Abortion Poll - Yes or No.

So, to be helpful rather than sanctimonious, what is the polled opinion of those fortunate or misfortunate enough to have been pregnant?

If the situation would not be the same if the law were thus determined, what would the difference be?

Useful data must be around somewhere.

I'd like to know for the result may surprise. Men often assume for instance that raped women want to have abortions while intelligent investigations discover that this is not statistically so.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sauna:

Actually, it is not a matter of "some megalomaniac" deciding. Rational basises, in fact, cannot be -dictated- by one party. It is the definition of objective to be open to all.

If their morality is based in subjectivism - yes. If not - no.

Objective foundations for what can be construed as good and bad.

Yes. Very easily. If it is incapable of being justified it is subjective.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What does that mean then?

If your "objective" ideal is open to all is privacy immoral?

Your previous version was this

How then is something "objective" and open to all except to accord with a common aim?

Meaning what? If I need to justify all I have to do is to set up a system of Justice to suit myself.

Alternatively what is justice except to mean to act in accordance with such and such aims of society and fraternity?

You are begging the question with one regression after another, shifting the focus instead of progressing.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What does that mean then?

If your "objective" ideal is open to all is privacy immoral?

Your previous version was this

How then is something "objective" and open to all except to accord with a common aim?

Meaning what? If I need to justify all I have to do is to set up a system of Justice to suit myself.

Alternatively what is justice except to mean to act in accordance with such and such aims of society and fraternity?

You are begging the question with one regression after another, shifting the focus instead of progressing.

 

What about men who could provide scientific evidence of an unborn child's consciousness or lack thereof, arguments for personhood, etc? These are valid questions, and while I agree it is unfair for a society, which throughout modern history has been controlled by men, to make the rules regarding something which has a much greater effect on women in general, there is absolutely no reason why a man's opinion couldn't be valid and informative, and taken into consideration.
Of course men will be a part of answering this debate, but hopefully not in the way the male-dominated societies have controlled things in the past, i.e. enforcing male majority opinion with only a nod to how women might feel.

 

Sauna:

I see a field of scarecrows. Oh no, it is just your strawmen.

If something is objective, all have access whereby truth from it can be ascertained. In this case, it would be the objective standards of morality. In another case, logic would serve as such, as it too is open for all without prejudice.

Objectivity has nothing to do with consensus. It has to do with self-evidence and epistemological justification. A group that declares 2 + 2 = 5 would not be objectively stating truth.

Such justification is not justification. A system is a system. It has no reality but what one gives to it. It is not a standard where truth can be determined, because it is not a necessity.

Justice seems to be "to give each his/her/its due". This can be punishing an evil man, or playing a violin well.

 

I am on the verge of giving up on this, exasperated.

"Objective standard" is supposed to tell me what your objective ideal is?

Do you know why people rely upon subjective standards?

It is because they look this supposedly objective objective standard and they look to that supposedly objective standard and they look to other supposedly objective standard and they all contradict each other, so what else are they going to do then but make a choice of their own?

 

Babies must die in order to save mankind, otherwise they'll grow up and abliterate our natural resources until we all die of hungar!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Of Hungarrrrrrrrrr! The Barbarian!

 

Sauna:

Clearly, you have a problem with reading my posts in this thread. As I made mention of several times over, I said I have not revealed my system of ethics as I want to present it in a more comprehensive essay than I currently have time for. If you wish to beg me for a bit of a sneak peek, I might acquisce.

The operative word is "supposedly".

 

Indeed, that is what you are doing, is it not, supposing?

 

Nay, I actually have a rather firm foundation for affirming the system I am devising is objectively founded and universally valid.

 

I am for the right of women to choose to have an abortion, but I look forward to the overturn of Roe v. Wade. I think too many politicians get to hide behind that decision, and I would rather each state have the discourse in open, even if it meant that several states would keep it illegal for a generation or two. Social progress is better if it is made willingly, and over time, rather than when it is forced on a large portion of the population.

 

In post 214, I discussed the "day after" or "Plan B" pill some consider as a form of "prompt abortion." The religious right and GWB's acting FDA Commissioner, Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach, ignored all the scientific evidence supporting it as a safe way to avoid many late stage abortions and quite a few deaths associated with "back alley abortions" for more than a year. Hillary Clinton and several other senators prevented Eschenbach's confirmation as FDA Commissioner because of this and many other things I only learned of today: Read more of the outragious facts at:

http://pharmalive.com/news/index.cfm?articleID=398191&categoryid=9&newsletter=1

which is the speech of Iowa's Senator Chuck Grassley. Some of you may recognize that he chairs the senate Ways & Means (or "Finance" ? - memory failing me, just now.) committee and has been the leader in getting US into the foolish "alcohol from corn" movement, which I and most university studies (including Cornell and UofC- Berkley) have shown will not decrease, but slightly INCREASE the US's oil consumption. Only certainity is that will make food prices higher. (Only studies claiming a slight reduction in oil use are the industries own sponsored studies and perhaps the Un of Indiana and Ohio, where much of the alcohol-from-corn industry is now being built.)

Extracts from S. Glassley’s Senate speech follow. (See full text to really have your eyes opened about US government under GWB, keeping in mind that S. Glassley is a powerful Republican, closely tied to GWB! - At least in this speech he is honest with the US public. - Must not have any drug companies in Iowa; only people needing a good FDA or perhaps a pregnant daughter who needed “Plan B” pill. - His attack on the White House and its FDA appointee is surprisingly tough.) He said:

"I believe we need to send a message to the executive branch that it's not okay to impede congressional investigations."

"To do oversight, Congress needs access to information and people in the executive branch, and that is what I did not and still am not getting from the FDA ...Under Dr. von Eschenbach's leadership, the FDA has failed to fully comply with two congressional subpoenas that were issued seven months ago."

"{the Senate} should not walk hand-in-hand with the executive branch and sit idly by as instances of fraud, waste and abuse continue to endanger the health and safety of the American people." {all bold has been added by Billy T}

"The muzzling of dissent and information is too common throughout our government. ...under Dr. von Eschenbach, the FDA has not only avoided transparency but it also has threatened those who are trying desperately to expose the truth." {I think this a reference to threats that research funds could be cut off from scientist who said Plan B pill was not only safe but would save lives etc. - Such strong words make me wonder if S. Glassley has a sexually active daughter who may need it? - he does tend to "take care of his own and Iowa."}

"{FDA} supervisors put him in a no-win situation, and because of that, he risks being in contempt of Congress. This is an agent who put a doctor in jail for fraud in a Ketek study, he did the right thing, it's a closed case, we want to talk to him about a closed case, and FDA says no -- what does the FDA have to hide or cover up? Under this Acting Commissioner, the FDA has also attempted to hide and cover-up documents.

The Finance Committee has received hundreds of pages that say, "57 pages removed," or "43 pages removed." Other documents have whole pages, paragraphs or sentences redacted with no explanation as to why. Sometimes documents are marked redacted; other times they are not marked, even when it is evident that information is missing.
There is no explanation for what documents have been withheld or redacted. It is incomprehensible and looks like the work of the Keystone cops rather than an agency responsible for drugs and devices.
One of the FDA's most incompetent and absurd moments was when it sent one of my own request letters back to me with information redacted out of it. On top of such nonsense, the FDA has produced versions of the same document redacted different ways."

etc, for about an hour on the Senate floor and in confirmation hearings. - I am not surprised to be thanking Hillary Clinton, but never thought I could thank Senator Glassley, but I do for this "Grilling of Eschenbach." Right wing & religious groups blocked Plan B for more than a year via GWB's acting appointee to head FDA - More, but minor, evidence that GWB is the worst US president ever.

PS - Despite all this, Eschenbach was confirmed yesterday as new head of FDA; however, Hillary et. al. did get “Plan B” out to the public about a month ago, OTC (over the counter) for anyone over 18, including sale to men who want to help the 16 year old they “knocked up.”* (I think just after the elections, when the religious right wing had all already cast their votes for Republicans, but that sort of thing is SOP for both parties, but seldom are the “deals” so obvious.)
-------------
*Just curious: Does the current generation still say that a unwed pregnant girl “got knocked up” ? - It has been many years since I last heard that phrase. Language is often very slow to change so I bet it is still in use. For example, I keep my beer in my “ice box”, not in “the refrigerator;” but my ice box now makes ice, instead of requiring ice delivered daily (by horse**-drawn cart in my case. - The “slivers” the driver chopped off his big ice blocks to fill your order were nice free treat on hot summer day, but few of you here have such simple pleasures anymore.)

** The horse knew the route and where to stop. Sometimes the "driver" just walked behind, chopping off smaller blocks of ice. Someday, computerized car may be as smart, convenient, but I doubt it.

 

I see.

Nobody else ever found a firm foundation, it was always arbitrary, but the wise onmniscient Prince, realising the necessity was generous enough to spare the time.....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

.....No matter what other people think.....

 

Billy T:

Knocked up is still often used.

Sauna:

Yes, it is called "ethical reasoning". You should consider its benefits. Caution: It may require "high level critical thought".

Nickelodeon:

Do I sound like an unreasonable person to you? I have spent pages of debate which I explicitly affirmed I'd rather -not- get into, as this was not even an ethical debate from the get go. Clearly, I am open to address the issues.

 

Kewl thread.

 

If your need was for me to consider "ethical reasoning" in order to critically evaluate, you had only to ask, with no need to fear on my account, young man.

As it happens I had spent most of my life critically considering ethical reasoning, well used to the trials and tribulations of such and would be only to willing to show you your fault, except to doubt your willingness to see.