Reading Philosophy

For a long time, this question has been not answered completely... Out there in the real world there is something called law and morality dilemma in which we can hardly ditinguish between wrong or right. Here are some example of these...

Corporate Harm & Violence: the Tobacco Industry
In contrast to the previous sections arguing about decriminalizing acts currently prohibited by law, the reading on corporate violence raises the concern that more of harmful corporate acts should be treated as crimes if the criminal justice system is really interested in protecting us against all harmful behavior – and not just against the harmful behavior of poor people. In “A Crime by Any Other Name,” Jeffrey Reiman argues that many acts of corporations are not treated as criminals even though they cause more physical harm and death than the crimes of homicide and aggravated assault. Stanton Glantz presents a case study about what the tobacco industry really knew about the harmfulness and addictive nature of its product, in “Looking Through a Keyhole at the Tobacco Industry.”

Abortion
In a series of articles, philosophers Don Marquis and Jeffrey Reiman debate the question of the morality of abortion and its possible harms. In “Why Abortion Is Immoral,” Marquis argues that abortion is wrong because it deprives a fetus of a future life much in the way that killing an adult--even in her sleep--deprives her of a future life. One feature of Marquis’s defense of this position is that it accounts for most people’s belief that infanticide is as wrong as the killing of adults. In “Abortion, Infanticide, and the Asymmetric Value of Human Life,” Reiman holds that our beliefs about the wrongness of the killing humans only make sense if we assume that they are meant to protect the lives of people who are already aware of being alive and caring about continuing. He thus concludes that abortion, since it happens to a fetus who is not yet aware of being alive, is morally permissible. He contends that the killing of infants--who are also not yet aware of being alive--must be condemned on other grounds. In rejoinders, Marquis and Reiman defend their own views, and offer critiques of each other’s argument.

So shouldn't all laws be based on morality?? In my opinion, the answer is Yes. A more expository answer is necessary, however, so that "leaders" don't fall into the trap of writing law based on what they consider to be their god's opinion on some matter. Of all the religions you can think of, how many would you be comfortable living under, if their precepts weren't merely a matter of theology, but also of law?

This post was edited by Jaz on May 21, 2003.

I think that Law should be used only to prevent harm from one person to another(suicide would usualy be included in this, because most suicidal people, namely teens, become depresses through the actions of their peers, and feel the only escape from that intimidation is death), and to make sure that only the truth is professed as the truth, in that corporations should not be able to lie, and one person should not be able to tell someone else what is fact. The government should act as overseer, not as a moraly judgemental moderator.

In the case of abortions I agree with you, if something is not concious of life than there it will not realize that it is being killed. Same for animal rights activists, at least the ones who push for rights of mice and frogs and life forms of that level. Chimps and some higher mammals may be aware of life, but mice don't know there alive, they can be experimented on.

Do you like blue? I hope so, cuz thats the one thing about me that shall never change.

mice don't know there alive, they can be experimented on.

I don't agree with this. I think every animal has the right to live and is able to feel pain.

"Sie wollen nichts anderes. Sie wollen kämpfen! Sie sind Soldaten! Fucking Wahnsinnige!" - Noel G.

In my oppinion a very good aproach to that difficile topic. (yes Jaz, all again, but this time without having 2 per mille ;-) ).
You mentioned the law and morality dilemma but i think we should first define what law and morality is (although that would mean a complete new topic). Which law are u thinking off? And why is it possible, that we talk about "our" law and justice when every country has its own laws? How can it be possible, that here in germany a state of affairs has as a legal consequence a punishemnt while the same state of affairs is exempt of punishment in the States?

The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.

I think that there is a difference, though, between the discussion of the right to abortion and corporate earth-rape. I think that corporations, for example, should be held responsible for their actions when such are detrimental to either people or the environment. Eastman-Kodak has a major production-plant in Rochester (New Jersey or New York, I can't remember which), and that same area has one of the highest incidences of childhood asthma, cancer, and multiple respiratory-related diseases. Eastman-Kodak, I feel, should be held responsible for these problems (reimburse families for medical costs involving the plant, making the plant safer for people, etc.), since their plant produces tens of millions of tons of carcinogens every year.
Abortion is much harder to deal with, though. I find any abortion performed after the 49th day to be morally wrong, but at the same time, there are those who think an abortion at any point in the first or second trimester(s) is fine, and there are those who support the use of partial-birth abortions. At the same time, there are those who think that any abortion is morally abhorrent, regarldess of the circumstances. The manifold opinions people have on this subject make the attempt to create a morality-based law regarding abortion nearly impossible. Also, because an abortion has become a more easily-accessed procedure,there is the point of status quo: women can already get abortions, so if abortion becomes illegal, then some will continue trying to have the procedure done (in some dangerous ways, generally). Yet another problem is the fact that I, as a guy, don't have any of the prerequisite equipment; I don't understand what it's like to undergo any of the other stuff, or the problems women have to face when they get pregnant, or anything along those lines. As such, I believe that I have no right to enforce my morals in this subject, which are based in my quirky little religion, on every woman in this country.

Thbbbbt

Law is far more about giving structure to society in order to enable it to function smoothly are far less about any shared moral values.

Tobacco - if you banned it for the moral arguement would you ensure a smooth running society? A great deal of money is tied up in tobacco and could only damage the economy if suddenly removed and hence destabalise society (not to meantion withdrawal symptoms amoung addicts). Generally most decisions by leaders in the past and present have been made more on what makes things easier rather than what they might consider moral.

Abortion - the best arguements for abortion has nothing to do with morality - it is practical. Unwanted babies, very young mothers, genetic diseases - all these things will increase with an outlawing of abortion - not to meantion that that it will still go on illegally as it always has in one way or another.

Big moral issues really do make up a tiny share of what actually makes up the law as a whole - the vast majority of it is historical (where the law seems to make no sense in modern contexts) or merely practical.

Any law may have knock-on effects - to only consider one criteria is to leave yourself open to such problems. Morality should be one criteria of many to produce a balanced judgement.

The government should act as overseer, not as a moraly judgemental moderator.

That depends on the government - ideally a democracy should implement the manifesto it was elected on - moral or not. If people choose to elect a government on the grounds of morality then that is the parogative of a democracy.
I'm not sure I want to be 'managed' as this is what an overseer would be - in which case you might as well just have an unelected civil service.

In the case of abortions I agree with you, if something is not concious of life than there it will not realize that it is being killed.

The problem is that people will, and can, argue about this because the concept of the concious is fairly open to interpretation.

I think every animal has the right to live and is able to feel pain.

Nothing has a right to live unless you have a religion that says so. In natural circumstances life is not particularly worried about fairness or equity.

To be honest i think the whole discussion has an undertone of having law or morality.
For example: the German Grundgesetz (Constitution) sees the human beeing as a independant and self-responsible being that can make mature decissions. The first article defines on what all german laws are build and what the superordinated principle is: the dignity of man.

And for the more interesting part (in this discussion):

Article 2 (Rights of liberty).
(1) Everyone has the right to the free development of his personality insofar as he does not violate the rights of others or offend against the constitutional order or the moral code.

That means that basically everyone can do whatever he wants and the state has only the right to clip this (and must do this).
And what might surprise, the moral aspect is explicitly mentioned. The right to do whatever u want is clipped by a law that is based on moral aspects - and by that way law is not against morality but in some cases is morality.

In my oppinion a very good theoreical aproach to that difficult problem, also we can argue about the implementation ;)

The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.

Law is far more about giving structure to society in order to enable it to function smoothly are far less about any shared moral values.

I agree with this. (Any lawyers out there? What would you say about this law and morality question?) My fiance's sister who works for a women's organization was baiting me one time about abortion. Knowing that i was an evangelical, she thought i supported the political maneuverings of pro-life movements. I don't, though. It's like this: Personally, i am anti-abortion. This is because my morality tells me that life is sacred and that the fetus has life. Fine. But laws define limits for everyone--including people who do not share my morality. It would be unfair to impose on them a piece of legislation based on a moral system that not everyone shares. The only thing that everyone in the state shares is--correct me if i'm wrong--the constitution. Laws cannot be ratified that contradict the constitution. It seems to me like the constitution establishes the mores accepted by everyone during the formation of the state. Perhaps the nearest thing to a shared morality?

For the longest time, i was very comfortable with my stand: Personally--pro-life, politically--pro-choice. However, i'm not so comfortable with this anymore after a friend told me she thought i was being a hypocrite. She said this was exactly the mistake of german christians during the time of hitler--as individuals, they probably thought genocide was wrong, but they didn't do anything politically to fight the persecution of jews.
In the same way, i personally thought abortion was wrong but didn't want anything legislated so people could be forced to stop doing it.

What do you guys think? Is she right or is there a flaw in her argument?

In connection to this, i'd like to ask our german friends in this community: Was there nothing in german law during hitler's time that would have stopped his genocide or was the law simply ignored?

My other question is for everyone: How do we solve this dilemma: If we base law on our morality, we are in danger of persecuting the marginalized who do not share our morality; but if we do not assert our morality, we are in danger of allowing what may be truly evil deeds to happen. The tricky part of course is determining what is "evil." The morality of abortion is still very debatable presently, but it is the general consensus now that hitler's genocide was wrong. Slavery was considered moral for a very long time, but it is considered immoral and evil now. Is abortion going to be considered truly evil two-hundred years from now? It seems defining "wrong" or "evil" is really difficult and perhaps even impossible during certain historical moments. But it doesn't change the
wrongness of the action or inaction of that generation when future generations from a more objective perspective later judge them. But this is a gordian knot--for after all, we do not and cannot have the perspective of future generations and can act only on the basis of what we presently can or cannot see.

This issue is a real mess.

“To God, there is no zero. I still exist.” Scott Carey, The Incredible Shrinking Man

What do you guys think? Is she right or is there a flaw in her argument?

It's pretty hard to justify genocide whereas justifying abortion is slightly easier - I don't see many blackmarket genocidists appearing as a result of preventing people carrying out genocide.

Was there nothing in german law during hitler's time that would have stopped his genocide or was the law simply ignored?

You have to remember how popular Hitler was for sorting out the economy - he wasn't elected on a promise to take over the world and kill all the jews. By the time anyone realised they couldn't do anything about it without sacraficing their personal safety.

Slavery was considered moral for a very long time, but it is considered immoral and evil now.

That depends. You have a slave - he lives a comfortable life. Another master may be abusive. Is it not the master who dictates the morality? Do we not all have masters internal and external?

Is abortion going to be considered truly evil two-hundred years from now?

I would hope those who are pro-life for an unformed life and clearly anti-life (considering the attacks on doctors in the US - bloody hypocrits) for those carrying it are considered truely evil.
This pro-life attitude seems to stem from the Catholic/Jewish idea that somehow every human life is supposed to occur - this is rubbish. We were designed to cope with the fact that procreation was incredibly difficult and had numerous measures built-in to increase success.
Why is masturbation evil? Because it was assumed the man gave life. His seed wasted - life also wasted. However, to still keep up that arguement seems ludicrous knowing that men massively overproduce the amount of seed they require. This stemmed from a biological ignorance that saw women as nothing more than soil.
In the same way abortion is a response to the fact that we simply no longer need to produce so many people - babies LIVE. Do you realise how common it was for mother and child to die during childbirth? How often a child would die at birth? How uncommon is that now?
Those who advocate that wasting seed and wasting proto-life is immoral in my opinion really need to get to grips with the fact a few things have changed in the last thousand years. We have gone forth and multiplied - now we need to stop.

If it's considered truely evil in a few hundred years then we will have failed society as a whole. Hence - morality is working against the pressures society requires for smooth functioning.

In the same way, i personally thought abortion was wrong but didn't want anything legislated so people could be forced to stop doing it.

What do you guys think? Is she right or is there a flaw in her argument?

I'd say it depends on how 'evil' you consider abortion to be. I think you're being honest to yourself with this, which IMHO is the most important thing, so I really wouldn't call you a hypocrite. Au contraire, when you're pro-life but act pro-choice, it means that you're not trying to impose your own ideals and morals upon everybody else, but are willing to let them make their own decisions. This puts you above the average 'idealist' in my eyes.

"*sigh* Some men are really hard to manipulate!" - Orchid

Now this is a really dificult to say. I don't know. Well, for tabaco industry, I do know, they should all hang if they knew smoking can ruin health, Industial complexes that produce great amounts of polutuion(more than mother nature can handle) should be punished in some apropriate way(make the owner(s) live in imediate vicinity, or make them drink the poluted water like the people in nearby town), those who kill out of passion should be in an institution, those who kill for material gain or to protect them self from their own evil deeds (somebody saw the face of a robber and gets killed) should be imprisoned for life, etc.

Abortion is a realy dificilt to coment. Again as said before I am a man and cannot be completly objective. Personaly I'm too young to be a father, so no I wouldn't want a child right
now, but I somehow could not ask for my child to be realived of its life, for if I would do that I would not be able to look my self in the mirror, still I would like the chance to finish the
my education first and get a good job. I don't know. It's a very sensitive isue. My best ansewer is aborion should only be alowed in situations if childis not likly to live very long due to health reson(genetic flaw, degeneration,etc.), if mother is in danger, if the child is a result of a rape, or if at least 4 out of 5 phsycologists(whose names are drawn on a random basis) say it is a must! I mean with so many birth control products, there shouldn't be a need for an abortion.

I'm NOT saying I'm right about this, but that this is my best ansewer I could think based on my belifes and I would never force anyone to act like this.

Will abortion be conidered evil, there is a good chance it will, since contaception means are getting more come and better every day. "Accidents" will not be posible in the future.

Vladimir, student od economics

I mean with so many birth control products, there shouldn't be a need for an abortion.

The problem being of course that those most vocally against abortion are also against the use of contraceptives.

Catholicism - mediaeval morality, today!

I've been thinking about this more and i've realized i really am anti-abortion. I recognize that freedom of choice is important. That is why i hope people would choose to be resposible in the expression of their sexuality and use contraceptives. However, when i try to weigh the importance of this freedom against the sanctity of the life of the unborn, i have to say that the latter should take priority. I really do think this is no less than killing.

I'm not out to judge people. Even my mother had an abortion because we were dirt poor. I just think this is an unjustifiable act. If i look at this from a bigger perspective--take away gender conflicts, take away the quality of life issue, what do we have left? The termination of life. And this is pretty serious stuff. Never mind that you guys know im christian and therefore i may seem biased. One doesn't have to be christian to respect the sanctity of life. In fact, christian george w. Bush does not respect the sanctity of life and started two wars already.

I am troubled by the fact that human law can say that abortion is okay. In some countries, it is even funded by the government in the form of subsidized abortion clinics--out of taxpayers' money, not all of whom believe in abortion. People who may be traumatized by childbirth because they have been raped or people who could die because of childbirth are exceptions--in the same way that people who kill in self-defense are absolved of murder. But i think they should be the exception, not the rule.

Why is there a dichotomy between pro-choice and pro-life? I am pro-choice. As far as i'm concerned, people should have the choice--nay, the responsibility--to choose their contraceptives and be responsible sexual beings. But when you bring a new life into the equation, a being normally disregarded and treated as "wastage" with no say over his/her own life, i think that changes things. And this is where i turn pro-life. I don't think this is a moral option. And again--i believe you don't have to be religious to believe in pursuing what is good or moral. Ultimately, the heart of the issue is the life of the unborn child, not women's choice.

I'm very troubled by the fact that societies can legalize and even encourage abortion like it's a good thing. Some women are made to feel good by pro-choice people and they say things like, "i've finally decided to take control of my life." What about the unborn child's life? And where was this "taking control" of your life when you were out having unprotected sex?
It is sad that the catholic church is anti-contraceptive. But never mind that. We don't need the catholic church to tell us what to do. In fact, i am speaking now not as a christian but as a concerned human being who believes that it is our responsibility to pursue what is good, protect human rights, and work against evil and injustice.

I believe in justice. I believe in overthrowing oppression. I believe in protecting the weak and innocent. So where is the justice in killing a non-aggressive being that poses no life threat to anyone? Why are fetuses allowed to be oppressed and treated as non-human, non-life? Why should the law not protect innocent life?

“To God, there is no zero. I still exist.” Scott Carey, The Incredible Shrinking Man

I don't believe humans are sacrad - that is self-aggrandising.

Abortion is legal in many countries as I've pointed out earlier in the thread due to the fact that modern law and even ancient law is based on what is best for society. Where as allowing people to kill each other is generally not good for society that doesn't mean allowing unborn child to be terminated isn't.

Not every child was ever meant to live - it is merely a modern skew on the whole process of pregnancy and birth that actually expects mother and child to live in most cases. Selective death based on social benefit seems acceptable.

Arguing about protecting the unborn is all very well but frankly society has to be concerned with its current not potential citizens first. Women have always had unwanted pregnancies and that is not going to change. What we can do is stop these women from trying to abort in unsafe manners - and believe me throughout history a whole range of rather dangerous methods have been used.

You may feel the unborn child is more important - I do not.

You may feel the unborn child is more important - I do not.

I must say I do agree with this point. Granted, I'm not going to encourage or try to coherce women into aborting their child. Nor do I think that it is to be taken lightly. I am pro-choice as my above statements point out, however the possible concequences of choosing to have an aborition should be heavily weighed against the possible concequences of not doing so. That's how ones decision should (in my humblest of opinions) be made.

I haven't anything against people who are pro-life, however I think the ones that sit on door steps calling people murderers should try calming down and listening to those they are condemning. Not everyone who gets an abortion is a 'whore that doesn't wish to take responsibility for their actions' like so many hot tempered fired up activist seem to lump people together as (please don't flame me, I in no way intended to group any indevidual person that may read this in with the nameless faces I've seen picketing around clinics and people's homes).

-Jami

You fail it.

The possible concequences of choosing to have an aborition should be heavily weighed against the possible concequences of not doing so. That's how ones decision should (in my humblest of opinions) be made.

Yes, we have to choose what is best. But with "consequences," i assume you are talking here about the mother. Again, the unborn is left out of the equation. I'm weighing the consequence of the inconvenience created in the life of the mother against the consequence of the termination of a human life. Like i said, i'm not out to condemn and i'm not condemning my mother who had an abortion like ten years ago. But sometimes i think, what if that fetus had been me? I do want to commit suicide sometimes but sometimes i really enjoy life too. But whether or not i reject the gift of life, i'd want it to be my choice, not someone else's. Flatline mentioned adoption in his post below and i think that is the most acceptable for me. No solution can be perfect in an ugly situation like an unwanted pregnancy, but see, i'm really bothered by the killing.

I'm not screaming, calling people murderers here. But how else can i communicate that i really think this is murder and it must be prevented?

Cyborg, you define morality as something determined by society according to what is best for it. Well, hitler determined that genocide was what was best for his society in order to forge his third reich and many people agreed with him. But we still say genocide is not moral. Or at least not good. Because what we have in genocide is a group of people who have the power deciding "what is good for them" with no concern about what is good for another group of people who are powerless to stop them. I think the unborn here is being oppressed, their rights curtailed or not even recognized, and law in many cases, is not on their side. I just don't think this is part of what makes a good society.

“To God, there is no zero. I still exist.” Scott Carey, The Incredible Shrinking Man

Again, the unborn is left out of the equation.

The problem with the pro-life equations is that the unborn is ALWAYS more important since its death is unacceptable.

Flatline mentioned adoption in his post below and i think that is the most acceptable for me.

Adoption is not a solution - there are not enough people willing to adopt.

Well, hitler determined that genocide was what was best for his society in order to forge his third reich and many people agreed with him

No Hitler used Jews (ironically) as scapegoats. There is also the possibility that he was infact antisemitic due to a childhood experience. Either way his genocidal lust was not really based on his ideas of superiority of the arian race for then there'd be no logical reason to single out Jews.

Hence I don't see it as a moral decision other than by the people who went along with it - including the Church I should note, who did little to stop it. Morality certainly wasn't in their best interests.

I just don't think this is part of what makes a good society.

Your opinion is based upon the assumption of a universal definition of good and evil which as I said in another thread can only exist if you accept the dictates of a supreme being. Hence the question is not whether a society is good or not in your eyes - merely if it is effective.

There may be reasons why a genocidal society may or may not be sucessful - and in the end only the living get to decide morality.

You know, i'm starting to get where you're coming from. You're philosophy is very practical, down-to-earth. I guess i'm an idealist at my core and that's why our assumptions are very different.

Your opinion is based upon the assumption of a universal definition of good and evil which as I said in another thread can only exist if you accept the dictates of a supreme being. Hence the question is not whether a society is good or not in your eyes - merely if it is effective.

This is, I guess, what I reject--that people need to accept a God in order to recognize or promote a universal definition of good and evil based on how we treat our fellow beings. I think interpretations may vary across cultures, but most religions and cultures do have their version of The Golden Rule.

But let's leave my morality for a moment and let's talk about your stress on effectivity. My main problem with it is that effectivity, like morality, can also be relative. As you said, it is defined by whoever wins the conflict, the "living" who win after an abortion, after a war, or after a forcible takeover of ancestral lands. The one who has the power determines just what "effective" means. If we try to design an ideal society where effectivity is of primary importance, we'll be disenfranchising a lot of people whose rights will be curtailed in the name of effectivity as defined by the majority or the powerful. i mentioned that your philosophy is very practical and down-to-earth, perhaps realistic even. And that is because your philosophy is what is reflected in a lot of social policies right now. Being an idealist, however, i want to believe that there is more to society than choosing what is effective for the majority or the powerful at the cost of the minority or powerless. i don't want a society where effectivity
is more important that human lives, human freedom, or human choice. So my question is, is this really what you want?

“To God, there is no zero. I still exist.” Scott Carey, The Incredible Shrinking Man

i don't want a society where effectivity is more important that human lives, human freedom, or human choice. So my question is, is this really what you want?

I'm just saying an effective society is one that is likely to exist longer. If not having abortions or contraceptives as part of a religious dogma (ie Catholisim) proved ultimately terminally detrimental to society then the morality becomes rather irrelevant.

I agree that ultimatively only successful (= surviving) societies can decide on morality. However, I found this doesn't give me any starting point on what I personally want to consider the moral choice here (which is why I didn't reply, I just can't make up my mind).

I reckon the fact that we can't decide on one "right" attitude in the pro-choice vs. pro-life question suggests that it isn't all that crucial in making a society effective. Perhaps we can as childoftheblood suggests consider other arguements beside mere effectiveness.

Granted, abortion shouldn't be totally outlawed since this would make women abort anyways, just in very unsafe ways. But there are still ways to encourage or discourage abortion.
We probably can't get around to weigthing the importance of freedom of choice (and how one mistake shouldn't ruin anyone's life) against the basic value of human life. I just don't know how.

'Repent, Harlequin!' said the Ticktockman. 'Get stuffed!' the Harlequin replied, sneering.

A simple Google search will tell you plenty about it, but I'd like to bring up an interesting idea I heard from my U.S./Art History teacher this past week.

Apparently, the Japanese have developed a process (dubbed 'ectogenesis') whereby a fertilized goat egg has been removed from the womb and brought to term outside of the mother. Though it hasn't been tested on humans yet, and there are worries about side-affects, it's very possible that the concept of a life-terminating abortion will become a thing of the past. Assuming it becomes inexpensive to remove the egg and either preserve it or bring it to term through the process, it may come to pass that no embryo's potential for life will ever need be taken again.

Thbbbbt

I can see why they haven't tested it on animals. Who'd want to give birth to a goat?

Assuming it becomes inexpensive to remove the egg and either preserve it or bring it to term through the process, it may come to pass that no embryo's potential for life will ever need be taken again.

Still doesn't answer the question of what you do with unwanted children does it?

Let the state take care of them till they can take care of themselves. It is society as a whole that must pay the price for not effectively being able to educate its citizens about sexuality and its social consequences. If i were a fetus, i'd still prefer to have a lousy childhood than be dead.

“To God, there is no zero. I still exist.” Scott Carey, The Incredible Shrinking Man

I suppose the embryo could somehow be preserved in suspended animation. . .

Hey, if it works for Sea Monkeys, there's got to be a way for it to work with humans, right?

Thbbbbt

That just postpones the inevitable choice--to be or not to be. And we have to make it for them. How ironic that they may possibly grow up to be bitter adults who will say life was not their choice.

“To God, there is no zero. I still exist.” Scott Carey, The Incredible Shrinking Man

This is what I have observed.

The law was passed to save lives and mutilations of women.

As a woman I fought hard for that law....in a time when birth control was iffy at best...and in a time when sexuality was not discussed openly.

Now we have excellent birth control methods. So you would think that fact alone would decrease abortions.

Unprotected sex today is one of the most dangerous things you can do.

I propose a law that imposes a large fine on the mother and the father......perhaps even the grandparents of the fetus.

quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Maybe the problem is that some relatively unexperienced people see abortion not as the least of two evils, but as an omnipresent backup for lousy (or non-present) contraception. Like when a child messes something up, no matter what it is, it always expects mommy and daddy to find a way to fix things - a child assumes that for whatever careless stupid thing it does, there's always some way to get out of it again. When teenagers with the same attitude have sex, it doesn't come as a surprise that an estimated average of 2 girls per class get pregnant during the last two school years. Maybe all they need is better sex education concerning pregnancy and abortion, or the knowledge that abortions caused by unprotected (spontaneous) sex cost ten times as much and the person's name gets on a public list at the school's blackboard.

Just some early morning .02. :-)

"*sigh* Some men are really hard to manipulate!" - Orchid

Somehow, I don't think that better sex ed. is going to have any effect at all. My personal views on rape have been, I think, already covered above. The only people that I would allow abortions are, rape victims, people who would die were they to come to full term (it does happen) and, the under 16. And I'm not too sure about the under 16.
By that age they'll have had a fair amount of sex ed. and even more "street" information. They KNOW full well what happens after sex. Abortion shouldn't be an award for stupidity.
The only problem I see with the rules outlined above is the arguement that people who have unsafe sex (knowingly) are those MOST likely to be bad parents as well. I really don't know at all. Enforced adoption? I'm not sure that's a good idea.
As usual, this is one of those situations where, whatever you do, it's never going to be a perfect solution.
I haven't covered the religion angle because, well, I don't think religion should really have any influence in this topic.
Hm, I was doing well till that last sentence.

The only problem I see with the rules outlined above is the arguement that people who have unsafe sex (knowingly) are those MOST likely to be bad parents as well.

You've brought up a very interesting (IMHO) point here.

They KNOW full well what happens after sex. Abortion shouldn't be an award for stupidity.

Absolutely. That's why I've added the tenfold cost and your name on the school's blackboard for this kind of abortion, in an attempt to make it very unattractive. Probably (likely) there's a better solution, but as you said,

whatever you do, it's never going to be a perfect solution.

My aim would be that they not only 'hear' about the consequences of unprotected sex, but also get to realize what they in particular are (not) supposed to do to avoid trouble. Unfortunately these two aren't always the same.
Plus there are some things that two horny teenagers of the opposite sex whose parents are out just don't want to hear or realize. :-P It's the hormones, I guess.

"*sigh* Some men are really hard to manipulate!" - Orchid

This post was edited by null on Aug 21, 2003.

That's why I propose a law to hit the parents of the fetus and the parents of those parents in the pocketbook.

You need an abortion because of consensual unprotected sex?

You get the services......but once done...mama and papa of the fetus get a stiff fine.....and if have living parents who shoulda done the sex ed. and somehow drilled into their growing children the consequences and responsibilities of a pregnancy bring.....they should get a stiff fine too.

It's amazing how getting hit in the pocketbook brings about changes.

quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

It's amazing how getting hit in the pocketbook brings about changes.

I think you've just explained the difference between successful and unsuccessful politics in one sentence.

:-)

"*sigh* Some men are really hard to manipulate!" - Orchid

Maybe this will indeed help. Look, whether or not not we believe in the sanctity of human life (as i understand cyborg does not?), I think most of you will agree that it's not exactly a most pleasant experience. In fact, some women get traumatized and burdened with guilt--religion or no religion. So if we take cyborg's definition of morality as something determined by society to be what is best for it at any given time, law should be structured to optimize the chance for prevention instead of, as flatline says, "rewarding" stupidity with an abortion because having our people go through this process is not exactly the best thing for them.

“To God, there is no zero. I still exist.” Scott Carey, The Incredible Shrinking Man

This post was edited by childeoftheblood on Aug 24, 2003.