to them. It's easy to say NOW that it is obvious that racial discrimination is morally wrong, but that's because morality has shifted. The idea that there is a universal morality that we can know and abide by is not supported by any facts at all. It all comes from our own collective value judgments. We will always have disagreements on these sorts of things. Even now, there is disagreement on how far we are morally obligated to consider animal welfare. In the future, we will be seriously discussing the rights abuses of artificial intelligences. It never ends.2) I understand this is a point of disagreement. But morality is not a fluid construct. It is a universal truth and exists regardless of the number of people who recognize that truth. If every person in America but one believed that african-americans are sub-human, it doesn't mean that african-americans actually are subhuman and that the one dissenter is a moron. Freedom, or more correctly in this context license, to do whatever we want is nullified when it infringes on the rights of others. Everything stems from the simple right to life, and so the right to life will always trump the license of care-free sex. Which brings me to the next point.
3) You can and do of course argue that the value of a human being comes only from the value assigned to it by others at any given point in time. It is logical to do so if you don't believe in absolute moral truths. But in doing so I think there is a whole host of issues you need to address and have a legitimate answer for other than "that's what most people think is correct today", because it has very serious implications for the relationship between all people. And with you being such a stanch constitutional libertarian, I wonder how you interpret a constitution that comes right out at the beginning saying that it rests upon absolute moral truths. How can you be a truly strict constructionist and hold that truth is simply a majority opinion? But moving on:
As always, the answer is complicated and there is no clear answer. That is my whole point. The Naval Institute: Proceedings: When Should We Intervene?Firstly, this understanding must rest on the presumption that "might makes right". Is there any situation in which the minority has any recourse against the majority? And if so, why? At what point should they just shut up and take it? And I am not speaking of subjective things like best football team or the proper way to prune crape myrtles.
What is the moral foundation for interfering in, say, genocide? Clearly the majority of the population in these countries believe that the minority have little to no value. On what grounds can we say they are wrong?
I thought I was already arguing that morality is complex and quite subjective. You seem to be supporting that assertion.Why is slavery wrong?
Is there anything wrong with eugenics?
Is there any such thing as an unjust law? If so, on what basis does this stand?
At what point does "might make right" end? Older sibling? Parental? Extended family? Town Council? State? Federal? Why?
Can one determine their own self-value?
I could keep going but its getting late and this post is getting ridiculously long.
"As we all know?"While you can argue that the value of a human being rests in the judgement of his/her peers, I believe that line of thinking leaves a lot to be desired. I would argue that the better position is that human beings have intrinsic value. Only with intrinsic value can we positively say that the young have the same value as the old, the poor the same value as the rich, the disabled, sick, depressed, sterile the same value as the healthy, happy, and fertile. Comparative or instrumental value are the truth of economics, but humans are not just a market commodity and so comparative value judgements say nothing to the worth of a human in regards to the right to life, or any other moral truth.
4) I no more support criminal investigations of miscarriages than I support the criminal investigation of death by old age. Now a case such as the one posted by Gr8thope would of course prompt a criminal investigation.
5) If I am reading you correctly you are arguing that, because there is such a stark, almost even divide on the question of the morality of abortion, that because so many millions of people think abortion is not morally evil, it cannot be a moral evil, otherwise they wouldn't support it. And that it could only be a moral evil if the majority of people believed it was a moral evil. Do I have this right? If so that is completely nonsensical.
As we all know, the question rests in whether the unborn child is a human life, or not. If it is, abortion is a moral evil. If it is not, abortion is no different than cancer treatment. I believe the evidence strongly points towards the former, and my faith has very little to do with that.
Yes because no one really is having abortions...its just a straw man argumentAh, the right...
Where the straw men roam and the manure is plentiful.
Good analysis. Any argument which is basically a moral/religious dispute and one side is shouting "Surely you realize this is obvious" is one without an end...Binary labels such as "human being" or "not human being" aren't as important to me as the derived value based on the perception of other people relative to the being. If you're looking for me to say "okay, I must admit that the flayed carcass of a fetus is indistinguishable from the flayed carcass of a newborn" you're not really getting much of value, because I don't think that highly of the right-to-life of newborns just because they have been born either. There is no magic that happens when a fetus passes through the womb and starts breathing air, but much has been made of the importance of this event, and it is a convenient reference point for the argument. The worth of the thing is made in other value judgments. I believe it would be a mercy rather than an atrocity to terminate the life of an infant with significant health or development problems, but I don't pretend to have the right to make that decision for other people.
There will always be a line drawn and categories made where things on one side are entitled to certain protections, and things on the other side are not entitled to them. It's easy to say NOW that it is obvious that racial discrimination is morally wrong, but that's because morality has shifted. The idea that there is a universal morality that we can know and abide by is not supported by any facts at all. It all comes from our own collective value judgments. We will always have disagreements on these sorts of things. Even now, there is disagreement on how far we are morally obligated to consider animal welfare. In the future, we will be seriously discussing the rights abuses of artificial intelligences. It never ends.
As for the Constitution, it says that the people are the basis for government power. There's no reference to universal morality that I can see. Furthermore, the Constitution was made to be amended as opinions and desires changed. You may be thinking of the Declaration of Independence, which invokes the idea of inalienable rights of people in general, without explicitly defining who qualifies.
As always, the answer is complicated and there is no clear answer. That is my whole point. The Naval Institute: Proceedings: When Should We Intervene?
I thought I was already arguing that morality is complex and quite subjective. You seem to be supporting that assertion.
"As we all know?"
If you reduce the question to whether an unborn child is a human life, you call into question the validity of the sanctity of human life. The sanctity of human life is not as clear cut as you make it out to be. Even beyond the murky question of when exactly a human being earns the right to life, there is considerable debate about the death penalty and right-to-die. We as a people are constantly weighing the importance of various rights and reaching different conclusions. When I take a position, it's not to assert universal truth, but to assert my own preferences.
one of the driving factors in making abortion legal was to try to lessen the number of "back-alley" abortions that were taking place as they were very dangerous and could be deadly.(to go full ad absurdum, I don't think the advocates for allowing abortion want to allow some yahoo with a coat hanger to perform them),
I agree, I used the term to ensure I didn't imply that something I didn't mean to. I tried (apparently unsuccessfully) in the last statement to make that point.one of the driving factors in making abortion legal was to try to lessen the number of "back-alley" abortions that were taking place as they were very dangerous and could be deadly.