Abortion Debate - Role of Government

[MindlessPieces]

This seems to be another big topic in USA, not so much in other western nations.

The thing about the abortion debate, you can argue till your blue in the face about whether it is moral or immoral to have abortions.
But whether it is moral or immoral, is irrelevant. The only real relevant thing is whether government should interfere in this decision?

So really, what is the purpose of government? To create a moral society? I hope not, whose moral beliefs are you going to force onto people? Are you going to make it a crime to cheat on your girlfriend/wife? In my view government is there to create and support a Safe, Stable and Thriving society. This includes things like hospitals, roads, schools, anti discrimination laws etc.
But in terms of getting people to live moral lives? Isn't that what various religious organisations try to convince people to voluntarily do?
So if you think it is immoral for people to have abortions, then create some educational videos, hand out pamphlets, talk to people, try to convince them not to have abortions, but don't look to govt to make it illegal, don't harass people, don't blow up clinics.

 

[Salaman2]

Not sure if I understand your argument that it is not relevant for a government to adopt rules concerning what is right or wrong behavior (aka, morality) if the government has a law that grants moral status to a fetus, which most governments do grant after 20 to 24 weeks of gestation.

See one side of this argument by Candace Donnelly:

Morality's Role in Governance: Ensuring Liberty

Discover how legislating morality secures our inalienable rights and protects freedom. Join the conversation on society's moral foundations! 🇺🇸

civicsandcitizenship.org

 

[MindlessPieces]

Not sure if I understand your argument that it is not relevant for a government to adopt rules concerning what is right or wrong behavior (aka, morality) if the government has a law that grants moral status to a fetus, which most governments do grant after 20 to 24 weeks of gestation.

See one side of this argument by Candace Donnelly:

Morality's Role in Governance: Ensuring Liberty

Discover how legislating morality secures our inalienable rights and protects freedom. Join the conversation on society's moral foundations! 🇺🇸

civicsandcitizenship.org

I disagree with the idea of codifying morality into law.

Most people, I would guess, would think that it is immoral to cheat on your committed partner.
But do we need the government to come along and arrest these people, put them through a court case and lock them up or fine them?

What purpose would that be for? Simply to defend someone's moral standard?

We use laws to ensure society is safe, stable and thriving. e.g. so people don't kill each other, or assault each other, or defraud them of money or steal property. Not simply because murder, theft, assault are immoral, but because they destabalise society.

We might say that cheating on your spouse is immoral, we might say that prostitution is immoral, but most people would say we shouldn't lock these people up.

Do you understand? So why are some "immorals" deemed to be codified into law and some "immorals" deemed to be ignored by law? Think about it. Then throw away your ideas of using morality to justify criminally prosecuting people and instead think about what the true purpose of govt and law is, then use that true purpose as a limit on the powers of government.

Allowing govt to force morality onto people is a huge threat and huge ability to be misused. Next minute you have the morality police, locking up girls for not covering their heads, locking up people for changing religion, locking people up for being gay... and justifying it because the leader (president, prime minister) believes these things to be immoral. Maybe next they could claim it is immoral to vote for the opposing political party...

 

[Salaman2]

Yes, but We-The-People DO say that killing a living fetus after 58 weeks of gestation IS IMMORAL. Do you understand why this is a proper function of a representative form of government? And yes, 'We might' say this or that is immoral, but logically 'We might not'. That is the price we all pay for living in a democratic republic...We-The-People decide what laws we might and might not adopt via our elected representatives.

Finally, you raise the critical question, what is the 'true purpose of government and laws' concerning morality. Read the Preamble to the Constitution, it provides the answer you seek: “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty.” We-The-People decide which moral constraints we put on government to attain this ideal society.

 

[MindlessPieces]

Yes, but We-The-People DO say that killing a living fetus after 58 weeks of gestation IS IMMORAL. Do you understand why this is a proper function of a representative form of government? And yes, 'We might' say this or that is immoral, but logically 'We might not'. That is the price we all pay for living in a democratic republic...We-The-People decide what laws we might and might not adopt via our elected representatives.

Finally, you raise the critical question, what is the 'true purpose of government and laws' concerning morality. Read the Preamble to the Constitution, it provides the answer you seek: “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty.” We-The-People decide which moral constraints we put on government to attain this ideal society.

I have to let you know that I am not from USA, so I talk about such stuff in a broader context than just USA. When I'm talking about government, I'm not just talking about USA government. The USA constitution only applies to USA, one country amongst many countries of the world. Not having been brought up in USA, I don't hold any reverence towards the USA constitution nor the founding fathers of what is now deemed USA.

The document that you provided a link to starts off talking about God and God given rights. I'm not a Christian, I'm an atheist, talk of God and God given rights makes no sense to me. It gets worse, when you delve down that rabbit hole and you are told there is no compelling evidence and that you need to have Faith, and just believe. and that it is Bad/Wrong/immoral to be a doubting Thomas and virtuous to be believe without having seen. That is certainly no way to base a government and laws governing a society made up of many individuals of varying religions and non religious beliefs.

So if you are going to allow your government to force a moral standard on to the population. The question to ask is, "Whose moral standard are you going to force on everyone?"
If you go down that route and let's say you are a Christian, then you better keep making sure that you only elect Christian presidents, or else, God forbid, you might get Muslim or Hindu or Secular Humanism morality forced onto you (a Christian). But what about that pesky thing where there is supposed to be a seperation of Church and state? how is that reconciled with the idea of forcing someone's moral standard onto everyone in society. It seems to me to be the antithesis of the acknowledgement of having a society made up of a diverse population of empowered people living out their lives, making decisions, and navigating the complexity of living in society. Even in the Christian myth the idea is that people have free will, and the god wants people to make decisions and eventually the god will judge and reward people that choose "right" with heaven and those that choose "wrong" with hell. Taking choice away from the people seems to be removing that free will that the Christian god is deemed to be wanting the people to have.

But then it gets much worse, there isn't a set of Christian morals that all Christians agree to. There are Protestant Christians, Catholic Christians and other types of Christians, and if you delve further you will find Protestants don't all agree with each other, so who do you want to bestow the power to decide on what is morally right vs morally wrong and to be able to use the full force of the police and justice system to force this onto the people?
How are you to limit this all powerful president? The USA Constitution with all it's speak of God (presumably the Christian god) well that's convenient if you are a Christain, but what if you are a Muslim, or an Athiest, or a Bhuddist, or a Hindu or something else? Oh, but this country is a "Christian" country, founded by Christians on Christian principles, doesn't really cut it, it's convenient for Christians, but repuslive to non Christians. Perhpas USA should adopt the religious beliefs of the true founding fathers of USA, those of the native Americans, the American Indians!


In terms of what you said
"Yes, but We-The-People DO say that killing a living fetus after 58 weeks of gestation IS IMMORAL. Do you understand why this is a proper function of a representative form of government?"
I don't believe a society should be created where the majority can always outvote the minorities and use this to take away people's rights. Maybe this is convenient if YOU are one of the people in the current majority, e.g. in USA if you are a white Christian, but then you better make sure that your country remains majority white Christian. Maybe if you are worried you could go on an all out assault against immigrants, perhaps ban Muslims coming into the country so that your ways remain the majority view, and you have the votes to ensure your own moral standard is the one that is codified into law.
Myself, and somewhat going along with the concept of a Constitution which limits power of government and talks about some kind of "We do not receive the right to life, liberty, and property from earthly powers; we are born with these rights."
Well, of course our "rights" are earthly rights, we made them up, not some mythical god, but we made them up in a way by considering all people equal regardless of their ancestry, their beliefs, their colour, their sexual orientation etc. At least the USA founding fathers had the foresight to consider this concept, it is just unfortunate they felt compelled to inject their religious beliefs into this also.

Even in a fully Democratic system, if The People could vote on every law, it wouldn't be a good system, it would be a system where the majority rules over the minorities. Might makes Right. It would be a horrible system. Govt needs to be limited in its powers so as not to abuse the population and take away people's "rights" especially where those rights do not impact the Safety, Stability and Thrivability of society. Govt isn't there to be a moral judge or moral enforcer. If you believe in god, that should be the all powerful, all knowing god's job, not the job of government. If you allow Govt to dictate all this stuff, then you have no need for religious organisations as now it is govt deciding and enforcing what is right and wrong.

In my view, right and wrong should simply be something that each individual can decide for themself on. Religious organisation can exist and can try to convince people of their moral standards, people can argue and promote their own moral standards, these just shouldn't be enforced into law. No one wants a Nanny State. Let's minimise the influence of Government, let's limit their powers to trying to make a safe, stable and thriving society rather than trying to make a homogenous moral one.

 

[dlu]

I think the main theme of your article, irrespective of the somewhat anecdotal arguments, is that democracy works. There is always going to be ups and downs, turns to the left or right, heated arguments and conflicts on the path forward. A few sidesteps along the way, hickups minor and major, but western civilization has seemed to have endured.
Western societies have moved over the centuries away from religious domination towards a more. what i will just call, an atheistic framework.

An example where government can be swept along to make new rules regarding ethics and morality.
Recent DEI wasn't mentioned, but that has been an aspect of western society, and one may argue, of historical; societies in general to some extent. It is only in the last decades where it had shown its ugly side by becoming a movement too fast too much, where laws pf promotion added momentum. Adherents became lost to the cause, adamant that their way was best. Activist adherents promoted behaviors and arguments the antithesis of what a random person could consider right or wrong. In essence it became the new religion replacing the old ( Christianity or any other if you will ) morals and ethics with a new set that all should follow, with demonization and outcasting of those that wished to discuss, question, or non-comply. This was a ground up movement, not government led, that swept all of western society, using and manipulating the power of government for advantage, An ideology of the minority that overswept the majority.
BTW, the anti DEI propose merit as one if their justifications for opposition. Really, networking and who you know seems to work for them quite adequarley. BS on their side too.
Anyways, DEI will continue on as it has always done but without the religious fervor and exclusion.

One nitpick
The God of the Muslim, Christian, and Jewish religions is the same God. The Christian God has been morphed from the Jewish to suit its needs, and the Muslim from the Jewish and Christian. Chistianity has some aspects of the Torah, while the Muslin faith has some aspects of the Gospel and the Torah. The ;begets in the Old Testament ( say Torah ) are common.
In one word:
Jewish God - guiding
Christian God - merciful
Muslim God - salvationist.
I suppose the debate is whether the writings are the spoken God or the writings of men ( no woman I gather. One can pick any reason you like why that is so, even though other societies had prominent females. Perhaps the Abrahamic religions had propensity and bias against equal rights ( slavery is OK in each as well as polygamy but rejected over time ) .

 

[jack action]

We use laws to ensure society is safe, stable and thriving. e.g. so people don't kill each other, or assault each other, or defraud them of money or steal property. Not simply because murder, theft, assault are immoral, but because they destabalise society.

Although I agree with the last sentence, I would still argue that laws simply forbidding and punishing are not the way to go.

I would prefer a society that helps each of its constituants and where one's problem is everyone's problem; not one where there is finger-pointing every time something goes wrong. If someone hurts or kills someone else - why would anyone rationally do that to someone supposedly helping them and keeping them safe? - we should ask ourselves where society, all of us, went wrong in the upbringing and care of that person, and share the blame for the results.

Ruining someone's life by simply saying "we told you not to do it" is just plain wrong. It is simply pure control under intimidation, and that is evil in itself.

 

[sbrothy]

One example of democracy gone too far is that of Socrates in ancient Greece being democratically forced to commit suicide. It's extreme but I can only wonder what went through their heads!

EDIT: Well, convicted. But in a democracy. It's still nasty.

 

[MindlessPieces]

Although I agree with the last sentence, I would still argue that laws simply forbidding and punishing are not the way to go.

Well I agree to an extent.

Locking people up is in order to protect other people in society. e.g. a serial rapist needs to be removed from society if they are presenting immediate danger to others.

But there ought to be more to it than just locking people up. And that's perhaps why in many they call it Corrections, they ought to be working with those people in order to show them, convince them that there is a better way to behave.

Also part of the problem that people behave destructively is that due to poverty they might react in a way that they have given up on society. So government should be doing a lot to help people get out of poverty and into well paying jobs.

I would prefer a society that helps each of its constituants and where one's problem is everyone's problem; not one where there is finger-pointing every time something goes wrong. If someone hurts or kills someone else - why would anyone rationally do that to someone supposedly helping them and keeping them safe? - we should ask ourselves where society, all of us, went wrong in the upbringing and care of that person, and share the blame for the results.

Ruining someone's life by simply saying "we told you not to do it" is just plain wrong. It is simply pure control under intimidation, and that is evil in itself.

I don't believe in "evil" but I am a pragmatist and I do realise to have a more harmonious society we ought to have free school, free medical care, fair policing and justice system, support structure for those struggling.

 

[MindlessPieces]

One example of democracy gone too far is that of Socrates in ancient Greece being democratically forced to commit suicide. It's extreme but I can only wonder what went through their heads!

EDIT: Well, convicted. But in a democracy. It's still nasty.

There are many, many examples of democracy gone wrong. Gay marriage being outlawed is an example of the majority forcing their will on the minority. Everything shouldn't be up for a majority vote. The power of Govt needs to be limited to a few specific things, and dictating morality isn't one of those things.

 

[sbrothy]

There are many, many examples of democracy gone wrong. Gay marriage being outlawed is an example of the majority forcing their will on the minority. Everything shouldn't be up for a majority vote. The power of Govt needs to be limited to a few specific things, and dictating morality isn't one of those things.

In an utopian society, yeah. Getting 250 million people (the voting part anyway) of different ethnicities and whatnot to agree on anything sounds like pure science fiction though!

 

[Grinkle]

getting people to live moral lives?

I share the perspective that morality is a difficult thing to get common agreement on, let alone legislate in a way that makes even most of a society happy (with the legislation).

Regarding abortion, I think government has a valid interest here to the extent that stakeholders may resort to violence if they disagree on what is the desirable way to proceed.

Suppose two potential parents disagree strongly - one wants to take the pregnancy to term and one want to terminate. Without any law to say what is permissible, the only way these two people have to resolve the dispute is to influence each other via personal means. This can be anywhere on the spectrum from talking things over to committing violence against each other.

I think government must have laws for people to resort to either as protection from violence against them or as an alternative to committing violence to address a perceived wrong. Remaining mute on the issue of abortion for me abrogates the duty of government to ...

support a Safe, Stable and Thriving society

 

[MindlessPieces]

I share the perspective that morality is a difficult thing to get common agreement on, let alone legislate in a way that makes even most of a society happy (with the legislation).

Regarding abortion, I think government has a valid interest here to the extent that stakeholders may resort to violence if they disagree on what is the desirable way to proceed.

Yeah, there is a thing called natural law. I'm no expert on this topic, but the way I understand it, each species have a natural value on things. e.g. humans value property, cats and dogs don't.

Us, along with some other animals value protecting the young. We are somewhat like birds with regards to forming a lasting family and taking care of our young, and less like dogs or bovine where the male does the fertilisation but has no lasting affinity for the female or rearing the young.

So looking towards human nature, we try to come up with laws to protect "inalienable rights". The right to live, the right to live where we want, the right to love, the right to marry and form a family, the right to not be harmed or discriminated against.

A test of this human nature or "natural law" as applied to humans might be how a third party witness is likely to react to an event. e.g. If a man is viciously beating a child or a woman, a third party is likely to get involved, perhaps even attack the man, or at least put themselves in harms way to try to protect the person being assaulted. This is very evident for a scenario of a woman or a child being assaulted in a public place.

It is less evident for abortions. The average Joe on the street isn't going to get violent when confronted with a pregnant woman willingly going into the doctors for an abortion.
They certainly aren't going to get violent on watching a woman take the morning after pill.

There are always exceptions, some people (very few) will get violent and try to blow up abortion clinics, some people may get violent when seeing someone create a cartoon image of Mohammad, or when seeing a gay person walk around town. But you don't write laws for the extreme cases. You can't please everyone.

Something like abortions doesn't create social unrest, it doesn't destabalise society.

Suppose two potential parents disagree strongly - one wants to take the pregnancy to term and one want to terminate. Without any law to say what is permissible, the only way these two people have to resolve the dispute is to influence each other via personal means. This can be anywhere on the spectrum from talking things over to committing violence against each other.

A woman wanting to terminate or carry to term would have no need to resort to violence against their partner.

It is only the man who would "need" to resort to violence and threats to get his way.
We certainly do need laws against domestic violence, and protections for those that find themselves in an abusive relationship.

I think government must have laws for people to resort to either as protection from violence against them or as an alternative to committing violence to address a perceived wrong. Remaining mute on the issue of abortion for me abrogates the duty of government to ...

It's not the govt's role to tell women whether they can or cannot have abortions. It's not the govt's role to tell people whether they can or cannot have babies.
Ethically some might argue that people with serious genetic issues shouldn't be having babies, but still it isn't the govt's remit to interfere.

 

[MindlessPieces]

In an utopian society, yeah. Getting 250 million people (the voting part anyway) of different ethnicities and whatnot to agree on anything sounds like pure science fiction though!

No one is arguing for a unanimous consensus. I am arguing that in certain circumstances it shouldn't even be put to a vote, because that way minorities will always lose out. In a society of a mixture of people of different ethnicities, different beliefs, different situations, government just needs to allow all to participate in the playground of society safely, they aren't there to ensure everyone conforms to the "norms" Society would be a very boring place is everyone were forced to be the same. Besides, we all want small govt don't we, we all want to live our lives without undue interference. Govt aren't mum and dad, we aren't little children in need of being micromanaged and told how we are to behave.

 

[dlu]

because that way minorities will always lose out

Untrue

we all want small govt don't we

Untrue

in need of being micromanaged and told how we are to behave.

Untrue

 

[Grinkle]

there is a thing called natural law.

I have read about this idea, it appeals to me - thanks for reminding me of the term for it.

I will argue there are at least two different moral regions of abortion.

I argue that natural law applies to late term abortion of a viable fetus but not to abortion of a non-viable fetus. As an extreme example, I argue the idea of a 9th month abortion that involves the deliberate killing of the fetus is morally repugnant to anyone who is not a sociopath, while the taking of a 'morning after pill' is an an event that many or perhaps most (certainly myself) consider to be morally neutral, no more good or bad than taking an aspirin.

IMO, laws defining a viable fetus as a person are the proper purview of government. Given I believe this is a 'natural law', if a society doesn't want to adhere to this, a law contrary would be mandatory, imo. How exactly one defines viable is not a matter of natural law, imo, and requires imperfect definition by legislation. If a society does want to adhere to the idea that at some point pre-birth, a fetus becomes a person, then like other natural laws that are legislated, this should also be legislated.

Regarding pre-viability, I agree with you that its a matter of what one considers morally sound - quite subjective.

It is only the man who would "need" to resort to violence and threats to get his way.

And without a legal structure to protect her right to her own choice in this moral regime, what recourse does a woman have for help from 'The Leviathan' if she is subjected to this? Because he is physically stronger, whether or not he actually commits assault, in most cases, without legal recourse, I argue the man would have his way in such conflicts.

We certainly do need laws against domestic violence

Would you argue that laws against assualt and murder eliminate the need for laws limiting firearm ownerhsip? It strikes me as similar reasoning - perhaps you do argue this; its logically consistent although imo not a practical place for a society to be. The US is a great example of that impracticality.

It's not the govt's role to tell women whether they can or cannot have abortions.

I argue it is absolutely the governments role to tell women whether or not they have the choice. If the government doesn't make this determination, in cases of disagreement, I argue her male partner will make the choice for her.

It's not the govt's role to tell people whether they can or cannot have babies.

Of course not - where did anyone argue otherwise?

Something like abortions doesn't create social unrest, it doesn't destabalise society.

I think setting the bar here as the point where legislation must cease is not a defendable position.

 

[sbrothy]

Yeah, there is a thing called natural law. [...]

I'm afraid the phrase "natural law" makes me think of Ayn Rand. *shudders*

 

[MindlessPieces]

I will argue there are at least two different moral regions of abortion.

I'm a moral nihilist. I don't believe there are any moral truths, at least none that are objectively discoverable. They are just individual opinions that using moral terminology, people often try to ascribe their own moral beliefs to others and then go down the "should/ought" rabbit hole.

I argue that natural law applies to late term abortion of a viable fetus but not to abortion of a non-viable fetus. As an extreme example, I argue the idea of a 9th month abortion that involves the deliberate killing of the fetus is morally repugnant to anyone who is not a sociopath, while the taking of a 'morning after pill' is an an event that many or perhaps most (certainly myself) consider to be morally neutral, no more good or bad than taking an aspirin.

While I don't care about the morality label, I acknowledge that most people would get quite upset at the idea of a Dr or anyone intentionally killing a viable baby outside the mother's womb. Conjures up images of a Dr wielding a hammer onto a baby's crying head.

IMO, laws defining a viable fetus as a person are the proper purview of government.

I couldn't care less about government definition of "person". Citizen perhaps?
Is it a citizen at the moment it is born and then there after? Is it a citizen when it is viable but still in the womb?

There probably should be a new legal term for it as it is a special case. It doesn't have the full legal protections of citizen or even a person visiting a country. But if a man was to intentionally kill it, by assaulting the woman, perhaps kicking her in the stomach, should that be deemed akin to murder? Or if a person for some reason murders the woman, should that be deemed a double murder?

But then what if the woman is drinking alcohol or taking drugs? Should that be a crime because she is forcing alcohol or drugs into the viable fetus' blood stream?
What if she is an addict and really has no choice? does she become criminally liable for the fate of her fetus? At what point is her own body no longer her own to poison however she chooses? At what point is she obligated to treat her body as if it is a temple?

Given I believe this is a 'natural law', if a society doesn't want to adhere to this, a law contrary would be mandatory, imo. How exactly one defines viable is not a matter of natural law, imo, and requires imperfect definition by legislation. If a society does want to adhere to the idea that at some point pre-birth, a fetus becomes a person, then like other natural laws that are legislated, this should also be legislated.

Regarding pre-viability, I agree with you that its a matter of what one considers morally sound - quite subjective.

Morals, whether subjective or objective should not be the domain of government.

If you want someone to tell you if something is morally right or not, then go to church, go to the mosque, or synagogue or whatever is your choice of moral arbitrator. Don't go to your politician.

And without a legal structure to protect her right to her own choice in this moral regime, what recourse does a woman have for help from 'The Leviathan' if she is subjected to this? Because he is physically stronger, whether or not he actually commits assault, in most cases, without legal recourse, I argue the man would have his way in such conflicts.

A safe, stable and thriving society necessitates laws against murder, assault, theft....

Would you argue that laws against assualt and murder eliminate the need for laws limiting firearm ownerhsip?

I would argue that in order to have a safe, stable and thriving society, laws and regulations are needed regarding gun ownership and use. (including storage and transport and change of ownership and possession etc). Just look at the disaster that is USA. It is clear that if you allow people to have extremely lax rules governing guns then your society will face a great many gun related deaths, your schools and children will be unsafe, your concerts, your people in society, and your police will be terrified and trigger happy.

I argue it is absolutely the governments role to tell women whether or not they have the choice.

Nah, it's not. Just as it isn't the govt's place to tell sporting bodies how they should create sporting divisions e.g. man/women divisions, age related divisions etc.
I know many people want govt to interfere, especially when it supports their own beliefs and when those decisions are made by people beyond their own personal control.

If the government doesn't make this determination, in cases of disagreement, I argue her male partner will make the choice for her.

Nah, anti violence, anti assault, anti murder will protect the woman (legally speaking) just fine.

Of course not - where did anyone argue otherwise?

Some people may argue that people with genetic defects shouldn't have babies, I'm just bringing this up as an example where perhaps the govt could get involved, but shouldn't. Govt regulation should be seen as a last resort. Only if absolutely necessary to support a safe, stable and thriving society, not to pander to the moral beliefs of those in power.

 

[MindlessPieces]

I'm afraid the phrase "natural law" makes me think of Ayn Rand. *shudders*

Perhaps don't worry about a term, but think about a concept.
What are things that humans value, and value so much that they would put themselves into harms way for? even if those things were not affecting themselves, but impacting a stranger?

e.g. liberty, property, health, education....

 

[Grinkle]

Is it a citizen at the moment it is born and then there after? Is it a citizen when it is viable but still in the womb?

There probably should be a new legal term for it as it is a special case. It doesn't have the full legal protections of citizen or even a person visiting a country. But if a man was to intentionally kill it, by assaulting the woman, perhaps kicking her in the stomach, should that be deemed akin to murder? Or if a person for some reason murders the woman, should that be deemed a double murder?

But then what if the woman is drinking alcohol or taking drugs? Should that be a crime because she is forcing alcohol or drugs into the viable fetus' blood stream?
What if she is an addict and really has no choice? does she become criminally liable for the fate of her fetus? At what point is her own body no longer her own to poison however she chooses? At what point is she obligated to treat her body as if it is a temple?

If I take your phrasing literally we are in agreement that the government has a role in putting legal answers to the questions. If you are being facetious, correct me.

If you want someone to tell you if something is morally right or not

I don't. I want my government to define what is legal and not legal in cases where people's morals put them into unavoidable disagreement.

I would argue that in order to have a safe, stable and thriving society, laws and regulations are needed regarding gun ownership and use.

Me, too - but you are arguing that broad

laws against murder, assault, theft....

obviate the need for more specific laws around

a legal structure to protect her right to her own choice

Why do you see a need (which I agree is a need) for laws in addition to no-murder etc around guns but no need for laws in addition to no-murder ect around a woman's rights for domain over her own body? What is the difference you see in these two situations?

Nah, it's not.

We disagree.

Nah, anti violence, anti assault, anti murder will protect the woman (legally speaking) just fine.

This is clearly incorrect. These laws protect a woman after violence has has already been committed. If the woman has no legal recourse prior to violence occurring then she will not feel protected just fine.


Perhaps your point is that a woman does not necessarily have a right to domain over her own body if she is in a committed relationship and becomes pregnant - that this question itself is a moral question (as opposed perhaps to what we are calling natural law) and hence not the purview of the government. If this is your position, say so, and we will agree to disagree as we wouldn't find common ground there.

edit: Even if that is your position, I still argue that for this to be the way a society would behave would require a law explicitly stating that and government has a role in making a law one way or the other, whatever that law might be).

 

[sbrothy]

Some codifying or legislation is obviously needed judging from people's behavior in general. It's not the prohibition against murder keeping me from slaughtering my peers, but sometimes the limits are paper thin. Humans are sometimes slaves to their emotions/hormones. It takes but a push to become guilty of involuntary manslaughter if the victim falls in an "unlucky" manner. Nevertheless, I'm of the opinion that it should have consequences. There's also the victim's nearest and their sense of justice to take into consideration. One can study history (just off the top of my head: Jyske Lov, Magna Carta) to see how it has developed.

EDIT: And yeah the ancients too.

 

[MindlessPieces]

If I take your phrasing literally we are in agreement that the government has a role in putting legal answers to the questions. If you are being facetious, correct me.

I'm not being facetious. These questions are all important and show how complicated life actually is. Each scenario is complex, why do we look to have govt impose simple laws to force people in various complex scenarios? At some point we need to allow people to live their own lives and make their own choices. We shouldn't have government imposing on every aspect of our lives, we don't need or want a nanny state. The president/prime minister isn't our mum and dad, isn't our spiritual or moral leader.

I don't. I want my government to define what is legal and not legal in cases where people's morals put them into unavoidable disagreement.

People's morals are irrelevant.

Govt should impose laws in cases where actions/activities make society unsafe, unstable and impact the ability for society to thrive. For example if theft is legal, eventually we will stop going to work, instead we will stay home with a gun in hand guarding our stuff. That isn't a productive or thriving society.

This is clearly incorrect. These laws protect a woman after violence has has already been committed. If the woman has no legal recourse prior to violence occurring then she will not feel protected just fine.

Of course laws have serious limitations. A law isn't going to prevent all assaults on women.
It is a deterrent and recourse on how to treat people that have committed crimes.

Legal she feels protected, but in the moment when an attacker is willing to break the law, she is extremely vulnerable. I don't see a solution to this. Do we have govt supply body guards to all pregnant women? Of course not. Do we lock up all pregnant women in a facility so as to keep them and their foetus safe? Of course not.

Perhaps your point is that a woman does not necessarily have a right to domain over her own body if she is in a committed relationship and becomes pregnant

My argument is that it's her body and her right. Her partner has no rights to the foetus.

- that this question itself is a moral question (as opposed perhaps to what we are calling natural law) and hence not the purview of the government. If this is your position, say so, and we will agree to disagree as we wouldn't find common ground there.

I have no interest in people's moral beliefs. We can shout at each other all we want as to whether something is moral or not, but it changes nothing, it doesn't change your beliefs, it doesn't change my beliefs. Why people insist on their own moral beliefs applying to others, is beyond me.

edit: Even if that is your position, I still argue that for this to be the way a society would behave would require a law explicitly stating that and government has a role in making a law one way or the other, whatever that law might be).

Just like USA and many other countries have a constitution, there should be boundaries limiting the power of government. Government should not be all powerful.

 

[sbrothy]

Seems to me you both have good points. Good luck agreeing on them!

 

[gleem]

There probably should be a new legal term for it as it is a special case. It doesn't have the full legal protections of citizen or even a person visiting a country. But if a man was to intentionally kill it, by assaulting the woman, perhaps kicking her in the stomach, should that be deemed akin to murder? Or if a person for some reason murders the woman, should that be deemed a double murder?

Yes, 38 states have fetal homicide laws.

But then what if the woman is drinking alcohol or taking drugs? Should that be a crime because she is forcing alcohol or drugs into the viable fetus' blood stream?
What if she is an addict and really has no choice? does she become criminally liable for the fate of her fetus? At what point is her own body no longer her own to poison however she chooses? At what point is she obligated to treat her body as if it is a temple?

Prosecutors have tried, but it is a complex issue. As far as one's body is concerned, the government can tell you what not to put into it, vis-a-vis drug laws. You even give them authority by mandating the government to maintain a safe, stable, and thriving society.

If you want someone to tell you if something is morally right or not, then go to church, go to the mosque, or synagogue or whatever is your choice of moral arbitrator. Don't go to your politician.

What planet do you live on?

The thing about the abortion debate, you can argue till your blue in the face about whether it is moral or immoral to have abortions.
But whether it is moral or immoral, is irrelevant. The only real relevant thing is whether government should interfere in this decision?

So really, what is the purpose of government? To create a moral society? I hope not, whose moral beliefs are you going to force onto people? Are you going to make it a crime to cheat on your girlfriend/wife? In my view government is there to create and support a Safe, Stable and Thriving society. This includes things like hospitals, roads, schools, anti discrimination laws etc.
But in terms of getting people to live moral lives? Isn't that what various religious organisations try to convince people to voluntarily do?
So if you think it is immoral for people to have abortions, then create some educational videos, hand out pamphlets, talk to people, try to convince them not to have abortions, but don't look to govt to make it illegal, don't harass people, don't blow up clinics.

The government does try to maintain a moral society the scope of which is determined by culture/beliefs. In the extreme, adultery is punishable by death in some Muslin countries.

In the US, many states have mandatory waiting periods and counseling before an abortion.

You cannot separate moral and legal laws. There is a broad spectrum of human behavior, from what is rational and what is not, what must be allowed and what must not. If you have government by the people, then you will have some laws that reflect their beliefs.

With regard to the absolute forbidding of abortions if it is enacted, it will create missery and abortions will still take place underground, and abortion pills will always be available to those who can afford them.

 

[Grinkle]

We can shout at each other all we want as to whether something is moral or not, but it changes nothing, it doesn't change your beliefs, it doesn't change my beliefs.

This is the perspective from which I am arguing that government must enact laws to determine legal bounds in situations where peoples moral judgements lead them to different conclusions on what should or shouldn't be allowed. Without a law to define what is allowed, what are such people then left with to resolve disputes where their beliefs make compromise impossible?

I agree with @sbrothy that we are perhaps talking past each other a bit. I agree with much of what you argue, but I land differently on whether the government has a productive role given the subjective nature of morality. I hear you saying

"Let people with different moral perspectives hash it out - I don't believe either of them is correct if their basis in argument is moralistic, so why should I care if they are in conflict? The fewer laws the better and I don't want laws dealing with their moralistic nonsense cluttering up my life."

I hear what you are saying about a nanny state and I agree that is undesirable but I don't view legal protections for a woman to have domain over her own body as a nanny state issue.

In my city, its illegal to purchase alcohol on Sunday before noon. In my neighborhood, zoning laws prohibit the sale of hard liquor at the grocery store, but allow beer and wine sales (except of course before noon on Sundays). If I want whisky I have to drive about 5 miles away to another neighborhood (same city) with different zoning restrictions. I am with you on not wanting a nanny state, believe me. Its nanny all the way down to the precinct level where I live.

 

[MindlessPieces]

This is the perspective from which I am arguing that government must enact laws to determine legal bounds in situations where peoples moral judgements lead them to different conclusions on what should or shouldn't be allowed. Without a law to define what is allowed, what are such people then left with to resolve disputes where their beliefs make compromise impossible?

To be clear, the government don't dictate what is legal, everything is legal until the government define a law to make something illegal. They make things illegal, they don't make things legal. The only way they "make things legal, is by removing a law that previously exists that makes something illegal.
If there is no law then something is by default, legal.


Laws aren't there to resolve people's disputes on what is moral or not.
For example, most people would consider cheating on your spouse to be immoral, however, very few people want a law against cheating within marriage.

So, what is the purpose for law? If not to resolve moral disputes?
I propose that the purpose for law is to support a safe, stable and thriving society, not a moral one.
If this is the purpose for law then governments should be limited in their power to only create laws for this purpose.

We then, as the public, should stop arguing about the morality of things. Stop arguing about the morality of abortions and instead argue about whether abortions make society unsafe, instable or destitute/dysfunctional.

I agree with @sbrothy that we are perhaps talking past each other a bit. I agree with much of what you argue, but I land differently on whether the government has a productive role given the subjective nature of morality. I hear you saying

"Let people with different moral perspectives hash it out - I don't believe either of them is correct if their basis in argument is moralistic, so why should I care if they are in conflict? The fewer laws the better and I don't want laws dealing with their moralistic nonsense cluttering up my life."

I hear what you are saying about a nanny state and I agree that is undesirable but I don't view legal protections for a woman to have domain over her own body as a nanny state issue.

In my city, its illegal to purchase alcohol on Sunday before noon. In my neighborhood, zoning laws prohibit the sale of hard liquor at the grocery store, but allow beer and wine sales (except of course before noon on Sundays). If I want whisky I have to drive about 5 miles away to another neighborhood (same city) with different zoning restrictions. I am with you on not wanting a nanny state, believe me. Its nanny all the way down to the precinct level where I live.

I'm not quite sure on what you land differently on.
You've restated my position and you have stated a couple of laws in your local vicinity, but you haven't said whether you agree with those laws or not or what your reasoning would be. I'm interested to know, I'm listening, You "land differently" on something, I would like to know what and why? Just from a perspective of me getting to understand better the minds of others.

 

[Grinkle]

I'm not quite sure on what you land differently on.

I think the state has a duty to legislate whether or not a woman has domain over her own body - I think the state has this duty because women are physically weaker than men and men will often enough use this physical advantage that women require specific protections from the state. That is a common enough state of affairs in human society that, imo, there need to be laws around it. I won't agree with all those laws - certainly I do not agree with Sharia law in this area, but there are societies that behave accordingly because and their legal structure reflects this. I think you disagree that any laws are needed in this area, that is why I said I land differently.

but you haven't said whether you agree with those laws

I find them intrusive, onerous, undesirable, motivated by something I cannot relate to, don't understand and cannot empathize with. I think here we 'land' the same. I understand, or think I understand, that this is how you view laws around abortion.

 

[jack action]

Suppose two potential parents disagree strongly - one wants to take the pregnancy to term and one want to terminate. Without any law to say what is permissible, the only way these two people have to resolve the dispute is to influence each other via personal means. This can be anywhere on the spectrum from talking things over to committing violence against each other.

I think government must have laws for people to resort to either as protection from violence against them or as an alternative to committing violence to address a perceived wrong.

This is what civil laws are for. Whenever two parties disagree, they go before a judge who examines their arguments and issues a decision. It is a case-by-case basis, but jurisprudence should tend to indicate where the decision will fall. There are no reasons why this shouldn't apply to abortion, violence, theft, or even murder. Yes, when someone gets murdered, this may create a loss to some people, like when someone cuts down your tree on your property. What has to be paid in damages in a civil court may be just as good a deterrent as any.

For example if theft is legal, eventually we will stop going to work, instead we will stay home with a gun in hand guarding our stuff. That isn't a productive or thriving society.

So if theft is legal, you will start stealing? If you steal from someone and they sue you in civil court to be compensated for their losses, it wouldn't be a deterrent for you?

The government does try to maintain a moral society the scope of which is determined by culture/beliefs.

I disagree. The government makes laws for the minority - i.e, the top "1%", "10%", or whatever number you like - that wants to impose its views on the majority because it favors them, in power, money, or just simplifies their lives.

I think the state has a duty to legislate whether or not a woman has domain over her own body - I think the state has this duty because women are physically weaker than men and men will often enough use this physical advantage that women require specific protections from the state.

Women are not defenseless. A woman with a gun against an unarmed man is not "weak". Women are smart and can defend themselves in many ways, sometimes without violence involved.

Women only require laws to protect them when there are laws limiting them. (Which, of course, shouldn't exist as well.)

 

[MindlessPieces]

I won't agree with all those laws - certainly I do not agree with Sharia law in this area, but there are societies that behave accordingly because and their legal structure reflects this.

Let's say you are a "Founding Father". You are creating the foundational structures for a democratic country. You foresee that there are going to be times where the leader is corrupt, self serving, or has dangerous views of what is moral. Perhaps when you are founding this country, your country is Christian with western values, but in your almost infinite wisdom, you foresee that a time might come where a Muslim is voted to lead the country. How can you set up safeguards to stop this potential future government kicking females out from school, forcing them to cover their hair, their faces, their figures, executing gays, etc? How would you limit the powers of this government?

If you allow the government to decide what is moral or not and to police their own moral beliefs then you are setting up your country to a lot of government abuse. What if the president claimed that it is immoral to belong to an opposition political party, or immoral to vote for the opposition party? Should the govt be able to lock up their political rivals? How can you limit govt power to ensure the govt don't come up with their own arbitrary morals and force that into law?


PS: if you believe laws are based on morality, how do you reason that cheating on your spouse is immoral but not worthy of a criminal record?

 

[MindlessPieces]

So if theft is legal, you will start stealing? If you steal from someone and they sue you in civil court to be compensated for their losses, it wouldn't be a deterrent for you?

If it is truly legal then there would be no recourse even in civil court. In such a system, the strong will simply take from the weak. There will be gangs formed, feuds and rivalry, murders and battles, and very few people would go to work.
It is pretty evident that we need property laws to have a safe, stable and thriving society. Regardless whether theft is believed to be moral or immoral.

I disagree. The government makes laws for the minority - i.e, the top "1%", "10%", or whatever number you like - that wants to impose its views on the majority because it favors them, in power, money, or just simplifies their lives.

Sure, yes those in power, help each other out, but if things are put to a majority vote, then those with the numbers will always dominate the minorities.

Women are not defenseless. A woman with a gun against an unarmed man is not "weak". Women are smart and can defend themselves in many ways, sometimes without violence involved.

Women with guns are far more likely to be murdered than women without guns.

Women only require laws to protect them when there are laws limiting them. (Which, of course, shouldn't exist as well.)

Women and men alike need laws to protect them from murder, assault, kidnapping, rape etc.