Chade on 3/7/2013 at 11:19
Quote Posted by Queue
a legislative body has no right, nor should have the power, to act upon moral issues ...
But queue, don't you see how your ideas of what a government should do are full of moral decisions? And unavoidably so?
Quote Posted by Queue
A government's soul purpose is to ensure the continuation of a society
[what is society? this is a moral issue]. Its function is to keep the lights on, provide infrastructure, assist in times of need, safeguard the populace from threats both foreign and domestic, and ensure all citizens are treated equally
[safeguard populace and all citizens treated equally == full of moral statements, see below ...]. It's not to enact laws based upon any sort of morality, nor to govern purely by the idea "of majority rules so the rest of ya'll can shut the fuck up"
[1) rejection of majority rule is a moral statement, 2) what criteria apart from majority or morality do you propose to judge laws by?] ...
Following on from your "safeguard the populace" and "all citizens are treated equally" quotes, don't you see how applying those statements to abortion is full of unavoidable moral decisions? When do babies become citizens? When should the state start trying to keep a baby safe? What happens when the safety of the baby conflicts with the safety of it's mother? The government has to choose one way or the other. You can't just claim that your preferred decision is the natural approach ordained by the universe, while any other decision is unethical moral interference by the government.
EDIT: Regarding "self-aware, conscious" beings, I think that's a terrible criteria to use, if only because we are almost certain to apply it incorrectly. The more we learn about the world, the more we suspect that lots of animals are far more self-aware then we ever realised in the past. It would be foolish to suppose that process doesn't continue. A criteria that we know we can't accurately apply is a bad criteria.
faetal on 3/7/2013 at 11:22
Quote Posted by Chade
When do babies become citizens?
Signing of the birth certificate.
Chade on 3/7/2013 at 11:26
I know. The point is that's a moral decision. Why not sign the birth certificate earlier? Why not later? There's no scientific reason either way. It's a moral issue.
Shayde on 3/7/2013 at 11:46
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
No, I meant the legal and scientific professionals and politicians that make these laws.
They should listen to women as a group, regardless of other considerations like the specific expertise of the engaged women, because this issue only directly affects women.
You are still doing it! Your discourse places women as the "other". "They should listen to women as a group."
Why can't "they" be comprised of women? Being a legal/ scientific/ political professional and being a woman are not mutually exclusive.
My problem with your posts is that this is a female centric issue and all discussion/ decision-making should be similarly female-centric and not female-inclusive as your posts suggest.
faetal on 3/7/2013 at 11:48
Sign the birth certificate earlier than the birth?
Birth is a biologically defined moment. Once the baby is born, it exists in the world, rather than as part of a woman's body.
Know anyone who celebrates their birthday at the beginning of the third trimester?
There are moral decisions to be had, but only in terms of women's rights. The decisions to be made about the rights of the foetus are academic. No one's opinion on that should be applicable to anyone other than themselves. Hence religious groups can fuck off out of it (and pretty much anything else they think their opinion should weigh in on). The thing with science vs. morals is that science is empirical and morals are subjective.
Vivian on 3/7/2013 at 11:54
except when it comes to dinosaur phylogeny
faetal on 3/7/2013 at 11:58
I may be being stupid, but could you expand?
Vasquez on 3/7/2013 at 12:00
Quote Posted by Chade
Regarding "self-aware, conscious" beings, I think that's a terrible criteria to use, if only because we are almost certain to apply it incorrectly. The more we learn about the world, the more we suspect that lots of animals are far more self-aware then we ever realised in the past.
Animals are fully developed beings, you can't compare them with embryos or early fetuses*, which simply are not developed far enough to feel pain or fear, and they definitely can't be self-aware and conscious. I'm pretty sure that physiological fact will not change with time.
* I mention "early", because in my opinion 3 months is plenty of time to decide whether to keep the baby or not. Mother's health risks and other exceptional situations are obviously another thing.
faetal on 3/7/2013 at 12:01
Not forgetting that humans are actually born before full development due to our large cranium.
Vivian on 3/7/2013 at 12:05
dinosaur phylogeny is bloody rife with subjectivity. 'This is a large prominence', etc. Probably extends to other phylogenies that rely on morphospecies, but I'm not knowledgeable about those.
