Who didn't see this one coming?

[icanthearyou 4,463]

I think you are right, it is a sense of duty. Social conservatives feel a sense of duty to force their morality on society.

If the Bible ruled the day, Sandusky would be paying his victims 50 shillings and the victims would be forced to marry Sandusky. Thank God social conservatives are smart enough to ignore some parts of the Bible...

Every "side" in some sense and to some degree or another "forces" their morality on society. People who see allowing women more reproductive "freedom" have a morality that says a pre-born human being is not a person and therefore it is permitted to kill them. By getting the courts and federal gov't to side with their morality, they have forced it on the rest of the country. Under normal circumstances a person would be expected to do whatever they could to prevent and stop the killing of another person, but because one side has prevailed their morality on society, you are severely restricted in your ability to do so without running afoul of the law.

Let's drop this pretense that social conservatives are attempting to impose some morality on others that somehow deviates from some objective "neutral" stance. There is no neutral. Most laws impose or enforce some group's moral code on a society. The argument is not about whether we can impose morality or not. It's about whose morality will be imposed.

So we all need to lobby to impose our morality and will on the "other guys" before they impose their will and morality on us? That would explain a bloated, over legislative, devisive government. Oh well, I guess more people like bureaucracy than freedom. I starting to believe it myself. I have noticed that as more laws are passed, society seems to run much smoother and unpredictable acts of violence and antisocial behavior are becoming more rare. Fact is, there is a neutral but the conservative and liberals won't have any part of it. They will destroy America and liberty if they believe their side can "win".

[homersapien 11,382]

A few problems with that argument:

1) First you presume that every abortion constitutes murder which may be your opinion, but it is not generally held by everyone, so you start by "begging the question". (To put it another way you are trying to impose your position that all abortion is murder on everyone who doesn't believe that.)

Uh,no.. I didn't presume that every abortion is murder (even though I do believe that vast majority of them are). That wasn't even part of the argument.

You said: "People who see allowing women more reproductive "freedom" have a morality that says a pre-born human being is not a person and therefore it is permitted to kill them.

That seems to me that you are establishing the concept of "abortion as murder" as a basis for the rest of your argument. But you are correct I should have used the third person in my paraphrase. You didn't actually claim that you felt that way. So I apologize for that. It was careless of me.

What I should have said that anyone who presumes abortion is murder is begging the question, instead of saying you were begging the questions.

(But it does seem a little disingenuous to include the statement that you really do believe that the "vast majority of them are" after using a defense of speaking in the third person.)

I simply pointed out that on that subject, the "neutral" position is not the pro-choice one and therefore the anti-abortion position deviates from that. My point was, there is no neutral on this subject. Whether the anti-abortion side wins the day in the courts or the pro-choice side does, the winning side has imposed their morality on everyone.

This doesn't make sense to me. First I don't get your point of a "neutral" position. But if a "neutral" position exists in a moral argument I would say it is letting everyone decide for themselves, which is essentially the pro-choice position (by definition). And the idea that letting each individual decide for themselves is "imposing" your morality on others is absurd. It is just the opposite.

3) (And most importantly) The legal right to have an abortion does not impose a requirement on anyone. No one is required to get an abortion. On the other hand, making abortion illegal most definitely imposes your morality on others as they can no longer receive a once-legal medical procedure.

It imposes a lot of things on a many people. It imposes on the average person NOT to stop what they believe to be a murder under penalty of law. In fact, it turns it on its head.

That is a fanciful turn of logic. If allowing people to make their own choice in the matter forces others who would deny them that personal choice (thus forcing their morality on the situation) not to do so, then that is a good thing. You want to make the one who is prevented from forcing their own morality on others, the victim for not being allowed to do so. It's like saying a bully who is prevented from coercing others is being victimized because he is not being allowed to be a bully.

If I saw a mother trying to kill her newborn, I'd not only have the right to forcibly stop her, I'd have the obligation to. Legal abortion enshrines the killing as legal and actually prevents one from saving human life. It imposes on communities to permit such establishments to be allowed in their communities. In some cases it imposes on medical professionals to facilitate abortions...requiring doctors and pharmacists to choose between keeping their jobs and prescribing/filling abortion inducing medications.

So now we are back to the "abortion is murder" position that you didn't want to claim as a personal basis of argument. You can't have it both ways. You cannot deny you aren't begging the argument by defining abortion as murder and then turn around and base your argument on that very thing.

Your post represents a typical evangelical Christian tactic. You assume the roll of victim hood simply when you can't impose your beliefs on others. A classical example is when the president of the Southern Baptists once claimed that opposing the teaching of creationism in public schools was "anti Christian".

You really need to brush up on the ol' debate skills and logical fallacies. I didn't assume anything here. I merely pointed out that it is BS to portray only one side of various moral and social issues as the side that is imposing morality while the other is just being neutral and not imposing morality at all.

No, you are clearly using the presumption of abortion as murder as the moral basis of the argument.

The anti-abortion side of the argument is clearly using that moral basis for their position and, by eliminating the opportunity to exercise personal choice, would force everyone else to confirm to their moral standard.

The pro-choice side simply would let everyone act according to their own moral convictions. The only moral standard they are proposing is that of individual freedom. That seems pretty neutral to me. How can you claim that allowing individuals to act according to their own beliefs is imposing your beliefs on them? Its an absurd claim.

If someone says you are free to act according to your own moral beliefs do you really think they are imposing a belief system on you?

The last sentence is a non-sequitur and a complete red herring to anything I said.

Well first, it wasn't an argument, so it cannot be a non-sequitur by definition.

It was an example of how evangelical Christians often assume the role of the persecuted when their attempts to impose their religious beliefs on others are resisted.

While it is not precisely related to the specific subject it most definitely represents the gist of your argument, to whit: Anti abortion advocates are being persecuted by those who resist their efforts to have everyone operate under their own moral code.

I don't think it is I who needs to brush up on their "debate skills" and logical constructions.

I am constantly amazed how some people on this forum don't seem to understand their own arguments, or perhaps more accurately, don't seem to be able to express their arguments in a logical fashion. Undoubtedly this is because their arguments are not logical to begin with.

[TitanTiger 20,498]

So we all need to lobby to impose our morality and will on the "other guys" before they impose their will and morality on us?

This does not follow from anything I said.

Not every law, but most laws and especially the bigger ones flow from someone's moral viewpoint. It's just the way it is. I just get sick of the left accusing social conservatives of something they are absolutely just as guilty of themselves, but acting like they are coming from some blissful place of wondrous neutrality that we are so cruelly trying to depart from.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

So we all need to lobby to impose our morality and will on the "other guys" before they impose their will and morality on us?

This does not follow from anything I said.

Not every law, but most laws and especially the bigger ones flow from someone's moral viewpoint. It's just the way it is. I just get sick of the left accusing social conservatives of something they are absolutely just as guilty of themselves, but acting like they are coming from some blissful place of wondrous neutrality that we are so cruelly trying to depart from.

Do you see that conservatives and liberals are engaged in a bitter war for control of our society? Do you beleive we are achieving anything? Do you believe either side has respect for majority rule? You don't believe government can be neutral, correct? Do you believe they should be? Do you believe the Federal government was intended to be? Do you believe the average American is somewhat capable of being self-governed?

[TitanTiger 20,498]

You said: "People who see allowing women more reproductive "freedom" have a morality that says a pre-born human being is not a person and therefore it is permitted to kill them.

That seems to me that you are establishing the concept of "abortion as murder" as a basis for the rest of your argument. But you are correct I should have used the third person in my paraphrase. You didn't actually claim that you felt that way. So I apologize for that. It was careless of me.

The viewpoint of a pro-choice person is that a pre-born human being is not a person and thus is not deserving of human rights. I didn't think this was in dispute. This is a reflection of their morality.

What I should have said that anyone who presumes abortion is murder is begging the question, instead of saying you were begging the questions.

(But it does seem a little disingenuous to include the statement that you really do believe that the "vast majority of them are" after using a defense of speaking in the third person.)

I could just as easily say that anyone who presumes that pre-born human beings are not persons are begging the question if this is how the phrase is going to be applied. Both sides are coming to the table with certain presuppositions that then frame their argument from that point forward.

This doesn't make sense to me. First I don't get your point of a "neutral" position. But if a "neutral" position exists in a moral argument I would say it is letting everyone decide for themselves, which is essentially the pro-choice position (by definition). And the idea that letting each individual decide for themselves is "imposing" your morality on others is absurd. It is just the opposite.

To charge one side with "imposing morality" on to everyone else, you have to assume then that the opposing side believes they do not impose morality on anyone. In other words, on this issue (or various other ones we have laws on), you have decided that there is some sort of objective, morally neutral baseline. You've further decided that your position falls within that baseline and anyone that attempts to pass laws that go against it as "imposing" something foreign or non-neutral into the mix. My contention is that neither is neutral and both are imposing some sort of moral code on others.

And the problem with your "letting everyone decide for themselves" is that you are stripping some human beings of their right to have a say...namely the person being killed. And you do so by arbitrarily defining them as a "non-person."

That is a fanciful turn of logic. If allowing people to make their own choice in the matter forces others who would deny them that personal choice (thus forcing their morality on the situation) not to do so, then that is a good thing. You want to make the one who is prevented from forcing their own morality on another the victim for not be allowed to do so. It's like saying a bully who is prevented from coercing others is being victimized because he is not being allowed to be a bully.

It's not fanciful at all. If you wanted to beat your children within an inch of their lives and I enforce my morality on you by rushing over to knock you senseless and prevent you from continuing to do so, THAT is a good thing.

And actually, your example is completely wrong. It's more like saying that a person watching a bully impose his will on others should not be allowed to stop him from continuing to be a bully. You are saying that preventing an evil thing being done to an innocent or undeserving party should be prevented because I'm denying the perp their personal freedom.

No, you are clearly using the presumption of abortion as murder as the moral basis of the argument.

You clearly don't understand basic argumentation. I am using presumption of abortion as murder as what the position of one side of the debate is. More accurately, it's a step back from that. One side of the abortion argument sees pre-born humans as persons. This is a viewpoint that flows from their morality. The other side views pre-born humans as non-persons or sub-persons. That view flows from their morality. Both follow that logic to their respective positions on the matter...supporting or opposing abortion. Neither is neutral.

I don't know how to explain this any better to you.

The anti-abortion side of the argument is clearly using that moral basis for their position and, by eliminating the opportunity to exercise personal choice, would force everyone else to confirm to their moral standard. The pro-choice side simply would let everyone act according to their own moral convictions. The only moral standard they are proposing is that of individual freedom. That seems pretty neutral to me. How can you claim that allowing individual to act according to their own beliefs is imposing your beliefs on them? Its absurd to do so. If someone says you are free to act according to your own moral beliefs do you really think they are imposing a belief system on you?

You still don't get it. Your side does not simply let everyone act according to their own moral convictions. You force others including doctors and pharmacists into your web of "rights." You completely dehumanize the very person who has the most to lose in all of this...the child being killed. Your "individual freedom" strips the freedom of others...freedom to live and freedom to follow one's conscience. That's not neutral. I know it serves your argument to believe it so, but it's simply not true.

Well first, it wasn't an argument, so it cannot be a non-sequitur by definition.

It was an example of how evangelical Christians often assume the role of the persecuted when their attempts to impose their religious on others are resisted. While it is not precisely related to the specific subject it most definitely represents the gist of your argument: Anti abortion advocates are being persecuted by those who resist their efforts to have everyone operate under their own moral code.

Not even close. I simply showed that you don't get to claim the high ground of "neutrality" and declare everyone else's arguments to be some sort of aberration or departure from that by fiat. You are imposing a morality on people regardless of whether you actually get that you are.

[homersapien 11,382]

You said: "People who see allowing women more reproductive "freedom" have a morality that says a pre-born human being is not a person and therefore it is permitted to kill them.

That seems to me that you are establishing the concept of "abortion as murder" as a basis for the rest of your argument. But you are correct I should have used the third person in my paraphrase. You didn't actually claim that you felt that way. So I apologize for that. It was careless of me.

The viewpoint of a pro-choice person is that a pre-born human being is not a person and thus is not deserving of human rights. I didn't think this was in dispute. This is a reflection of their morality.

It is highly presumptuous of you to define the logical or moral basis of anyone holding a pro-choice position absent any statements by them explaining their position.

In fact, it is quite possible to be pro-choice without even having a personal position on when a fertilized egg becomes a "human being" (with natural or legal rights). For example, although I can make various scientific arguments for making a case when that happens, I would be the last person to claim I know when it happens. I don't.

Nevertheless, I can still support the right of every individual to make their own decision on the matter.

[TitanTiger 20,498]

It is highly presumptuous of you to define the logical or moral basis of anyone holding a pro-choice position absent any statements by them explaining their position.

In fact, it is quite possible to be pro-choice without even having a personal position on when a fertilized egg becomes a "human being" (with natural or legal rights). For example, although I can make various scientific arguments for making a case when that happens, I would be the last person to claim I know when it happens. I don't.

You're right, there are other nuances of that position. But frankly, this was actually the most charitable of the available options. Because if it is a person, then it's murder. If it's something less than a person, then it has no rights and therefore killing it is not murder.

It would be pretty monstrous to instead believe that its simply ok to kill some innocent people.

Nevertheless, I can still support the right of every individual to make their own decision on the matter.

Except the one being killed.

[homersapien 11,382]

It is highly presumptuous of you to define the logical or moral basis of anyone holding a pro-choice position absent any statements by them explaining their position.

In fact, it is quite possible to be pro-choice without even having a personal position on when a fertilized egg becomes a "human being" (with natural or legal rights). For example, although I can make various scientific arguments for making a case when that happens, I would be the last person to claim I know when it happens. I don't.

You're right, there are other nuances of that position. But frankly, this was actually the most charitable of the available options. Because if it is a person, then it's murder. If it's something less than a person, then it has no rights and therefore killing it is not murder.

It would be pretty monstrous to instead believe that its simply ok to kill some innocent people.

Nevertheless, I can still support the right of every individual to make their own decision on the matter.

Except the one being killed.

Well, the "one being killed" is incapable of making a decision at all. Especially if they don't yet have a brain. Whereas the involved woman is most definitely a human being with a sovereign right over her own body.

Aren't we getting off-topic? I thought this thread was about comparing pedophilia to homophobia.

[autigeremt 6,641]

Whoa!!! Homerspin is stating that a human is only human when it can make a decision.....does this include wives?

[TitanTiger 20,498]

Well, the "one being killed" is incapable of making a decision at all.

A newborn is also incapable of making a decision on whether or not they'd like to be killed. Their brain isn't sufficiently developed to be able to understand the question. This isn't a valid criteria.

Whereas the involved woman is most definitely a human being with a sovereign right over her own body.

The child is a human being also. And ability to comprehend the decision presented to it doesn't make him or her less than human.

Aren't we getting off-topic? I thought this thread was about comparing pedophilia to homophobia.

Probably.

[homersapien 11,382]

Whoa!!! Homerspin is stating that a human is only human when it can make a decision.....does this include wives?

Funny!

(But for the record, that's not what I said.)

[homersapien 11,382]

Well, the "one being killed" is incapable of making a decision at all.

A newborn is also incapable of making a decision on whether or not they'd like to be killed. Their brain isn't sufficiently developed to be able to understand the question. This isn't a valid criteria.

Didn't say it was a "criteria". It was meant to point out the illogical premise (aka sophistry) of your statement.

Whereas the involved woman is most definitely a human being with a sovereign right over her own body.

The child is a human being also. And ability to comprehend the decision presented to it doesn't make him or her less than human.

Well that takes us right back to the paradox of when a human is a human - or at least a human who's rights supercede those of the woman carrying it.

(Do we really need to make this an abortion debate?)

Aren't we getting off-topic? I thought this thread was about comparing pedophilia to homophobia.

Probably.

(See above response)

[autigeremt 6,641]

Whoa!!! Homerspin is stating that a human is only human when it can make a decision.....does this include wives? :rimshot:/>

Funny! :bananadance:/>

(But for the record, that's not what I said.)

"Well, the "one being killed" is incapable of making a decision at all. Especially if they don't yet have a brain. Whereas the involved woman is most definitely a human being with a sovereign right over her own body."

Yeah....you may have meant something else, but you did make a relative comment.

[homersapien 11,382]

Whoa!!! Homerspin is stating that a human is only human when it can make a decision.....does this include wives? :rimshot:/>

Funny! :bananadance:/>

(But for the record, that's not what I said.)

"Well, the "one being killed" is incapable of making a decision at all. Especially if they don't yet have a brain. Whereas the involved woman is most definitely a human being with a sovereign right over her own body."

Yeah....you may have meant something else, but you did make a relative comment.

Was I wrong?

[Aufan59 65]

Let's drop this pretense that social conservatives are attempting to impose some morality on others that somehow deviates from some objective "neutral" stance. There is no neutral.

Nonsense, government was designed to be neutral on morality. Government is not designed to enforce morals, but to protect liberty.

Yet, it isn't neutral. You have merely decided that a certain stance is "neutral" and declared all that deviates from that as an imposition.

Not trying to impose your morals on others is neutral. There are plenty of people who do not wish for government to be the morality police.

[TitanTiger 20,498]

Let's drop this pretense that social conservatives are attempting to impose some morality on others that somehow deviates from some objective "neutral" stance. There is no neutral.

Nonsense, government was designed to be neutral on morality. Government is not designed to enforce morals, but to protect liberty.

Yet, it isn't neutral. You have merely decided that a certain stance is "neutral" and declared all that deviates from that as an imposition.

Not trying to impose your morals on others is neutral. There are plenty of people who do not wish for government to be the morality police.

And as I've said, most laws...even ones you agree with...impose someone's morals on others.

[homersapien 11,382]

Let's drop this pretense that social conservatives are attempting to impose some morality on others that somehow deviates from some objective "neutral" stance. There is no neutral.

Nonsense, government was designed to be neutral on morality. Government is not designed to enforce morals, but to protect liberty.

Yet, it isn't neutral. You have merely decided that a certain stance is "neutral" and declared all that deviates from that as an imposition.

Not trying to impose your morals on others is neutral. There are plenty of people who do not wish for government to be the morality police.

And as I've said, most laws...even ones you agree with...impose someone's morals on others.

Well, it's not imposing "someones" morals on others, as much as imposing the "overwhelming majority's" morals on others.

[TitanTiger 20,498]

Majority or minority, it's still imposing morals on people. Imposing morality in the laws we pass is virtually inescapable.

[alexava 6,973]

define "morals".

[homersapien 11,382]

Majority or minority, it's still imposing morals on people. Imposing morality in the laws we pass is virtually inescapable.

Well yeah. The whole purpose of laws is to define the legal limits of behavior to generally accepted standards.

Not sure what your point is.

[Aufan59 65]

Let's drop this pretense that social conservatives are attempting to impose some morality on others that somehow deviates from some objective "neutral" stance. There is no neutral.

Nonsense, government was designed to be neutral on morality. Government is not designed to enforce morals, but to protect liberty.

Yet, it isn't neutral. You have merely decided that a certain stance is "neutral" and declared all that deviates from that as an imposition.

Not trying to impose your morals on others is neutral. There are plenty of people who do not wish for government to be the morality police.

And as I've said, most laws...even ones you agree with...impose someone's morals on others.

There is some overlap with morality and the law, but this doesn't mean the law is enforcing morality. Murder is not illegal because it is immoral. It is illegal because you are violating someone's liberty.

[TitanTiger 20,498]

The idea that human beings have inherent "liberty" or a right to live and not have you kill them is in and of itself a moral judgment.

[Aufan59 65]

It is a moral judgement to say that society cannot function properly if you do not protect basic individuality liberty?

To bypass a pointless argument on semantics, I will agree with you. But on the scale of "forcing your morality on others", basing laws on believing everyone has a right to liberty is about as neutral as you can get.

[homersapien 11,382]

The idea that human beings have inherent "liberty" or a right to live and not have you kill them is in and of itself a moral judgment.

The reasons we have laws against the random killing of anyone you want to have little to do with "morality" as such.

[autigeremt 6,641]

Whoa!!! Homerspin is stating that a human is only human when it can make a decision.....does this include wives? :rimshot:/>

Funny! :bananadance:/>

(But for the record, that's not what I said.)

"Well, the "one being killed" is incapable of making a decision at all. Especially if they don't yet have a brain. Whereas the involved woman is most definitely a human being with a sovereign right over her own body."

Yeah....you may have meant something else, but you did make a relative comment.

Was I wrong?

I think you are, but I also don't believe in blanket legislation when it comes to abortion. I do think there should be exemptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother. The rest is an individual responsibility issue that goes beyond the black and white argument.