Poland abortion ruling sparks 'women's strike'

[Sundiata]

No one deserves death.

Ok, I guess you're right. But people who kill others should not be let free

Case-by-case. Our justice should be tempered with mercy.

[Plzen]

There is one and only one sin that is unforgivable. Only one act that can not in any situation be excused. And that sin is violence done against innocent people and their belongings. Every other human action can, under some circumstance no matter how convoluted or unrealistic be construed in such a way as to be if not righteous than at least permissible. But violence against innocents and their belongings is always and in every circumstance unforgivable.

The problem, of course, is that "violence" and "innocence" are both concepts with unclear delineations.

The law is as complex as it is because when determining who wronged who it helps to have a precise definition of what constitutes wrong.

[The Kingdom of Denmark]

I don't want to kill people, I'm just saying they deserve to not live anymore, after they die. That's not the point, my point is that there should be punishments for people who kill

*COUGH*:

they should be killed

I guess you guys do have a point. I agree, people should not be killed. But they should at least be jailed or fined

[Purpelia]

There is one and only one sin that is unforgivable. Only one act that can not in any situation be excused. And that sin is violence done against innocent people and their belongings. Every other human action can, under some circumstance no matter how convoluted or unrealistic be construed in such a way as to be if not righteous than at least permissible. But violence against innocents and their belongings is always and in every circumstance unforgivable.

The problem, of course, is that "violence" and "innocence" are both concepts with unclear delineations.

My definitions are for the purpose of political violence:
Violence: An act that causes measurable physical harm that can be confirmed by an unbiased third party observing the results after the fact.
Innocent: Third parties that have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

[Celritannia]

Please, do tell us by what standard we should determine whether a pregnancy is "willed by higher intentions", and demonstrate with observable evidence that pregnancies meeting that standard are in fact so willed.

Policy should be based on observable reality, not on the supposed preferences of a supernatural power.

Divine order and observable reality are not opposed. Policy should account of both, especially with respect to their ethical implementation.

Your religion is not the single rule of law on ethics.
Neither should religion involve itself with politics.

[Plzen]

My definitions are for the purpose of political violence:
Violence: An act that causes measurable physical harm that can be confirmed by an unbiased third party observing the results after the fact.
Innocent: Third parties that have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Again, unclear delineation.

Here's a concept that often comes up in industrial labour standard cases, on the concept of "causes measurable harm":

There's a big town running a morbid lottery - an expected one hundred people in the town are destined to get lung cancer. I intervene in the lottery to increase the odds, and two hundred people get lung cancer. Did I cause "measurable physical harm"? Against whom? All 200 people who got lung cancer - but this includes a hundred people who would have gotten sick anyways? Just the 100 people who wouldn't have gotten lung cancer if it wasn't for me - but how do I find out which 100 that is? Or perhaps everyone in the town, even those who didn't get lung cancer, because a higher risk of physical harm is itself a physical harm?

Or did I do no harm at all? After all, 100 lung cancer cases without my intervention was just the expected value; the nature of a random lottery being what it is, it's entirely possible that the same 200 would have gotten lung cancer even had I not intervened. We'll never know.

Here's another situation, on the concept of "nothing to do with the situation at hand":

I'm a law-abiding citizen, and I pay taxes. Because my government is shady and enjoys secret operations, a bunch of un-uniformed thugs receive some of my tax money to go and burn down some cities and displace hundreds of thousands of people. Some of these people end up quite upset at my country and detonate a bomb in its capital city, where I live, and seriously injure me. Is this "violence against an innocent person"? Do I have "nothing to do" with the issue at hand?

After all, I made the choice to pay taxes. I could always sit at home unemployed and live off charity and not contribute to my government's hawkish foreign policy. Also, would your answer change if my government is a dictatorship? Or if it's a democratic government and I voted for the ruling party?

Nobody disputes that violence against an innocent person is unethical. The question is how to delineate between violent and non-violent acts, and how to delineate between innocent and non-innocent people.

[Farnhamia]

This thread has gone off into a more general "discussion" of abortion than one focused on the ruling in Poland and the women's strike there. I am considering merging this thread into the Abortion Megathread. Change my mind.