And you guys thought *I* was nuts.

[Skipjack]

Other then after when Austria was annexed by Nazi Germany in the '30's. They introduced(or reintroduced) slavery big time throughout conquered Europe.

Yeah and oddly enough the already widely avaiable steam, combustion and even electric engines at the time did nothing to prevent that!
Of course it also depends on how you define the term slavery...

[MSimon]

Other then after when Austria was annexed by Nazi Germany in the '30's. They introduced(or reintroduced) slavery big time throughout conquered Europe.

Yeah and oddly enough the already widely avaiable steam, combustion and even electric engines at the time did nothing to prevent that!
Of course it also depends on how you define the term slavery...

The purpose of course in that case was not long term profit maximization. It was burn out the slaves as quickly as possible and then discard them. It was the discarding that was the purpose - not he slavery.

The acquisition of the slaves was cheap enough. No having to pay a lot for their capture. Or at least the capture was counted in a different budget. It was unsustainable.

BTW on that topic I'm reading something interesting:

http://www.realpeacework-akademie.info/ ... fHorus.pdf

It is in English. It looks like a fairly well corrected OCR scan. evidence on page 7 of the pdf where "pm" is rendered as "pin". I'm up to page 33 and have found no other such mistakes.

[Diogenes]

Sure, the law makes a decision, but is it correct and reasonable?

Correct? There's no objective way of saying one way or the other.

Well, yes there is. I've already pointed it out to you. You reject it because your opinion comes down on the wrong side of "objective. "

Reasonable? For me (and the moral majority), yes. For you, no.

So was slavery. That is all I need to say about the usefulness of invoking morality by consensus.

[Diogenes]

Maybe not by commission, but obviously by omission. What is the law is the entire point of the controversy. You are either defending existing law, or arguing in favor of it's replacement.

The latter, but quite obviously not in the way you'd like to see.

What I would like to see is law based on objectivity. A reasonable person should not be opposed to this.

A society that allows abortion can still have an abortion rate near zero.

You are arguing that meddling with an existing dynamic might result in a stable quiescent point? This would only be true if the previous existing dynamic had no real purpose anyway.

My argument is that the degree of instinctive maternal protection will vary from woman to woman. Given time, the characteristic of indifference to offspring will be selected out of the system. The remaining pool of women exhibiting the greater degree of maternal instinct will slowly expand relative to the other.

Nope, I'm arguing that tolerating abortion is not the same as performing abortions, and that an action being legal doesn't make it a common occurrence. There are cultural factors which decide the latter.

Tolerating slavery is not the same as engaging in it either. Same thing with murder. Your comment misses the point. One does not have to engage in an activity to regard it as something which no one should be permitted to engage in.

Furthermore, you seem to assume that the stance towards abortion is a trait that is passed on (genetically?). But if that were the case, how did the pro-choice sentiment spread in the first place?

That is a short question that requires a long answer. I don't know how much you know about the history of how we got to this point, so I would have to start from the beginning. Rather than do that, i'll just point out three powerful components.

1. The development of Anti-biotics and birth control medications made the tendency toward reckless sex much more ubiquitous. By removing the worst risks, (in most cases) it induced females to be much less recalcitrant about engaging in sex outside of marriage.

2. The tendency of people to accept those things as true which people in Authority tell them. (The Court said so, and therefore people believed it.)

3. The influence of that minority of people who have been in position to propagate their own personal preferences to the masses, while inhibiting opposition voices from being heard. (Intellectuals, Glitterati, etc.)

Genetic effects in Humans take a long time to manifest themselves because the humans have such a long lifespan. Eventually, reality catches up to stupid human ideas. (See my We are DOOOOOMMMMEDDD! thread.)

None of these factors is hereditary, and apart from 1) they existed throughout human history. So what makes you think that genetic effects will ever "correct" them in such a way that the human mind is no longer susceptible to the pro-choice idea?

Everything is genetic. The characteristic of protecting your offspring or killing them is certainly connected to the maternal instinct.

Laws should follow moral boundaries. If those don't happen to coincide with "natural boundaries", tough.

I argue that moral boundaries ARE natural boundaries. See previous comments above. Explain to me how you make a "moral" boundary at three months gestation?

I don't. I explained my position already.

You didn't explain, you dodged. That is all that any of you seem to do.

Where does the linked page refer to failure to take precautions?

It is implicit in the data to anyone that has even a slight understanding of the reliability of various birth control methods.

Riiiiight. And how many billion times do people have sex per year?

The same methods work for the billionth time as well as they do for the first.

Even with those percentages the number of pregnancies despite taking precautions goes into the millions. All "deliberate acts", according to you. I will continue to disagree.

Of course you will. Your opinion is an expression of will, not of reason.

If a chicken pretends to be a cow, does that mean you can get milk out of it? Each acts in accordance with it's nature. (i.e. it's programing.)

I suspect that it is not possible for a normal person to reject their instincts in favor of some "purpose" they've made up their mind to follow. Interaction with people everyday are expressions of the instinct towards species survival. If you rescue a child, or loan money, you are engaging in acts that eventually equate to assisting species survival.

The act of eating and breathing is contributing to species survival. I have long argued that the act of suicide is a programed response designed to aid in species survival.

What you suggest would be a neat trick.

Well, if we can't act against our instincts, then abortion as an act that is performed in reality clearly must be part of our instincs...

We can select between competing instincts. In the case of abortion, women select the instinct of self preservation over that of maternity.
(At least that is how they justify it in their own mind.)

This is the fallacy of false equivalency. Happiness created by interacting with other people is not equivalent to happiness created by absorbing drugs that chemically react with your binding receptors.

It isn't? Why? It's the same chemical reaction.

It is comments such as this that make me wonder why I bother responding. You should all exist as warehoused organ donors living in a world of drip induced perpetual bliss.

As for discerning it's will, it has billions of wills, but the entire lot vector sums to survival and well being.

I doubt you've done the maths.

The maths do themselves. We only have to examine the results.

[Diogenes]

Steam power put an end to slavery. A very old institution. And if steam hadn't done it the next iteration - electricity - definitely would have. Slavery (in the first world) was economiced out of existence. An electric motor is cheaper than a slave. And now an electric motor + a computer threatens craftsmen. All but the most creative.

I see no equivalent re: abortion which is also a very old institution.

Is there something about the ownership of human property that you don't understand? Does an unborn child's tissues legally belong to themselves or to the mother?

So quickly you seem to forget the quote on your very own website.


Roe v. Wade is cut from the same cloth as Dred Scott v. Sanford: Certain classes of people are property.

Hippocrates was railing against it 2,500 years ago.

Yes, he made it part of his oath which supposedly doctor's still swear. Odd that they seemingly miss that part.

I SWEAR by Apollo the physician, and Aesculapius, and Health, and All-heal, and all the gods and goddesses, that, according to my ability and judgment, I will keep this Oath and this stipulation- to reckon him who taught me this Art equally dear to me as my parents, to share my substance with him, and relieve his necessities if required; to look upon his offspring in the same footing as my own brothers, and to teach them this art, if they shall wish to learn it, without fee or stipulation; and that by precept, lecture, and every other mode of instruction, I will impart a knowledge of the Art to my own sons, and those of my teachers, and to disciples bound by a stipulation and oath according to the law of medicine, but to none others. I will follow that system of regimen which, according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous. I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion. With purity and with holiness I will pass my life and practice my Art. I will not cut persons laboring under the stone, but will leave this to be done by men who are practitioners of this work. Into whatever houses I enter, I will go into them for the benefit of the sick, and will abstain from every voluntary act of mischief and corruption; and, further from the seduction of females or males, of freemen and slaves. Whatever, in connection with my professional practice or not, in connection with it, I see or hear, in the life of men, which ought not to be spoken of abroad, I will not divulge, as reckoning that all such should be kept secret. While I continue to keep this Oath unviolated, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and the practice of the art, respected by all men, in all times! But should I trespass and violate this Oath, may the reverse be my lot!

[Diogenes]

I guess that depends on interpretation of the term "slavery".
Austria never really had slavery in the sense of the way the US had it. We had Leibegenschaft, which was limited to rural areas and the feudal system there. While almost slavery, it was not quite slavery in the same meaning as the slavery in the US or ancient Rome.

Other then after when Austria was annexed by Nazi Germany in the '30's. They introduced(or reintroduced) slavery big time throughout conquered Europe.

Slavery is the nature of socialist states.

[Diogenes]

I guess that depends on interpretation of the term "slavery".
Austria never really had slavery in the sense of the way the US had it. We had Leibegenschaft, which was limited to rural areas and the feudal system there. While almost slavery, it was not quite slavery in the same meaning as the slavery in the US or ancient Rome.

Other then after when Austria was annexed by Nazi Germany in the '30's. They introduced(or reintroduced) slavery big time throughout conquered Europe.

Wow. That is inconvenient. And best forgotten.

I don't think so. It is important that people remember that socialism leads to slavery.

Ever hear of this book called "The Road to Serfdom "?

[Diogenes]

Other then after when Austria was annexed by Nazi Germany in the '30's. They introduced(or reintroduced) slavery big time throughout conquered Europe.

Yeah and oddly enough the already widely avaiable steam, combustion and even electric engines at the time did nothing to prevent that!
Of course it also depends on how you define the term slavery...

Forcing other people to do your bidding against their will. You know, "socialism. "

[Teahive]

What I would like to see is law based on objectivity. A reasonable person should not be opposed to this.

A reasonable person should be able to see that law based purely on objectivity is a pipe dream.

Nope, I'm arguing that tolerating abortion is not the same as performing abortions, and that an action being legal doesn't make it a common occurrence. There are cultural factors which decide the latter.

Tolerating slavery is not the same as engaging in it either. Same thing with murder. Your comment misses the point. One does not have to engage in an activity to regard it as something which no one should be permitted to engage in.

Ah, but my point is the opposite: One does not have to engage in an activity to regard it as something which should be permitted.

None of these factors is hereditary, and apart from 1) they existed throughout human history. So what makes you think that genetic effects will ever "correct" them in such a way that the human mind is no longer susceptible to the pro-choice idea?

Everything is genetic. The characteristic of protecting your offspring or killing them is certainly connected to the maternal instinct.

Dodging the question.

I argue that moral boundaries ARE natural boundaries. See previous comments above. Explain to me how you make a "moral" boundary at three months gestation?

I don't. I explained my position already.

You didn't explain, you dodged. That is all that any of you seem to do.

Either you are very forgetful or lacking in reading comprehension. Either way, I'm not going to state my position a third time. It's still there for anyone to read, in this thread and the other one I linked.

The same methods work for the billionth time as well as they do for the first.

Except for the 0.3% to 32% in which they fail.

We can select between competing instincts. In the case of abortion, women select the instinct of self preservation over that of maternity.
(At least that is how they justify it in their own mind.)

Maybe some do. A lot of them don't. They simply "justify" it by not wanting a child.

This is the fallacy of false equivalency. Happiness created by interacting with other people is not equivalent to happiness created by absorbing drugs that chemically react with your binding receptors.

It isn't? Why? It's the same chemical reaction.

It is comments such as this that make me wonder why I bother responding. You should all exist as warehoused organ donors living in a world of drip induced perpetual bliss.

Dodging the question again.

As for discerning it's will, it has billions of wills, but the entire lot vector sums to survival and well being.

I doubt you've done the maths.

The maths do themselves. We only have to examine the results.

I doubt you've done that, either.

[MSimon]

Teahive,

A point I also made elsewhere:


I support liberty. It does not mean I partake of every liberty available.

[MSimon]

As for discerning it's will, it has billions of wills, but the entire lot vector sums to survival and well being.

But suppose the vector is not two space or 3 space but n space.

And then there is environment.

Sickle cell anemia is a very good thing.

Sickle cell anemia is a very bad thing.

Tell me which is true?

=============================

Endorphins are a very good thing. Taking endorphin analogs is bad. Unless you are at immediate risk for PTSD.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y227valJyHw

Or if you already have it.

https://www.ptsdforum.org/c/threads/opi ... one.22740/

Now please explain those vectors described above.

[MSimon]

So I have PTSD, a chronic pain disorder and I'm starting to suspect that I am ADD. Over the course of my 20's as I tried to figure out what was wrong with my mind and body I was prescribed Vicodin. I've never used more than 4/day and about 3 months ago I stopped taking them because of increased liver function. However, I have found that Vicodin, more than any of the psych meds I've been given over the years, makes the chaos in my head shut up and relaxes me enough to function in the reasonable day to day expectations of the world around me.

https://www.ptsdforum.org/c/threads/opi ... one.22740/

[williatw]

Other then after when Austria was annexed by Nazi Germany in the '30's. They introduced(or reintroduced) slavery big time throughout conquered Europe.

Yeah and oddly enough the already widely avaiable steam, combustion and even electric engines at the time did nothing to prevent that!
Of course it also depends on how you define the term slavery...

Forcing other people to do your bidding against their will. You know, "socialism. "

Then by that definition we would have to include the 10's of millions who were subjugated under the Soviet block from about 1945 to the 1980's. Was Austria a part of the Eastern bloc or was it part of the west?

[williatw]

Was Austria a part of the Eastern bloc or was it part of the west?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austria#20th_century

Never mind Skipjack found it; quoting from: On 15 May 1955, after talks which lasted for years and were influenced by the Cold War, Austria regained full independence by concluding the Austrian State Treaty with the Four Occupying Powers. On 26 October 1955, after all occupation troops had left, Austria declared its "permanent neutrality" by an act of parliament, which remains to this day but has been implicitly overlapped by constitutional amendments concerning Austria as member of the European Union from 1995 onwards.[57]
Sounds like Austria was relatively lucky.

[CKay]

Sure, the law makes a decision, but is it correct and reasonable?

Correct? There's no objective way of saying one way or the other.

Well, yes there is.

There really isn't. /shrug

Reasonable? For me (and the moral majority), yes. For you, no.

So was slavery. That is all I need to say about the usefulness of invoking morality by consensus.

I'm not the one claiming that objective evidence can show an act to be morally right or wrong.