Lots of really good court rulings

[moda0306]

Second, almost nobody is saying that it is "monstrous" to give birth.  They are saying, perhaps, that it is "monstrous" for an agent of the state to force a woman with a zygote (or perhaps a fetus) inside them to give birth.

Yes, that is the pro-choice position: that forced childbirth is the monstrosity. Especially if the pregnancy was the result of rape, which obviates the "well then don't have sex!" argument.

Are not the two fundamental questions: Who creates life?  When does life begin?  Those two questions force one to take a stand on a third fundamental question: Who is going to be god (man or God - definition of god that I'm using is who or what you put your ultimate trust in)? 

... Mountaineer

To me there are other very important questions...

Even if you could unequivocally state that "life" begins at conception, you still have questions about how you should morally value that life against other considerations?  A sperm cell is "alive."  A tree is "alive."  Obviously, "life" isn't the only moral-value measuring stick.

Why is human life "valuable" and other life is not?  Can you prove that only humans have a "soul," or that only things with souls have intrinsic value?  And not to repeat from other forums, but, if only humans have "intrinsic value," is there no moral weight to torturing puppies.  Even if you could PROVE God existed and Jesus was his son, could you really be very sure of their opinions on medicine, euthanasia, other forms of life, etc?

If we put our trust in reason & a more general form of "faith," I suppose you could say we're putting "our trust in man," but we are doing that with any form of theology as well, because you are either putting your "faith" in man's written word about God (the Bible/Koran/interpretations/etc), or your own individual FAITH in God, and since you as a MAN with a brain is helping you generate that sense of "Faith in God," you are trusting in yourself as an accurate conduit of God's will, and not just some guy who hears voices.


So "putting your faith in God" really doesn't solve any of our difficult problems with morality at all.  It just repackages them into something that looks like you can just jump past it.  You can't.  Even if we could PROVE what God wants from us... it doesn't logically, necessarily follow that a creator has moral authority over a conscious being.  He may have created that person's consciousness, and his ability to try to determine right or wrong, but that doesn't logically conclude that whatever the CREATOR deems right or wrong truly is.

For instance, God COULD decide that every unbaptized child should spend eternity in hell, while every repentant murderer go to heaven.  Is this right?  I surely don't think so.  I can't prove it, though . 

[Jan Van]

Even if you could unequivocally state that "life" begins at conception, you still have questions about how you should morally value that life against other considerations?  A sperm cell is "alive."  A tree is "alive."  Obviously, "life" isn't the only moral-value measuring stick.

Tough one, "life" doesn't really start, it flows on. Like you say, the sperm cell is alive. So is the egg, they just combine and continue on.

Now, we've been on a rant about abortion, but as far as I understand it, the Hobby Lobby case was about contraception, not abortion. So shouldn't we backup a few steps?


For a view on Hobby Lobby that libertarians might find interesting:
Hobby Lobby and Soylent Green

Yes, corporations are made of people. But that’s a different point, nearly the opposite point, from saying that they are themselves persons. The judgment today maintains that a closely-held corporation like Hobby Lobby is so close to the natural persons behind it that it’s not really a distinct corporate person at all; it’s just a costume that the Green family puts on and takes off as it suits them.

Notice that the right of a corporation to freedom of the press or to be secure in its property against searches or expropriation makes perfectly good sense in terms of the corporate person’s own interests, regardless of who its owners happen to be. Corporate religious liberty isn’t like that. The reason we have the emphasis here on “closely-held”? corporations is because the corporate veil is being pierced in order to look directly at the natural persons behind it.

I think that as soon as the argument for corporate rights you’re making only makes sense for closely-held corporations, it means that it’s a bad argument; it’s a corporations-are-made-of-people rather than a corporations-are-persons argument.

[Kshartle]

Abortion is terrible. It's very destructive emotionaly to the mother and their are many studies linking it to cervical cancer and other problems, not to mention greater difficulty of carrying to term in the future. You can debate when life begins but I can't help look at the little fetus or whatever and see a human head, arms, hands, legs, etc. It is potentially a brutal and awful process. Yet I don't advocate making it illegal. Why?

It would be wonderful if we could have many fewer abortions than we do currently. I think everyone except the mentally ill can agree with that basic idea.

Outlawing it won't work. It doesn't work for (other) murder, stealing, rape, speeding etc. etc.

Government violence based solution don't work, even if they are advocated by Christians as some sort of Calliphate (SP) of their own.

Strike at the root, not the branch.

Poor, underemployed, single women make up the vast majority of abortions. Why are they poor, underemployed, single and pregnant? They aren't having abortions because they're evil. The doctors aren't meeting the demand because they're evil. They aren't having sex because they're evil. They both view it as their best option. In the overwhelming amount of cases I think they are right. Why and what is the real solution?

Is it "free" birth control from the gubmit?
Is it "free" education from age 4-18 from the gubmit that leaves young people barely literate with zero skills?
Is it min wage laws that prices unskilled labor out of the market?
Is it regulations and taxes that drive away businesses and opportunity for young people?
Is it the marriage contract with the state that frightens men from taking a wife?
Is it criminalization of victimless "crimes" against the state that throw millions of young men in jail dooming them to a life where they never become productive men capable of being fathers?

Solve those problems and watch abortion melt away.

Regarding the first one.......When I was in high school we had a business women come to speak to us. She had formerly owned and operated many abortion clinics. This was back in the 90s and I think she said she got $50 a pop for an abortion. She said they would go to the high schools to hand out condoms because she knew the result. It was just seeding the process. It was marketing. She knew if she could get the young girls feeling safe about sex they would get pregnant and come give her $50. She had the all the stats. She was sobbing in front of 300 teenagers about the way she had made a living.

Anyway....having the state rob people to hand out condoms won't work, neither will kiddnapping and threatening people. Those are lazy-minded solutions, even if you don't recognize they are immoral. When does the lazy solution every work?

[moda0306]

Is it "free" birth control from the gubmit?
Is it "free" education from age 4-18 from the gubmit that leaves young people barely literate with zero skills?
Is it min wage laws that prices unskilled labor out of the market?
Is it regulations and taxes that drive away businesses and opportunity for young people?
Is it the marriage contract with the state that frightens men from taking a wife?
Is it criminalization of victimless "crimes" against the state that throw millions of young men in jail dooming them to a life where they never become productive men capable of being fathers?

Solve those problems and watch abortion melt away.

It's one thing to assert that government laws are ineffective.

It's another to say the are counter-productive.

But it is something else entirely to assert that laws are indeed the ROOT of the problem with abortion.  That if we just strike them down, the problem of abortion will just "melt away."

[Pointedstick]

Interestingly enough, what often gets lost is the fact that the abortion rate is already going in the right direction: down.

[dualstow]

Interestingly enough, what often gets lost is the fact that the abortion rate is already going in the right direction: down.

Why is that the right direction?

If it's going down because the rate of accidental or unwanted pregnancies is going down, that's great.
It it's because of a lack of access, not so good.

[Kshartle]

Is it "free" birth control from the gubmit?
Is it "free" education from age 4-18 from the gubmit that leaves young people barely literate with zero skills?
Is it min wage laws that prices unskilled labor out of the market?
Is it regulations and taxes that drive away businesses and opportunity for young people?
Is it the marriage contract with the state that frightens men from taking a wife?
Is it criminalization of victimless "crimes" against the state that throw millions of young men in jail dooming them to a life where they never become productive men capable of being fathers?

Solve those problems and watch abortion melt away.

It's one thing to assert that government laws are ineffective. Yes it is

It's another to say the are counter-productive. Yes it is

But it is something else entirely to assert that laws are indeed the ROOT of the problem with abortion.  That if we just strike them down, the problem of abortion will just "melt away." Yes it is

Moda what do you think is the root cause of abortion? I suspect you agree it is a symptom of a problem and not the problem itself. Maybe you don't see it as a problem at all?

If you do see it as a symptom of a larger problem, what do you think that problem is?

[Kshartle]

Interestingly enough, what often gets lost is the fact that the abortion rate is already going in the right direction: down.

Why is that the right direction?

If it's going down because the rate of accidental or unwanted pregnancies is going down, that's great.
It it's because of a lack of access, not so good.

What if it's going down because women get paid by the state to keep children who would otherwise be unwanted? 

[moda0306]

K,

Abortion is a problem in and of itself, especially the closer the fetus is to being a live baby.  But, it is also a symptom.  Does this mean I agree with illegalizing abortion of a zygote? 

No.

It means it is a problem.  That is all.

It's also a symptom of human imperfection.  People do unfortunate things due to the fact that we tend to be greedy, and always want to better our own position (not a bad thing, necessarily), and that sometimes we are willing to do bad things to claim that better position (this is the bad part).

Sometimes that imperfection results in child abuse.

Sometimes that imperfection results in theft and murder.

Sometimes it involves fraud.

Sometimes it involves polluting the world others are using.

Sometimes it involves torturing animals to make more profit in feeding people food they like to eat.

Sometimes it results in just being a prick.


PS....

Remember how you don't like when people ask questions to make their arguments?  You're doing it.  This is ok, for part of the conversation, but it would help if you'd state your case to support your conclusion that government is the ROOT cause of abortions. 

[moda0306]

Interestingly enough, what often gets lost is the fact that the abortion rate is already going in the right direction: down.

Why is that the right direction?

If it's going down because the rate of accidental or unwanted pregnancies is going down, that's great.
It it's because of a lack of access, not so good.

What if it's going down because women get paid by the state to keep children who would otherwise be unwanted? 

Then you would be incorrect that the state can't do anything to reduce abortions. 

[Kshartle]

Why is that the right direction?

If it's going down because the rate of accidental or unwanted pregnancies is going down, that's great.
It it's because of a lack of access, not so good.

What if it's going down because women get paid by the state to keep children who would otherwise be unwanted? 

Then you would be incorrect that the state can't do anything to reduce abortions. 

bwahahahaha

touchee

[Kshartle]

but it would help if you'd state your case to support your conclusion that government is the ROOT cause of abortions.

I did.

I pointed out how the women who have them are predominately poor and unmarried. That would kind of suggest a relationship. The state contributes to both of those situations immensely. It also removes potential fathers by the million to hold in cages.

[moda0306]

And you think that those are the root causes of abortion?  Lack of financial resources or need?

You made the point that mothers are given a lot of aid.  One could argue that there was a lot more reason to have an abortion in 1950 than there is today, due to all the help of the government, no matter what your situation, and child support requirements by fathers.

You can't have your welfare-state cake and eat it too, K.

[Kshartle]

And you think that those are the root causes of abortion?  Lack of financial resources or need?

You made the point that mothers are given a lot of aid.  One could argue that there was a lot more reason to have an abortion in 1950 than there is today, due to all the help of the government, no matter what your situation, and child support requirements by fathers.

You can't have your welfare-state cake and eat it too, K.

In 1950 it was illegal #1 in all but a few states (on request abortion). Obviously that will deter a lot of doctors and women and certainly lead to underreporting as well.

In 1950 people were getting married at what is now considered a very young age. A 20 year old with a high school education could find work to support a young family because he didn't have to support all the welfare families out of his check and the government hadn't driven out capitalism yet. This was the wealthiest country in the world by far and savings were very high. It wasn't the broken economy, high tax liberal welfare state 5 year plan command economy planned from the likes of Obama and Congress that it is now.

I'm curious why you think ladies opt for abortion?

Obviously there are lot of factors but I'm curious to hear what you think if you dissagree with me that financial concerns are the major factor.

[Kshartle]

One could argue that there was a lot more reason to have an abortion in 1950 than there is today, due to all the help of the government, no matter what your situation, and child support requirements by fathers.

Some young ladies might not want a life of welfare and regarding the "fathers and child support", ever hear the saying "you can't get blood from a stone"?

[moda0306]

And you think that those are the root causes of abortion?  Lack of financial resources or need?

You made the point that mothers are given a lot of aid.  One could argue that there was a lot more reason to have an abortion in 1950 than there is today, due to all the help of the government, no matter what your situation, and child support requirements by fathers.

You can't have your welfare-state cake and eat it too, K.

In 1950 it was illegal #1 in all but a few states (on request abortion). Obviously that will deter a lot of doctors and women and certainly lead to underreporting as well.

So other than unreporting, you are sorta saying that the government can solve a problem, at least partially, with a law... am I reading you correct?

In 1950 people were getting married at what is now considered a very young age. A 20 year old with a high school education could find work to support a young family because he didn't have to support all the welfare families out of his check and the government hadn't driven out capitalism yet. This was the wealthiest country in the world by far and savings were very high. It wasn't the broken economy, high tax liberal welfare state 5 year plan command economy planned from the likes of Obama and Congress that it is now.

In 1950 we hadn't driven out capitalism?  We weren't a high-tax liberal state?  We had Social Security, the income tax, the draft, 1930's banking regulations, FHA loans and loans for veterans, agricultural subsidies, public education, huge union power, the fed, and 90% income tax rates on high-income earners.

I mean K... using your standard of capitalism, when have we EVER been a capitalist society?

[moda0306]

K,

http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfound ... justed.pdf

Look at this inflation-adjusted bracket chart, and go back to the 1950's... look at those brackets.

[moda0306]

Reasons women opt for abortion (my guesses):

- Financial concerns
- Fear of giving birth
- Other commitment concerns with raising a child
- Low-motivation to take care of a child

Probably more... Just some ideas.

[Kshartle]

Reasons women opt for abortion (my guesses):

- Financial concerns
- Fear of giving birth
- Other commitment concerns with raising a child
- Low-motivation to take care of a child

Probably more... Just some ideas.

Do you think women have more fear now? What other commitment concerns? Why is their motivation lower now?

[moda0306]

Reasons women opt for abortion (my guesses):

- Financial concerns
- Fear of giving birth
- Other commitment concerns with raising a child
- Low-motivation to take care of a child

Probably more... Just some ideas.

Do you think women have more fear now? What other commitment concerns? Why is their motivation lower now?

I think some do.  Others don't.  On average, they probably do have more fear now. 

Commitment concerns of having to raise a child for 18 years.

Women are less "expected" to have kids nowadays, so perhaps that describes why their motivation is lower.

I don't know man... you'd have to poll most women... but most people don't even understand their own motivations, so I doubt it would be that useful.

[moda0306]

Perhaps the act of going to the capitalist-friendly 90% tax rates on higher income in the 1950's to the commie 40% tax rate on higher income today is the reason they're wanting to abort their children.

I mean... I want to abort myself when I have to try to debate with that kind of logic...



(Dark humor overflow agan)

[Mountaineer]

Interesting perspective.

... Mountaineer

More on the Hobby Lobby case
July 1, 2014 By Gene Veith

The left is up in arms over the Supreme Court’s decision that allows Christian-owned businesses to opt out of Obamacare’s requirement that they provide free contraception–including possible abortifacients like IUDs and the Morning After Pill–as part of all health insurance plans.

The court applied the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to for-profit companies.  So it’s saying that corporations can have a religion!  How can that be?

Well, corporations don’t have a religion, but the owners can have one.  The owner of a business does things by means of that business.  The owner of a construction company builds houses.  The owner can use that company to support causes he or she believes in.  A pro-life owner who buys contraception and abortion coverage for his or her employees is complicit in what they do.

The ruling only applies to individually or family-held companies, not to corporations collectively owned by stockholders.  Opponents of the ruling are not making this distinction.

So now corporations can claim a religious reason for getting out of all kinds of other laws, say the critics.  Well, they would have to make a case.  So Jehovah Witness-owned businesses could refuse to pay for blood transfusions?  And Christian Scientists could refuse to pay for health insurance altogether?  I myself would say, “yes.”?  Good luck to the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Christian Scientists in getting employees to work with them.  They should also have the right to hire their co-religionists, who thus would not have any trouble with those policies.  (The court, though, said explicitly that this ruling would not apply to discrimination cases.)

Though the left insists that corporations can’t be religious, notice how often the same people are always urging corporations to be ethical!

[Kshartle]

Interesting perspective.

It's against my athiest religion to pay for wars and deadbeats, can I opt out of taxes, for religious reasons!?!?!

[moda0306]

Interesting perspective.

It's against my athiest religion to pay for wars and deadbeats, can I opt out of taxes, for religious reasons!?!?!

I can't believe I'm doing this, but...

+1

[Xan]

It's against my athiest religion to pay for wars and deadbeats, can I opt out of taxes, for religious reasons!?!?!

I would think that a true atheist, by definition, doesn't believe that anything is objectively right or wrong, so no; it would be hard to argue that you believed taxation was wrong.

But your religion doesn't seem to be "atheist", it seems to be "NAP".  Not sure how far that would get you with opting out of taxation, but it might be worth a shot.  As long as you can demonstrate you're not getting any benefit out of force being used, either currently or in the past, against others.

I can't believe I'm doing this, but...

+1

Nope, -1000 for arguing via asking a question.