How have your views on abortion changed over the years?

[Antonio the Sixth]

No change, though I've gained a better understanding of where the "other side" is coming from.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I've always thought that the best anti-abortion arguments are coherent and fairly simple, but the moral intuitions that underlie them have always been inscrutable to me.

Aren't all moral intuitions necessarily either self-evident (if you share them) or inscrutable (if you don't)? That's all the problem with them.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Much more willing to ~legislate morality~ but no change to my moral intuitions.

Me too. I bought into that 'you can't legislate morality man!' nonsense a bit in high school and college, so I had some vague convoluted idea of treating abortion like a misdemeanor or something.

I'm glad that both of you noted this. This has to be one of the dumbest arguments in favor of legal abortion. Anyone who really believes that abortion is a moral wrong that isn't outweighed by the wrong implied by prohibition or lack of access has no business supporting abortion.

And the broader implications are horrifying. Relegating "morality" to the status of something more comparable to an aesthetic preference is downright dystopian. It says a lot about our politics that this argument passes muster and carries a great deal of popular credence.

Couldn't have said it better.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I've always been ProLife and I Lways will be ProLife because all life is precious.

All except angry NH women?

[Antonio the Sixth]

But presumably that would be because you think that making adultery illegal would result in a more immoral state of affairs than the existence of adultery itself?

Sound lawmaking always takes into account the consequences, but that doesn't mean it's not inspired by moral principles.

[Antonio the Sixth]

But presumably that would be because you think that making adultery illegal would result in a more immoral state of affairs than the existence of adultery itself?

Yes, but the same could be said of abortion.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course. To argue otherwise is somewhat of a straw-man. The meaning of the phrase "don't legislate morality" refers to the scenario I outlined above, not the position that law should be arbitrary and nihilistic.

The point is that there's no logical difference between "legislating morality" by banning something immoral and "legislating morality" by not doing so because of the immoral consequences it would have. You just come to one or the other side on a given issue based on what your specific moral framework dictates.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I've always been ProLife and I Lways will be ProLife because all life is precious.

All except angry NH women?

Haha. Well, I definitely believe that unborn life is precious, but I also think people can forfeit their right to live in certain cases, as terrible as it may sound.

I agree with this too, but not because all life is not sacred, but rather that the death penalty affirms the sanctity of life by showing that taking another life (or doing something life-shattering like kidnapping or child rape) will be paid for by the ultimate price, thus honoring the life of the victim.  So by having such a high price for capital crimes, we show how much we honor the lives of citizens.

I'm sorry to say, but this just doesn't make any sense. You can't say that the right to life is an absolute and then say that losing it can be the "price" to "pay" for something (even taking another life). If you truly believe that life is sacred, then it must always be honored even when it's the life of a murderer or a child rapist. Any rationalization around that is sophistry.

For the record, yes, that's true of abortion too. I've made that point in another thread and I believe it.

[Antonio the Sixth]

If you want to argue against the position that the law should be totally devoid of any moral framework

Wait, what? I'm arguing the exact opposite. What are you arguing, exactly?

[Antonio the Sixth]

If you want to argue against the position that that law should be totally devoid of any moral framework

Wait, what? I'm . What are you arguing, exactly?

I think maybe you are misreading something? Because if you were "arguing the exact opposite", that would mean you are arguing in favor of the idea  that law should be totally devoid of any moral framework.

...uh, yeah, I did misread.

OK, this discussion isn't going anywhere. My point was simply to reiterate that the idea that you "shouldn't legislate morality" is ridiculous. It seems we agree on that.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I've always been ProLife and I Lways will be ProLife because all life is precious.

All except angry NH women?

Haha. Well, I definitely believe that unborn life is precious, but I also think people can forfeit their right to live in certain cases, as terrible as it may sound.

I agree with this too, but not because all life is not sacred, but rather that the death penalty affirms the sanctity of life by showing that taking another life (or doing something life-shattering like kidnapping or child rape) will be paid for by the ultimate price, thus honoring the life of the victim.  So by having such a high price for capital crimes, we show how much we honor the lives of citizens.

I'm sorry to say, but this just doesn't make any sense. You can't say that the right to life is an absolute and then say that losing it can be the "price" to "pay" for something (even taking another life). If you truly believe that life is sacred, then it must always be honored even when it's the life of a murderer or a child rapist. Any rationalization around that is sophistry.

For the record, yes, that's true of abortion too. I've made that point in another thread and I believe it.

The distinction is that the unborn child did nothing to deserve being killed, other than being an inconvenience to the mother.  That's why I strongly oppose abortion.  On the other hand, Genesis 9:6 is pretty clear to me, and the basic principle is that those who damaged another sacred life to such a degree, in order for society to truly recognize how bad that action was against another sacred life, that person's life must be taken.

If there are special circumstances, then this means that life in and of itself is not sacred. Those things just can't go together. You are saying that life is sacred conditionally on not doing certain things. You're free to believe that, and to justify it however you want, but you must acknowledge the implications. Either all life is sacred, or some lives can be taken. It can be one or the other.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I've always been ProLife and I Lways will be ProLife because all life is precious.

All except angry NH women?

Haha. Well, I definitely believe that unborn life is precious, but I also think people can forfeit their right to live in certain cases, as terrible as it may sound.

I agree with this too, but not because all life is not sacred, but rather that the death penalty affirms the sanctity of life by showing that taking another life (or doing something life-shattering like kidnapping or child rape) will be paid for by the ultimate price, thus honoring the life of the victim.  So by having such a high price for capital crimes, we show how much we honor the lives of citizens.

I'm sorry to say, but this just doesn't make any sense. You can't say that the right to life is an absolute and then say that losing it can be the "price" to "pay" for something (even taking another life). If you truly believe that life is sacred, then it must always be honored even when it's the life of a murderer or a child rapist. Any rationalization around that is sophistry.

For the record, yes, that's true of abortion too. I've made that point in another thread and I believe it.

The distinction is that the unborn child did nothing to deserve being killed, other than being an inconvenience to the mother.  That's why I strongly oppose abortion.  On the other hand, Genesis 9:6 is pretty clear to me, and the basic principle is that those who damaged another sacred life to such a degree, in order for society to truly recognize how bad that action was against another sacred life, that person's life must be taken.

If there are special circumstances, then this means that life in and of itself is not sacred. Those things just can't go together. You are saying that life is sacred conditionally on not doing certain things. You're free to believe that, and to justify it however you want, but you must acknowledge the implications. Either all life is sacred, or some lives can be taken. It can be one or the other.

I view this as a false dichotomy, though it seems we probably have different definitions of sacred.  I do indeed believe that the right to life is indeed conditional upon not committing the worst of offenses, but I view this as completely compatible with upholding the absolute sanctity of life because once one infringes upon another's right to life, then the two come into a clash, and how we resolve that clash does not reduce the inherent basic sanctity of life.

I just don't understand this argument. The "clash" you talk about is entirely artificial, a construct you make that does not follow from your premises in any way.

If person A kills person B, then yes, A's actions have infringed on B's right to life. But it's A's actions that have infringed upon it. You can't say that it's A's life, in and of itself that infringes on B's right to life. Whether A continues living or not has absolutely no impact on whether B's right to life was upheld or not. B's right to life has already been violated - it's too late to change that. The State certainly can and should impose a sanction against this violation, but nothing the State can do will change the fact that the violation has occurred. Killing A certainly doesn't. If you think killing A is warranted, what you are saying is that sanctioning violations of the right to life is actually more important that upholding this same right. Which, in turns, means that the right is not absolute, but can in fact be suspended in certain account.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Your argument is veering close to an "it depends what your definition of 'is' is" one.

Under my definition (which strikes me as a commonly accepted one), something is said to be "absolute" if and only if it admits no exception. You are saying that the right to life is absolute, but at the same time that your notion of retributive justice (whether or not it's supported by the Bible is not relevant to my argument) sometimes requires putting people to death. Putting someone to death, by definition, is an exception to the right to life. Therefore the right to life is not absolute.

Again, you are perfectly free to believe that, but you should be consistent and recognize that your belief in the sanctity of life is conditional rather than absolute. This is all I ask.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Again, you are perfectly free to believe that, but you should be consistent and recognize that your belief in the sanctity of life is conditional rather than absolute. This is all I ask.

I'll agree to that, I suppose.  All I really wanted to do is that someone can uphold a consistent view respecting the sanctity of life while being both anti-abortion and pro-death penalty, though I accept the term "conditional" as you phrase it.

Fair enough.

For the record, I begrudgingly had to reach that same conclusion (although the nature of my conditionality is quite different from yours).

[Antonio the Sixth]

So, was there anyone who wasn't disgusted the first time they heard of abortion?

I was horrified when I first heard about abortion. Then I was horrified by hearing the stories of women who were forced to carry out a pregnancy against their will. It must be nice to live in a simple world when you see only half of the complexity of reality.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Also the way pop culture portrays men as lazy sex-obsessed idiots while women actually run everything is not particularly helpful.

Take out the lazy and it's true.

I have to agree, but the key thing to remember is that it doesn't have to be so, especially since culture shapes society about as much as the other way around.