The Effect of "Abortion Rights" on the Political Landscape

[Dean C.]

Ending the life of someone after a trial by jury with legal representation, showing they are guilty of a crime deemed vile enough to warrant it...

vs

Ending the life of someone.... because

But hey I'll concede all you want abortion on demand if it's afforded a trial by jury.

Innocence and the Death Penalty

We currently represent people on death row with strong claims of innocence and support coalitions working to ban the death penalty.

innocenceproject.org

Sometimes even in a jury trial innocent people are still sent to death row. Under just that statistic alone should the death penalty not be abolished?

 

[Tombs]

Innocence and the Death Penalty

We currently represent people on death row with strong claims of innocence and support coalitions working to ban the death penalty.

innocenceproject.org

Sometimes even in a jury trial innocent people are still sent to death row. Under just that statistic alone should the death penalty not be abolished?

That's an end run around the point. Would you accept if abortion required a trial by jury to be conducted?

 

[jamil]

Innocence and the Death Penalty

We currently represent people on death row with strong claims of innocence and support coalitions working to ban the death penalty.

innocenceproject.org

Sometimes even in a jury trial innocent people are still sent to death row. Under just that statistic alone should the death penalty not be abolished?

Now that’s a different question. First you try to say they’re inconsistent. Whe they show you they’re not, you say, well, sometimes the accused is innocent so you should abolish the death penalty. Where is the goal post here? Christians are poopy?

 

[AndreusMaximus]

If you recall, there was a lengthy debate over my statement that apart from religious belief, there isn’t a secular rationale for the Christian position.

This is not a logical comparison. It’s not just the believing of the thing that makes it dogma. Laws against stealing are universal. The secular benefits to society are obvious. Every society whether religious or not has laws against theft. Unless you’re George Soros trying to destabilize society, there will be laws in pretty much every country that makes theft illegal.

I do, indeed, recall this point of disagreement. I still maintain that recognizing human life/human rights/personhood at conception is the most logically consistent position, even apart from any religious beliefs.

As much as people don't like it, this is one of the reasons I keep going back to the slavery analogy. Try to use your two tests of secular benefits to society and near-universality in societies throughout history. I think you'll find that those two tests both come out pro-slavery, and will indicate that abolishing slavery was a primarily religion-driven phenomenon.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Life at Fertilization, like injunctions against usury, is a viewpoint predominantly, and almost exclusively*, espoused within religious traditions. Some have offered tortured syllogisms stacked atop each other like turtles all the way down, to attempt to establish that Life at Fertilization can be arrived at purely via logic, and without recourse to religion. But nobody was convinced. (That's why Jamil himself spent 6 pages arguing against the point in a prior engagement- he knows better than he's putting on here).

Those making peoples' "asses" and what they do with them into religious issues in America are mostly Christians / Jews / Muslims. Like Global Warming, Life at Fertilization is a "consensus" vehemently adhered to in certain circles, which has not been objectively demonstrated. At no time in American legal history - none - has it ever been an established legal, ethical, or moral norm. It is a religious belief, and there is simply no significant non-anecdotal** evidence to the contrary. This court just appears to be saying in this case that Freedom "of" religion also includes freedom "from" religion and its special, dogmatically held beliefs.

*,**: cf. atheist George Will getting pissed because people abort babies with Down Syndrome, because he's the personally-interested father of a Down Syndrome son; a pimple on the ass of America's debate over this issue.

Rewind the clock a couple centuries and replace abortion with slavery, and everything you just wrote could be argued just a much, if not more.

I know people really get mad at this analogy, but it's true.

 

[jamil]

I figured imaginary sky friend was tame, though outside of Exodus I didn't mention any one religion specifically (but it applies to both Christianity and Judaism if memory serves). The appeals court of Indiana again specifically stated the abortion ban was a law pushed by religious dogma and that is why the injunction was stayed

I think the only thing you said that relates to what I said was the justification of "sky friend", but, it's still mockery. If you want to mock people's political positions, I think that's fair game. Mocking their religion is just a dick move. The rest, I'm not sure why that's in reply to what I said. I didn't mention any specific religions either.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

The more I think about it, the more ridiculous it is. The other side claims that all the Life-At-Conception folks have to offer are "tortured syllogisms stacked atop each other like turtles all the way down."

Meanwhile...

Life-At-Conception folks: "Every human life is a human person with human rights, plain and simple."

Life-At-Who-Knows-When folks: "It's a human life at conception, oh wait, I mean a life, but not a human life, definitely not a person, except some of us also say it's not a life at all, just a clump of cells, until at some poorly-defined point when it magically turns into a human life, which is kind-of-sort-of a human person and maybe has some rights, but not really, and then when it hits viability it gets more rights (maybe) but also in some cases it just has no rights at all right up until the moment of birth, depending on the crimes of the father, but also men have nothing to do with it and have no right to tell a woman anything about this maybe-human maybe-not human and any rights it may or may not have..."

 

[jamil]

I do, indeed, recall this point of disagreement. I still maintain that recognizing human life/human rights/personhood at conception is the most logically consistent position, even apart from any religious beliefs.

We've made all the points that can be made about religion's role in the right's position on abortion. We'll have to agree to disagree, because you're just making a statement here. There's no logical path to this conclusion apart from a pee-existing belief on the origins of life.

As much as people don't like it, this is one of the reasons I keep going back to the slavery analogy. Try to use your two tests of secular benefits to society and near-universality in societies throughout history. I think you'll find that those two tests both come out pro-slavery, and will indicate that abolishing slavery was a primarily religion-driven phenomenon.

There is a benefit for rich people to enslave poor people. It's not a societal benefit. It doesn't benefit the slaves, who are a part of society. I'm actually astonished that this is not obvious. You can use universality to make the argument that a thing is common across human existence, so therefore there's not a local cause. But that can't be used to justify a behavior. Using it to rebut the comparison you made is useful.

Upholding slavery was primarily a religion-driven phenomenon as well. Both sides quoted scripture at each other. Did religious people do a ***damn thing about slavery the prior 400 years? At the time, basically the entire Western world was Christian. How do you reconcile all the Christian slavers prior. Plastic Baptists were quite fond of the peculiar institution. ("Plastic Baptist" is a term I use to denote Christians, not just Baptists, who talk the talk without walking the walk. I derived this term long ago when I was a Christian).

So let's talk about the abolitionist movement. It wasn't just in the US. GB ended slavery long before the US did, abolitionist groups were made up of both Christians and rationalists. The rationalists held that slavery violated the Enlightenment principle of individual liberty. Christians believed slavery was unchristian. The abolitionist movement started in the mid to late 18th century, and yes, Christian the morals were a big part of it for some Christians, yet it took another century to convince all the other Christians that it was immoral. I would attribute evolving morals for the gradual collective change of conscience. To rationalist Enlightenment thinkers, it should always have been a no-brainer. To Christians as well, it should always have been thought of as anti-Christian. For slavery, there is a clear secular and religious reason to reject enslaving people. But, there's a far less clear secular rationale to say aborting a pregnancy from fertilization on is immoral.

 

[jamil]

Rewind the clock a couple centuries and replace abortion with slavery, and everything you just wrote could be argued just a much, if not more.

I know people really get mad at this analogy, but it's true.

No one's mad about it. But the slavery analogy you're making, where you claim slavery ended just because of Christian morals, undermines your secular argument for your position on conception.

 

[jamil]

The more I think about it, the more ridiculous it is. The other side claims that all the Life-At-Conception folks have to offer are "tortured syllogisms stacked atop each other like turtles all the way down."

Meanwhile...

Life-At-Conception folks: "Every human life is a human person with human rights, plain and simple."

Life-At-Who-Knows-When folks: "It's a human life at conception, oh wait, I mean a life, but not a human life, definitely not a person, except some of us also say it's not a life at all, just a clump of cells, until at some poorly-defined point when it magically turns into a human life, which is kind-of-sort-of a human person and maybe has some rights, but not really, and then when it hits viability it gets more rights (maybe) but also in some cases it just has no rights at all right up until the moment of birth, depending on the crimes of the father, but also men have nothing to do with it and have no right to tell a woman anything about this maybe-human maybe-not human and any rights it may or may not have..."

I think a problem is that you're using the same rationale to explain both sides, when I think the secular side comes at it from a perspective you may not understand. You say life begins at conception, and yes, I'm not disagreeing that it's all human DNA. But is there a secular moral that says it's wrong to abort at that stage? We get caught up in the language "life begins at conception" so therefore ending a life at any stage along the way is immoral. I'm saying there's not a secular rationale for it.

I am personal anti-abortion. I think the "pro-life" rhetoric is as much marketing as "pro-choice". You're really either pro-abortion or anti-abortion. But anyway, I am ant-abortion. I will admit that my own views against abortion don't stem from a secular rationale. I have a personal belief that life is sacred, for the lack of a better, less religious term. Maybe "special" is a better term. We owe our existence to "life" and we should seek to respect it. I think that's a moral position rather than a rationale.

I don't feel that violating my beliefs amounts to murder though. But, I advocate that people should either use protection, or don't ****. Don't take human life so lightly that you'd discard it for your own sexual gratification. Be responsible. But I don't feel like I need to demand lawmakers to legislate my own moral sensibilities. There are people on the otherside of it from me with their own moral beliefs, which prioritize the mother's wishes over the unborn's. I don't agree with that. I think it would violate my own moral priorities. I don't think it's a universal moral. Murdering of a thinking, feeling human violates a clearly universal human moral.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Amen.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

We've made all the points that can be made about religion's role in the right's position on abortion. We'll have to agree to disagree, because you're just making a statement here. There's no logical path to this conclusion apart from a pee-existing belief on the origins of life.

That is, indeed, your position. I disagree with it, which is the point we're debating on here.

There is a benefit for rich people to enslave poor people. It's not a societal benefit. It doesn't benefit the slaves, who are a part of society. I'm actually astonished that this is not obvious. You can use universality to make the argument that a thing is common across human existence, so therefore there's not a local cause. But that can't be used to justify a behavior. Using it to rebut the comparison you made is useful.

In order for what you say here to make sense, you have to start from the premise that slaves are persons, and part of society. This is begging the question.

If you start from the premise that a human being is part of society from the moment of conception, you'll be forced to the same conclusion regarding abortion: Abortion doesn't benefit pre-born children, who are part of society, therefore it doesn't benefit society.

Conversely, if you pick whichever group of humans you think should be enslaved (hypothetically, of course) and define them as not-persons and therefore not a part of society, then their enslavement provides a clear benefit to society.

This is the parallel I'm trying to draw.

Upholding slavery was primarily a religion-driven phenomenon as well. Both sides quoted scripture at each other. Did religious people do a ***damn thing about slavery the prior 400 years? At the time, basically the entire Western world was Christian. How do you reconcile all the Christian slavers prior. Plastic Baptists were quite fond of the peculiar institution. ("Plastic Baptist" is a term I use to denote Christians, not just Baptists, who talk the talk without walking the walk. I derived this term long ago when I was a Christian).

Alright, let's follow your train of logic here.

If I understand correctly, you're saying basically: "Slavery was largely legal in the Western world for hundreds of years, during which time the Western world was also predominantly Christian. Therefore, Christianity could not have been the primary driving force for abolishing Slavery."

Yet, you turn around and say that for the last several hundred years abortion has been almost universally legal in the West. So, by your logic above, wouldn't that also prove the point, that the opposition to abortion cannot be solely driven by religion?

So let's talk about the abolitionist movement. It wasn't just in the US. GB ended slavery long before the US did, abolitionist groups were made up of both Christians and rationalists. The rationalists held that slavery violated the Enlightenment principle of individual liberty. Christians believed slavery was unchristian. The abolitionist movement started in the mid to late 18th century, and yes, Christian the morals were a big part of it for some Christians, yet it took another century to convince all the other Christians that it was immoral. I would attribute evolving morals for the gradual collective change of conscience. To rationalist Enlightenment thinkers, it should always have been a no-brainer. To Christians as well, it should always have been thought of as anti-Christian. For slavery, there is a clear secular and religious reason to reject enslaving people. But, there's a far less clear secular rationale to say aborting a pregnancy from fertilization on is immoral.

No one's mad about it. But the slavery analogy you're making, where you claim slavery ended just because of Christian morals, undermines your secular argument for your position on conception.

Again, everything you're saying here just makes the parallels more clear. There are plenty of Christians who try to use their faith to justify abortion, just like there were plenty of Christians who quoted scripture to justify slavery. There are rationalists who oppose abortion, just as there were rationalists who opposed slavery.

To be clear, I am not claiming that there was no rationalist/secularist opposition to slavery, nor that all Christians opposed slavery. I am trying to argue that the opposition to slavery had much the same composition that the opposition to abortion has nowadays. It's got a largely religious face to it, and the majority of both movements happen to be made up of religious types. But those religious types are not trying to push a religious argument, they are trying to make a rational, human argument, and this is proven by their ability to fight side by side with atheists, secularists, and rationalists who reach the same conclusions they do.

If you dismiss the secular/rationalist types who oppose abortion as "token" or "anecdotal", and make the argument that since the majority of the Life-at-Conception folks are religious, therefore Life-at-Conception is a religious position that must not be put into law, then in order to be logically consistent, you would have to also reject the abolitionist movement, since the majority of its members were religious.

Approaching things this way makes no sense. Instead of making a judgement on the Life-at-Conception stance based on a religious poll of its supporters, we should be debating the position based on its logical merits.

In short, if you want to tell me that you find Life-at-Conception to be an illogical stance, that's a debate we can easily have, and have had, and while I don't see us resolving it, I feel like it was at least an intellectually honest debate.

But if you claim that Life-at-Conception can only be held by religious types, that's just factually wrong. If you try to reject Life-at-Conception based solely on the fact that the majority of its adherents are religious, not only is that unfair, it also leads you to some pretty sketchy conclusions, if you would apply the principle consistently, as I illustrated above.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

I think a problem is that you're using the same rationale to explain both sides, when I think the secular side comes at it from a perspective you may not understand. You say life begins at conception, and yes, I'm not disagreeing that it's all human DNA. But is there a secular moral that says it's wrong to abort at that stage? We get caught up in the language "life begins at conception" so therefore ending a life at any stage along the way is immoral. I'm saying there's not a secular rationale for it.

I am personal anti-abortion. I think the "pro-life" rhetoric is as much marketing as "pro-choice". You're really either pro-abortion or anti-abortion. But anyway, I am ant-abortion. I will admit that my own views against abortion don't stem from a secular rationale. I have a personal belief that life is sacred, for the lack of a better, less religious term. Maybe "special" is a better term. We owe our existence to "life" and we should seek to respect it. I think that's a moral position rather than a rationale.

I don't feel that violating my beliefs amounts to murder though. But, I advocate that people should either use protection, or don't ****. Don't take human life so lightly that you'd discard it for your own sexual gratification. Be responsible. But I don't feel like I need to demand lawmakers to legislate my own moral sensibilities. There are people on the otherside of it from me with their own moral beliefs, which prioritize the mother's wishes over the unborn's. I don't agree with that. I think it would violate my own moral priorities. I don't think it's a universal moral. Murdering of a thinking, feeling human violates a clearly universal human moral.

The part I put in bold, I think, really points to the crux of our differences, and the point where I see your position as failing.

Let's take the first part: "thinking, feeling human." That is far too vague a term on which to build societal standards of who has a right to life and who doesn't. What about someone in a permanent coma? Mentally disabled? Exactly how much thinking and feeling has to be going on for someone to qualify for the universal human moral of "don't kill me"?

And, speaking of "clearly universal human moral," may I ask how universal something has to be in order to be considered a moral? In the pre-Christian world, it was pretty universal to think that anyone who is not part of my tribe is fair game for killing, raping, taking all their stuff and/or conquering and oppressing. And it took hundred and hundreds of years for that mentality to be weeded out even to a limited degree, and even today it's far from eradicated.

The point is, I just don't see how your principle of "just look at what most people have done throughout the world most of the time" will ever lead us to consistent morals. It seems like it just leaves way to many holes that allow for pretty messed-up things.

It's like I said above, you can't start out asking what will benefit people/society the most, because you first have to have a way of defining people/society. You can make anything sound moral if you just define the victims as not being persons. And I just don't see any clear, consistent definition of who is or is not a human person that we can point to across human history. I still contend that the only way to provide a consistent enough definition on which to build a workable society is to say that every human organism with human DNA that is alive, gets the same human rights. If you don't agree with that definition, than please tell me what definition you believe ought to be used for the purpose of our laws?

 

[BE Mike]

In the states where assisted suicide is legal it’s not the government who decides. It’s the patient. Is that a slippery slope to government mandated suicide? I think is there is a slippery slop to that, it’s single payer government healthcare. Like Canuckistan.

The government passes laws that set the parameters, as to what is allowable and what it not, so the decision is not left entirely up to the potential victim.

 

[Creedmoor]

I think the only thing you said that relates to what I said was the justification of "sky friend", but, it's still mockery. If you want to mock people's political positions, I think that's fair game. Mocking their religion is just a dick move. The rest, I'm not sure why that's in reply to what I said. I didn't mention any specific religions either.

So is ones sexual choices fair game to mock?

 

[jamil]

That is, indeed, your position. I disagree with it, which is the point we're debating on here.

The "slave" analogy is something new, so I think that may be worth debating.

In order for what you say here to make sense, you have to start from the premise that slaves are persons, and part of society. This is begging the question.

This is indeed the thing. But this presupposition doesn't require a belief in when life begins. It doesn't require any religious thinking at all. Slaves can be thought of as less than people. Religious people and non-religious people have thought of them that way. It took quite some time after the enlightenment for rational thinkers to say, hey, wait a minute. These are human beings. They're persons. What we're doing violates individual liberty.

And it took many centuries for Christians to arrive at the same conclusion, that slavery is unchristian. But, I do acknowledge that many of the Enlightenment thinkers were also Christians, and if it were not for Christianity, I'm not sure the Enlightenment would have come about.

If you start from the premise that a human being is part of society from the moment of conception, you'll be forced to the same conclusion regarding abortion: Abortion doesn't benefit pre-born children, who are part of society, therefore it doesn't benefit society.

There is no rationale apart from a religious belief about conception, that would require me to start with that premise. I could argue that if we believed that overpopulation were a thing, abortion would benefit society.

Conversely, if you pick whichever group of humans you think should be enslaved (hypothetically, of course) and define them as not-persons and therefore not a part of society, then their enslavement provides a clear benefit to society.

This is the parallel I'm trying to draw.

It doesn't draw though. It's obvious the Africans, who were captured by other Africans, BTW, are people. They're humans. if there can be a belief is that they're not humans, the issue of "at conception" is moot. But in terms of clear benefit to society, from the point of view that Africans were not really human, there is a societal benefit in the same way that cattle farms are a benefit, I suppose. But it would require a belief that slaves are not human.

But I think you're forcing definitions to keep a dead end analogy. I mentioned benefits to society in a point about universality being useful to demonstrate human nature as it relates to creating laws against things like theft. It's not useful in justifying what is theft, and when should it be illegal. In some societies certain theft is legal. That's a local thing.

Alright, let's follow your train of logic here.

If I understand correctly, you're saying basically: "Slavery was largely legal in the Western world for hundreds of years, during which time the Western world was also predominantly Christian. Therefore, Christianity could not have been the primary driving force for abolishing Slavery."

No. That's not what I'm saying.

Slavery was largely legal in the Western world for hundreds of years.
Christianity did not decide it was bad for quite some time.
Rational thinkers, many of whom were Christians, did not decide it was bad for quite some time.
Then Christians, and rational thinkers decided it was bad.
Therefore, the abolition movement was not uniquely Christian, and Christianity was not the driving force. Christianity was mostly pro-slavery at the time the abolition movement started. It took a long time and generational moral evolution to get to the point where it was actionable. It took over a century to gitter dun. So if I were to credit the abolition of slavery, I'd say it was generational advancement. which is often how these things work.

Yet, you turn around and say that for the last several hundred years abortion has been almost universally legal in the West. So, by your logic above, wouldn't that also prove the point, that the opposition to abortion cannot be solely driven by religion?

It's not soley driven by religion in that some non-religious conservatives also are anti-abortion. Most of whom borrow the morality of Christians to get there, but that's mostly borne of tribalism.

Again, everything you're saying here just makes the parallels more clear.

Well, but then I don't think you understand the points I've made, because when you tried to confirm what you thought I was saying, it wasn't what I was saying.

There are plenty of Christians who try to use their faith to justify abortion, just like there were plenty of Christians who quoted scripture to justify slavery. There are rationalists who oppose abortion, just as there were rationalists who opposed slavery.

So? this isn't anything different from what I said. I don't think it confirms the parallels you want it to confirm, other than, if you want to ban abortion, you need to change societal opinions about it. That hasn't happened, and if it ever happens, it will need to be a generational change. And you'll have to figure out better secular arguments other than "at conception". Most non-religious people don't care about that. To get them to agree with you, you need a better argument.

To be clear, I am not claiming that there was no rationalist/secularist opposition to slavery, nor that all Christians opposed slavery. I am trying to argue that the opposition to slavery had much the same composition that the opposition to abortion has nowadays. It's got a largely religious face to it, and the majority of both movements happen to be made up of religious types. But those religious types are not trying to push a religious argument, they are trying to make a rational, human argument, and this is proven by their ability to fight side by side with atheists, secularists, and rationalists who reach the same conclusions they do.

I don't think there is a rational argument against abortion at conception like there is against slavery. The rationalists who said slavery violates the principle of individual liberty didn't even consider at what point a person has rights before birth. It just wasn't a thing. Fertilized eggs aren't slaves. No one is giving fertilized eggs any work assignments.

Another part of the simile that breaks down is what brought slavery to an end. Are you willing to wage a real civil war and kill your countrymen to stop abortion? That's how slavery ended. In for a penny, in for a pound?

If you dismiss the secular/rationalist types who oppose abortion as "token" or "anecdotal", and make the argument that since the majority of the Life-at-Conception folks are religious, therefore Life-at-Conception is a religious position that must not be put into law, then in order to be logically consistent, you would have to also reject the abolitionist movement, since the majority of its members were religious.

But there's a secular rationale to end slavery which there isn't to end abortion at conception. Slavery was deemed to be morally wrong by rationalists, again, many of whom were Christians, because it violates individual liberty, which did not consider whether a fertilized egg is an individual.

Approaching things this way makes no sense. Instead of making a judgement on the Life-at-Conception stance based on a religious poll of its supporters, we should be debating the position based on its logical merits.

Obviously that's not the position I'm putting forth. I made it clear in the earlier part of the conversation that I don't have a problem with religious people wanting to change abortion policy for religious reasons. A religious reason is probably as good as any motivation. Sometimes rational decisions don't end with the best outcome. Like I said, I am personally opposed to abortion and it was not rational thinking that brought me to that opinion. I don't think rational thinking CAN bring you to that position.

If it were completely rational, there might be times when society decides, rationally, that some humans shouldn't be born because of whatever reason. Societal costs, let's say. I don't want that. Sometimes rational thinking doesn't produce the best answers. My only contention is that there isn't a rational answer for why it must be at conception, whatever we're saying that conception is.

In short, if you want to tell me that you find Life-at-Conception to be an illogical stance, that's a debate we can easily have, and have had, and while I don't see us resolving it, I feel like it was at least an intellectually honest debate.

Agreed.

But if you claim that Life-at-Conception can only be held by religious types, that's just factually wrong. If you try to reject Life-at-Conception based solely on the fact that the majority of its adherents are religious, not only is that unfair, it also leads you to some pretty sketchy conclusions, if you would apply the principle consistently, as I illustrated above.

Life at conception can't only be held by religious people. I am not a religious person. I believe people should not get abortions, period, except if the mother's life is in danger. I also can't support forcing a woman who was raped to bear the rapists child, although I think I would hope that she could. No matter how a child is conceived, once conceived it is an astonnishing phenomenon of life, and deserves to make a go of it.

 

[jamil]

The part I put in bold, I think, really points to the crux of our differences, and the point where I see your position as failing.

Let's take the first part: "thinking, feeling human." That is far too vague a term on which to build societal standards of who has a right to life and who doesn't. What about someone in a permanent coma? Mentally disabled? Exactly how much thinking and feeling has to be going on for someone to qualify for the universal human moral of "don't kill me"?

And, speaking of "clearly universal human moral," may I ask how universal something has to be in order to be considered a moral? In the pre-Christian world, it was pretty universal to think that anyone who is not part of my tribe is fair game for killing, raping, taking all their stuff and/or conquering and oppressing. And it took hundred and hundreds of years for that mentality to be weeded out even to a limited degree, and even today it's far from eradicated.

The point is, I just don't see how your principle of "just look at what most people have done throughout the world most of the time" will ever lead us to consistent morals. It seems like it just leaves way to many holes that allow for pretty messed-up things.

It's like I said above, you can't start out asking what will benefit people/society the most, because you first have to have a way of defining people/society. You can make anything sound moral if you just define the victims as not being persons. And I just don't see any clear, consistent definition of who is or is not a human person that we can point to across human history. I still contend that the only way to provide a consistent enough definition on which to build a workable society is to say that every human organism with human DNA that is alive, gets the same human rights. If you don't agree with that definition, than please tell me what definition you believe ought to be used for the purpose of our laws?

I don't see any bold text. It's all bold, so nothing is bold.

I'll address the absolute morals vs transient morals though. Absolute morals transcend time and culture. That's why I can use universality to treat a moral as absolute. Transient morals are localized to a given time and/or culture/society. So I'm not a moral relativist. There are absolute morals. Murder is an absolute moral. Virtually every society across time and culture has that as a moral. Even cannibals have a concept of murder. Some people you have a right to eat. Some you don't.

But, the claim that abortion is always murder depends a lot on the "at conception" belief, which as I said, I don't believe there is a non-religious rationale for. That doesn't make it bad. Like I said earlier, not every logically derived thing is good. Sometimes we need to override logic with other ways of thinking. In my view religion evolved and served a purpose, but it's unclear that we can supplant that purpose with something else and not destroy ourselves.

 

[jamil]

The government passes laws that set the parameters, as to what is allowable and what it not, so the decision is not left entirely up to the potential victim.

But, at least in the US, the government doesn't tell people who might want to commit suicide that they have to die, and then carry out the execution.

 

[BE Mike]

But, at least in the US, the government doesn't tell people who might want to commit suicide that they have to die, and then carry out the execution.

Yeah, that's setting the bar pretty low!

 

[jamil]

So is ones sexual choices fair game to mock?

Depends on the context. Just like mocking religions. If you're doing it to be a dick, then it's a dick move.