Abortion Games? What is our society becoming?!

[Luveria]

I don't care. Do you get offended when kids play Operation? Same thing in my books.

[Democratic Republic of the Triumvirate]

Why say it then?
You seemed a little... outraged.
Why argue the point if you don't care?

I seem outraged? I think you must be projecting - if we were speaking, I've yet to raise my voice, much less become passionate.

Why argue if I don't care? Truth doesn't need me to be passionate, just right.

No, you don't get off that easily.
I said "Who cares if it (legal abortion) is safer?" To provoke a morality based argument from you (not because I don't care).

You said something along the lines of: "Don't you care about the woman at all? Is the fetus your only concern?"
and "No child should be brought up knowing it is unloved."

But why would that be the case without morality?
If we remove morality from law then we could just let the mother and fetus suffer and/or die.
Do you think that should be legal?

[Bottle]

I seem outraged? I think you must be projecting - if we were speaking, I've yet to raise my voice, much less become passionate.

Why argue if I don't care? Truth doesn't need me to be passionate, just right.

No, you don't get off that easily.
I said "Who cares if it (legal abortion) is safer?" To provoke a morality based argument from you (not because I don't care).

You said something along the lines of: "Don't you care about the woman at all? Is the fetus your only concern?"
and "No child should be brought up knowing it is unloved."

But why would that be the case without morality?
If we remove morality from law then we could just let the mother and fetus suffer and/or die.
Do you think that should be legal?

Not to butt in, but do you seriously see no pragmatic reasons why it would be counterproductive to have women dying and children being reared in hostile environments?

Just from a purely practical standpoint, it's wasteful to be throwing away the lives of individuals who may have useful skill sets, who contribute to the labor pool, and who are likely integrated into the social fabric. It's foolish to knowingly increase the number of offspring who grow up without proper care, since there is ample research underlining the critical stages of development and how poor socialization can be profoundly destructive. The over-all impact on social cohesion is also non-trivial, since humans thrive as social primates but if you destroy our social contract then our ability to work together breaks down.

So yes, I mean, we COULD do something as stupid and self-destructive as allowing women and children to suffer and die needlessly. But we would perform poorly as a society and would quickly die out, so our foolishness would be irrelevant to the more practical societies which would supplant us.

[Waideland]

I don't suppose anyone heard this news about abortion last year? Apparently, it finally managed to edge out gun shot wounds as the #1 cause of death for black males under the age of 21. I guess decreased numbers of kids that have basketball and rap as their only escape from reality are reason for the declining talent in those two professions.

[Luveria]

I don't suppose anyone heard this news about abortion last year? Apparently, it finally managed to edge out gun shot wounds as the #1 cause of death for black males under the age of 21. I guess decreased numbers of kids that have basketball and rap as their only escape from reality are reason for the declining talent in those two professions.

Source?

[Democratic Republic of the Triumvirate]

No, you don't get off that easily.
I said "Who cares if it (legal abortion) is safer?" To provoke a morality based argument from you (not because I don't care).

You said something along the lines of: "Don't you care about the woman at all? Is the fetus your only concern?"
and "No child should be brought up knowing it is unloved."

But why would that be the case without morality?
If we remove morality from law then we could just let the mother and fetus suffer and/or die.
Do you think that should be legal?

Not to butt in, but do you seriously see no pragmatic reasons why it would be counterproductive to have women dying and children being reared in hostile environments?

Just from a purely practical standpoint, it's wasteful to be throwing away the lives of individuals who may have useful skill sets, who contribute to the labor pool, and who are likely integrated into the social fabric. It's foolish to knowingly increase the number of offspring who grow up without proper care, since there is ample research underlining the critical stages of development and how poor socialization can be profoundly destructive. The over-all impact on social cohesion is also non-trivial, since humans thrive as social primates but if you destroy our social contract then our ability to work together breaks down.

So yes, I mean, we COULD do something as stupid and self-destructive as allowing women and children to suffer and die needlessly. But we would perform poorly as a society and would quickly die out, so our foolishness would be irrelevant to the more practical societies which would supplant us.

I do see pragmatic reasons. My point is that we can't remove morality from law. You make a good point but it could be applied to abortion as well as we are still throwing away potential workers.
On the other side of the coin maybe it would be a good thing (practically of course, morally it would be kind of evil) to let them die and reduce the population in times of high unemployment thus leaving more wealth in circulation for everyone else.

[Thesan]

I'M GONNA PLAY IT AT UNIVERSITY!!!

[Bottle]

I do see pragmatic reasons. My point is that we can't remove morality from law.

Except we can, and do, all the time. We have plenty of laws that are purely about pragmatism and not about morals. For instance, the law that one must drive on the right (or left) is not a "moral" issue, it's just a matter of us needing to choose one side or the other in order to be practical.

You make a good point but it could be applied to abortion as well as we are still throwing away potential workers.

Killing off actual workers today on the off chance that we will get different workers in the future is not practical. The current workers are already here, they are already of known abilities, we have already invested resources in getting them to adulthood and training them, and they are able to produce right now.

On the other side of the coin maybe it would be a good thing (practically of course, morally it would be kind of evil) to let them die and reduce the population in times of high unemployment thus leaving more wealth in circulation for everyone else.

And again, this ignores the practical concerns of the social contract.

To put it in the simplest terms, if my government decided to declare my life and bodily sovereignty to be less valuable then the existence of a fetus, I would leave. I would take my PhD and move to a different country. All the resources that my country spent on getting me to adulthood, educating me, training me in my profession, all that would be gone, and they still wouldn't get a fetus--sorry, "potential labor"--out of it.

[Torcularis Septentrionalis]

I don't suppose anyone heard this news about abortion last year? Apparently, it finally managed to edge out gun shot wounds as the #1 cause of death for black males under the age of 21. I guess decreased numbers of kids that have basketball and rap as their only escape from reality are reason for the declining talent in those two professions.

Please tell me you're kidding.

[Ashmoria]

I don't suppose anyone heard this news about abortion last year? Apparently, it finally managed to edge out gun shot wounds as the #1 cause of death for black males under the age of 21. I guess decreased numbers of kids that have basketball and rap as their only escape from reality are reason for the declining talent in those two professions.

huh?

[Democratic Republic of the Triumvirate]

I do see pragmatic reasons. My point is that we can't remove morality from law.

Except we can, and do, all the time. We have plenty of laws that are purely about pragmatism and not about morals. For instance, the law that one must drive on the right (or left) is not a "moral" issue, it's just a matter of us needing to choose one side or the other in order to be practical.

I'm not saying that we don't need practical laws simply that morality has a place in the overall legal system.

[Czechanada]

Except we can, and do, all the time. We have plenty of laws that are purely about pragmatism and not about morals. For instance, the law that one must drive on the right (or left) is not a "moral" issue, it's just a matter of us needing to choose one side or the other in order to be practical.

I'm not saying that we don't need practical laws simply that morality has a place in the overall legal system.

But who's morality?

[Democratic Republic of the Triumvirate]

To put it in the simplest terms, if my government decided to declare my life and bodily sovereignty to be less valuable then the existence of a fetus, I would leave. I would take my PhD and move to a different country. All the resources that my country spent on getting me to adulthood, educating me, training me in my profession, all that would be gone, and they still wouldn't get a fetus--sorry, "potential labor"--out of it.

But there are no morals remember? Why don't they just make it illegal to leave?

Okay here's a scenario.
Your country is divided down the middle with 51% on one side and 49% on the other.
You are in the 51%.
You are given the choice to remove all rights from the 49% and make then your slaves?
Would you vote yes or no?
(If you vote yes you get a million {currency used where you live})

[Petrovsegratsk]

Cue abortion thread in 3... 2... 1...

Your prediction was as accurate as the Mayan calender.

[Democratic Republic of the Triumvirate]

I'm not saying that we don't need practical laws simply that morality has a place in the overall legal system.

But who's morality?

I think mine. You think yours.
The one that prevents killing and protects freedom is good with me.

[Xsyne]

I don't suppose anyone heard this news about abortion last year? Apparently, it finally managed to edge out gun shot wounds as the #1 cause of death for black males under the age of 21. I guess decreased numbers of kids that have basketball and rap as their only escape from reality are reason for the declining talent in those two professions.

I can guarantee you that not a single black man has been killed by abortion in the history of the universe.

[Frisivisia]

I don't suppose anyone heard this news about abortion last year? Apparently, it finally managed to edge out gun shot wounds as the #1 cause of death for black males under the age of 21. I guess decreased numbers of kids that have basketball and rap as their only escape from reality are reason for the declining talent in those two professions.

Non-sourced bullshit topped with racial stereotypes and misperceptions of an entire group of people? Tasty, but it could use a little sauce.

[Ashmoria]

I don't suppose anyone heard this news about abortion last year? Apparently, it finally managed to edge out gun shot wounds as the #1 cause of death for black males under the age of 21. I guess decreased numbers of kids that have basketball and rap as their only escape from reality are reason for the declining talent in those two professions.

Non-sourced bullshit topped with racial stereotypes and misperceptions of an entire group of people? Tasty, but it could use a little sauce.

im thinking its a joke but not a good one.

[Desperate Measures]

But who's morality?

I think mine. You think yours.
The one that prevents killing and protects freedom is good with me.

It's amazing that this is a major reason why I'm pro-choice.

[Bottle]

To put it in the simplest terms, if my government decided to declare my life and bodily sovereignty to be less valuable then the existence of a fetus, I would leave. I would take my PhD and move to a different country. All the resources that my country spent on getting me to adulthood, educating me, training me in my profession, all that would be gone, and they still wouldn't get a fetus--sorry, "potential labor"--out of it.

But there are no morals remember? Why don't they just make it illegal to leave?

Because that's not practical. Ask any of the countries which try to maintain oppressive police states: it's fucking expensive as shit, and it impedes productivity if a major chunk of your population is trying to figure out how to flee the country.

Okay here's a scenario.
Your country is divided down the middle with 51% on one side and 49% on the other.
You are in the 51%.
You are given the choice to remove all rights from the 49% and make then your slaves?
Would you vote yes or no?
(If you vote yes you get a million {currency used where you live})

I would vote no, because slavery is an impractical system, particularly in the modern world. The international repercussions alone would be crushing, and the economics of slavery would be crappy compared to alternatives.

[Bottle]

I don't suppose anyone heard this news about abortion last year? Apparently, it finally managed to edge out gun shot wounds as the #1 cause of death for black males under the age of 21. I guess decreased numbers of kids that have basketball and rap as their only escape from reality are reason for the declining talent in those two professions.

I can guarantee you that not a single black man has been killed by abortion in the history of the universe.

That's why he oh-so-cleverly said "males."

Unfortunately for him, that phrasing actually makes his statement entirely false. Far more black "males" die as a result of spontaneous abortion (i.e. miscarriage), and always have. A conservative estimate would be that for every black infant brought to term, there was at least one pregnancy that did not make it to term, and that's if you exclude all intentional abortions.

It's also a statement that is true for all ethnic groups, rendering his racist dogwhistle even more obvious.

[Bottle]

Except we can, and do, all the time. We have plenty of laws that are purely about pragmatism and not about morals. For instance, the law that one must drive on the right (or left) is not a "moral" issue, it's just a matter of us needing to choose one side or the other in order to be practical.

I'm not saying that we don't need practical laws simply that morality has a place in the overall legal system.

Perhaps it has "a place," but that place should always be subservient to practical concerns, particularly because all morality is subjective.

I honestly don't care what your "moral" view of abortion is, and I have yet to see you make a case for why I should care. Hence, it's irrelevant. There are pragmatic reasons for me to support abortion, in addition to my subjective moral belief that female human beings are persons who retain basic human rights even if they become pregnant. You'll have to make a case for why I should consider anybody's "moral feelings" more important than my judgments.

[Democratic Republic of the Triumvirate]

But there are no morals remember? Why don't they just make it illegal to leave?

Because that's not practical. Ask any of the countries which try to maintain oppressive police states: it's fucking expensive as shit, and it impedes productivity if a major chunk of your population is trying to figure out how to flee the country.

Okay here's a scenario.
Your country is divided down the middle with 51% on one side and 49% on the other.
You are in the 51%.
You are given the choice to remove all rights from the 49% and make then your slaves?
Would you vote yes or no?
(If you vote yes you get a million {currency used where you live})

I would vote no, because slavery is an impractical system, particularly in the modern world. The international repercussions alone would be crushing, and the economics of slavery would be crappy compared to alternatives.

The economics would be crappy?
And if it worked?
No moral objections?

[Bottle]

Because that's not practical. Ask any of the countries which try to maintain oppressive police states: it's fucking expensive as shit, and it impedes productivity if a major chunk of your population is trying to figure out how to flee the country.


I would vote no, because slavery is an impractical system, particularly in the modern world. The international repercussions alone would be crushing, and the economics of slavery would be crappy compared to alternatives.

The economics would be crappy?
And if it worked?
No moral objections?

If my only issue with slavery was purely a matter of my subjective moral opinion, then I wouldn't support laws about it because I don't believe in legislating my personal feelings. Fortunately, there are countless objective arguments against it, so your question is irrelevant.