JGL53

"Yes" to both your questions. Human society makes laws. Some or many of these laws, or even the societies themselves, are immoral in my, your, or someone else's opinion. If the absence of a dictatorship, consensus makes the rules. What part of all this don't you understand?

JGL53

lwf, for you to 'win' this debate regarding abortion, you and I would have to agree on some definitions, which we don't, so, your 'win' can only exist in your mind. Enjoy.

The abortion debate isn't effected by the definition of 'person', but on that of a 'human being"? Really? How do the two differ?

A baby is a human being. You and I are human beings. George Bush, Jr. is a human being (just barely). And you believe a human zygote is a human being - right? Well, is a single muscle cell from my thigh muscle a human being too? If, not, why not? Discuss.


-( As a side note, regardless of how logical you are and I'm not, the majority of people definitely are fairly illogical, especially on the subject of abortion. Most have an emotional reaction to the issue, and defend that emotion with whatever logic, sound or unsound, they can muster.

The minority relates to the poor little murdered fetus, and the big, bad aborting mother (not to be) and the bad ole abortion doctor.
The majority relates to the personal choice issue of the mother, the horror of the state forcing her to do it's or other people's will, and the nonhuman appearence (size, shape) of a embryo or fetus.

Holding up signs of aborted fetuses and screaming 'murderer' at women entering clinics, and actually murdering clinic workers, really hasn't worked too well so far. What do you think would work to win over more of the majority - I mean, what emotional appeal would work.

(( Even if you could win the debate on this BB using strict unemotional logic, that wouldn't be good enough for the masses- as stated, most people ultimately base their 'logic' on a foundation of emotions or 'feelings'.))

yguy

<sigh> You are certainly trying my patience. I'll give it one more shot:

Four men and three women live on an island. One man has a gun. In a dictatorship, that man passes a law to allow him to rape the women. In a democracy - rule by consensus - the man with the gun magnanimously throws it into the ocean, and the men pass a law allowing all of them to rape the women.

Since you are having difficulty with this, I'll make it multiple choice. Since you are a man:

A. The dictatorship is preferable because you have the gun.

B. The democracy is preferable because you DON'T have the gun.

C. Duh.

D. None of the above.


Take your time, Einstein.

JGL53

Thanks for the outrageous compliment. Though a member of Mensa, I'm certainly no 'Einstein'. But I don't think our relative I.Q. scores are the issue here. You may have had better grades at University than I did, but that doesn't make you automatically right, does it?

You must be either talking over my head, or just changing the subject, but in any case here's my answer to your moral dilemma question:

If there is plenty to eat and drink and shelter for all, then initially, I would support a libertarian society. E.g., if two of the men want to get gay with each other, that would be their business. If two of the women and one of the men (hopefully me) agree to have a sex party, then that would be that. Rape of any type would be outlawed.

That would be my preference for this rather smallish society. But if one of the other people have a gun and want to create a society that sanctions rape (or if the other three men are NFL linemen who gang up together against me), then maybe I'll go along to get along (unless they want to rape ME - in which case I'll give swimming to the mainland a go).

In any case, "lifeboat" situations can't be extrapolated to everyday societal life. What's this to do with abortion, or the fact that humans are the source of societal laws?

yguy

Maybe that's your problem. Too smart by half, and can't see the obvious, like most people around here.

OK then, you don't favor government by consensus - and yet that is precisely how you justify abortion, because you haven't a shred of principle to be able to hang it on otherwise.

The point is that if humans don't make their laws on the basis of something more than consensus, disaster ensues sooner or later.

Have I mentioned Holland lately?

yguy

You really, REALLY think that we made black people into human beings by declaring them such? You mean black people owe US their humanity??

Damn, I'd love to see a video of you saying that to a black guy in the hood.

JGL53

Hmmmmm. I can't see the obvious because I don't agree with your 'logic'. Isn't that a rather egotistical attitude? - I thought I was the Mensa member here.



But I do favor government by consensus. That's the way government works - except for dictatorships of some kind. Give me an example of government by something other than dictatorship (which I deplore) or consensus( used as synonymous with the word "democracy") - what's the third choice?

And I 'justify' abortion based on the fact that I don't agree a human embryo can reasonably be considered a human being, I don't think it is practical to force women against their wills to give birth (especially since we are talking about MILLIONS of women worldwide), and I think anti-abortion laws would fuck society up worst than having it legal. I would draw a parallel with alcohol prohibition (and present drug laws, for that matter). Stopped a lot of drinking, did it? Encouraged people to respect the law in general, did it?


I don't understand what you are saying. Other than dictatorship (which includes oligarchy, etc.), what is possible except consensus (democracy)? Anarchy? Not practical - I don't even consider it. What else?

yguy

Nope. Just stating the obvious.

Then your answer is B.

Your opinion, or anyone else's on that point, is irrelevant.

Fine. Let's repeal the laws against murder, since they obviously don't prevent murder.

How could I possibly make it clearer?

Never mind. You don't want clarity anyway - you want confusion.

A person who thinks whites granted blacks their humanity couldn't possibly understand the answer to that question.

JGL53

So, what is obvious to YOU is the definition of 'obvious' for all people for all time. Compared to you, Ayn Rand had an inferiority complex.

My answer is "none of the above", elucidated by my actual posted answer, bub. You didn't appreciate my answer? Well, do you have any rebuttal for it, other than to say "Then your answer is B.", which makes no sense to me.


Uh, my point is that the consensus of opinion is the ONLY relevant consideration, in the end. Again, whose opinion do you believe trumps this? God's? If so, which god?

That doesn't follow. The laws against murder 'work' after a fashion - unlike the old anti-abortion laws - hundreds of thousands of women violated such laws year after year, decade after decade. I think the consensus vote would be around 99 per cent to keep the present laws re murder in place. Eighty per cent want abortion to be legal, at least for rape and incest victims. Where's the analogy here, bub?

Oh, I would LOVE some clarity here. I would love you to try and give direct and specific answers to my points, instead of whatever the hell it is that you are doing. It's not that I WANT confusion, it's just apparently all we are going to get from you, so I better get used to it, huh?

If I WERE black, I would be making the same point here, which, for some reason, you just can't get.

IF a society, through consensus, has a constitution that states that a black is one-fifth of a white person. then that is the law. I disagree with this - maybe not as emotionally as a black would, because it wouldn't be my ox that was being gored - but I disagree with this as much as any white person can.

I already made this point once and apparently you just can't get it - but consensus makes laws. Laws don't make an act 'wrong' in some cosmic sense, they just make an act illegal. I can list quite a number of laws that I believe are stupid and immoral - from my personal judgement of things. So can you, and so can every mother's son. But consensus is against us - for now. If you don't like a law, work to change it. Until that happens, if you break said law, and are caught, you suffer the penalty, whether you think it fair or right, or not.

You seem to think there is some higher power that can or will come in and trump the decisions of mere humans regarding what laws they put in place, or not. If you don't, then what are we arguing about? If you do, then please reveal the identity of the entity or entities involved - inquiring minds, and all that.

dk

Pardon me JGL53, but you've touched upon something that could be important. Laws are only important to the extent they act to form a more perfect or less perfect union, and perfect/corrupt us personally.

I agree all human laws, institutions and cultures enjoy/suffer some degree corruption/merit. However, knowing people to be imperfect makes no comment on what a person becomes. In this sense the unborn are conceived to connect sexual intercourse with family, that determines what men and women will/may become. What does sexual intercourse mean to the ...
a) woman that becomes a mother?
b) man that becomes a father?
c) the union of a man and a women that becomes a baby?
d) woman that becomes an abortifacient?
e) man that unwittingly becomes the seed of an abortion?