And you guys thought *I* was nuts.

[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.

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

[KitemanSA]

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.

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

No "law" is ever "correct and reasonable". Default social contract is always so since it allows specific changes when it otherwise WOULDN'T be reasonable to all parties concerned.

The US should delete all social "law" and promulgate a "Uniform Social Code" similar in nature to the "Uniform Commercial Code" now in existance.

[Teahive]

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.

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.

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?

Subjective laws defined by subjective opinion are not a good basis for justice or stability. The founders believed in "natural law" and employed it in the construction of our nation's government. Where we have deviated from it there have been consequences that have proven to be severe. (Slavery/Civil war)

Again, laws should follow natural boundaries because once established they have a natural resting place and are not so easily moved by whim.

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.

One would think anyone growing up on planet earth would be aware of the endless examples of previous unwanted pregnancies. With 42 million abortions per year, one would think no further examples or proof ought be necessary.

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?

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.

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...

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.

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.

[MSimon]

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. Hippocrates was railing against it 2,500 years ago.

[Skipjack]

Steam power put an end to slavery.

Uhm, I must have missed that part of history...

[hanelyp]

Steam power put an end to slavery.

Uhm, I must have missed that part of history...

Steam power matured into a practicable technology as slavery started going out of fashion in the developed world. Developing technology made much of what used to be done by slave or near slave labor more economical with freemen operating machines. Given the state of public education, I wouldn't be surprised if history class completely missed the connection.

[ladajo]

Apparently, lots of folks missed the memo. THere is still a good bit of slavery going on in the world today.

[MSimon]

Apparently, lots of folks missed the memo. THere is still a good bit of slavery going on in the world today.

Mostly in places with limited access to machinery. And for "personal" services.

[tomclarke]

Apparently, lots of folks missed the memo. THere is still a good bit of slavery going on in the world today.

Mostly in places with limited access to machinery. And for "personal" services.

In the UK (and US I guess) there is a substantial and horrible trade in under-age girls.

But also there is slavery for domestic help. Easy to have power over people who are illegal immigrants, especially if you take their passport. Really nasty stories of abuse not sexual.

This type of slavery works because the power exists, it is difficult to detect, and there will always be humans who are happy enslaving others if it makes their life easier. Which it does now, as much as before.

Now, it may be the societal economic imperative to have slaves goes away with industrialisation. But note that whether slaves exist is also a cultural phenomena too. England did not have slaves for a long time in pre-industrial times till the trade with Africa changed things and brought people who were culturally and in skin color different, so could be thought of as not-people easily.

One of the differentiating aspects of English society was that the relationships of feudalism were two-sided and not identical to those of master-slave: serfs had very considerable autonomy and this led in the end to the outbreak of democracy, gently, and slowly.

[MSimon]

One of the differentiating aspects of English society was that the relationships of feudalism were two-sided and not identical to those of master-slave: serfs had very considerable autonomy and this led in the end to the outbreak of democracy, gently, and slowly.

Tom,

I was deep into English history in high school, but that was a long time ago.

Thanks for the refresh.

[ladajo]

Apparently, lots of folks missed the memo. THere is still a good bit of slavery going on in the world today.

Mostly in places with limited access to machinery. And for "personal" services.

I disagree here. There are plenty of indentured factory workers in "cheap labor" states. You are probably wearing sneakers made in one right now...

[MSimon]

Apparently, lots of folks missed the memo. THere is still a good bit of slavery going on in the world today.

Mostly in places with limited access to machinery. And for "personal" services.

I disagree here. There are plenty of indentured factory workers in "cheap labor" states. You are probably wearing sneakers made in one right now...

Yes. Just like the indentured workers in Japan in the 50s.

China is no longer the lowest price place to make stuff. Countries grow out of it. Especially countries that are industrializing.

[Skipjack]

Steam power matured into a practicable technology as slavery started going out of fashion in the developed world. Developing technology made much of what used to be done by slave or near slave labor more economical with freemen operating machines. Given the state of public education, I wouldn't be surprised if history class completely missed the connection.

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.
In Austria Leibeigenschaft was done away with under Maria Theresia, a humanist leader. She also made it mandatory for children to go to school and she banned witchhunts and the influence of the catholic church was greatly reduced. All good moves. Officially the Leibeigenschaft in Austria was gone in 1782 all over the country. Since steam engines did not make it to Austria until later. I do not see any connection.

[williatw]

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.

[MSimon]

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.