But everyone should be aware of the emphasis he puts into the skillfulness of his diputations.
S/B: disputations
laydownSally - 08:03pm on 03/31/2008
Often times when people exhibit behavior which is contrary to what society considers normal we place them in institutions to modify that behavior.
If our ideal is a “free society” then that society would only be justified in censuring behavior which directly threatens the very fabric of society. Thus, while I can easily concede that abortion may be immoral, I would argue that a “free society” (unless there are only a few people left in it) has no stake in regulating it.
This harkens back to my earlier statement that government should not legislate morality. Murder is not illegal because it is immoral, but because we could not have a “free society” if people ran around killing each other at whim.
When you argue morality, you need a premise. Most people look to religion. At the very least, I would argue that when we discuss morality in relation to laws, we should look to the purpose of our government instead. So if we ask whether government should regulate abortion, we should consider, above all, what effect, if any, abortion has on the existence of our ideal, minimal government.
I think I’ll end my abortion debate here.
Hairy Polemic - 04:04am on 04/01/2008
Hairy. Executing crazed killers like Manson and in our state PeeWee Gaskins protect society from being brutally attacked, raped, tortured and killed many times over. In Gaskin’s case, he killed about a hundred people. If he had been caught and executed, 99 innocent civilians would have been saved. Saved lives, a great mantra from the left. Save the children. Yes, save the children from crazed killers.
Chief RZ - 06:04am on 04/01/2008
What Chief says. Hairy, if we decide that innocent human life is not worth protecting at any level, exactly how can we argue that your life is worth protecting at the level it’s at--especially if you become disabled and are not “contributing” to society?
Let’s be real here; the well-being of society is NOT the only reason we protect life, as that sets up a system of “Lebensunwertes Leben” that can be discarded. As a son of Jacob, I’m sure you understand exactly what that means.
Bike Bubba - 07:04am on 04/01/2008
If our ideal is a “free society” then that society would only be justified in censuring behavior which directly threatens the very fabric of society.
A better representation might be a “free and ordered society”. The statement you quoted was not necessarily in reference to the abortion issue. It was merely a preface to another line of argument, but since you wish to terminate your involvement in this discussion, I’ll just respond to your last and final post.
I brought up the institutionalizing of the insane because the definition (of insane) is ambiguous and the way in which these people are reintroduced to societal norms is handled capriciously. This is not inconsistent with the reasons you have for the way society manages those who willfully disregard our laws.
To infer that abortion is a behavior which does not “ directly threaten the very fabric of society” is simply wrong. Abortion is the easy way out of bad behavior and continued acceptance of this form of resolution leads to greater ills.
I concur that government should not legislate morality, whether that manifests itself in acts of bestiality, drug use or abortion. But government must enact rules which deal with the consequences of those actions. If “Planned Parenthood”, a misnomer by the way, dealt with the latter by means of inhibition through prophylaxis that’s acceptable to a great majority; there is no cultural outgrowth. Sadly they have chosen to emphasize the opposite.
Contrary the skill I put into typing:
S/B: disputations
If our ideal is a “free society” then that society would only be justified in censuring behavior which directly threatens the very fabric of society. Thus, while I can easily concede that abortion may be immoral, I would argue that a “free society” (unless there are only a few people left in it) has no stake in regulating it.
This harkens back to my earlier statement that government should not legislate morality. Murder is not illegal because it is immoral, but because we could not have a “free society” if people ran around killing each other at whim.
When you argue morality, you need a premise. Most people look to religion. At the very least, I would argue that when we discuss morality in relation to laws, we should look to the purpose of our government instead. So if we ask whether government should regulate abortion, we should consider, above all, what effect, if any, abortion has on the existence of our ideal, minimal government.
I think I’ll end my abortion debate here.
Hairy. Executing crazed killers like Manson and in our state PeeWee Gaskins protect society from being brutally attacked, raped, tortured and killed many times over. In Gaskin’s case, he killed about a hundred people. If he had been caught and executed, 99 innocent civilians would have been saved. Saved lives, a great mantra from the left. Save the children. Yes, save the children from crazed killers.
What Chief says. Hairy, if we decide that innocent human life is not worth protecting at any level, exactly how can we argue that your life is worth protecting at the level it’s at--especially if you become disabled and are not “contributing” to society?
Let’s be real here; the well-being of society is NOT the only reason we protect life, as that sets up a system of “Lebensunwertes Leben” that can be discarded. As a son of Jacob, I’m sure you understand exactly what that means.
A better representation might be a “free and ordered society”. The statement you quoted was not necessarily in reference to the abortion issue. It was merely a preface to another line of argument, but since you wish to terminate your involvement in this discussion, I’ll just respond to your last and final post.
I brought up the institutionalizing of the insane because the definition (of insane) is ambiguous and the way in which these people are reintroduced to societal norms is handled capriciously. This is not inconsistent with the reasons you have for the way society manages those who willfully disregard our laws.
To infer that abortion is a behavior which does not “ directly threaten the very fabric of society” is simply wrong. Abortion is the easy way out of bad behavior and continued acceptance of this form of resolution leads to greater ills.
I concur that government should not legislate morality, whether that manifests itself in acts of bestiality, drug use or abortion. But government must enact rules which deal with the consequences of those actions. If “Planned Parenthood”, a misnomer by the way, dealt with the latter by means of inhibition through prophylaxis that’s acceptable to a great majority; there is no cultural outgrowth. Sadly they have chosen to emphasize the opposite.