Abortion Ban In South Dakota!

[RandFan]

How so?

?

I was quite clear. If a person believes that a murder is being committed then it would be quite appropriate to try and stop that murder.

The problem is that you don't see the abortion of an inviable fetus as murder. Neither do I because there is no rational basis to see it as such.

So why even talk about choice? Why not simply argue rationally that abortion isn't murder? I'll tell you why I think people use terms like "choice", they are political not rational. Perception is greater than reality. The rational argument sadly is not the most persuasive argument. So fine, use it. But let's not pretend here, a skeptics forum, that there is any rational basis for "choice".

Would you make the same argument for slavery? Homicide? Choice? Why or why not? Why should abortion be morally ambiguous?

"Hey, it's ok for me to do what you think is murder but not ok for you because you think it is murder so just keep your opinion from affecting my "choice" to otherwise do what you consider murder." That's morally squishy and it's bulls**t.

You're changing the subject. The issue is not whether they shoul "seek to protect cows", but whether have the right to force others to not kill cows. Do you believe that Hindus have that right?

No, I'm not changing the subject at all. If killing cows is morally reprehensible to Hindus and they believe that they should intervene then they absolutely have a right and should intercede on behalf of cows.

To answer your question (poorly framed qustion BTW) Hindus living in America, a Democracy, have the right to influence legislation. Should a majority of Americans decide to prohibit the slaughtering of cows then they have that right. Killing cows in not an inalianable right. The United States Constitution doesn't quarantee my right to kill cows.

Look, if I'm against the death penalty because I believe it to be murder then I have the right and the moral duty to intercede on behalf of those who are sentenced to death. Telling me that I have the right to believe the death penalty to be murder and seek to protect those sentenced to death but I don't have the right to impose my beliefs on others is not a rational moral position.

Choice is an irrational position whether you are for or against the death penalty, abortion, slavery, domestic violence, child abuse, killing cows or dolphins or any other similar moral position. Why do you think abortion should be unique?

The salient point isn't choice. The salient point is that abortion can't reasonably be argued to be killing a human being. Pro-lifers don't have a problem with flushing sperm and eggs down the toilet what is their problem with the combination of the two. For the record I used to be anti-abortion.

 

[ceo_esq]

The United States Constitution doesn't quarantee my right to kill cows.

Actually, to some extent it does. The Supreme Court has struck down laws prohibiting animal sacrifice before, on the grounds that the laws unacceptably burdened the free exercise of animal-sacrificing religions.

 

[RandFan]

Actually, to some extent it does. The Supreme Court has struck down laws prohibiting animal sacrifice before, on the grounds that the laws unacceptably burdened the free exercise of animal-sacrificing religions.

I'm not impressed. Slavery was once interpreted as being constitutionally protected. In any event the decision only blocks prohibition of animal sacrifice. All other slaughter would likely not be so protected.

Do you have a cite?

 

[ceo_esq]

I'm not impressed.

The point of the post - to which I probably should have added a smiley - was not to impress. It's just an interesting anecdote.

Slavery was once interpreted as being constitutionally protected.

More exactly, slavery was once constitutionally protected. It took an amendment, rather than a reinterpretation, to change this.

In any event the decision only blocks prohibition of animal sacrifice. All other slaughter would likely not be so protected.

Actually, IIRC, the decision theoretically doesn't even block all prohibitions of animal sacrifice. There are certainly ways around it. Of course, there are ways around almost any constitutional protection if you can craft the law just right and have a good argument for why it's needed.

Do you have a cite?

It's the mellifluous-sounding Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993). Haven't actually read this one since law school, though.

 

[RandFan]

The point of the post - to which I probably should have added a smiley - was not to impress. It's just an interesting anecdote.

More exactly, slavery was once constitutionally protected. It took an amendment, rather than a reinterpretation, to change this.

Actually, IIRC, the decision theoretically doesn't even block all prohibitions of animal sacrifice. There are certainly ways around it. Of course, there are ways around almost any constitutional protection if you can craft the law just right and have a good argument for why it's needed.

It's the mellifluous-sounding Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993). Haven't actually read this one since law school, though.

Cool. Thanks for the response.

 

[Art Vandelay]

I was quite clear. If a person believes that a murder is being committed then it would be quite appropriate to try and stop that murder.

Why?

So why even talk about choice?

Can you give an example of where you don't see a reason for bringing up choice?

Why not simply argue rationally that abortion isn't murder?

Because saying that something should be legal because it is not murder is a completely ridiculous position.

But let's not pretend here, a skeptics forum, that there is any rational basis for "choice".

No rational basis for choice?!? Choice is the cornerstone of democracy. Are you claiming there's no rational basis for democracy?

Would you make the same argument for slavery? Homicide? Choice? Why or why not?

If choice is good, then clearly we shouldn't allow slavery. Slavery, by definition, prevents choice. To say that there are choices are that are wrong, therefore there is nothing good about choice makes no sense.

Why should abortion be morally ambiguous?

Huh?

"Hey, it's ok for me to do what you think is murder but not ok for you because you think it is murder so just keep your opinion from affecting my "choice" to otherwise do what you consider murder." That's morally squishy and it's bulls**t.

How is it morally squishy? Whether someone considers something to be murder is irrelevant to whether it's murder. Why should someone be able to prevent me from doing from anything they don't want me to do, just me declaring it to be "murder"?

No, I'm not changing the subject at all.

You were.

If killing cows is morally reprehensible to Hindus and they believe that they should intervene then they absolutely have a right and should intercede on behalf of cows.

Why should people get extra rights just because of what they believe?

Should a majority of Americans decide to prohibit the slaughtering of cows then they have that right.

No, they don't. Either people have a right, or they don't. Being in the majority doesn't change that.

Killing cows in not an inalianable right.

Yes, it is.

The United States Constitution doesn't quarantee my right to kill cows.

Just because the Constitution doesn't quarantee it, that doesn't mean it isn't a right. In fact, the Constitution itself says so. The Framers never imagined that this would be an issue; it's impossible to enumerate every single right.

Anyway, you're not addressing the central issue. The issue is not whether abortion or killing cows is wrong, but whether it's possible to acknowledge someone else's position without subscribing to it. According to you "You think abortion is wrong, but you can't impose that belief on me" isn't a valid position. So what's left? It seems that, for you, someone must either agree that abortion is wrong, or deny that anyone is allowed to think it's wrong.

If you think that prohibiting the killing of cows is okay, is there anything which you wouldn't accept? Do you consider censorship to be okay? If not, would you therefore reject the position "Other people have the right to the opinion that criticizing the government is wrong, but they don't have the right to make it illegal?"

Telling me that I have the right to believe the death penalty to be murder and seek to protect those sentenced to death but I don't have the right to impose my beliefs on others is not a rational moral position.

Of course it is. What's irrational about it?

Choice is an irrational position whether you are for or against the death penalty, abortion, slavery, domestic violence, child abuse, killing cows or dolphins or any other similar moral position.

What's irrational about it?

The salient point isn't choice.

Of course it is. Without valuing choice, there is no reason to fight for abortion rights. It's called the "pro-choice" movement because it's fighting for choice. If it were fighting for everything that isn't murder, it would be called the "pro-everything-that-isn't-murder" movement. "The" salient point is not whether it's murder. It's a point, but if that were the only issue, there would be no controversy.

The salient point is that abortion can't reasonably be argued to be killing a human being.

That is completely insufficient. The idea that all acts other than killing a human being are legal is completely foreign to all legal, ethical, and moral codes that I know of. There must be some basis beyond the mere fact that it is not the killing of a human being behind an argument for allowing abortion.

For the record I used to be anti-abortion.

A lot of pro-choicers are anti-abortion. Planned Parenthood has prevented way more abortions than any anti-choice group.

 

[Art Vandelay]

More exactly, slavery was once constitutionally protected. It took an amendment, rather than a reinterpretation, to change this.

The position that slavery was constitutionally protected was completely unfounded. The Dred Scott decision, for instance, completely ignored the Fourteenth Amendment.


Thought you might find that amusing.

 

[CFLarsen]

Oh, is mentioning the existence of the Danish blasphemy law "lecturing" now? Or is it "mentioning something about Denmark that Claus doesn't like to hear even though it's true"?

Hardly, since I have discussed it in length.

Your "explanation" is a train wreck. And again, the existence of a blasphemy law alone is enough to disqualify a place as a hotbed of enlightenment.

Really? One unenforceable law is all it takes? Tell me something, what is the effect on Danish society of this law? How has this hindered freedom of speech in Denmark?

Be precise.

Perhaps it's a language thing again. A hotbed means a place characterized by extreme manifestations, both in degree and number, of whatever it is a hotbed of. A blasphemy law is a sizeable iceberg in the barbecue of enlightenment.

It's an icecube in the oceans of the world. Do we have it? Yes. Do we use it? No? Why? Because it can't be used.

Which is precisely the point of my original remark. You set Denmark up as a hotbed of enlightenment, and I pointed out your blasphemy law. It is you who wish to "deride other nations", and throw a hissy fit when someone points out the log in your own eye.

So, since Denmark is not such a hotbed of enlightenment, what country is?

 

[RandFan]

Why?

"Why?" You really don't know why preventing the killing of an innocent person is a moral imperative?

Can you give an example of where you don't see a reason for bringing up choice?

I already have. Slavery. Homicide. Child abuse.

Because saying that something should be legal because it is not murder is a completely ridiculous position.

Why?

No rational basis for choice?!? Choice is the cornerstone of democracy. Are you claiming there's no rational basis for democracy?

You are missing my point.

1.) Should murder be a matter of choice?
2.) Should child abuse be a matter of choice?
3.) Should slavery be a matter of choice.

If choice is good, then clearly we shouldn't allow slavery. Slavery, by definition, prevents choice. To say that there are choices are that are wrong, therefore there is nothing good about choice makes no sense.

You are getting there Art. Bear with me a bit longer. Using THIS logic how is abortion like or different from slavery? Important question. Please answer.

Huh?

"Choice" is a morally ambigious position. It is ok for some people but not others.

How is it morally squishy? Whether someone considers something to be murder is irrelevant to whether it's murder. Why should someone be able to prevent me from doing from anything they don't want me to do, just me declaring it to be "murder"?

It is difficult to understand your question the way it is framed.

1.) Either abortion is killing a viable human or it is not.
2.) If it is then it is morally wrong for you to do that.
3.) Abortion ISN'T killing a viable human.

You were.

NO I'M NOT!

Why should people get extra rights just because of what they believe?

Non sequitur. No one said anything about "extra rights".

No, they don't. Either people have a right, or they don't. Being in the majority doesn't change that.

What right are you talking about? The right to murder? You have no such right. Where did you get the notion that you had the right to murder? Where is it in the constitution that you have the right to murder?

That IS the problem. Abortion ISN'T murder.

Anyway, you're not addressing the central issue. The issue is not whether abortion or killing cows is wrong, but whether it's possible to acknowledge someone else's position without subscribing to it.

Morally ambiguous.

1.) Murder (kiling innocent human beings) is wrong.
2.) Whether you subscribe to it or not has no bearing on the morality of murder.

According to you "You think abortion is wrong, but you can't impose that belief on me" isn't a valid position. So what's left?

Figure out if abortion is or is not murder. If it is not murder argue that it is not murder. Don't argue a morally ambiguous postions.

It seems that, for you, someone must either agree that abortion is wrong, or deny that anyone is allowed to think it's wrong.

Wrong. For the state to prevent abortion it must be demonstrated that it is murder.

If you think that prohibiting the killing of cows is okay, is there anything which you wouldn't accept? Do you consider censorship to be okay? If not, would you therefore reject the position "Other people have the right to the opinion that criticizing the government is wrong, but they don't have the right to make it illegal?"

Not everything is black and white. There are many moral conflicts in society and the law. We have a constitution to guide us. As has been noted both the killing of cows and slavery are or have been constitutional.

1.) There is a constitutional right to free speech.
2.) There is no constitution right to kill human beings.

Of course it is. What's irrational about it?

? That is by defintion irrational. It is not CONSISTENT.

What's irrational about it?

I'm not sure how to explain to you rationality. Perhaps you should look at the definition.

Consistent with or based on reason; logical: rational behavior

Of course it is. Without valuing choice, there is no reason to fight for abortion rights. It's called the "pro-choice" movement because it's fighting for choice.

A morally ambiguous postion. Why not fight for the right to have abortion?

If it were fighting for everything that isn't murder, it would be called the "pro-everything-that-isn't-murder" movement.

No, it would be called "pro-right-to-abortion". Why not simply call it what it is. Abortion rights. It IS abortion rights, is it not?

"The" salient point is not whether it's murder. It's a point, but if that were the only issue, there would be no controversy.

That IS the only point.

Look, if we were arguing the right to kill 1 year olds would we couch it in terms of "choice"? Honestly Art, the whole "choice" thing is propaganda. It works so fine, use it. But have the honesty to admit that it is propaganda.

That is completely insufficient. The idea that all acts other than killing a human being are legal is completely foreign to all legal, ethical, and moral codes that I know of. There must be some basis beyond the mere fact that it is not the killing of a human being behind an argument for allowing abortion.

This does not represent my postion. The basis for allowing abortion is that people ought to be able to do with their bodies what they want. A woman ought to be able to have an abortion for the obvious reasons so long as she is not killing another human being.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Really? One unenforceable law is all it takes? Tell me something, what is the effect on Danish society of this law? How has this hindered freedom of speech in Denmark?

Be precise.

Newsflash Claus: you don't have the power to assign essay topics. And yes, one law is all it takes to disqualify a country from claiming to be a hotbed of enlightenment. Blasphemy? In the 21st century?

It's an icecube in the oceans of the world. Do we have it? Yes. Do we use it? No? Why? Because it can't be used.

Then why have it? If it "can't be used", then why have it? It hasn't been removed, therefore Denmark wants to keep its ridiculous law. You can try to spin it all you like, but the fact remains: Denmark has a law against blasphemy.

So, since Denmark is not such a hotbed of enlightenment, what country is?

Did I say there were any? In fact, my original comment was asking "where is"? It was something of a rhetorical question, as there seem to be no candidates for the title of "hotbed of enlightenment". Certainly not ole "Blasphemy Law" Denmark, despite your tourist board apologetics.

 

[Manny]

Stop right now. I expect better from you.

I'm sorry, but it's absolutely stupid and it absolutely is an attempt to avoid debate by namecalling and demonizing the opposition. By his own definition, he becomes "anti-choice" at some point during a pregnancy, as does substantially every person on earth. If one fails to acknowledge that pro-life people have a good faith belief that a human fetus is indeed a human life one can never ever persuade or even debate.

 

[Manny]

Hey CFL, is Mogens Glistrup out of your enlightened country's enlightened jail yet? How's about you explain to all the nice people here what he went in for (the most recent time, not the tax thing) and how it imprisoning him relates to joining the 21st Century.

 

[CFLarsen]

Hey CFL, is Mogens Glistrup out of your enlightened country's enlightened jail yet? How's about you explain to all the nice people here what he went in for (the most recent time, not the tax thing) and how it imprisoning him relates to joining the 21st Century.

You seem most anxious to tell us.

 

[Manny]

And steal from you the thunder of telling us all how enlightened you are compared to us backwards types? I wouldn't dream of it.

Also, is it easier to get a 14th week abortion in Denmark or the in United States?

 

[HarryKeogh]

Hey CFL, is Mogens Glistrup out of your enlightened country's enlightened jail yet? How's about you explain to all the nice people here what he went in for (the most recent time, not the tax thing) and how it imprisoning him relates to joining the 21st Century.

Hmmm, I didn't know Denmark had an anti-racism law (which according to the BBC makes it illegal to incite hatred against groups on the basis of religion, race or sexual orientation) in addition to the blasphemy law.

 

[CFLarsen]

And steal from you the thunder of telling us all how enlightened you are compared to us backwards types? I wouldn't dream of it.

If you want to discuss something, discuss.

Also, is it easier to get a 14th week abortion in Denmark or the in United States?

I have absolutely no idea. Why don't you tell us? Discuss.

Start with telling us how late you think an abortion can take place, and why. Or, alternatively: Do all US states have equal rights to abortion?

You really want to discuss abortion? Wow - either you are foolish or stupid.

 

[CFLarsen]

Alabama:

Incestuous marriages are legal.

It's against the law for a man to seduce "a chaste woman by means of temptation, deception, arts, flattery or a promise of marriage."

Slavery is still legal in Decatur, Alabama.

Arizona:

A man can legally beat his wife, but not more than once a month.

Mesa: It is illegal to smoke cigarettes within 15 feet of a public place unless you have a Class 12 liqueur license.

Oral sex is considered to be sodomy.

You may not have more than two dildos in a house.

I have to admit, I had to stop snipping these examples because of uncontrollable laughing....

Source

Even better

 

[Jas]

I'm finding it difficult to find a lot of info in english, but:

Mogens Glistrup, a tax protester turned xenophobe, was imprisoned for 20 days last year for a racist speech. He compared Turks to rabbits.

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,399653,00.html

Maybe there was more to it than that, and if there is, please enlighten me, but a country that sends people to jail for exercising their right to free speech, cannot be called a 'Hotbed of Enlightenment'.

 

[Jas]

I have to admit, I had to stop snipping these examples because of uncontrollable laughing....

Source

Even better

Are people claiming that the US is a 'Hotbed of Enlightenment'?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I'm finding it difficult to find a lot of info in english, but:



http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,399653,00.html

Maybe there was more to it than that, and if there is, please enlighten me, but a country that sends people to jail for exercising their right to free speech, cannot be called a 'Hotbed of Enlightenment'.

But what if Turks really are rabbits?