I could say the same thing about right wingers who believe in the death penalty. How can you let humans decide whether another human is deserving of life or death?

 

So shouldnt I be really fearful of the direction of the country?

 

The bottom line is that you can have your morals and I can have my morals. I dont make you kill fetuses, you dont make me kill potentially innocent prisoners. Seems fair.

 

I guess that is the leap I cant make. I cant force my morals on other people. Just because I am adamant in my belief that I am right, I dont force other people to do it, because its not for me to decide. If you want to know what makes me fearful, its when people want to legislate morality. We need less people thinking that they should be telling people how to live their life, not more.

 

Oh please, we do this all the time.

That's a terrible analogy. It takes a lot more effort for a person to get an illegal abortion than to get illegal drugs.

 

It means that women with the means will be able to find doctors and relatively safe, clandestine procedures while poor women are left to find a back-alley abortion.

Oh please, we do this all the time.

Yeah I'd say most legislation is moral in one sense or another.

That's a terrible analogy. It takes a lot more effort for a person to get an illegal abortion than to get illegal drugs.

It does?

 

From what I understand, you find someone on the black market, you pay an exponentially higher sum of money, and you engage in the same act except in an unregulated manner.

 

Seems like a fairly good analogy to me.

I wish they documented the political positions of women who actually get abortions. I'd bet conservatives would be shocked at how many of their own go through with it. Anectdotally, I know more than a handful of conservative women, including family members, who've had an abortion. It's ok for them but not for others.

I wish they documented the political positions of women who actually get abortions. I'd bet conservatives would be shocked at how many of their own go through with it. Anectdotally, I know more than a handful of conservative women, including family members, who've had an abortion. It's ok for them but not for others.

 

How is this relevant at all? Just because people do it doesn't make it right.

I wish they documented the political positions of women who actually get abortions. I'd bet conservatives would be shocked at how many of their own go through with it. Anectdotally, I know more than a handful of conservative women, including family members, who've had an abortion. It's ok for them but not for others.

That has actually been looked at before. Usually there's some special pleading about why their case is unique.

How is this relevant at all? Just because people do it doesn't make it right.

Just pointing out the hypocrisy. Conservative women who've had abortions don't want others to have that option.

Just pointing out the hypocrisy. Conservative women who've had abortions don't want others to have that option.

 

you realize there are conservatives that are pro-choice, right?

you realize there are conservatives that are pro-choice, right?

No. Thanks for the heads up.

No. Thanks for the heads up.

Knowing is half the battle!

 

Great, no legislating morality. Rape, theft, and murder are now all legal.

 

Nope not true at all.

 

In each of those instances you caused harm to another person, thats not a moral question.

you realize there are conservatives that are pro-choice, right?

Former-rep Biggert is. That's one reason why I didn't care enough to vote against her.

Nope not true at all.

 

In each of those instances you caused harm to another person, thats not a moral question.

"don't cause others harm" is a moral position.

Something I am curious about...do those that are pro-life tend to adopt at higher rates than those that are pro-choice?

 

"don't cause others harm" is a moral position.

 

But thats not my position.

 

My position is that the way the law should work is that each person can do what they want so long as they do not interfere with another persons ability to do what they want.

 

Its not about good or bad.

 

(edit)

 

To clarify, morals have an implicit right/wrong or good/bad implication. You cant do X, because its wrong or bad. That is not my view. There is no good or bad, as that is merely subjective, which is why I do not like "morality".

 

Now if you are going to say "morals" does not include a good/bad right/wrong component then I guess my belief could be a moral, as any belief could be theoretically a moral.

Edited November 9, 201213 yr by Soxbadger

But thats not my position.

 

My position is that the way the law should work is that each person can do what they want so long as they do not interfere with another persons ability to do what they want.

 

Its not about good or bad.

 

That's a moral position as well.

yup

Read my edit:

 

To clarify, morals have an implicit right/wrong or good/bad implication. You cant do X, because its wrong or bad. That is not my view. There is no good or bad, as that is merely subjective, which is why I do not like "morality".

 

Now if you are going to say "morals" does not include a good/bad right/wrong component then I guess my belief could be a moral, as any belief could be theoretically a moral.

 

(Edit)

 

So to be clear, I used the term morals to imply the classic "right v wrong" or "good v bad" definition of morals. If youd like to use it another way, Ill just not use the term "morals" anymore and will use the phrase "I dont like the govt to decide what constitutes good or bad behavior".

Edited November 9, 201213 yr by Soxbadger

Read my edit:

 

To clarify, morals have an implicit right/wrong or good/bad implication. You cant do X, because its wrong or bad. That is not my view. There is no good or bad, as that is merely subjective, which is why I do not like "morality".

 

Now if you are going to say "morals" does not include a good/bad right/wrong component then I guess my belief could be a moral, as any belief could be theoretically a moral.

 

The moral judgement is that it is wrong to interfere with other people.

The moral judgement is that it is wrong to interfere with other people.

 

No it really isnt. Morality involves good v bad, that the action of interfering is bad or good. I am saying that the action is neither good nor bad, it just is. I am not saying that the action is right or wrong, I am saying that the action just is.

 

The reason you cant do the action is because the other person has the right to not be interfered with, thus your action was neither good, bad, right or wrong, it just was not allowed.

 

Im making no judgment on the actual act itself, but regardless this semantics argument isnt going to go anywhere.

No it really isnt. Morality involves good v bad, that the action of interfering is bad or good. I am saying that the action is neither good nor bad, it just is. I am not saying that the action is right or wrong, I am saying that the action just is.

 

The reason you cant do the action is because the other person has the right to not be interfered with, thus your action was neither good, bad, right or wrong, it just was not allowed.

 

Im making no judgment on the actual act itself, but regardless this semantics argument isnt going to go anywhere.

 

the assumption of this right is a moral judgement

the assumption of this right is a moral judgement

 

Now if you are going to say "morals" does not include a good/bad right/wrong component then I guess my belief could be a moral, as any belief could be theoretically a moral.

 

Already been answered. If thats how you want to define morality, then so be it. Thats not the way I was using the word, and arguing semantics is just boring. The intention of the use was to differentiate the govt making decisions based on what people interpret as "good" or "bad".

Edited November 9, 201213 yr by Soxbadger

Already been answered. If thats how you want to define morality, then so be it. Thats not the way I was using the word, and arguing semantics is just boring. The intention of the use was to differentiate the govt making decisions based on what people interpret as "good" or "bad".

I think the point they are making is why is your desire to do whatever you want outweighed by the affected person's right to be unaffected by you?

 

Do you view a bear that kills a fish as wrong because he affected the fish?

 

 

 

 

Already been answered. If thats how you want to define morality, then so be it. Thats not the way I was using the word, and arguing semantics is just boring. The intention of the use was to differentiate the govt making decisions based on what people interpret as "good" or "bad".

 

The point is government makes decisions all the time based on morals, based on what we as a society believe is the "right" thing to do - providing assistance to the poor, providing education, providing healthcare, providing other life services like ambulances or fire departments or police protection. That's based on our morals, not because it was mandated by a document.