GOLO:

Quote :

"Simple...if they give one group "choose life" plates, give one group "choose abortion" plates....."

I want one with a miniature American flag.

12/10/2012 2:14:39 PM

Quote :

"What a trivial thing to get all worked up over... for either side of the debate."

if its so trivial why did someone go through the trouble to get the plate?

12/10/2012 2:58:19 PM

Re-posting cain's excellent post from page 23.

Quote :

"Since the pro-life crowd seems to be largely on the 'right' I'd like you to answer the following. Given that you wish to legally require the victim of a rape to carry to term, due you support tax payer funding to provide the following: 1) Full coverage for psychological and medical care for the course of the pregnancy. 2) Full coverage of lost wages due to missed work for medical visit and/or disability as a result of the pregnancy 3)Full coverage of delivery and post delivery medical care for the mother and child Adoption: 4a) Funding assistance for adoption in the event that the child is given up 5a) the allowance for gay couples to adopt to help with the overburdened US foster system Keeping the child 4b) Full funding for child care to allow the mother to complete schooling (including college work if that was part of the plan before the event) 5b) Cost coverage of child related expenses until adult hood. Please support you answer with a reasoned response."

12/17/2012 4:32:44 PM

That is a very good question.

First, I have a problem with the framing of the question. The responsibility for those costs is not on the state first and foremost, because the state did not get her pregnant. The state is not committing an offense against the pregnant woman by outlawing the murder of the child.

The state does, however, have a responsibility to ensure some kind of restitution and penalty for the rapist's offense.

Assuming rape is proven in a court of law (really the only basis on which the state can act in such a case), then these costs should be paid by the rapist via forced labor for the state + confiscation of all of his assets, and then the rapist should be executed.

12/24/2012 1:31:07 PM

^
pro-life*



(*unless you've committed a crime. then you can't die quick enough)

12/24/2012 1:57:47 PM

^^ "I'm pro-life, but in a logically incongruous way. A fetus is a person that God made so killing it is murder, instead we should murder the person who forcibly created it. Jesus was totally down with murdering as long as there was some kind of judicial action and slavery preceding the murder. Oh yeah, sweet Jesus murder town"

12/24/2012 2:09:35 PM

Also, there is basically no way its possible for an incarcerated person to make enough money to pay for a birth and child care. So does that mean we should let them out so they can get a job to pay for it? Or does the state pick up the difference?

12/24/2012 2:10:56 PM

Quote :

"Also, there is basically no way its possible for an incarcerated person to make enough money to pay for a birth and child care. So does that mean we should let them out so they can get a job to pay for it? Or does the state pick up the difference? "

So far as I know, this is because prison wages are pretty much measured in cents per hour. That's nonsense when someone is working off such a thing. The state could pay the victim the lump sum judgment at sentencing, and then the rapist works it off at with hard labor at minimum wage and then dies.

12/24/2012 2:30:33 PM

okay, so raises for all inmates

What happens if the inmate's income never reaches the states lump payment?

12/24/2012 2:40:38 PM

How could it not? It's like a year or two at minimum wage. If it's never met, the state eats the cost.

And I did not say a raise for all inmates - just a raise for those working for restitution to a victim.

12/24/2012 2:48:26 PM

It's over $200k to raise a child

[Edited on December 24, 2012 at 3:56 PM. Reason : And then you murder them?]

12/24/2012 3:56:30 PM

1) No, it doesn't.
2) I wouldn't be terribly opposed to a sum to cover some, or all, very basic childhood expenses, but I would see that more as a reason to work the rapist 80-100 hours per week rather than to let them live another decade.

Quote :

"And then you murder them?"

And then they are executed for their crimes.

12/24/2012 4:30:46 PM

You're presuming a mother would be happy to raise a rape baby in those conditions, or an adoptive family could be found.

It seems like it makes more sense to just let the raped mother determine what happens in that situation, doesn't it? If our society currently deems abortion legal, then that should be an option.

In the case that our society does deem abortion completely and totally wrong, then we should force mothers to attempt to happily raise their rape babies. But hopefully in this situation, good people would work to change those laws.

12/25/2012 3:24:22 AM

Even if an adoptive family is found, why should they have to take on the financial burden? Shouldn't the criminal?

12/25/2012 4:55:20 PM

Why is execution not murder but abortion is?

12/25/2012 4:55:59 PM

Zoroastrians didn't believe life began until a pregnancy was 4.5 months in.

12/25/2012 6:54:05 PM

Quote :

"Even if an adoptive family is found, why should they have to take on the financial burden? Shouldn't the criminal?"

First, I think all adoptions should be both free and heavily subsidized anyway. Kids need parents. Society needs for kids to have parents.

In this case, the criminal is not forcing a burden on the adoptive parents, so I see no need for that to part of his penalty. That might not be what you're asking, though. If the kid is given up for adoption, then the rapist's labor would pay for birth-related expenses, and I'd be fine with anything else that would normally go to the mother be given to those who adopt the baby, instead. In other words, same payment by the rapist regardless of what happens with the child.

Quote :

"Why is execution not murder but abortion is?"

The full answer to this question strays into a lot of areas, but to sum up: I believe that states, which bear a monopoly on the use of offensive force, are legitimate entities. They can rightly punish criminals with due process in a way that no private individual can do justly. It is never right for anyone to target an innocent.

A criminal gives up his rights in increasing measure with the severity of the crime. Some crimes are so egregious (rape and murder among them) that the criminal forfeits not just his rights to free movement, but his right to life itself.

12/26/2012 8:56:07 AM

so if its only about legal rights and the state then a legal abortion is just as moral as execution, right?

Quote :

"the criminal is not forcing a burden on the adoptive parents,"

well then who is, the state? a criminal, by means of a criminal act, creates a financial burden that the state forces the woman to carry and give birth to. One of the two of them, the criminal or the state, is forcing the burden.

[Edited on December 26, 2012 at 9:05 AM. Reason : .]

12/26/2012 9:02:49 AM

Quote :

"so if its only about legal rights and the state then a legal abortion is just as moral as execution, right?"

I have no idea what you're asking, or which of any number of ways you misunderstood my post.

Quote :

"well then who is, the state? a criminal, by means of a criminal act, creates a financial burden that the state forces the woman to carry and give birth to. One of the two of them, the criminal or the state, is forcing the burden. "

The criminal is forcing the burden. The state is making sure the woman doesn't harm a third party.

12/26/2012 9:28:27 AM

Why are you against abortion is my point, if it is because of moral reasons and not legal reasons, your justification for murdering criminals falls apart. If it is okay to kill someone because the state says it is, why is it not okay to get an abortion if it is legal?

^so then the criminal is responsible for the full amount of raising the child, for which the national average is over $200k

[Edited on December 26, 2012 at 12:35 PM. Reason : .]

12/26/2012 12:34:27 PM

Quote :

"Why are you against abortion is my point, if it is because of moral reasons and not legal reasons, your justification for murdering criminals falls apart. If it is okay to kill someone because the state says it is, why is it not okay to get an abortion if it is legal?"

Abortion is murder (morally unjustified, intentional taking of human life) whether the state recognizes it as murder or not. It's also murder whether the state supports the right to do it or not.

I believe the state should recognize it as murder because that's what it is, and should prosecute because such is the state's job.

Execution is not murder, because with due process and response to a crime of sufficient severity, it is a morally just action. Soldiers in a morally just war are not murderers when they kill, nor is a man who kills while acting in morally justified self-defense. States should recognize those facts, and not prosecute in those cases, because those are not murder.

I still have no idea what you're talking about, or what in my post led to the question, but maybe that will answer it.

Quote :

"^so then the criminal is responsible for the full amount of raising the child, for which the national average is over $200k "

It does not cost $200k to raise a child for 18 years. But even if it did, that has no bearing on my point that it amounts to a relatively small amount of time for a rapist to pay off under hard labor.

[Edited on December 26, 2012 at 2:57 PM. Reason : a]

12/26/2012 2:53:39 PM

Quote :

"Abortion is murder (morally unjustified, intentional taking of human life) whether the state recognizes it as murder or not."

Quote :

"Execution is not murder, because with due process and response to a crime of sufficient severity, it is a morally just action."

So killing a criminal is moral if the state says its moral, but killing a fetus is not moral if the state says its moral? Those things are logically opposed, if killing is immoral because of something other than the state then the state can not take that away. If the state can take that immorality away in one case, then they can take the immorality away in another. They are both immoral or both moral.

Quote :

"But even if it did, that has no bearing on my point that it amounts to a relatively small amount of time for a rapist to pay off under hard labor."

So we pay them what, $10/hr? If we don't tax them that is 500 weeks of working before they are murdered. However, it costs more than that to incarcerate them, so why wouldn't the state just go ahead and kill them and then the state pay the lump sum? That would save money.

[Edited on December 26, 2012 at 3:04 PM. Reason : .]

12/26/2012 2:59:55 PM

removing a growing cluster of cells that is destined to become human is murder but execution is not?

Riiiiiiight

Also taking the live of another human during war doesn't mean you didn't just murder someone.

12/26/2012 3:01:47 PM

Abortion and the death penalty are not morally analogous. As a godless liberal, I'm not pro-life or a supporter of the death penalty, but even I understand the difference between a fetus and a convicted felon. One intentionally created the circumstances that, as a consequence, led to their death. The other did not.

12/26/2012 3:13:54 PM

So if a law was passed that death was the penalty for jaywalking, or speeding even a little, its moral to kill the criminal because they knowingly committed the crime? That's what you are saying.

There is no moral justification

12/26/2012 3:16:03 PM

Quote :

"So if a law was passed that death was the penalty for jaywalking, or speeding even a little, its moral to kill the criminal because they knowingly committed the crime? That's what you are saying. "

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that you can't compare someone convicted of a crime that is punished by death, the crime itself being irrelevant to the fundamental point, to a fetus that is the very definition of innocent.

Quote :

"There is no moral justification"

Even though I am very anti-death penalty (it is one of the few issues on which I am willing to take a firm stance), I disagree. But I'm not going to elaborate because it gets into a philosophical discussion on the nature of morality that I don't have time to get into right now.

12/26/2012 3:27:22 PM

but the convicted crime is punished by death because the state decided that the crime should be punished by death. so if they decide that some smaller crime is punishable by death, you are saying that death is also moral. its exactly what you are saying, you just might not realize it.

If the state is allowed to determine the morality of killing, abortion is moral since it is legal. If the state is not able to determine the morality of killing, then the death penalty is not moral.

[Edited on December 26, 2012 at 3:31 PM. Reason : .]

12/26/2012 3:29:15 PM

Being a fetus is punishable by death.

12/26/2012 4:17:19 PM

^^ Ah. I see where the confusion lies now. You are making the assumption that "legal" = "moral". I can't do anything with that without getting into the nature of morality thing I mentioned before. And I'm still not interested in having that conversation. Suffice it to say, I don't believe there is as strong a correlation between the two as you have implied.

12/26/2012 4:33:13 PM

Quote :

"So killing a criminal is moral if the state says its moral, but killing a fetus is not moral if the state says its moral?"

You are completely and utterly confused. Morality does not come from the state, and I've never even come close to implying such. In fact, it's much more the opposite, that the state ought to be constrained by morality.

12/26/2012 4:43:52 PM

Where does morality from then?

12/26/2012 5:09:59 PM

^^ then why is killing a criminal okay if morality does not come from the state? Your explanation was that because the state found him guilty of a crime the state decided is punishable by death, that killing is moral. Thus, you said that morality is determined by the state.

So because abortion is legal, it is moral

Quote :

"nOOb Veteran 434 Posts user info edit post ^^ Ah. I see where the confusion lies now. You are making the assumption that "legal" = "moral". I can't do anything with that without getting into the nature of morality thing I mentioned before. And I'm still not interested in having that conversation. Suffice it to say, I don't believe there is as strong a correlation between the two as you have implied. 12/26/2012 4:33:13 PM "

I am making no such assumption, I am pointing out that you can't use that assumption to justify capital punishment but not abortion. The argument he is making is that because the state is condoning it, it's moral. But abortion is legal, so by his logic it is moral too. Or if its not because its ridiculous to say that the state decides morality, then capital punishment is not moral.

[Edited on December 26, 2012 at 6:53 PM. Reason : .]

12/26/2012 6:49:35 PM

Quote :

"^^ then why is killing a criminal okay if morality does not come from the state? Your explanation was that because the state found him guilty of a crime the state decided is punishable by death, that killing is moral. Thus, you said that morality is determined by the state."

You are still very confused.

I said that such killing by the state was moral only under the conditions listed (severity of crime + due process).

That, by definition, means morality doesn't originate or get defined authoritatively by the state. If a state executes without due process or as punishment for a minor crime, then it is acting immorally and unjustly.

If I thought morality was determined by the state, then by definition I could have no moral constraint on when the state executes. Whatever it decides would be moral. By even mentioning a just requirement for due process and severe crime, I am appealing to a moral plane that the state is subject to, not a lord over.

Because I am clearly placing moral constraints on when/how the state can act, the state cannot then be the final arbiter of morality. Everything I'm saying is the exact opposite of how you're reading it.

12/27/2012 4:21:11 AM

So any crime the state says is punishable by death is moral to kill someone so long as they have due process? How do you decide what crimes are serious enough, if not the state then what? Why does due process make it moral?

Due process is done by the state, criminals are prosecuted by the state, laws are made and enforced by the state. Why is killing okay if it follows the directions of e state?

The state allows abortions, so why is that murder? If that was a crime wouldn't it be a crime? If the state decides what things are crimes and what things are punishable by death, why isn't anything that is not a crime not okay? If the State decided that opposing abortion was a crime punishable by death, I would be morally justified to kill you so long as we had a trial to show that you oppose it?

Does your sense of morality come from Judge Dredd?

12/27/2012 8:18:12 AM

Quote :

"So any crime the state says is punishable by death is moral to kill someone so long as they have due process? How do you decide what crimes are serious enough, if not the state then what? Why does due process make it moral?"

I'm not speaking for him, but as someone who has at different points of his life been pro- and anti-death penalty I think you're not going to get anywhere with this line of questioning. The belief that certain actions should result in capital punishment is not a reasoned belief. Pro-capital punishment people just believe that if you violate humanity's trust in particularly egregious ways then you deserve to die.

This is a moral question completely separate from "The State" and their implementation of that morality through law may or may not completely line up. That's what they mean by "just" or "due process".

TULIPlovr's not saying "it's moral *because* the State enforces laws regarding it." He's saying "it's moral all by itself and the State is a (variably) just mechanism by which it can be enforced."

And he's also saying that abortion is not moral all by itself and the State is failing to to justly enforce laws regarding it. He's wrong but hey thought I could clear that up for you.

[Edited on December 27, 2012 at 9:32 AM. Reason : .]

12/27/2012 9:17:12 AM

really I was just trying to cut through his argument to get him to explain why actually he thinks capital punishment is okay and so he would stop hiding behind some legal justification. he was almost there saying that its not morality from the state and that only crimes of certain severity warrant capital punishment. as soon as he started discussing which crimes were severe enough he might finally arrive at his moral justification.

then i can make fun of it because its probably dumb

12/27/2012 10:40:03 AM

Well at the core, until we have a better scientific understanding of morality neither of you are going to be able to conclusively prove that capital punishment is or is not morally just.

You can't determine the "dumbness" of core moral beliefs yet.

12/27/2012 12:50:31 PM

sure you can, as soon as he says its because of God

12/27/2012 1:54:08 PM

Abortion issue is simple: Let women decide what to do with their body/life and keep the rich white man out of it.

Nobody other than a woman knows how difficult it is to give birth and raise a kid, Men usually stay out of it, so why the fuck should they force a woman to do it?

12/27/2012 2:17:15 PM

Quote :

"sure you can, as soon as he says its because of God"

For a long time I was an atheist and pro-Capital Punishment. It's possible to rationalize secular morality with capital punishment (and being against abortion as well).

12/27/2012 2:29:29 PM

Mitt Romney supports a policy of self-abortation, where the mother finds it so bad to deal with the unplanned pregnancy she decides to self-abort herself.

12/27/2012 11:04:52 PM

Mitt Romney was a pretty legit republican before the base got hold of him.

12/27/2012 11:39:12 PM

Republicans sound pretty good before they have to appeal to the Republican base and therefore become more Republican.

12/28/2012 12:42:47 AM

.

[Edited on December 28, 2012 at 1:34 AM. Reason : .]

12/28/2012 1:21:36 AM

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/01/25/st_thomas_more_hospital_lawsuit_a_fetus_is_not_a_person_when_we_re_being.html

Quote :

"Lori Stodghill, seven months pregnant, was admitted to the hospital with a blocked artery that killed her and the two fetuses inside her. The plaintiff, her husband, Jeremy Stodghill, is claiming that because her doctor didn't answer his pages, the twins died unnecessarily and could have been rescued through an emergency C-section, even if Lori's life couldn't be saved. The [Catholic] hospital's defense, so far successful, is to claim that because the twins were fetuses and not people, this can't legally be viewed as a wrongful-death situation."

1/26/2013 2:58:54 PM

^In the end, they're completely and totally inconsistent and hypocritical. They're false pro-lifers, and obviously have serious moral deficiencies.

However, they are trying to be nuanced, and it actually appears their argument has merit. It is inconsistent and hypocritical of the legal system to call these babies real people in one setting and not in another.

How can they be held accountable for just letting them die, when abortionists in the same state can kill them on purpose at the same age? At most, you can get them for poor patient services.

But the Catholic hospital knows good and well what they did, and that they ought to bear a penalty. The law is wrong for being inconsistent and arbitrary, and the Catholic hospital is wrong for their hypocrisy in exploiting that (or attempting to).

1/26/2013 4:20:50 PM

Quote :

"The law is wrong for being inconsistent and arbitrary"

except that it's not

1/26/2013 9:44:51 PM

^ it is. A good column:

Quote :

"When we try to act like a pregnancy doesn’t involve human life, we wind up drawing stupid semantic lines in the sand: first trimester abortion vs. second trimester vs. late term, dancing around the issue trying to decide if there’s a single magic moment when a fetus becomes a person. Are you human only when you’re born? Only when you’re viable outside of the womb? Are you less of a human life when you look like a tadpole than when you can suck on your thumb?"

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/23/so_what_if_abortion_ends_life/

1/26/2013 11:53:44 PM

No, it isn't. It is not arbitrary and inconsistent for the law to allow both abortion and wrongful death suits.

The church's argument is that a fetus is not legally a person (which is true). That is separate from whether or not the fetus is a life (As MEW argues, it is. But, she's talking about framing an argument and not legal definitions).

Legal abortions are based on viability, not when the fetus becomes a life or legal person. The law clearly considers fetuses to be life--that's why we have fetal homicide laws.

1/27/2013 5:17:38 AM

^Wrong. This hospital is in Colorado, and viability isn't a factor in CO law at all.

Nine states allow killing a baby that is more than 25 weeks old, and CO is one of them. As far as I know, you can kill them after their due date, so long as they are inside the mother.

1/27/2013 9:13:18 AM