So, what are your thoughts on abortion?

[spanky4ever]

its just soo easy for most guys to play the morality card against womans. Keep your dicks in your pants if you dont want a child. What if that child was plased on your doorstep??
I really cant find any good arguments for not giving the women the right to choose for herself. We have had enought women dying becouse they had illegal abortions.
Or would you think a bunch of "jugdes" should decide? Tryed that too - not a good option.

[Durokan]

[quote source="/post/75453/thread" author="@farran34" timestamp="1446606061"]
Not sure if this is quoted or not (don't know how, new to forum), but I am referring to Durokan.

I have to disagree that the law should not, or does not, involve morality at all. This to me is a somewhat absurd claim. I will give a few reasons.

Consider a society where slavery gave the most order. Perhaps this is very difficult to imagine, and could never happen in real life, put suppose the following would be true. Society X has a system of slavery that is successful in achieving order. The slaves are forced and trained to be obedient (no rebellions occur or will occur), they provide benefits to the majority of society X, and increase order by forcing slaves to do the menial work and letting normal, educated people do the skilled work. All in all order is increased. Does this mean society X should allow slavery in their laws? I don't know many people who would say yes. The reason most would say no to slavery is not because it decreases order, but because there is something morally wrong with slavery. There are many possible scenarios of laws that could increase order yet be so ethically wrong that they would never be passed.

It is somewhat obvious also that morality currently does play a part in law-making also. When homosexual practices were regarded as immoral by the majority, it was not a legal form of marriage. As more and more began to accept homosexual relationships as not being immoral, the laws began to reflect this.

If polygamy in the future becomes very morally accepted, I would expect the law to also reflect this. I do not think it would become legal because it is argued that it will not disrupt order, for if that argument was made now it would never be passed because it is considered immoral by the majority and a social taboo.

We can try to convince ourselves that laws are just based on creating order, but in reality ethics and morality does play a factor, and I would argue that it should.


[/quote]For starters, I would like to make clear that I am not making a statement on what the current law is, it is obvious that morality is in the law currently. I am of the viewpoint that it should not be. Hence, morality should be removed from the law.

This brings me to the topic of slavery. If you are going to examine the issue of slavery in non-holistic way, such as looking at whether or not slavery should be legal because of what it can accomplish or how it is in fact ordered, then yes, I daresay it should be legal. However, when you have something such as slavery that comes into practice, there has to be a way to put said issue into practice. I think forcibly taking people out of their homestead and moving them into a slave life disrupts order. This in effect rules out the legality of creating slaves. If this happens, we have a shady business area with slave catchers selling illegal slaves legally to people who wish to own slaves. This is a problem akin to the alcohol smuggling from the prohibition era of The United States. So, what we do in this case, is ban all parts of the slave trade, including the owning of slaves because slavery can only spout from disruptive practices. This accomplishes the same goal of abolishing slavery, without passing moral judgement on whether or not people are allowed to own slaves.

I would like to add that polygamy and gay marriage should be legal as long as they are not disruptive. For starters, gay marriage is no more disruptive than normal marriages. Therefore it shall be legal.

An interesting side-note on the issue of gay marriage is to propose a new legal definition of "marriage." Marriage is a religious term, and as such should be expunged from the rule-books. Save the term of marriage for those who believe it to be a religious sacrament, as the Catholics do. Instead of marriage, the law should use the term "Civil Union." This opens the door for all of the legal benefits of the current marriage system for all people. A Catholic who is married in a "covenant by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership (...)" would be eligible to no legal protections under the law until they acquired a license from the state for a Civil Union. In the catholic church, a gay couple would not be eligible for marriage. This is fine as a first step, as they are entitled all the legal rights of a civil couple. If they wish to be married and partake in the sacraments, they should find a more accepting version of the church or start a movement to reform the church.

[For context, my family and I identify ourselves as Roman Catholic but wish others to make their own decisions about life. I do not identify as a religious person, I am just adding context. I was raised in a church-on-Sundays before brunch kind of family, but I do not accept everything preached to me at face value.]

On the topic of polygamy, I come from an area where I have not encountered this in person, so I cannot truly speak for its effects on order. I would presume' however, that it is perfectly fine and not disruptive.

Moral judgement creates a bias and can be very hurtful to people of opposing viewpoints. I think logic is an acceptable alternative to morality for the lawmaking process. I am not saying that we as humans should become immoral, I am saying that the law is not the interpreter of morality, save that for the individual to determine for themselves.

This claim is not absurd as anyone with a clear and unbiased mind could reach the same conclusions as I have. Even if you do not agree with what I have written, I hope it has made you question your beliefs. The questioning of your own beliefs is the only way to strengthen them.

[gibson]

@durokan I think k the main issue about polygamy is that if you at polygamous cultures even today, their cultures that essentially view the women as a possession of the man. Polygamy is almost always one man with multiple women. Often times it was the Father of the woman who decides for her to be married. Not to say that Polygamy is inherently wrong, but I have a hard time seeing it being anything other than a male dominance over woman type thing.

[farran34]

[quote author="@durokan" timestamp="1446676405" source="/post/75865/thread"][quote source="/post/75453/thread" author="@farran34" timestamp="1446606061"]Not sure if this is quoted or not (don't know how, new to forum), but I am referring to Durokan.

I have to disagree that the law should not, or does not, involve morality at all. This to me is a somewhat absurd claim. I will give a few reasons.

Consider a society where slavery gave the most order. Perhaps this is very difficult to imagine, and could never happen in real life, put suppose the following would be true. Society X has a system of slavery that is successful in achieving order. The slaves are forced and trained to be obedient (no rebellions occur or will occur), they provide benefits to the majority of society X, and increase order by forcing slaves to do the menial work and letting normal, educated people do the skilled work. All in all order is increased. Does this mean society X should allow slavery in their laws? I don't know many people who would say yes. The reason most would say no to slavery is not because it decreases order, but because there is something morally wrong with slavery. There are many possible scenarios of laws that could increase order yet be so ethically wrong that they would never be passed.

It is somewhat obvious also that morality currently does play a part in law-making also. When homosexual practices were regarded as immoral by the majority, it was not a legal form of marriage. As more and more began to accept homosexual relationships as not being immoral, the laws began to reflect this.

If polygamy in the future becomes very morally accepted, I would expect the law to also reflect this. I do not think it would become legal because it is argued that it will not disrupt order, for if that argument was made now it would never be passed because it is considered immoral by the majority and a social taboo.

We can try to convince ourselves that laws are just based on creating order, but in reality ethics and morality does play a factor, and I would argue that it should.


[/quote]For starters, I would like to make clear that I am not making a statement on what the current law is, it is obvious that morality is in the law currently. I am of the viewpoint that it should not be. Hence, morality should be removed from the law.

This brings me to the topic of slavery. If you are going to examine the issue of slavery in non-holistic way, such as looking at whether or not slavery should be legal because of what it can accomplish or how it is in fact ordered, then yes, I daresay it should be legal. However, when you have something such as slavery that comes into practice, there has to be a way to put said issue into practice. I think forcibly taking people out of their homestead and moving them into a slave life disrupts order. This in effect rules out the legality of creating slaves. If this happens, we have
a shady business area with slave catchers selling illegal slaves legally to people who wish to own slaves. This is a problem akin to the alcohol smuggling from the prohibition era of The United States. So, what we do in this case, is ban all parts of the slave trade, including the owning of slaves because slavery can only spout from disruptive practices. This accomplishes the same goal of abolishing slavery, without passing moral judgement on whether or not people are allowed to own slaves.

I would like to add that polygamy and gay marriage should be legal as long as they are not disruptive. For starters, gay marriage is no more disruptive than normal marriages. Therefore it shall be legal.

An interesting side-note on the issue of gay marriage is to propose a new legal definition of "marriage." Marriage is a religious term, and as such should be expunged from the rule-books. Save the term of marriage for those who believe it to be a religious sacrament, as the Catholics do. Instead of marriage, the law should use the term "Civil Union." This opens the door for all of the legal benefits of the current marriage system for all people. A Catholic who is married in a "covenant by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership (...)" would be eligible to no legal protections under the law until they acquired a license from the state for a Civil Union. In the catholic church, a gay couple would not be eligible for marriage. This is fine as a first step, as they are entitled all the legal rights of a civil couple. If they wish to be married and partake in the sacraments, they should find a more accepting version of the church or start a movement to reform the church.

[For context, my family and I identify ourselves as Roman Catholic but wish others to make their own decisions about life. I do not identify as a religious person, I am just adding context. I was raised in a church-on-Sundays before brunch kind of family, but I do not accept everything preached to me at face value.]

On the topic of polygamy, I come from an area where I have not encountered this in person, so I cannot truly speak for its effects on order. I would presume' however, that it is perfectly fine and not disruptive.

Moral judgement creates a bias and can be very hurtful to people of opposing viewpoints. I think logic is an acceptable alternative to morality for the lawmaking process. I am not saying that we as humans should become immoral, I am saying that the law is not the interpreter of morality, save that for the individual to determine for themselves.

This claim is not absurd as anyone with a clear and unbiased mind could reach the same conclusions as I have. Even if you do not agree with what I have written, I hope it has made you question your beliefs. The questioning of your own beliefs is the only way to strengthen them.[/quote]First I would like to say that I appreciate you being civil in your response, others have not been.

I did not understand from your writing that you were saying that morality should not be part of law, I thought you were saying it is not apart of law.

I would argue that morality should play a part in the law. I am not saying the Bible or the Quran should govern law (would create a theocracy), but secular moral systems should play a part in the law-making system. I do not think I am alone in saying that the only reason slavery is not permissible is because it would create disorder. The main reason it is not allowed and should not be allowed is because it is objectively wrong. You seem to disagree with me here, that you believe if slavery increased order it should be allowed despite it being morally wrong (even though in practice I don't see slavery ever increasing order) and the only reason it is illegal is because it decreases order.

I do not think laws should ever allow such abhorrent acts as slavery for any reason, even increasing order.While a law's main purpose may be to do things such as maintaining order and regulating society, this does not mean that the law-making process should completely be separate from morality. I would argue a better system is to have the purpose of laws to both regulate society and uphold a basic standard of morality. When a law is seen as unjust, reforms should be made, not solely on the authority of increasing order, but on the fact that a law is immoral and unjust.

I do think you have given a stronger argument than most others on this post, and I respect your opinion, but I think there should be a place for morality in the law (how closely it interact I am unsure, but I believe it should not be completely excluded). I also think that the majority of people would argue and agree that morality should play some part in the law.

Either way, I would argue that abortion is still morally wrong and wrong to choose.

[Durokan]

@farran34

Our discussion will become too lengthy if we start quoting eachother with long walls of text, so I am going to tag you in my replies instead. I am interested in continuing this discussion, as it makes me think.


The basic value that I am attempting to convey is that government is established to maintain Order. This is a fundamental belief and is extremely hard to convince people of differing beliefs otherwise, as is the inverse argument.

Something very near and dear to my heart, which is more relevant to this continuation of the argument, is individual choice. I believe individuals have the right to make their own choices. This is a very interesting belief for one who believes in Order, as Order is usually maintained through conformity. These two can work together through the concept we call the social contract. All people have individual rights that are sacrificed equally to maintain Order, I must note' however, that the government is founded on the belief in Order, not individual rights. It is okay to sacrifice the rights of all individuals to maintain Order. It is not acceptable to disorder society on the belief in individual rights. As a radical example, I do not believe that people should be allowed to kill, pillage, and rape because it promotes individual freedoms and free choice. There are limitations to individual freedoms, but they do exist. It is' however, acceptable to tell people they cannot kill, pillage, or otherwise rape on the condition that it will disorder society. This equally limits their rights for the preservation of order.

Now, with this belief in individual choice, I find it hypocritical to tell someone they cannot do something because I believe it to be wrong. Morals are a construct of society. It goes against my way of thought to tell someone that they are unable to have an abortion because of my beliefs. Why should someone else be forced to do something because I believe it is wrong? This is incredibly biased and self serving. Individual people should have their own rights and their own choices. They do not have the right to take away the rights of others or force another to make a choice they do not want to make. These individual choices are sacrificed communally to preserve order. For example, all people have the basic right to make decisions. Given the choice to make a decision, one person in a test group decides to steal the possessions of another member. This causes a disruption, and as such, is outlawed. All members of the test group sacrifice their right to make choices when it comes to thievery. This maintains Order.

The only suitable way I have found to maximize Order and individual rights, is to remove all morals from the law code. The law is created by the people to equally influence everyone on a common ground that will never change. There is no ultimate moral code that people collectively follow. This is why we need to appeal to rationalism. Leave the moral choices to the individual, not to the state. In addition, morals fluctuate too often to be of reasonable help to the law. Years ago, we believed slavery was acceptable. Our morals then changed when we found it unacceptable to own someone else.

It is acceptable for you to believe that abortion is morally wrong. If you believe so, then do not have one, but do not change the law code to mirror your beliefs. If your significant other is pregnant, even if the baby is not yours, I would suggest that you encourage her to keep it. In your system, it is not morally sound to kill it, so you must do your best to have her keep it. This will directly affect you, as it is your child, or a child under your care. This is why you can make this choice at this stage of life. Though, you should not be able to force someone else to not have an abortion based on your moral system. Moral systems vary, logic does not.

[arriah]

Either way, I would argue that abortion is still morally wrong and wrong to choose.

So, let me get this straight:
You came in here asking for ''reasoned arguments''. When one user saw right through your bs and decided to end the conversation you said "you have no good arguments" then proceeded to ignore all the very reasonable arguments following by multiple users and instead chose to reply with "yeah but I just think it''s wrong"

[farran34]

Either way, I would argue that abortion is still morally wrong and wrong to choose.

So, let me get this straight:
You came in here asking for reasoned arguments. When one user saw right through your bs and decided to end the conversation you said "you have no good arguments" then proceeded to ignore all the very reasonable arguments following by multiple users and instead chose to reply with "yeah but I just think its wrong"

I ended the conversation with the one person because he was could not answer my question and reverted to insults, which will go no where. I did not respond to Jeroms argument because others were already involved in the conversation, and I preferred to let them finish and to intrude. I was thinking about responding to your comment, but I feel you are more interested in trying to attack anyone opposing abortion, rather than have a real discussion unlike Durokan.

(note, I have not fully read Durokans most recent post)

I ended my conversation with Durokan saying, either way I believe it is wrong, for a reason. He was not arguing me on whether abortion is morally wrong or not, he was arguing me on whether or not it should be legal or illegal. I assumed he thinks it is not morally wrong, but he did not give me much reason to think so from the posts he targeted toward me. I ended my post stating either way I think it is morally wrong, meaning whether or not it should be legalized (pertaining to our discussion), I still think the action would be wrong. If he felt otherwise and wanted to challenge me on it, I would be happy to discuss that with him.

I will be write a response to Durokan when I get a chance, as it looks like he wrote a very interesting post, pertaining to social contract theory.

Perhaps I will address your comment when I get more free time, but I am not convinced it will turn into a meaningful discussion, and will be more of an insulting contest.

[arriah]

So, let me get this straight:
You came in here asking for reasoned arguments. When one user saw right through your bs and decided to end the conversation you said "you have no good arguments" then proceeded to ignore all the very reasonable arguments following by multiple users and instead chose to reply with "yeah but I just think its wrong"

I ended the conversation with the one person because he was could not answer my question and reverted to insults, which will go no where. I did not respond to Jeroms argument because others were already involved in the conversation, and I preferred to let them finish and to intrude. I was thinking about responding to your comment, but I feel you are more interested in trying to attack anyone opposing abortion, rather than have a real discussion unlike Durokan.?

(note, I have not fully read Durokans most recent post)

I ended my conversation with Durokan saying, either way I believe it is wrong, for a reason. He was not arguing me on whether abortion is morally wrong or not, he was arguing me on whether or not it should be legal or illegal. I assumed he thinks it is not morally wrong, but he did not give me much reason to think so from the posts he targeted toward me. I ended my post stating either way I think it is morally wrong, meaning whether or not it should be legalized (pertaining to our discussion), I still think the action would be wrong. If he felt otherwise and wanted to challenge me on it, I would be happy to discuss that with him.?

Perhaps I will address your comment when I get more free time, but I am not convinced it will turn into a meaningful discussion, and will be more of an insulting contest.

I have short temper with men who make women out to be irresponsible and attack their rights which drastically affect lives, more and less so depending on social background. Personally, I think that men shouldnt even be included in this conversation, except on personal levels (ei. Feel free to break up with your gf if she wants an abortion, but dont attack her rights by making it illegal)

But you said you think it should be illegal? Sorry if I misunderstood that part.

My points appeal both to "morality" and objective logic. I can not see any reason that abortion should be illegal, and all the points that say it should have all been based on personal feelings.

[Durokan]

I ended my conversation with Durokan saying, either way I believe it is wrong, for a reason. He was not arguing me on whether abortion is morally wrong or not, he was arguing me on whether or not it should be legal or illegal. I assumed he thinks it is not morally wrong, but he did not give me much reason to think so from the posts he targeted toward me. I ended my post stating either way I think it is morally wrong, meaning whether or not it should be legalized (pertaining to our discussion), I still think the action would be wrong. If he felt otherwise and wanted to challenge me on it, I would be happy to discuss that with him.

I would like to add that in my form of government theory, it is irrelevant whether or not I think abortion is moral. I believe that I should act on my own beliefs, the government should not do that for me. Just because I believe something is morally wrong is not reason enough to make it illegal. This is because an equally valid argument could be made from another moral viewpoint. Some people say abortion is morally right, some say it is morally wrong. There is no way to differentiate between the two aside from the voter turnout, assuming democracy. The only fair way is to legally discount both sides of the argument, and make it legal on the basis that it is not disruptive. The law then leaves it to the interpretation of the individual whether or not it is morally acceptable to have an abortion.

Yeah, from what I have been saying I have been debating the legality of abortion, not the morality of abortion. (as I believe the morality does not matter regardless of my personal opinion, which is an opinion within itself.)

[arriah]

I would like to add that in my form of government theory, it is irrelevant whether or not I think abortion is moral. I believe that I should act on my own beliefs, the government should not do that for me. Just because I believe something is morally wrong is not reason enough to make it illegal. This is because an equally valid argument could be made from another moral viewpoint. Some people say abortion is morally right, some say it is morally wrong. There is no way to differentiate between the two aside from the voter turnout, assuming democracy. The only fair way is to legally discount both sides of the argument, and make it legal on the basis that it is not disruptive. The law then leaves it to the interpretation of the individual whether or not it is morally acceptable to have an abortion.

Yeah, from what I have been saying I have been debating the legality of abortion, not the morality of abortion. (as I believe the morality does not matter regardless of my personal opinion, which is an opinion within itself.)

I always thought that "morality" meant one of two things, depending on context.
1. Moral based on personal beliefs or
2. "Objective morality" based on order as you have talked about

This whole time I''ve assumed objective morality, because as you say opinion is irrelevant.
Also, talking about personal opinion like farran is, there really is nothing to say or argue. The fact that you have that opinion is indeed a fact. What is there to do but state it?

[arriah]

From the stats as to why most women have abortions, its clear that the vast majority of abortions are performed as?a method of?a posteriori birth control. Those who?immediately claim that abortion should be legal and is moral because of?incidents of "rape or incest" or to "preserve the life of the mother" are just blowing smoke. Rape or incest accounts for fewer than 1% of abortions and abortion to?preserve the life of the mother?occurs so infrequently as to not even be listed in the reasons for abortion by even pro-choice websites. I worked in medicine for a couple of decades and I never heard of it being done once. In the UK a report to Parliament indicated that it was done in only 0.006 percent of procedures.

And this is why I believe abortion is ultimately a scape goat for irresponsible action. Its not actually about womens rights, its that people want to behave irresponsibly and than have an easy out. It really boggles my mind because abortions are expensive,while you can buy a condom for 50 cents at any second rate gas station or a plan b or day after pill for a few bucks at any large chain supermarket....

Its really funny how people who have obviously never been poor always make the arguments about what poor people can afford. First of all, plan B is 50$. Secondly, condoms in stores are expensive as fuck, and the poor person may not have money or transportation to afford these supposed cheap condoms, not to mention the widespread misinformation (and lack of info) on contraception.
On top of that, you can get an abortion for free if you are poor.

[farran34]

I would like to add that in my form of government theory, it is irrelevant whether or not I think abortion is moral. I believe that I should act on my own beliefs, the government should not do that for me. Just because I believe something is morally wrong is not reason enough to make it illegal. This is because an equally valid argument could be made from another moral viewpoint. Some people say abortion is morally right, some say it is morally wrong. There is no way to differentiate between the two aside from the voter turnout, assuming democracy. The only fair way is to legally discount both sides of the argument, and make it legal on the basis that it is not disruptive. The law then leaves it to the interpretation of the individual whether or not it is morally acceptable to have an abortion.

Yeah, from what I have been saying I have been debating the legality of abortion, not the morality of abortion. (as I believe the morality does not matter regardless of my personal opinion, which is an opinion within itself.)

I always thought that "morality" meant one of two things, depending on context.
1. Moral based on personal beliefs or
2. "Objective morality" based on order as you have talked about

This whole time Ive assumed objective morality, because as you say opinion is irrelevant.
Also, talking about personal opinion like farran is, there really is nothing to say or argue. The fact that you have that opinion is indeed a fact. What is there to do but state it?

I am talking about objective morality, not personal opinion. I believe it is objectively wrong to perform abortion. It does appear Durokan holds morality to be subjective and not objective. I may address this in my response to him. Anyway, I need to go back to studying so I have time to write an actual response, I just wanted to point out I am arguing from a view point that objective morality exists.

[Durokan]

It''s really funny how people who have obviously never been poor always make the arguments about what poor people can afford. First of all, plan B is 50$. Secondly, condoms in stores are expensive as fuck, and the poor person may not have money or transportation to afford these supposed cheap condoms, not to mention the widespread misinformation (and lack of info) on contraception.
On top of that, you can get an abortion for free if you are poor.

[img style="max-width:100%'" alt="" src="http://silencedmajority.blogs.com/.a/6a00d834520b4b69e2017d3c1f6b42970c-pi"]

[arriah]

I am talking about objective morality, not personal opinion. I believe it is objectively wrong to perform abortion. It does appear Durokan holds morality to be subjective and not objective. I may address this in my response to him. Anyway, I need to go back to studying so I have time to write an actual response, I just wanted to point out I am arguing from a view point that objective morality exists.?

Well now I''m confused because you never gave a single objective reason.

[gibson]

And this is why I believe abortion is ultimately a scape goat for irresponsible action. Its not actually about womens rights, its that people want to behave irresponsibly and than have an easy out. It really boggles my mind because abortions are expensive,while you can buy a condom for 50 cents at any second rate gas station or a plan b or day after pill for a few bucks at any large chain supermarket....

Its really funny how people who have obviously never been poor always make the arguments about what poor people can afford. First of all, plan B is 50$. Secondly, condoms in stores are expensive as fuck, and the poor person may not have money or transportation to afford these supposed cheap condoms, not to mention the widespread misinformation (and lack of info) on contraception.
On top of that, you can get an abortion for free if you are poor.

Im just saying you can go to just about any gas station and buy a 50 cent condom in the bathroom. It may be closer to a 60% of the time it works 100% of the time type deal than a guaranteed stop, but something is better than nothing. Also, it doesnt change the fact that unprotected sex is generally an irresponsible decision.

[farran34]

I am talking about objective morality, not personal opinion. I believe it is objectively wrong to perform abortion. It does appear Durokan holds morality to be subjective and not objective. I may address this in my response to him. Anyway, I need to go back to studying so I have time to write an actual response, I just wanted to point out I am arguing from a view point that objective morality exists.

Well now Im confused because you never gave a single objective reason.

I actually did in my other conversation, that killing any innocent member of the human race is objectively wrong... That is one reason for you right there, which I would be willing to debate later.

[arriah]

Well now Im confused because you never gave a single objective reason.

I actually did in my other conversation, that killing any innocent member of the human race is objectively wrong... That is one reason for you right there, which I would be willing to debate later.

Dont let me distract you from your studies, but it isnt objectively murder and it isnt objectively wrong.

[arriah]

I''m just saying you can go to just about any gas station and buy a 50 cent condom in the bathroom. It may be closer to a 60% of the time it works 100% of the time type deal than a guaranteed ?stop, but something is better than nothing. ?Also, it doesn''t change the fact that unprotected sex is generally an irresponsible decision. ??

Well in that case, blame the men for not buying the condoms.
You really must not understand what poor means because 50 cents every time you have sex (and more allowing for the condoms to break or expire) adds up, and we all know how ridiculous the abstinence stance is.

Also, as you pointed out, the cheap condoms are cheap for a reason. What happens when someone gets pregnant 40% of the time?

[arkz]

Whoops, I didnt finish that sentence. What I typed was that because morality is entirely subjective, people can either spare a child of growing up being unwanted or not loved along with economic disadvantages, which means they will suffer in their youth. The second option of course is to give the child up for adoption and hope that the one who takes the child is a decent human being, but I have seen many who adopt kids for the $ they get for taking the kid in. I would rather be homeless than be adopted by these greedy leeches.

I would also argue that privacy is utilitarian in nature. If there was no right to privacy, then there would be more conflicts of interest among people. These conflicts would then grow to undermine the all of us and eat away at order. I am also a realist, not an idealist' besides, it will be nigh impossible to be everyones policeman.

There is a problem, you cannot argue both for subjective morality and utilitarianism. They are just radically different theories, one stating there is objectively right and wrong actions, while the other states there is not such a thing as a right or wrong action. If you argue from subjective morality then your utilitarian arguments fall apart.

Privacy unfortunately is not in the nature of utilitarianism. It would be moral to infringe on someones right to privacy if it brings greater happiness. Even torturing an innocent child would be a moral act if it brought about greater happiness than the sadness it would bring. Perhaps a situation like this would never occur, but it is still a counter example to utilitarianism having personal rights in theory. You may be able to derive a general rule of privacy from utilitarianism because that rule would create more happiness, but the rule itself is not apart of utilitarianism.

This means if you wish to keep arguing for utilitarianism you need to drop the argument that morality is entirely subjective, and the argument we should legalize abortion for women to have abortions because of a right to privacy. (You need to argue that abortion should be legal because it causes a greater amount of happiness for women, whether it be through that right to privacy, or another means).

You are wrong, nuissance post mainly makes sense (also depends on how he/she meant some things).
Utilitarianism is a system, a guideline of how to juggle around with many more or less subjective values. There are also different kinds of utilitarianism. It is not necessarily about "greater happiness". ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preference_utilitarianism for example ) And even then, to define "happiness" one still needs pretty subjective values.

And in general this overly theoretic differentiation between utilitarianism and deontology will lead to nothing. Every sensible law in this world will combine elements of both. Additionally by differentiating too much one will get to a point where it is only hairsplitting. For example it is easily possible toc reate a utilitaristic system in which "torturing an innocent child" cannot be moral due to its consequences. So, is it now really of so much worth to discuss that hardcore deontologists claim that the deed is only wrong in itself not due to the consequences? In the end in both theories there would be the same result: Torturing an innocent child is wrong, period.



Besides that, Durokans thoughts are very dangerous. Total moral relativism is an extremely bad idea and a law that ignores morals is even worse.

[gibson]

Im just saying you can go to just about any gas station and buy a 50 cent condom in the bathroom. It may be closer to a 60% of the time it works 100% of the time type deal than a guaranteed ?stop, but something is better than nothing. ?Also, it doesnt change the fact that unprotected sex is generally an irresponsible decision. ??

Well in that case, blame the men for not buying the condoms.
You really must not understand what poor means because 50 cents every time you have sex (and more allowing for the condoms to break or expire) adds up, and we all know how ridiculous the abstinence stance is.

Also, as you pointed out, the cheap condoms are cheap for a reason. What happens when someone gets pregnant 40% of the time?

No I dont understand what it really is like to be poor, and neither do 99.99% of the people in the United states. You can also get free condoms at many health centers. That 60% of the time was not meant to be literal, it was a quote from a movie lol. Youre still ignoring the fact that having unprotected sex is generally irresponsible behavior. If people acted responsibly, they would not find themselves in a position where they were 10 weeks pregnant and wanting an abortion. And yes, I think its equally the man and the womens fault.

[arriah]

No I don''t understand what it really is like to be poor, and neither do 99.99% of the people in the United states. You can also get free condoms at many health centers. That 60% of the time was not meant to be literal, it was a quote from a movie lol. You''re still ignoring the fact that having unprotected sex is generally irresponsible behavior. If people acted responsibly, they would not find themselves in a position where they were 10 weeks pregnant and wanting an abortion. And yes, I think it''s equally the man and the women''s fault.

"14.5% of Americans lived below the poverty line last year"
Let me put it this way, you can buy a condom for 50 cents or you can feed your family (2 boxes of macaroni and cheese)
Yes, you can get free condoms, but not a lot of people know that, and children aren''t going to be able to access it.

The 60% doesn''t have to be literal, the point is, there IS a failure rate. Wether or not unprotected sex is irresponsible is completely irrelevant. You are simply wrong. You can end up pregnant even if you acted completely responsibly with contraception, and this greatly increases the poorer you are (because you can afford less contraception)

Also, as I''ve stated before, abortion IS taking responsibility. It is preventing the life of a child which you know you are not suited to raise, for whatever reason.

[gibson]

No I dont understand what it really is like to be poor, and neither do 99.99% of the people in the United states. You can also get free condoms at many health centers. That 60% of the time was not meant to be literal, it was a quote from a movie lol. Youre still ignoring the fact that having unprotected sex is generally irresponsible behavior. If people acted responsibly, they would not find themselves in a position where they were 10 weeks pregnant and wanting an abortion. And yes, I think its equally the man and the womens fault.

"14.5% of Americans lived below the poverty line last year"
Let me put it this way, you can buy a condom for 50 cents or you can feed your family (2 boxes of macaroni and cheese)
Yes, you can get free condoms, but not a lot of people know that, and children arent going to be able to access it.

The 60% doesnt have to be literal, the point is, there IS a failure rate. Wether or not unprotected sex is irresponsible is completely irrelevant. You are simply wrong. You can end up pregnant even if you acted completely responsibly with contraception, and this greatly increases the poorer you are (because you can afford less contraception)

Also, as Ive stated before, abortion IS taking responsibility. It is preventing the life of a child which you know you are not suited to raise, for whatever reason.

Compared to the rest of the world, the poverty line in the US is not poor. These people have food to eat, a place to live, and a bed to sleep in. They may be poor by our standards, but they are not really poor. Actually children have much easier access to condoms, at school. School infirmeries give out condoms, unless of course you go to a private Christian school. But in that case you are not poor. I dont think you understand my position. I dont believe that it should be illegal, but I think in almost every circumstance there is a better option. No, abortion is not taking responsibility. If you were responsible you would not be in the position where you needed one in the first place. You can always put a child up for adoption. It will be claimed before it is even born, and will grow up the child of loving parents who for some reason where not able to have their own children.

[arriah]

Compared to the rest of the world, the poverty line in the US is not poor. These people have food to eat, a place to live, and a bed to sleep in. They may be poor by our standards, but they are not really poor.?

I knew you were going to drag that BS out. Again, completely irrelevant. We are talking about US (and UK, I assume) and no, not all people in poverty have those things. Again, you should probably stop talking about shit you dont know about. This argument always comes across as white supremacist as well.

Actually children have much easier access to condoms, at school. School infirmeries give out condoms, unless of course you go to a private Christian school. But in that case you are not poor.

1. Im pretty sure that this is not true, if not for all public schools then all states.
2. Do they know that?
3. Lots of poor kids dont attend school.

If you were responsible you would not be in the position where you needed one in the first place. You can always put a child up for adoption. It will be claimed before it is even born, and will grow up the child of loving parents who for some reason where not able to have their own children.?

Again, you are flat out wrong. Contraception has a failure rate.
Yes, you can put up for adoption but it will NOT be claimed before it is born, and will most likely not be raised by loving parents. There are way more babies for adoption than people adopting and that number is growing. More likely it will stay in a shitty system and abused and passed around families.

Seriously, do you even live in reality?

[Metis]

plan B is 50$. Secondly, condoms in stores are expensive as fuck, and the poor person may not have money or transportation to afford these supposed cheap condoms... you can get an abortion for free if you are poor.

You need to stop playing the "poor card" so much. Your stance that poor women can obtain free abortions, whereas birth control is expensive doesnt hold up to scrutiny. Free birth control devices and medications are much more readily available than are free abortions.

Also, your argument makes little sense from a medical standpoint. If you have ever known or cared for a patient who has had an abortion then you will know that its not exactly an innocuous procedure. Ive been on several EMS calls where the emergency was the result of a legal abortion. Usually this was either uncontrolled bleeding or pelvic inflammatory disease resulting in toxic shock, both life-threatening situations. If it were not seen as an "end justifies the means" situation, dilating a womans cervix and scraping her uterus would amount to heinous torture. That some women submit to this procedure versus using painless contraception makes me doubt their sanity.

In many states, you can obtain free condoms via the Internet.

http://www.teensource.org/condoms/free

In most other areas, free condoms can be picked up at the local health service or any one of dozens of other places.

http://www.condomfinder.org/find.php

[arriah]

You need to stop playing the "poor card" so much.

Gibson was talking about poor people, I was correcting his misinformation. Also, poor people are a group in the US that this topic disproportionately affects, so it is incredibly relevant.

Free?birth control devices and medications are much more readily available than are?free abortions . . .

In many states, you can obtain free condoms via the Internet.

http://www.teensource.org/condoms/free

In most other areas, free condoms can be?picked up at the local?health service or any one of dozens of?other places.

http://www.condomfinder.org/find.php

Most poor people dont have access to the Internet. And yes, as I have addressed, condoms can be found for free but not a lot of people know about that and may not have the means to get there (depends on where they live, if they have transportation, money for gas, bus, etc or even time)

Also, your?argument makes little sense from a medical standpoint. If you have ever known or cared for a patient who has had an abortion then you will know that?its?not exactly an innocuous procedure. Ive been on several EMS calls where the?emergency?was the result of a?legal abortion. Usually this was either uncontrolled bleeding or pelvic inflammatory disease resulting in toxic shock, both life-threatening situations.

It doesnt matter about your personal experience, Stats show otherwise. Also, anyone who has ever been pregnant knows that its not exactly "innocuous"

. If it were not seen as?an "end justifies the means" situation,?dilating a?womans?cervix and scraping?her uterus would amount to heinous torture.

You really shouldnt dictate to women what is torture of their own bodies.

Have you ever heard of a Pap smear? ')