if a society is judged

[preacherman76]

There's a difference between saying an organism is not yet mature enough to fend for itself "in the wild" and saying it would die without another specific organism as an incubator.

There is no difference. Believe me, Im living it.

[ninjadude]

In the US's case, we're 50 states, each empowered to write, pass and administer its own laws. Why do we need more assimilation from Washington DC?

because some things cut across states and would create a disaster for state governments to regulate. You'd think this kind of question was answered for the most part some 147 years ago.

[Yamato]

because some things cut across states and would create a disaster for state governments to regulate. You'd think this kind of question was answered for the most part some 147 years ago.

All things federal cut across state lines. You can use that empty line of rhetoric to excuse whatever dumb thing Washington wants to do next. And you certainly do.

And what disaster? What lack of historical reference are you going to excuse over this time with more empty political rhetoric? "Disaster"....pffft

Political reality check: States decide whether to kill us or let us live, they can decide through votes and representation whether they want to kill fetuses or let fetuses live.

[spacecowboy342]

All things federal cut across state lines. You can use that empty line of rhetoric to excuse whatever dumb thing Washington wants to do next. And you certainly do.

And what disaster? What lack of historical reference are you going to excuse over this time with more empty political rhetoric? "Disaster"....pffft

Political reality check: States decide whether to kill us or let us live, they can decide through votes and representation whether they want to kill fetuses or let fetuses live.

If we let states decide everything Alabama would still be segregated

[Likely Guy]

By how it treats its children? Then what is said by a society that murders its children. There are two nations where it is the normal thing to do.

So, who is there to judge these societies?

Edited December 3, 2013 by Likely Guy

[Frank Merton]

By American standards most Vietnamese children nowadays are spoiled rotten, and not just by the grandparents but by everyone. All a kid has to do is pout a little and everyone comes running. I think this has come about because now families are small. No, there is no government policy on the matter like in China -- it is just a natural development brought about by the drop in infant mortality.

Abortions are legal here but the couple (or at least the girl if she is not married) is obliged to sit through a whole bunch of stuff about contraception and sexually transmitted diseases and so on. Abortions are considered bad karma and often a girl who has had one will go to temple for counseling and psychological support. This also happens in cases of natural abortion, just to see it that the spirit of the baby gets a good start somewhere else. The temple readily adopts unwanted children, although more often relatives do (when my brothers were killed in the American war my wife and I adopted their daughters). Because of predators, it's almost impossible now to otherwise adopt here.

The Buddhists don't approve but also believe in keeping moral teaching out of politics; efforts by the Catholics to do otherwise have not been permitted. I know some of my friends will say that is a restriction of freedom of religion, but the priest can say what he likes in church, and I approve of requiring them to keep their mouths shut otherwise. Such times are hard enough for a young woman.

[Yamato]

If we let states decide everything Alabama would still be segregated

If we let states decide everything, there would be a cornucopia of both very good and very bad things to discuss. There wouldn't be endless nearly meaningless squabbles about whether we want a cherry bankruptcy or a grape.

[Frank Merton]

One of the US's mottoes is "From Many, One." That implies it was many states but is now one nation, so this devolution of powers to states seems antique and inefficient and perhaps just an excuse to prevent needed reforms. Can you imagine if each state could decide which side of the road one drives on? It is dangerous enough for me when I go to Britain or Thailand for that reason. What if each state had its own currency?

On occasion it may be more efficient and better to have local control, but then why at a state level? What about towns and counties and parishes? The thing about American history that people from the States are not taught is that States rights were mainly about preserving slavery and later about preserving Jim Crow. It is ugly and is in fact indefensible.

[spacecowboy342]

Exactly right. A strong central government is necessary to provide equal protection of the law for all.

[Yamato]

A strong central government fails at providing equal protection of the law for all on a regular basis though. When it's at the federal level, this dynamic is often seen overseas. Government infamously prosecutes and imprions blacks for the same crimes they let whites walk over in a domestic example. How well we're protected under the law isn't any manner of equal, it's directly dependent on how much money we have. How much money we have is highly correlated to race, and so examples like this are identified in our strong central criminal justice system.

[Kowalski]

Exactly right. A strong central government is necessary to provide equal protection of the law for all.

[spacecowboy342]

A strong central government fails at providing equal protection of the law for all on a regular basis though. When it's at the federal level, this dynamic is often seen overseas. Government infamously prosecutes and imprions blacks for the same crimes they let whites walk over in a domestic example. How well we're protected under the law isn't any manner of equal, it's directly dependent on how much money we have. How much money we have is highly correlated to race, and so examples like this are identified in our strong central criminal justice system.

And how is this different at the state level? Most of the prosecutions in this country are by the states not the feds Edited December 3, 2013 by spacecowboy342

[spacecowboy342]

Yeah I know you prefer anarchy. We tried the articles of confederation. Didn't work out

[danielost]

Spacecowboy

If you or I cannot decide what is right or wrong about killing unborn children. Then what makes it to do so after birth. This way of thinking means we need no jail.

Further if the child is just parasite, then why do we charge people with murderer if they do something to kill it other than abortion. Either the child is living or it isn't.

[Frank Merton]

You base your thinking I feel on the wrong premise. You think if something is "wrong," it should be illegal.

Largely speaking that serves to work, but "wrongness" is a slippery concept and people will disagree based on culture and belief. It is at heart a religious matter. For a secular state, where religion is kept at arm's length, a different basis for deciding what should be illegal than wrongness is needed -- namely the effect of the act on society and its members. Even when it is shown that there is a definite negative effect, the power of the law should be applied selectively and carefully, as the very act of making something illegal can make its effects even worse or create other negative effects.

I think abortions are immoral and would ever personally have one and would urge others to seek alternatives. I do not think morality is an all or nothing thing; some immoral acts are more immoral than others (and in fact some immoral acts are overwhelmed by an ensuing immorality of not doing it -- such as lying to the Gestapo about the whereabouts of a Jew).

So the relevant questions regarding making something illegal have to do with pragmatic effects on society, not moral grounds.

[Jeremiah65]

In my opinion...this topic is beyond the realm of bystanders judgement.

It is between the woman, her family, her doctor and whatever God she may pray to and believe in. There are far-far too many broad reaching circumstances to pass judgement unless you are in the middle of a particular circumstance.

I personally do not believe abortion should be retro-active birth control...but that is my opinion and I will not force it upon anyone else.

As far as how we will be judged....by who or what? God?...The future?...

We will be judged more about how we allowed children to come into this world to suffer and die than for the ones we spared the pain and anguish of misery, starvation and exposure

[questionmark]

In my opinion...this topic is beyond the realm of bystanders judgement.

It is between the woman, her family, her doctor and whatever God she may pray to and believe in. There are far-far too many broad reaching circumstances to pass judgement unless you are in the middle of a particular circumstance.

I personally do not believe abortion should be retro-active birth control...but that is my opinion and I will not force it upon anyone else.

As far as how we will be judged....by who or what? God?...The future?...

We will be judged more about how we allowed children to come into this world to suffer and die than for the ones we spared the pain and anguish of misery, starvation and exposure

And that is precisely the point: I am not a woman nor the pope so, while having an opinion, it has no relevance on the situation. Would be good if other men decided that too, because putting your mustard on all and everything just shows you are a wiener.

Edited January 13, 2014 by questionmark

[Yamato]

And how is this different at the state level? Most of the prosecutions in this country are by the states not the feds

Yes because we leave things like murder, and rape up to the states. After we glorify abortion long enough, cant leave that one well enough alone though can we?

The difference is, It's only 1/50th as consequential or 1/50th as beneficial. Since people tend to gravitate toward good things and not bad, the states that get it right will be the precedents of other states in the future. Stop trying to assimilate everything; we're not the damned Borg Collective.

[Yamato]

And that is precisely the point: I am not a woman nor the pope so, while having an opinion, it has no relevance on the situation. Would be good if other men decided that too, because putting your mustard on all and everything just shows you are a wiener.

You're the one paying for it. That's the relevance. National revenues and elections make us all held to account.

[Yamato]

In my opinion...this topic is beyond the realm of bystanders judgement.

It is between the woman, her family, her doctor and whatever God she may pray to and believe in. There are far-far too many broad reaching circumstances to pass judgement unless you are in the middle of a particular circumstance.

I personally do not believe abortion should be retro-active birth control...but that is my opinion and I will not force it upon anyone else.

As far as how we will be judged....by who or what? God?...The future?...

We will be judged more about how we allowed children to come into this world to suffer and die than for the ones we spared the pain and anguish of misery, starvation and exposure

But the bipartisan committee on dumbdeedumb said that the economy didn't grow 0.1% fast enough to durpdeederp! So....Print! Borrow! Spend! Who cares for annoying things like debt, and morality?

[Jeremiah65]

But the bipartisan committee on dumbdeedumb said that the economy didn't grow 0.1% fast enough to durpdeederp! So....Print! Borrow! Spend! Who cares for annoying things like debt, and morality?

well I obviously missed something...my response was to the original post/question.

You cannot tax and spend (print) your way into prosperity.

You cannot legislate morality or good will toward your fello man...

Beyond that, I have no clue what you are trying to say

[danielost]

Abused and neglected and unwanted children who grow up to be criminals; abortion mills killing babies and mothers; mothers killing themselves in attempts at self-abortion. Things like that. Besides, such laws have to be enforced, which means more police and more jails and more intrusion into people's private lives.

I did not say make abortion illegal completely. I said limit it and have it done in a hospital. Abortion on demand is just plain wrong.

[Yamato]

well I obviously missed something...my response was to the original post/question.

You cannot tax and spend (print) your way into prosperity.

You cannot legislate morality or good will toward your fello man...

Beyond that, I have no clue what you are trying to say

The government measures all our most important statistics for us like it owns them. They're the keepers and controllers of the CPI, core inflation, GDP, tens of thousands of pages of trade regulations, interest rates, asset prices, employment figures, wages, and the money supply. It's been like this for many years. Is there any prosperity out there from it? I think that's an arguable question either way.

I also don't think there's a complete severance between morality and the law. I think the morality is baked in to laws already and provided that it doesn't affect us negatively we don't even notice the moral quality in the laws.

[danielost]

We all judge laws according to our religious view point.

As for mothers, not getting anything in return for carrying a baby for nine months that is a lie. Mothers in general get unconditional love from the child, the father may or may not.

[Yamato]

I did not say make abortion illegal completely. I said limit it and have it done in a hospital. Abortion on demand is just plain wrong.

Just overturn Roe and let the States decide! We did that for capital punishment and nobody blinks at that. It's bizarre. The uterus is a very potent political football indeed. I'm not sure why a hospital is necessary when a specialist at a clinic is sufficient to handle the demand. Unless you want abortions to compete for the same resources used on heart attacks and strokes and overdoses and car accidents?