Women Who Have Abortions Should Be Punished
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-04-2016, 04:04 PM
RE: Women Who Have Abortions Should Be Punished
(01-04-2016 03:45 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(01-04-2016 05:01 AM)Heatheness Wrote:  Exactly, if a doctor intentionally or otherwise accidently causes harm to a woman's liver or other internal organs or any part of her body, he or she is libel for their actions and subject to legal actions. Doctors are arrested or sued for their medical malpractice every day. They can and are accountable for what the patient views as harm to themselves.

Heatheness, in your opinion what rights should a fetus have at 5 months? 7? 9? 1 Hour before exiting the vaginal canal? 1 Hour after?

I can answer for Maryland.

"Under Maryland law, any abortion—even a late abortion well after viability—performed because the unborn child is 'unwanted' is considered a legal abortion provided for 'health' reasons."

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-04-2016, 04:08 PM
RE: Women Who Have Abortions Should Be Punished
(01-04-2016 04:04 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(01-04-2016 03:45 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  Heatheness, in your opinion what rights should a fetus have at 5 months? 7? 9? 1 Hour before exiting the vaginal canal? 1 Hour after?

I can answer for Maryland.

"Under Maryland law, any abortion—even a late abortion well after viability—performed because the unborn child is 'unwanted' is considered a legal abortion provided for 'health' reasons."

That wasn't the question, but it is interesting. So Girly, one hour before birth the fetus has no rights, and when it pops out it has the same amount of rights as any other American in the Commonwealth (State?) of Maryland?

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-04-2016, 04:26 PM (This post was last modified: 01-04-2016 04:33 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Women Who Have Abortions Should Be Punished
(01-04-2016 04:08 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(01-04-2016 04:04 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  I can answer for Maryland.

"Under Maryland law, any abortion—even a late abortion well after viability—performed because the unborn child is 'unwanted' is considered a legal abortion provided for 'health' reasons."

That wasn't the question, but it is interesting. So Girly, one hour before birth the fetus has no rights, and when it pops out it has the same amount of rights as any other American in the Commonwealth (State?) of Maryland?

That quote was from a legal opinion of a Right to Life lawyer obviously designed to exaggerate Maryland's Law. Here is the Right to Life page where I found it.

Viability in Maryland is 6 months (24 weeks). The fetus does have certain rights after viability. The biggest one is if someone other than the mother or her doctor kills the fetus they can be charged with anything from manslaughter to murder.

Practically, you are unlikely to find a licensed doctor doing third trimester abortions unless the fetus was already dead to avoid the mother from going through the trauma of delivering a stillborn baby or the life or health of the mother was in peril. Now in Texas you can't even do that. If that fetus dies after 20 weeks it is illegal to abort it for any reason. Women in Texas have faced the situation where they know the fetus is dead and are still forced to carry it for months.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
01-04-2016, 04:26 PM
RE: Women Who Have Abortions Should Be Punished
Not your body so none of your business.

Poetry by Brian37(poems by an atheist) Also on Facebook as BrianJames Rational Poet and Twitter Brianrrs37
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Brian37's post
01-04-2016, 04:32 PM (This post was last modified: 01-04-2016 04:39 PM by Stevil.)
RE: Women Who Have Abortions Should Be Punished
(01-04-2016 03:41 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(01-04-2016 01:49 PM)Stevil Wrote:  And yet you brought it up. Even though you say that it is irrelevant, you brought it up for some reason.
I brought it up for the very reason of clarifying that I was speaking of legality rather than morality.
OK, thanks for clarifying. I thought you brought it up because you were claiming that morality was important but that the law might perhaps differ from what is moral.


(01-04-2016 03:41 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(01-04-2016 01:49 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Philosophy don't rank high in my list of important things
If true, then this is where we differ, but I doubt it's not actually true. Philosophy is a father of morality, so if morals are important to you then Philosophy is by extension.
I have a fascination for why people claim that morality is important even though morality is "unknowable" (IMO). I have an interest in how such people can make claims as to what morals can become known and by what method they can determine them.

(01-04-2016 03:41 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(01-04-2016 01:49 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Believed by who?
Why should others be forced to live by that person's moral beliefs?

Why would you want to support a system where the population are forced to obey the moral beliefs of others?
Believed by "We the people".
This is probably my biggest bug bear with the whole "morality" thing.

Many people seem to make a vague high level claim of "the morality of society" or in your case "we the people" (very American BTW). But when I try to get them to tell me what that means e.g. Is it determined by a majority vote, or is it only if the people are unanimous, or...
Then I never get a definitive answer to that.

The reason being is that there can be no definitive answer. Morality is a pipe dream. People only appeal to the morality of society when that perceived morality (perceived in their own head) conforms to their own personal moral beliefs, they simply project that onto their perception of society and use that as an argument to substantiate their own already held beliefs. This is my thoughts on it, of course I could be incorrect but if not then please tell me how you determine what is moral and what is not in terms of "we the people"? Who is it that is the official spokesman for "We" as in "we the people"?

(01-04-2016 03:41 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  In an ideal world there would be no need for government because we would all treat each other well, and there would be no conflicts of interest, or grey areas.
How is this ideal?

We live in a reality where there are limited resources. We must compete against each other. We cannot live in a happy la la land where everyone's needs and desires are meet and no conflicts are incurred.

I think an ideal governed society is one where government let people live diverse lives rather than force them to meet some kind of moral pipe dream that those in power have.

(01-04-2016 03:41 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  Laws, based on our collective morals,
There is no such thing as collective morals.
And it is simply incorrect to suggest that laws are based on morals.

Most people would agree that it is "immoral" to cheat on your wife while she is busy at home tending to your three under 5 year old children.

But do we think we ought to have a law against cheating? Should we lockup the cheating husband? I would think that most people (in western cultures) would say no.

(01-04-2016 03:41 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  ideally protect its citizens from its citizens.
This could be something other than morality. It could be a set of laws/rules to ensure people can live relatively safely within a society.

(01-04-2016 03:41 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  That is why you should be required to follow laws, based on morals, which you do not necessarily believe.
I obey laws because I am forced to do so.
I don't want to go to prison, I don't want a criminal record. I enjoy traveling overseas and a criminal record could stop me doing that.

(01-04-2016 03:41 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  Perhaps my moral compass says tooth for a tooth and eye for an eye is just and I will dole out the punishment if an immoral act is committed on me. I am personally glad that this is not our justice system and I am glad that there are laws which prevent this type of behavior from being perpetrated.
Are these laws based on morality? If so then whose?
Or are they based on the premise of making society safe?

(01-04-2016 03:41 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(01-04-2016 01:49 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Who in particular gets to decide what is an immoral law?
Why on earth is it the duty of citizens not to follow immoral laws?
I have no such duty. Who gets to decide what my duties are?
So what if I don't carry out my duties, what is the consequence on me?
We the people. Because we shouldn't tolerate immoral acts.
Is this by the vote? Like a majority rules thing?

If heavy metal music is deemed immoral by the majority should we make it illegal? Same for prostitution, or perhaps belief in the "wrong" gods. Maybe if the majority of people thing gay sex is immoral then perhaps we ought to make that illegal and lock up the gays? What say you about this majority rules moral based society?

(01-04-2016 03:41 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  You do. If you want to see the consequences of following immoral laws, look at any genocide for a good example. The Holocaust of the Jews, The Ottoman Empire's genocide of the Seljuks, the Killing Fields. Of course you can find much less extreme examples are easily found as well, but those are very good examples.
Who is it that determines that genocide is immoral?
What do they base this on.

Many societies thing prostitution is immoral, those countries have laws against it. The impact is that prostitution is a thriving business which is negotiated in dark alleys. There are many countries where prostitution is legal (perhaps not seen as immoral), those countries are stable too, prostitution happens, is taxed and regulated.
So is outlawing prostitution an immoral law? Is it the people's duty to stand up against this immoral law?
I personally don't think there is anything wrong with prostitution. I don't agree with laws against it. But it doesn't impact me. I don't want to be a prostitute and I don't want to pay for a prostitute. Why should I put effort into fighting this law? I don't see it as my duty.

(01-04-2016 03:41 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(01-04-2016 01:49 PM)Stevil Wrote:  What is the purpose of punishment? Does our government fill the position of god? Do they decide what is moral and immoral, do they watch and judge and give out judgement?

This is a very weird view of the purpose of government.

To deter crime. I suppose that would depend entirely on your view of an imagined God and his or her role in human affairs. I think my view of governments role is widely accepted. You're the one with the wierd view from my perspective.
Governments implement law to ensure that society can function and thrive and so that members of society are safe. That is the purpose of government.

We get into problems when government want to be god or mum and dad and take it upon themselves to control our lives and tell us what is right and wrong and to punish us for wrong doing.
We lock up people that present a danger to society. We don't merely lock them up for being immoral. We don't lock up liers and cheaters and untrustworthy selfish people. We lockup people who present danger to society because we want to remove those dangers.

For example, even if gay sex is deemed "immoral" what would be the point in locking up the immoral gay people? They present no danger to society. What they do is their own private business.
I know that your simple answer to this would be "well of course gay sex isn't immoral" but who is to say what is immoral or what is moral.
I am married to a person of a different race, perhaps that is immoral in some people's eyes, perhaps to them, I should be locked up for being immoral, even though I present no danger to society.

Maybe instead of basing laws on morality perhaps we could consider laws are there to ensure society is safe and thriving rather than moral.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-04-2016, 04:54 PM
RE: Women Who Have Abortions Should Be Punished
(01-04-2016 04:32 PM)Stevil Wrote:  The reason being is that there can be no definitive answer. Morality is a pipe dream. People only appeal to the morality of society when that perceived morality (perceived in their own head) conforms to their own personal moral beliefs, they simply project that onto their perception of society and use that as an argument to substantiate their own already held beliefs. This is my thoughts on it, of course I could be incorrect but if not then please tell me how you determine what is moral and what is not in terms of "we the people"? Who is it that is the official spokesman for "We" as in "we the people"?

But that's a total non sequitur?

People argue aspects of morality even when society as a whole disagrees all the time. On any issue you care to imagine.

Which is leaving aside conflation between the existence of some standard and the means by which that standard is arrived at...

(01-04-2016 04:32 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(01-04-2016 03:41 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  In an ideal world there would be no need for government because we would all treat each other well, and there would be no conflicts of interest, or grey areas.
How is this ideal?

We live in a reality where there are limited resources. We must compete against each other. We cannot live in a happy la la land where everyone's needs and desires are meet and no conflicts are incurred.

If governance is defined as a means of conflict resolution, then, trivially, absent any conflict it is therefore unnecessary. Seems simple enough.

(01-04-2016 04:32 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I think an ideal governed society is one where government let people live diverse lives rather than force them to meet some kind of moral pipe dream that those in power have.

"When you say what 'should' be, you're just appealing to morality, but when I say what 'should' be, it's different, because reasons".

(01-04-2016 04:32 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(01-04-2016 03:41 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  ideally protect its citizens from its citizens.
This could be something other than morality. It could be a set of laws/rules to ensure people can live relatively safely within a society.

Why should we desire that?

(01-04-2016 04:32 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(01-04-2016 03:41 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  You do. If you want to see the consequences of following immoral laws, look at any genocide for a good example. The Holocaust of the Jews, The Ottoman Empire's genocide of the Seljuks, the Killing Fields. Of course you can find much less extreme examples are easily found as well, but those are very good examples.
Who is it that determines that genocide is immoral?
What do they base this on.

Certainly none of the people who did those things thought themselves immoral for doing so. So there is that.

(01-04-2016 04:32 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(01-04-2016 03:41 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  To deter crime. I suppose that would depend entirely on your view of an imagined God and his or her role in human affairs. I think my view of governments role is widely accepted. You're the one with the wierd view from my perspective.
Governments implement law to ensure that society can function and thrive and so that members of society are safe. That is the purpose of government.

Except 'society', 'function', 'thrive', 'members', and 'safe' do not have objective definitions? They must be decided by the same process by which that government is constituted and those laws are debated, chosen, and enforced - by definition?

(01-04-2016 04:32 PM)Stevil Wrote:  We get into problems when government want to be god or mum and dad and take it upon themselves to control our lives and tell us what is right and wrong and to punish us for wrong doing.

Reification that bad? Really? "Government" is not some separate abstract entity we summoned up from another dimension. It's a human construct...

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
01-04-2016, 05:21 PM
RE: Women Who Have Abortions Should Be Punished
(01-04-2016 03:45 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(01-04-2016 05:01 AM)Heatheness Wrote:  Exactly, if a doctor intentionally or otherwise accidently causes harm to a woman's liver or other internal organs or any part of her body, he or she is libel for their actions and subject to legal actions. Doctors are arrested or sued for their medical malpractice every day. They can and are accountable for what the patient views as harm to themselves.

Heatheness, in your opinion what rights should a fetus have at 5 months? 7? 9? 1 Hour before exiting the vaginal canal? 1 Hour after?

Fetuses don't have rights. People have rights.

[Image: dnw9krH.jpg?4]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-04-2016, 05:52 PM
RE: Women Who Have Abortions Should Be Punished
(01-04-2016 04:54 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(01-04-2016 04:32 PM)Stevil Wrote:  The reason being is that there can be no definitive answer. Morality is a pipe dream. People only appeal to the morality of society when that perceived morality (perceived in their own head) conforms to their own personal moral beliefs, they simply project that onto their perception of society and use that as an argument to substantiate their own already held beliefs. This is my thoughts on it, of course I could be incorrect but if not then please tell me how you determine what is moral and what is not in terms of "we the people"? Who is it that is the official spokesman for "We" as in "we the people"?

People argue aspects of morality even when society as a whole disagrees all the time. On any issue you care to imagine.

Which is leaving aside conflation between the existence of some standard and the means by which that standard is arrived at...
Dark Light has argued that it is "we the people" whom determines right from wrong in a moral sense.
But when they speak of something as being moral they elevate it to a common morality as if it is something that applies to other people. Perhaps a moral that others should believe in and ought to have an obligation towards.

The fact of the matter is that morality is only ever in the eye of the beholder. It applies to no-one other than yourself. You are a fool for expecting others to abide by your own moral beliefs. Of course you could discuss with another person and try to convince them to take up your own moral belief. But it makes no sense to expect that they do. They aren't you, they don't share your beliefs. They are in a unique position and it is upto them to decide what they believe to be the best course of action for them.


(01-04-2016 04:54 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(01-04-2016 04:32 PM)Stevil Wrote:  How is this ideal?

We live in a reality where there are limited resources. We must compete against each other. We cannot live in a happy la la land where everyone's needs and desires are meet and no conflicts are incurred.

If governance is defined as a means of conflict resolution, then, trivially, absent any conflict it is therefore unnecessary. Seems simple enough.
Your thinking is perhaps trivial. Why don't you apply your thinking to the real world. There is always conflict because resources are limited. There must therefore be conflict.
For example, money is of great value, it provides food, shelter which are necessary for life. If you have money and I am starving but I am bigger and stronger than you then why don't I just take your money from you? I do it because I need it or it provides me with value, not because I am an immoral person.
Given a society within which there are limited resources, we must compete, therefore we need a set of rules for that society. These rules do not need to be based on someone's moral beliefs.

(01-04-2016 04:54 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(01-04-2016 04:32 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I think an ideal governed society is one where government let people live diverse lives rather than force them to meet some kind of moral pipe dream that those in power have.

"When you say what 'should' be, you're just appealing to morality, but when I say what 'should' be, it's different, because reasons".
I'm not telling you want is right or what is wrong. I'm not telling you what you are morally obligated to do. Nice try though.

(01-04-2016 04:54 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(01-04-2016 04:32 PM)Stevil Wrote:  This could be something other than morality. It could be a set of laws/rules to ensure people can live relatively safely within a society.

Why should we desire that?
You can desire whatever you want.
I'm not telling you what you should or shouldn't desire. Again, nice try.

(01-04-2016 04:54 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(01-04-2016 04:32 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Governments implement law to ensure that society can function and thrive and so that members of society are safe. That is the purpose of government.

Except 'society', 'function', 'thrive', 'members', and 'safe' do not have objective definitions? They must be decided by the same process by which that government is constituted and those laws are debated, chosen, and enforced - by definition?
Sure, what has this got to do with the discussion of morality?

(01-04-2016 04:54 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(01-04-2016 04:32 PM)Stevil Wrote:  We get into problems when government want to be god or mum and dad and take it upon themselves to control our lives and tell us what is right and wrong and to punish us for wrong doing.

Reification that bad? Really? "Government" is not some separate abstract entity we summoned up from another dimension. It's a human construct...

I am not a politician. I am a person expressing my view on what government representation that I personally want.
I am also expressing my experience in stating the often the people in power, Prime Minister, President, Cabinet Ministers, Corporate backers etc, they often look to impose their own moral beliefs or ideals on the people, when they are in office and have the power to do so.

We give them this power by saying that it is OK for them to impose morality onto us.

For USA they have a constitution and amendments and that in some ways keeps the government in check. The courts can decide if the government has imposed a law that impeaches those foundational rules.

Allowing government to base rules on "morality" gives them a blank cheque, the can set a law and simply state that they have outlawed an immoral act. Courts can't then debate if the act is immoral or not.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-04-2016, 01:24 AM
RE: Women Who Have Abortions Should Be Punished
(01-04-2016 05:21 PM)Heatheness Wrote:  Fetuses don't have rights. People have rights.

Considering the countries like Brazil, Colombia or Chile where abortion is illegal in all circumstances or permitted only to save a woman's life. your statement is sadly not true.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-04-2016, 01:45 AM
RE: Women Who Have Abortions Should Be Punished
(02-04-2016 01:24 AM)Szuchow Wrote:  
(01-04-2016 05:21 PM)Heatheness Wrote:  Fetuses don't have rights. People have rights.

Considering the countries like Brazil, Colombia or Chile where abortion is illegal in all circumstances or permitted only to save a woman's life. your statement is sadly not true.

Think shaman got their own Plan B.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: