Originally Posted By Mr X Yup...a "crime" is a moral determination. Just look at how wildly different "crimes" are around the world...and not only that but how different some of the punishments are for the same "crime". Marijuana possession, for example, runs the gamut worldwide from practically legal to a crime punishable by death.
Originally Posted By utahjosh "As much as you may want to, you cannot legislate consensual sex between adults either. You cannot legislate your brand of morality into law." I agree completely. Just becase it's not "Illegal" doesn't make it a good choice. Or morally wrong, in my view.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>They are crimes because our society believes it is immoral to steal and hurt people. "Crimes" are not identified in a vacuum.<< I'm not convinced. This goes to the basic concept of the state of nature and the social state, the philosophies people like Locke and Rousseau concerned themselves with. It's far more a matter of order and protection than it is "morality" - at least it's supposed to be. I'd never argue that we don't have laws rooted in western concepts of morality. But ideally we shouldn't, and the examples you gave are, as I said, much more about order. In the philosophy of the social contract, I give up my right to punch you in the face, and are therefore supposed to be protected against you or someone else doing the same thing to me. I give up the "freedom" (only a freedom granted in the theoretical state of nature) to steal your car, but become part of a society that passes laws against having my car stolen. I think it's certainly debatable whether these things still qualify as "morality" vs. whether there are fundamental principles of order that are neither moral nor immoral; they're simply essential to the survival of the culture. While there will always be a minority criminal element, no culture could survive for long if we all simply took what we wanted from one another, then assaulted or killed each other over it with no repercussions. Whether these things are deemed moral or not, I personally find it a far cry to jump from the laws that provide order to those that have historically outlawed oral sex or shopping on Sunday. You still can't buy liquor on Sunday in Utah; that's a mighty different brand of "morality." It has nothing to do with order or protection and falls nowhere under the concept of the social contract; it exists because a religious majority feels it necessary to impose their will on a minority, arguably the very thing the social contract is supposed to prevent.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>And hate crimes are clearly about morals by definition. We find these morally repugnant, and tack on extra penalties for these.<< Again, it could be argued that it's not so much a moral issue, as it is a cultural survival issue. If one group singles out another based on the color of their skin or their sexual preference, and targets them, and there's no repercussions for it, then it jeopardizes all groups. Going back to the concept of social contract, I give up the ability to kill someone because they're gay, but am theoretically protected from being killed because I'm over 30. (I'll grant you, that's a mighty simplistic view of Social Contract Theory, but it's the gist.) I agree that the real reason hate crime legislation is passed is because of moral repugnance and perhaps even vote pandering, but the argument can be made differently. And since the topic is on abortion, I'd also agree that it's one of the more complex issues out there. The debate about when life begins isn't to be taken lightly. And since I mentioned protection and order before, no society can survive if it approves of infanticide. Conversely, I'd argue it can't survive, at least not ethically, if one half of the population (men) tells the other half (women) what they can and can't do with their bodies.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Looking at it another way, I think it can be argued that most people in this country find it immoral to suppress free speech. Many times we look on in outrage when we see citizens silenced, often by brute force, in other countries. I don't think any endeavor by human beings can be divorced from some sense of morality. I know that the word "morality" brings discomfort to many because it has been hijacked by political groups like the "moral majority". And awful infringements on the rights of others can be made in the name of morality, so I understand the hesitancy to accept that morality IS ingrained in so much of our Constitution and laws. But I really believe it is, and mostly, I'm glad for it. Of course, morality is subjective and changes from person to person, but the reason society works is because of basic moral underpinnings -- not stealing, not running off and hurting people at random because the tick you off in traffic, etc. But without any sense of morality, we wouldn't give fair trials to the accussed, nor look at the circumstances which lead up to crimes and such, making allowances in extreme cases (like a wife being brutalized and finally defending herself and killing her abusive husband.) Without some sense of morality, every case would be cold, open and shut.
Originally Posted By ecdc Again, I don't necessarily disagree that the laws we have can be classified as moral issues. My objection, and the reason I compared some laws to the social contract, is to religious people saying "Hey, not killing is a moral issue and that's a law, so it's perfectly acceptable that we outlaw gay marriage." Again, my point is that philosophically there's a huge difference between laws that preserve order, even if they can be called "moral" issues, and laws that simply promote one group's narrow definition of morality and right and wrong.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <"You will have to forgive me for thinking this still sounds like a position AGAINST those who find themselves " I think someone having a child with the knowledge of never wanting it is actually very sick. Yes. I mean, "I'm going to have a baby, then never see it again." That's really a lot of mental gymnastics you have to go through in order to do that. That's not a good thing to do. I think it's far more troublesome than having an abortion.< more troublesome for whom ? surely not the dead baby in your scenario - nor the adoptive parents
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <**I will never understand the argument by people who say " I believe abortion is wrong and would never have one, but i dont believe we can force this opinion on everyone."** Funny, since that's pretty much my entire philosophy on the issue. I believe abortion is wrong and sad. I believe there are plenty of ways to avoid putting yourself in the position of having to consider one. I believe that they should be rare to the point of almost non-existent (like, in extreme cases such as rape or extraordinary danger to the mother if she carries the baby to term). But I also don't believe they should ever be unavailable. Which interestingly puts me in the "pro-choice" category, even though I am for all intents and purposes strongly pro-life. < you may not believe this, but many of us ' fairy tale believers' think so too... that is the separation of church and state - and while religiously I could never support abortion as an option, I also realize not everyone has the same set of beliefs as me. Abortion makes me very sad -- my wife is adopted so we have always been very close to that issue as a resolution to a problem.
Originally Posted By jonvn "surely not the dead baby in your scenario" Yes, for that thing you are calling a baby. We looked into adopting a child. It's not really a very pleasant process, and it is extremely expensive, and you don't know what you're buying into, due to various ill effects the "mother" induced while pregnant. You kind of think that, hey there are all these kids floating around to be adopted, well, not really. Not if you want a kid who you don't have to be afraid will stab you while you sleep at night. Abortion is a better alternative than having another person lead a life of misery.
Originally Posted By jonvn But again, the thing is that whether it is legal or not, abortion rates are about the same. Here's a post on it: <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/12/study-even-when-illegal_n_68222.html" target="_blank">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ 2007/10/12/study-even-when-illegal_n_68222.html</a>
Originally Posted By jonvn And to let people know, we suffered 5 miscarriages in our marriage at different steps along the way. I know what the "baby" looks like, because I've seen it.
Originally Posted By DAR <<Abortion is a better alternative than having another person lead a life of misery.>> Of course the adopted baby could also ggrow up to find a cure for cancer, you just never know. I'd be willing to give that baby a chance.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 you mean like Dave Thomas ( Wendys founder ) - Steven Jobs - Art Linkletter -- adopted by others as babies.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Of course the adopted baby could also ggrow up to find a cure for cancer" Yes, so many crack babies grow up to be doctors... Things are different now than when Dave Thomas was being adopted. Be that as it may, we looked into adopting. You don't exactly get to pick between Steve Jobs and Dave Thomas.
Originally Posted By jonvn I don't have a pessimistic world view. Neither do I go around thinking the world is this lovely place where people just do the right thing, because that doesn't always happen.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>You don't exactly get to pick between Steve Jobs and Dave Thomas.<< Perhaps their natural parents were folks you might suspect of stabbing people in the night, who knows? Providing a loving, caring home for an adopted child definitely increases the odds that they will develop into a person that will go on to do good things. I'm sure if Jobs and Thomas were not adopted, or were aborted, the world would be a very different place. Both created thousands of jobs for people and products people enjoy.
Originally Posted By jonvn That's great. There is nothing wrong with adoption. I think there is something wrong with having a child you have no intention of keeping.
Originally Posted By Mr X **And to let people know, we suffered 5 miscarriages in our marriage at different steps along the way.** I'm very sorry to hear that, it must have been awful for you and your wife!
