An amusing thought I had ~ Why how right you think you are is irrelevant.

[Jaecp]

I'd like to respond just to this part, if I may.

How do you know that morality has 'improved over time'? That implies some goal, or endpoint, or ideal, that morality is either moving to or away from. What is that goal, and why is it 'the goal'?

Sure.

We're coming at this from two angles. Different angles.

What I think your proposing is the notion that to judge moral improvement I'd need some sort of "maximally good ethic" or whatever as a judge. Divine Command Theory types might just use God. WWJD turning into a metric instead of a bracelet. Then I could go "oh, cool, when the US finally freed the slaves in 1860 we're up 3 points from 68 to 71% of "peak morality"

Thats not the way I view it. By way of analogy lets talk software. Firefox, say, for example.

Morality/Firefox 1.0 existed, but had some problems. Then we had 1.1, 1.2, and so on.

I don't KNOW what a "perfect" morality would look like any more than I would know what a perfect web browser would look like.

What we can know is when, according to lower level principles like fairness, equity, harm and the like how to improve on the current generation of morality to make marginal improvements over time.

I can elaborate further, I think, but lets start there?

[Irate Canadian]

Thats not the way I view it. By way of analogy lets talk software. Firefox, say, for example.

Morality/Firefox 1.0 existed, but had some problems. Then we had 1.1, 1.2, and so on.

I don't KNOW what a "perfect" morality would look like any more than I would know what a perfect web browser would look like.

The ideas for a web browser and its usage were thought out by someone, no?

[Jaecp]

And you convince your pro-abortion peers that it is not a method of birth control, and that their parents will NOT kill them if they find out. Oh, and convince your associates that the fetus actually IS a human being deserving of the same rights as any other member of our species.

How many pro-choice people do you actually know?

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control

This is planned parenthoods info page on methods of birth control. Abortion is not on there. The horror stories you imagine are stories.

As to the personhood status of a fetus. Do you really believe reiteration has value in our discourse here?

But it will eventually. I am confident of that.

You'll take it to your grave.

Which is what our efforts have focused on with restrictions on second and third trimester abortions.

Last time I checked the stats it was, by trimester, 91%/9%/negligible% (under 100 performed each year)

How many women who get third trimester abortions, all 100 or so per year, do you think do it because of something other than a serious medical complication?

I don't know what you mean by our efforts. Which org?

Popular opinion is swinging our way, and people are feeling less "needful" of abortions, in part due to the efforts of the pro-life side.

This is simply not true

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

If anything support for both sides is pretty much flat. The support lines zig and zag, but if you look below the graph to the actual data, since 1975 universal support for abortion is up 7% from 21-28%, legal in certain circumstances is down 4% from 54-50% (likely covered by the 7% who want it legal all the time) and illegal in all circumstances is down 1% from 22 to 21%

Popular opinion is not swinging your way. If anything popular opinion percentages have been flat since the mid 90's. The lines cross here and there, but the currently pro life is a smidge behind pro choice.

All parts of the whole for much of the pro-life approach. Even contraception for those over 18 among us who are not against contraception.

Get your crazies in line then.

Nor is theft, assault, rape, murder, or embezzlement. Just because something isn't new doesn't mean it should be given a pass.

None of those things are elective medical treatments. Apples and oranges, but you already knew that.

No one is suggesting that we can eradicate it. Just like we can't eradicate people doing anything else. But we identify that something is heinous (which abortion is), and criminalize it, and actually ENFORCE the punishments for a change, and we will watch the numbers free-fall.

We know. Just like there will never be ZERO drunk drivers. But when we finally admit the barbarism of the practice, then we can make better progress. As long as abortion proponents treat it as harmless as having a mole removed, and obfuscate the actual consequences and results of the procedure, our work is made far more difficult.

No one? Not in this thread, perhaps, but did I not include in one of my post, #80 to adrift about an Org in “liberal washington” that won't rest until all abortion is gone. You as an individual are not the face of how anti-abortion organizations actually operate in the US.

Either way, doesn't matter. Banning abortion doesn't get rid of it. All it does is push it out of sight. People have been having abortions for 5000 years. Legal or illegal, safe or not. Getting abortion criminalized will do nothing more than lead to more dead women, mostly poor ones.

On the other hand, plenty of western countries with legal access to abortion have lower rates than we do because their countries citizenry put their efforts towards the societal forces that lead to abortion, and not the abortion itself.

Meanwhile, in place that have enacted or maintained the kind of laws you want here haven't prevented abortions, but they've killed a ton of women

https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/IB_A...in-America.pdf

A huge number of the countries with absolute bans are in Latin America.

Our Abortion rate is 19.4. Thats the highest of western industrialized nations. What are they doing differently than us that our numbers are so high by comparison? I'm pretty sure its not because they all banned the procedure and the rates dropped.

The rate listed in the link for the entire region is 32! There are tons of abortion restrictions in those areas, but their average rate is quite a bit higher than ours.

You are going after the wrong target. Seriously, please just read the PDF. It's short. Other nations have tried what you're doing. It does not work

This, right here ^, is where the actual conversation is. Can we focus on this? If you do a full on "every block of text needs a reply" I'm just going to skip sections to focus on this part anyway, so you're better off focusing here.

Are you as comfortable with infanticide, like Starlight is?

I don't know who that is. Can we skip the theatrics?

And culture has glamorized crime. The "bad guy" isn't so much bad as misunderstood, and even the "hero" will stoop to whatever level he needs to further his goal. It is COOL to commit crimes now. The ends justify the means. The consequences are not important if the goal is achieved. Just like abortion has been sterilized (pardon the pun). It is seen as just a procedure, that the fetus isn't REALLY alive, etc.

Movies also glamorize rogue cops with body counts in the dozens, but people in the real world have more delineation there.

[Jaecp]

The ideas for a web browser and its usage were thought out by someone, no?

It's an analogy.

[Irate Canadian]

It's an analogy.

9912ppo.gif


Morality has to originate from somewhere, no?

[Jaecp]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]6276[/ATTACH]


Morality has to originate from somewhere, no?

Make a case.

I'm not playing with leading questions.

[Irate Canadian]

Make a case.

I'm not playing with leading questions.

You're the one who decided to use programs as a analogy....

[Jaecp]

You get one more post. Write something worth replying to or I'm booting you to talk to the people whose replies are longer than a dozen words.

No leading questions. No graphics. Write something of substance and be direct about it.

[Raphael]

Are you as comfortable with infanticide, like Starlight is?

I don't know who that is. Can we skip the theatrics?

A countryman of mine, who has joined TWeb who has stated he thinks that abortion should be legal up to 3 months post birth

[Raphael]

Make a case.

I'm not playing with leading questions.

His point was rather simple. Firefox didn't just drop from the sky one day.

It was planned, scoped out, with targets set for what was to change with each release. It had a designer. It had a starting point and planned goals, some of which aren't available for where it was at, but willl be to where it's going.
The designers knew that the alpha releases, and even the first major release were not the end product, but that it was something they were going to be working on.

Kinda like God does with bringing in the changes as He can.

[Irate Canadian]

You get one more post. Write something worth replying to or I'm booting you to talk to the people whose replies are longer than a dozen words.

No leading questions. No graphics. Write something of substance and be direct about it.

Leading questions to you are any questions that challenge your worldview.... so there's no point in even trying to debate, because as you'll kick me out as soon as I ask a question.

I'll try this anyway: Where does morality originate from? Is it objective or subjective?

[Pytharchimedes]

elective medical treatments.

You dislike euphemisms?

I bet somewhere between "murder" and "elective medical treatment" is the truth about abortion, yet, none of the people who claim it is one or the other have the rational perspective to actually discuss it.

Rainbows!.jpg

[shunyadragon]

I'll try this anyway: Where does morality originate from? Is it objective or subjective?

I will give my take on morals and ethics. By definition morals and ethic are social and cultural human constraints on human behavior to ensure the safe raising of the offspring that have a long gestation period and slow maturing rate. Morals and ethics are neither subjective nor objective, though they may have subjective and objective attributes.

The origin of morals and ethics in humans is through evolution necessary for the survival of an opportunistic intelligent omnivore dependent on cooperation and specialization of the members of the family and community. Primitive morals and ethics may be observed in other primates and higher mammals.

[Pytharchimedes]

I will give my take on morals and ethics. By definition morals and ethic are social and cultural human constraints on human behavior for the benefit of the family and community, and ensure the raising of the offspring that have a long gestation period and slow maturing rate. Morals and ethics are neither subjective nor objective, though they may have subjective and objective attributes.

The origin of morals and ethics in humans is through evolution necessary for the survival of an opportunistic intelligent omnivore dependent on cooperation and specialization of the members of the family and community. Primitive morals and ethics may be observed in other primates and higher mammals.

Why do you seek to appear so cold and calculating? I bet underneath that outer layer is a big snuggly wuggly teddy bear.

snugglybear.jpg

[Irate Canadian]

Thank you for actually responding Shunya.

I will give my take on morals and ethics. By definition morals and ethic are social and cultural human constraints on human behavior to ensure the safe raising of the offspring that have a long gestation period and slow maturing rate. Morals and ethics are neither subjective nor objective, though they may have subjective and objective attributes.

Curious, if they are cultural and social morals, do they change over a period of time?

The origin of morals and ethics in humans is through evolution necessary for the survival of an opportunistic intelligent omnivore dependent on cooperation and specialization of the members of the family and community. Primitive morals and ethics may be observed in other primates and higher mammals.

What would have initiated the usage and practice of morals? Because to me, when you remove the moral values from society, society will end up through survival of the fittest.