Abortion and 19th Century Science

Other discussions not related to the Permanent Portfolio

Moderator: Global Moderator

Kshartle
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3561
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:38 pm

Re: Abortion and 19th Century Science

Post by Kshartle » Thu Jan 23, 2014 2:51 pm

Xan wrote:
Kshartle wrote:Yes brilliantly said Lowe. As I've said countless times....Government is the effect, not the cause of the problem. The problem is the acceptance and support of the initiation of force as a solution to problems. The elimination of government will be the effect, not the cause of the rejection of the initiation of force as a solution to problems.
Right there: the perfectibility of man.  And it's bogus.

But let's say it'll happen someday.  In the meantime, you think murder should be legal?
Yes in fact think everyone should murder everyone. You nailed it. Brilliant analysis. You sliced right through everything I wrote and got right to the heart of the matter. I think murder should be legal. Love it. Never has a nail been stuck so squarely on the head before. You got me. I think murder is probably the single greatest human activity possible even.
User avatar
l82start
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 2342
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 9:51 pm

Re: Abortion and 19th Century Science

Post by l82start » Thu Jan 23, 2014 2:56 pm

Kshartle wrote:
Gosso wrote: I don't like the current system either, but I don't see how eliminating the government will help anything.
If you look back at what TennPaGA wrote you'll see he nailed it on the head regarding this. The elimination of the government will be an effect of a better society and the rejection of the initiation of force as a solution to problems. It will not be the cause of it. Elimination of the government will not be the cause of a better world it will be the effect of it and the problems you think that will be caused by it will not be what you think.
as nice as the idea that "not hitting kids" will create this better society is, i don't think its a guaranteed formula for success there are plenty of statist, entitlement class people whose parents didn't use force, and plenty of kids whose parents did use force (me included) that ended up libertarian/anti government. the real first step seems to me to be free-market education, if education isn't free market, nothing else stands much chance, if we get gov out of educating kids and support vouchers, private schools and home schooling than you might actually make a dent in the programing, that teaches theft to prevent theft.
Xan wrote:
Kshartle wrote:Yes brilliantly said Lowe. As I've said countless times....Government is the effect, not the cause of the problem. The problem is the acceptance and support of the initiation of force as a solution to problems. The elimination of government will be the effect, not the cause of the rejection of the initiation of force as a solution to problems.
Right there: the perfectibility of man.  And it's bogus.

But let's say it'll happen someday.
the perfectibility of man (society) and the perfectibility of men (individuals) are two different things. i cant speak for Kshartles view on this, but to me i think individuals are perfectible if they want it and work toward it.. society "may" be if enough individuals took on that work but it seems unlikely to occur to any large degree within one mans lifespan. 

as for the overall trend toward perfection its hard to impossible to call, we make improvements and suffer setbacks, make gains in one area and loose them in another. over the loooong view span of human history i like to think we have stepped up and made our self's better but that might just be the optimist in me talking..  (the realist would probably say "unquantifiable")
Last edited by l82start on Thu Jan 23, 2014 3:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain

Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence
Kshartle
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3561
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:38 pm

Re: Abortion and 19th Century Science

Post by Kshartle » Thu Jan 23, 2014 3:01 pm

Xan wrote: Now, PS is right that it's really the consequences of being a murderer that are the deterrent.  At the moment, it's in the form of the law.  In his theoretical society, those consequences come from other places.  But you don't even like THAT, because it's still "force" in the end.

Back to the original topic: we made it legal for mothers to kill their own babies as long as they weren't born yet, and it has now happened FIFTY-FIVE MILLION TIMES since then.  So yes, I think the body count from "Taken" is a gross understatement.
Why don't those consequences seem to be having an effect in Detroit? Why do they have such a different murder rate than say...Scottsdale? Isn't it illegal in both places? Why is the rate more than ten times different? If the law is actually effective at deterring murder...how can the rate be so different from one place to the next? How can you support the belief that the law is a significant deterrent in the face of these two vastly different rates?

Regarding abortion: You may see no moral difference between murder and abortion, but surely you understand this is a vastly different activity in a real sense. One is a violent attack against another human that is independantly out in the world and the other is a medical procedure performed on a mother and a fetus or unborn human.

They are vastly different in practice. No one argues that murder is acceptable...even governments have to figure out other names to call it. More than half the population views abortion as a medical procedure that is the right of a human. The law did not create that. Of course making abortion illegal decreases the amount because it exposes the doctor to the consequences.

You are pretending that not having a law against murder will somehow remove the consequences because you are programmed to think that way. You will accept the theft of your property and cede so much of your freedom to a group of humans because they promise to punish someone if they murder you. This is the statrix.
User avatar
Mountaineer
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3440
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am

Re: Abortion and 19th Century Science

Post by Mountaineer » Thu Jan 23, 2014 3:40 pm

Kshartle wrote:
1. Why don't those consequences seem to be having an effect in Detroit? Why do they have such a different murder rate than say...Scottsdale? Isn't it illegal in both places?

2. Regarding abortion: You may see no moral difference between murder and abortion, but surely you understand this is a vastly different activity in a real sense. One is a violent attack against another human that is independantly out in the world and the other is a medical procedure performed on a mother and a fetus or unborn human.
Re. your statements and questions (sorry, I'm not Xan but I cannot let this pass):

1. Look at the makeup of Detroit and Scottsdale.  One is becoming increasingly Muslim.  One is heavily Christian.  One has less corrupt politicians than the other.  One has more employment than the other.  One has more people who have a "work ethic".  What is the religion of homicide bombers?  Do you see any correlations?

2. From the standpoint of the one who was murdered, I doubt it makes any difference whether they were killed by an attack or a medical procedure.  A life taken is a life taken.  No need to sugar coat the method used to make it sound "politically correct".

... Mountaineer
"And this is the very aim of the devil, to cause a man to think his knowledge and wisdom the greater, the further he departs from the Word." - Martin Luther
Kshartle
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3561
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:38 pm

Re: Abortion and 19th Century Science

Post by Kshartle » Thu Jan 23, 2014 4:03 pm

Mountaineer wrote:
Kshartle wrote:
1. Why don't those consequences seem to be having an effect in Detroit? Why do they have such a different murder rate than say...Scottsdale? Isn't it illegal in both places?

2. Regarding abortion: You may see no moral difference between murder and abortion, but surely you understand this is a vastly different activity in a real sense. One is a violent attack against another human that is independantly out in the world and the other is a medical procedure performed on a mother and a fetus or unborn human.
Re. your statements and questions (sorry, I'm not Xan but I cannot let this pass):

1. Look at the makeup of Detroit and Scottsdale.  One is becoming increasingly Muslim.  One is heavily Christian.  One has less corrupt politicians than the other.  One has more employment than the other.  One has more people who have a "work ethic".  What is the religion of homicide bombers?  Do you see any correlations?

2. From the standpoint of the one who was murdered, I doubt it makes any difference whether they were killed by an attack or a medical procedure.  A life taken is a life taken.  No need to sugar coat the method used to make it sound "politically correct".

... Mountaineer
1. Yes thank you for making my case. The other factors are what contribute to the murder rate...not the legality or illegality of it. I was hoping Xan would prove my point but you have made a good start. Perhaps he can contribute further. :)

2. You doubt it makes any difference to the one murdered? That's inconsequential Mountaineer. We are discussing the person commiting the act. It makes all the difference in the world to them if they view it as a medical procedure vs murder. My point is it's not the law that makes people view it this way. And so the laws surrounding abortion will be much more effective at stopping abortion. Obviously some laws are very effective at stopping certain activity. Car companies can't sell a car that doesn't have an airbag in it, and so they don't. No one percieves this as a moral issue (or at least no one with any sense).

Murder and theft are viewed as moral wrongs to everyone practically (though clearly not to some here), and they increase or decrease in an area due to specific and various factors as you've demonstrated above. They do not, I contend, decrease significantly because of a law against them, as evidenced by Scottsdale and Detroit. It's illegal in both places, and yet the rate is more than ten times higher in one vs. the other.

I haven't forgotten about your other questions btw. I'll get to them I promise. I want to do them justice and I'm not quite in the mood for going down that road at the moment.
User avatar
Mountaineer
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3440
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am

Re: Abortion and 19th Century Science

Post by Mountaineer » Thu Jan 23, 2014 4:20 pm

Kshartle wrote:
My point is it's not the law that makes people view it this way. And so the laws surrounding abortion will be much more effective at stopping abortion. Obviously some laws are very effective at stopping certain activity.

Murder and theft are viewed as moral wrongs to everyone practically (though clearly not to some here), and they increase or decrease in an area due to specific and various factors as you've demonstrated above. They do not, I contend, decrease significantly because of a law against them, as evidenced by Scottsdale and Detroit. It's illegal in both places, and yet the rate is more than ten times higher in one vs. the other.
My perspective:  I do believe that laws matter - with a caveat.  For those who are believers, I think it matters very much what God's Law is (to very briefly repeat what I've said before, God's Law has three purposes - a curb, a mirror, and for Christians a guide for how to live).  Man's laws only matter for those who believe it is in their own interest while on this earth to obey them; if man has a limited moral code, then he will do whatever he thinks he can get away with.  If man is Christian, he will honor God's desires to the best of his ability.  Even though a Christian believer who repents of his errors is forgiven by God, that believer will almost always try to honor God's wishes because he is responding in thanks for the undeserved gift of forgiveness and eternal salvation.  I guess you could say that man is justified because God says so, and man is sanctified throughout his life because he is constantly fighting the "old Adam" and trying to be the "new Adam" because he, internally, wants to please his benefactor.

... Mountaineer
"And this is the very aim of the devil, to cause a man to think his knowledge and wisdom the greater, the further he departs from the Word." - Martin Luther
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 2284
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: Abortion and 19th Century Science

Post by Xan » Thu Jan 23, 2014 6:26 pm

Kshartle wrote:Yes in fact think everyone should murder everyone. You nailed it. Brilliant analysis. You sliced right through everything I wrote and got right to the heart of the matter. I think murder should be legal. Love it. Never has a nail been stuck so squarely on the head before. You got me. I think murder is probably the single greatest human activity possible even.
It sounds like this is sarcastic, and yet you do actually think that murder should be legal:
Kshartle wrote: I'm opposed to all laws, that includes laws against murder.
All I'm pointing out is that making murder legal will increase the number of murders.

Your Detroit/Scottsdale argument is a complete non sequitur and a strawman.  Nowhere did anyone say that the presence or absence of a law against murder is the ONLY factor that causes it.  But a law against murder is certainly one more barrier to doing it, therefore it suppresses the number of murders.  No?  You use logic exactly like this in many other situations, and then lambast anyone who even dares to discuss it.

So, if you somehow had the power today to repeal all the laws against murder, would you do it, or not, and why?
Last edited by Xan on Thu Jan 23, 2014 6:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Lowe
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 248
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 7:54 am

Re: Abortion and 19th Century Science

Post by Lowe » Thu Jan 23, 2014 9:01 pm

Xan wrote:Right there: the perfectibility of man.  And it's bogus
I think everyone can be happy and healthy.  Do you think they can't be?
User avatar
Pointedstick
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8697
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Abortion and 19th Century Science

Post by Pointedstick » Thu Jan 23, 2014 9:16 pm

Let's not confuse "the perfectibility of man" with "a general improvement in the standard of living and moral compass of individual men." I would remain skeptical of the former at the same time that I would argue that evidence for the latter is all around us.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
Lowe
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 248
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 7:54 am

Re: Abortion and 19th Century Science

Post by Lowe » Thu Jan 23, 2014 9:59 pm

People are already perfect.  It's impossible, but it's inside, all the time.

That's why the Flynn effect is happening faster than genetic drift can explain.  Greater intelligence, empathy, and wisdom were there all along.  It doesn't even make sense, after thousands of years of war, starvation, and slavery.  But it's right there, better than anyone could have imagined.
Kshartle
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3561
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:38 pm

Re: Abortion and 19th Century Science

Post by Kshartle » Fri Jan 24, 2014 2:00 am

Xan wrote: All I'm pointing out is that making murder legal will increase the number of murders.
No you're now splitting hairs. You wanted me to say I think there should be no law against murder. Why did you want that when you already knew my answer?

You are moving the goal post and splitting hairs.
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 2284
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: Abortion and 19th Century Science

Post by Xan » Fri Jan 24, 2014 6:59 pm

I'm not sure just what hairs I'm splitting and goalposts I'm moving, but whatevs.  I'm assuming that your refusal to answer my question:
Xan wrote: So, if you somehow had the power today to repeal all the laws against murder, would you do it, or not, and why?
is because it leads you down a path you don't want to go.  It's okay; I think I can get there on my own.  And good news: I think it gets us to a point where we all agree!

Based on this:
Kshartle wrote:As I've said countless times....Government is the effect, not the cause of the problem. The problem is the acceptance and support of the initiation of force as a solution to problems. The elimination of government will be the effect, not the cause of the rejection of the initiation of force as a solution to problems.
it seems you believe in an eschaton, of sorts.  I believe in an eschaton, too: I believe that Christ will return with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, that we will be raised incorruptible, and that the government shall be upon His shoulders.

Your eschaton involves humanity progressing to a point where force is unnecessary, where the non-aggression principle actually works.  It requires a belief in the constant progress and ultimate perfectibility of the human race, which puts you right in line with Marx, Lenin, Whiggism (hi Ad!), and all the leftist ideologies.

Anyway.  I believe your eschaton is bollocks, because there's simply no way that 100% of people will magically come to agree on definitions of arbitrary concepts like property ownership.  You probably believe mine is bollocks too.  But I think the specifics of the eschaton aren't important for this immediate conversation: we both believe that there will come a point when the laws of man will be wiped away, because the nature of man will have been changed.

And here's the thing: we both believe this hasn't happened yet.  We as a species aren't ready for all the laws of man to go away.  Since you believe government is the symptom and not the cause, your answer to my question would have to be "No".

So we agree that, here and now, pre-eschaton, we are just trying to muddle through as best we can, working out a way to live together on this rock we're stuck on (hi Moda!).  Which means you no longer have to occupy that high horse about you having a monopoly on the Only Way to arrange society.  We both agree that perfection won't, can't, happen until the eschaton.  We can both look at laws against murder, city ordinances, state law, federal law, etc, as temporary but necessary evils.  No longer do you have to charge in to every discussion and say how everybody is wrong but you!

I believe you've said on multiple occasions that the root cause is parents "hitting their children".  I would suggest you advocate for an end to that, rather than lecturing all of us about government and anarchy.  Since you believe government won't go away until parents stop "hitting", then it seems counter-productive to spend your energy on anything else.
Post Reply