Gyroscopic Investing

MediumTex wrote: I'm still not understanding why we think that the Founding Fathers and the people of their time were so much more moral than people today.

What exactly was more moral about that time period?  I see plenty of stuff that we would think of as immoral today in the form of slavery and rampant sexual, racial and economic discrimination, but I don't see the additional morality of that time over ours.

Are you really equating discrimination with Colombine, groups of people who shit in the street (wall st protests) and the lack of morals that is rampant today??

Benko wrote:

MediumTex wrote: I'm still not understanding why we think that the Founding Fathers and the people of their time were so much more moral than people today.

What exactly was more moral about that time period?  I see plenty of stuff that we would think of as immoral today in the form of slavery and rampant sexual, racial and economic discrimination, but I don't see the additional morality of that time over ours.

Are you really equating discrimination with Colombine, groups of people who shit in the street (wall st protests) and the lack of morals that is rampant today??

I've already posted several examples of crimes equal to or worse than Columbine that happened long ago.  Terrible crimes are nothing new.  What is new is the way the media covers them.

As far as pooping in the street, you're talking about a handful of people in a nation of 300 million people.  In the good old days when there wasn't indoor plumbing I'm sure that there was a lot of pooping in a variety of places.

What I'm asking is for someone to explain to me how a typical cross-section of America today is less moral than it was 200 years ago.  For example, when I look around at the people driving to work in rush hour, all I see are people who believe in hard work, care about their families, and in most cases would be willing to help out in a crisis.  In what way are these people morally inferior to the people you might have seen going to work 100 or 200 years ago?

murphy_p_t wrote: Do you think that any utilitarian solution is necessarily a just or moral solution? If not, how do you distinguish between the two?

No, but there is a vast difference between protecting a volitional entity enduring abuse, repression, tyranny or torture vs a non-volitional, parasitical embryo or fetus.  I don't know what the proper term is but religious extremists tend to overlay a special hallucinatory "magic" onto what is a mundane biological reality (probably goes along with belief in "Intelligent Design" and abstinence as effective birth control).  Abortions happen naturally or are self-induced in the animal world and I don't see that these religious extremists are all agape over that fact.  But somehow only the naked ape known as homo sapiens is worthy of special consideration.  That's pure hubris.

That's not to say there isn't some moral high ground in making human life sacrosanct, but there are living, breathing, born human beings suffering in agony right now -- today! -- so on a priority list of things to fix, abortion is about as far off as the Star Trek universe from both an empirical and utilitarian perspective.  Religious extremists do not use reason or logic, but faith (fiction) for justification for their coercion.  That doesn't engender any respect for coming towards a voluntary consensus, just stubborn opposition.

Looking at statistics as to the number of abortions performed during what period of the pregnancy, the super-majority occur within the first 3 months and dramatically drops off thereafter going out the full 9-months.  Before the government got involved, the common law was that abortions were acceptable to be performed during the first 3 months.  So in effect, nothing has really changed except birth control.  The anti-abortionists have already won the war if it was ever in doubt, but continuing to go off about the 1% that occur during 7-9 months or so and conflating extenuating circumstances with ease of convenience just makes them look ignorant.

Benko wrote: Are you really equating discrimination with Colombine, groups of people who shit in the street (wall st protests) and the lack of morals that is rampant today??

You don't need a Wall Street protest for people to shit in the street.  Homeless (I hope only!) people in San Francisco do it all the time.  A nice legacy of Progressive Liberalism gone too far.

MachineGhost wrote: Abortions happen naturally or are self-induced in the animal world...

I'm not familiar to what you refer...can you provide a link?

MachineGhost wrote: ...protecting a volitional entity enduring abuse, repression, tyranny or torture...

You have me concerned.

First, can you clarify, is a "volitional entity" how you refer to a fellow human being? (I'm not familiar with this description.)

Secondly, this sounds horrible. Its just that I'm not aware that there is widespread abuse, repression, tyranny or torture. Please elaborate. Is this torture and tyranny at the hands of the government? Links will be appreciated.

He may be referring to slavery or the extermination of the native Americans, I think? It's not totally clear to me, either.

Pointedstick wrote: He may be referring to slavery or the extermination of the native Americans, I think? It's not totally clear to me, either.

Not to be snarky, but are you guys really that ignorant about what currently goes on in Africa, the Middle East and China?

It's more like I'm simply not sure what you're saying. Could you clarify what specifically you were referring to by this:

No, but there is a vast difference between protecting a volitional entity enduring abuse, repression, tyranny or torture vs a non-volitional, parasitical embryo or fetus.

Are you simply saying that there's a moral difference between already-born humans and fetuses in terms of wanting them to be protected by government?

Pointedstick wrote: Are you simply saying that there's a moral difference between already-born humans and fetuses in terms of wanting them to be protected by government?

I don't like how you phrased it, but precisely.  It could be argued on utilitarianism grounds as well.

MachineGhost wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: Are you simply saying that there's a moral difference between already-born humans and fetuses in terms of wanting them to be protected by government?

I don't like how you phrased it, but precisely.  It could be argued on utilitarianism grounds as well.

Since you clearly believe that there is a moral difference between the unborn and the born, particularly with respect to what rights they have, I'd very much like to hear exactly what it is you think separates a child in the plastic tray in the maternity ward and the one in the womb in the delivery room.  For that matter, what's so different about a 1 or 2 year old child as opposed to a 8 or 9th month fetus?  Neither is capable of surviving on its own.  One could argue that the older child is an even larger drain on its parents resources.  Of course, the parents have the option of denying the child those resources and letting it starve, but then we call that murder.  If a parent wishes to deny the unborn access to their resources, we call it abortion.

Arguing strictly on utilitarian grounds is very dangerous.  One could justify any number of atrocities because they were "expedient, efficient, and beneficial to my interests."

RuralEngineer wrote:

MachineGhost wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: Are you simply saying that there's a moral difference between already-born humans and fetuses in terms of wanting them to be protected by government?

I don't like how you phrased it, but precisely.  It could be argued on utilitarianism grounds as well.

Since you clearly believe that there is a moral difference between the unborn and the born, particularly with respect to what rights they have, I'd very much like to hear exactly what it is you think separates a child in the plastic tray in the maternity ward and the one in the womb in the delivery room.  For that matter, what's so different about a 1 or 2 year old child as opposed to a 8 or 9th month fetus?  Neither is capable of surviving on its own.  One could argue that the older child is an even larger drain on its parents resources.  Of course, the parents have the option of denying the child those resources and letting it starve, but then we call that murder.  If a parent wishes to deny the unborn access to their resources, we call it abortion.

Arguing strictly on utilitarian grounds is very dangerous.  One could justify any number of atrocities because they were "expedient, efficient, and beneficial to my interests."

I also am interested to understand the replies to these questions of those who feel abortion on demand is OK. I share the concerns of RuralEngineer, simply based on a very logical and consistent examination of what has already been stated.

murphy_p_t wrote: I also am interested to understand the replies to these questions of those who feel abortion on demand is OK. I share the concerns of RuralEngineer, simply based on a very logical and consistent examination of what has already been stated.

It's really about women controlling what happens in their body. The baby in the maternity ward is not within the woman. That is a huge difference.

As men, we never have to bother ourselves with understanding the nuances of that. That is why I generally stay out of these debates. I would be more comfortable having the women work out what they think is best. Having men in Washington making these decisions seems really strange to me.

The thing is, it goes both ways. If a zygote or a blastocyst is on the same moral plane as an infant, then why can't a sperm or an egg also on that same moral plane? If so, doesn't that imply that masturbation and menstruation are murder? If not, what is it about fertilization that makes it officially a life?

I haven't found any hard answers to questions like these yet, which is why I find it very difficult to take a side on the issue.

There's a very clear and obvious difference between a sperm and a fertilized egg. Given a lack of external interference or action, a sperm will never become a human being. Barring some tragedy or medical issue, a fertilized implanted egg will become a human infant.

I'd like to see some more arguments supporting the theory that location in space is a determining factor in personhood. I fail to see how an 18 inch move is sufficient to turn a parasitic fetus without rights into a human being worthy of recognition.

If I didn't think we are human beings well before our trip through the birth canal, I'd be first in line to protest government interference in women's health.

RE,

I don't really disagree with your assertion that its difficult to identify the difference between a human infant and a fetus very near birth.

However, I think there is a very big difference between an infant and a fertilized egg with a handful of nondescript cells multiplying.

I think somewhere along the way the fetus should be recognized as a human being with rights.  However, you still have to potentially usurp the rights of the mother by dictating what she may or may not do with her body.  It's certainly a gray area, especially in the instance of rape or health considerations of the mother.

Moda,

I'm not suggesting that there isn't a big difference between a zygote and a full term baby.  There's a big difference between a fully functioning person and someone who's in a non-responsive vegetative state.  Both are considered human though and to "pull the plug" without approval would be considered murder for that very reason.  I'm not suggesting we have to keep every brain dead patient alive as long as our technology allows, and I'm not suggesting that we ban abortion in every instance without exception.  I'd just like to see more recognition that nobody knows when we become human and there are only two definitive lines in the sand from us to choose from.  One is birth and the other is fertilization (possibly implantation).  Birth is problematic for the reason I mentioned, it defines humanity by location, which is scientifically and logically nonsensical.  Fertilization is problematic because a zygote doesn't look anything like a human being, despite being genetically whole (unlike a sperm, which only contains half the necessary chromosomes).

I just want us to be consistent in the way we look at and define humanity.  Speaking of the unborn as "parasites" strikes me as no different than the racial slurs used to demonize the enemy in past wars.  It makes it much easier to kill someone if you don't consider them fully human.

RE,

Then you and I are almost in agreement.  I would say, though, the "location" of the fetus isn't the deciding factor so much as the life sustaining mechanism.  Pre-birth, the baby is in a very different state of sustenance.  The fetus's life is tied to the mother's. 

If those are the two most difinitive points, but are both as problematic as they are, I think coming up with a far more arbitrary but far less problematic point of 4 months or some other point (maybe measured by development instead of time) as being a good compromise.  I would much rather see that than either two other extremes, but that's me.

moda0306 wrote: RE,

Then you and I are almost in agreement.  I would say, though, the "location" of the fetus isn't the deciding factor so much as the life sustaining mechanism.  Pre-birth, the baby is in a very different state of sustenance.  The fetus's life is tied to the mother's. 

If those are the two most difinitive points, but are both as problematic as they are, I think coming up with a far more arbitrary but far less problematic point of 4 months or some other point (maybe measured by development instead of time) as being a good compromise.  I would much rather see that than either two other extremes, but that's me.

It's amazing what rational discussion can accomplish.

Having said that, I posit that a 1 year old is no less dependent on its parents to sustain its life than a fetus.  Whether its breast milk and Gerber baby food or nutrients delivered by a shared circulatory system, our young die without care.  If a child was born with a damaged digestive system and had to rely on an I.V., would that impact their status as a human being?  If the shared circulatory system is what makes a fetus "not human" then why not allow full term abortion?

We can agree to disagree, but in almost all instances I think arbitrary is seldom good.  We have minds capable of reason and problem solving.  I think we're better of using them than leaving things like the acceptable time to terminate a pregnancy to the metaphorical equivalent of a coin flip.

To be fair, I don't expect debating on the internet to solve anything.  I find it interesting and it helps expose me to new points of view that I can use to assess my own opinions and arguments.

Moda..I dont' understand how making an arbitrary (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/arbitrary) definition of when human life begins is less problematic. Can you expand on this?

I ask because arbitrary answers are the least grounded in reason, by definition. On the other hand, something which is problematic demands that inquisitive people must examine the problem more closely, rather than surrender their intellect to the unsupported answer.

moda0306 wrote: However, you still have to potentially usurp the rights of the mother by dictating what she may or may not do with her body. 

I'm reminded of my HS civics teacher saying that your right to swing your fist ends where his nose begins.

I don't think a delineation is arbitrary.  A embryo is an embryo until the 9th week according to science.  Before that point there is no characteristic that makes an embryo a human being as there are not that many genes that separate humans from flatworms or other life forms.  So I say we take a bow to the wisdom of the common law, just tighten it up a bit further which anti-abortionists have already done in the debate for over two decades.  There's no need for legal restrictions when public persuasion has worked in a safer manner.

"Parasite" is probably not that right term to be using since born children are still parasitical, but the point is that one must define which right will be surmost in all cases.  The way society operates most effectively, it has to be objective private property.  Otherwise we rapidly wind up with tyrannical regimes like Sharia law where vast segments of the population have no rights at all for sake of a faith-based theoretical.

You do realize the embryo still has the same genetic structure it will as an adult? Using the term "embryo" as justification for termination is no different than "fetus."

Still arbitrary. Why don't you try defining what makes a human. It sounds like you base it on physical features like arms and legs. Should the amputees of the world be worried?

If I go down that road it would make abortion absolute in all cases, because under no circumstance is a zygote, embryo or fetus a human being distinct from all the other mammals and animals.  What makes us human is only evident post-birth and in some cases not at all, but we don't terminate those lives because they're independent, volitional entities unlike the pre-born.

If the soul doesn't implant in a fetus until the moment of birth, would that make abortion acceptable to religious extremists?

I'm still unclear as to what you think defines a human being. I'm even more curious since it seems to be some magical event associated with a trip down a birth canal.

I'm not particularly religious and would be hard pressed to speak for the "extremists." If a person could restructure their beliefs to circumvent an issue, your solution might work. It isn't likely though.

Until I understand your definition of human I can't debate the issue. The point at which we become human is the central issue of the abortion debate. If we are human early, it's murder. If not until birth, it's improper governmental intrusion.