Abortion

[Ruthless Logic]

The topic of abortion is clearly loaded with the same range of emotions that are embedded within the individual (baby) that is at risk from the procedure. Although the topic can be argued from various points of view, everyone respects and understands the concept of seniority and the rights and privileges that are extended. The consideration process pertaining to abortion leads the discussion as far upstream towards the head-water issue as humanly conceivable. Based on this approach, the evolutionary process needs to occur unhindered from the short-sighted influence of constrained minds, and the puny reasons that drive them. The ability to have the cognitive pursuit of self-interest indulgence comes directly from the evolutionary processes and the subsequent achieved intellectual benchmarks, and nobody has the individual right to impede the very procedure that provided the ability to exist (its kinda like I want to receive, but NOT give). The leading edge of the evolutionary process occurs when the female egg and the male sperm merge, and consequently offers the empirically measurable example of maximum seniority as it pertains to the omnipotent process of evolution, and the inherent unpredictable direction the process will take the development of the Human Being.

[Zetetic11235]

So what do you propose? That once the zygote is formed, nothing shall be done to impeed on its progression towards becoming a fully developed human infant unless a life of more established value(the mothers) is at stake? Or that we simply risk allowing the birth of the child, since abortion gurantees one death, and keeping it allows for the possibility of both beings to live, but also both to die? It is not unheard of for the mother to die with the baby during child birth if there are certain complications.

The problem with this topic is that our lack of control of the situations make it quite difficult to be objective. We could play this on probablities in order that we minimize average loss, I am all in favor of that. Take into consideration the probability in each circumstance and take what ever measure is most likely to give the best outcome, or perhapse an acceptable outcome if likelyhood for it is very much higher that the chance for the best outcome. If we form the system taking the best outcome as both lives preserved, and the worst both lives lost, the second worst, a motherless child, as it intrinsically increases the chance of the child to be successful and normal, the second best a live woman and dead infant, as we keep a know value in lieu of an unknown. This seems like the most reasonable ranking keeping life to be most important outcome.

If we could manipulate the outcome based upon the probabilities we could assign a likely success rate to the child given its circumstances and determine which is the best outcome that we could near guarantee, and order their likelyhood. It might work, it might not. All of the measures are pretty subjective though, and statistics are not well used as the possible variables cannot all be properly accounted for.

I think as a rule of thumb, there should be minimal federal government interference. Allow the states to decide and repeal Roe V Wade. The federal government is a sprawling beurocratic behemoth, it would be best to allow certain populations to allow or disallow the choice. This way you can choose to live whith the laws which you can live with.

There is a caveat for this also, it builds regional tension. The more decentralized a government, the more differences there are among its constituent parts, and the less cohesive it is.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Ruthless Logic

nobody has the individual right to impede the very procedure that provided the ability to exist

Does this mean we do not have the individual right to use birth control either?

The leading edge of the evolutionary process occurs when the female egg and the male sperm merge

That's absolutely 100% incorrect. The determinant of evolution is the ability of an individual to reproduce. Individuals with less reproductive fitness will make a lower genetic contribution to subsequent generations. Fertilization is NOT the major determinant or "leading edge" of evolution, because the selective forces only BEGIN to operate at this point.

and consequently offers the empirically measurable example of maximum seniority

Seniority is not a concept in evolutionary biology.

as it pertains to the omnipotent process of evolution

You may be attempting a poetic use of the word here, but come on, evolution is not omnipotent. It is constrained by the large but FINITE number of DNA sequence variations that are compatible with gestation, life, and reproduction.

Originally Posted by Zetetic11235

Allow the states to decide and repeal Roe V Wade. The federal government is a sprawling beurocratic behemoth, it would be best to allow certain populations to allow or disallow the choice. This way you can choose to live whith the laws which you can live with.

Well, first of all, as I'm sure you know, a state cannot repeal a Supreme Court decision. But be that as it may, if every state except West Virginia decides to ban abortion, then people will just go to West Virginia to get the procedure. That's exactly what has happened with gay marriage -- gay couples who want to marry travel to the state where it's legal. When the Bush administration put all kinds of restrictions on NIH funding for stem cell research, California introduced its own intramural funding for it -- and guess what -- scientists began to move to California to do their research. That's what happens when states differ in some policies.

[Zetetic11235]

Aedes, I am fully aware of all of what you are saying, I hold the libertarian view that fedral government should be far more strictly limited than it is and I think that the grouping of people in different states due to more customized law structure is good. I think that the federal government should only regulate what only it can regulate, it shall keep all people on basic equal terms, it shall take care of the interstate, provide a military, take in federal taxes according to reasonable federal need, and avoid social matters. Furthermore, I think that the most libertarian, in view of the anti-central paranoia that many of the founding fathers had, interpretation of the constitution should be the only one considered.

There should be no federal limitation of rights where no rights of others are interfered with in the actoins commited. There should be no federal intervention in school, nor in consumption of goods/services of any type whatsoever! A sprawling governmental behemoth with overtones of plutocracy is what we have now, its tendrils reaching into every facet of human life! If West Virginians don't want abortion, the people who want an abortion can move to new york and live under New York Law. The social issues must be made only and directly by the people who live in the state. A grand forced unification of values by government intervention is oppressive. A bare bones federal government is the only acceptable kind in my view, and such a government shall hold no role in abortion laws, drug laws, sex laws, social issues such as gay marraige or anything of the sort! To force group of people by law to subject themselfs to the will of the minority is just as oppressive as allowing total majority rule.

To invtervene on a social issue, to force upon anyone a social quota to further a social agenda, liberal, conservative it doesn't matter, is tyranny. It is not the government's place to promote social tolerance. It is the place of the poeple to tell the government what it shall do socially and the place of the government to accept that.

If we simply realized that it is tyrannous to force social laws and quotas upon the people, the issues would dissolve and majority rule would take its rightful place in social matters.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Zetetic11235

There should be no federal limitation of rights where no rights of others are interfered with in the actoins commited.

So the anti-abortion perspective could argue that the rights of the unborn are threatened without regulation. And the pro-choice could argue that the rights of women are threatened without protection. That brings up a more general problem with strict adherence to the Constitution -- you can rationally make many contrasting arguments based on your interpretation, and still remain faithful to the text.

If West Virginians don't want abortion, the people who want an abortion can move to new york and live under New York Law.

Or they can live in West Virginia, drive 8 hours to NYC to go see an opera at the Met, have sushi at Blue Water Grill in Union Square, have an abortion, and drive home.

To invtervene on a social issue, to force upon anyone a social quota to further a social agenda, liberal, conservative it doesn't matter, is tyranny. It is not the government's place to promote social tolerance.

So are you opposed to civil rights? Women's suffrage? Labor laws? Public health? Can you imagine this society? Are you happy to accept a society in which it is perfectly legal to exclude blacks from education, jobs, equal pay, health care, etc?

If we simply realized that it is tyrannous to force social laws and quotas upon the people, the issues would dissolve and majority rule would take its rightful place in social matters.

The majority is actually pretty ignorant and dumb most of the time, and it is often willing to accept terrible societal prejudices until the victims get it together and advocate for themselves.

[Didymos Thomas]

The majority is actually pretty ignorant and dumb most of the time, and it is often willing to accept terrible societal prejudices until the victims get it together and advocate for themselves.

Which is why, initially, only land-owning white males over 21 could vote. Keep the masses out of the process.

[Aedes]

Yup. Without federal protections for people who are too female or too black or too uneducated or too handicapped or too poor, the power in this country would collapse into a small elite oligarchy -- kind of like the plantation communities in the antebellum South. And what is worse for individual liberty than for it to only exist in the hands of the very very few and privileged??

[Didymos Thomas]

Isn't that the truth. I'm a huge Jefferson fanboy - but there are clear problems with his political philosophy.

[Zetetic11235]

There has to be a better balance, the federal government too often circumnavigates the will of the people. Look at the bills which have been shot down when congress has tried to sneak them in behind our backs thanks to internet leaks! Where does tyranny of the majority end and tyranny of minority begin? When I must hire a set quota of peoples with certain racial profiles to keep my business? How often must the trust of the people be abused by spending our tax dollars on wellfare for noncitizens who are then defended by the ACLU in our courts?

Besides, do you not think we live in a bit of an oligarchy anyway? Look at the number of skull and bones buddies and 3rd cousins are vieing for their turn at the White House. Look at who is a member of the CFR or the TRILATERALCOMMISSION and look at the history of these groups. Also, don't forget the Bilderberg group. Look at who has the money to fund the campaigns for these mediocre hacks.

The way campaigns are funded is corrupt. There is no way an intelligent person of low-moderate income or even moderate wealth could campaign! The two party system has quite a successful strangle hold on the entire proccess.

The time is long gone when the citizen statesmen were in it for duty to their country. You fear living in some sort of oligarchy where the rich are the ones in power and the poor can never hope to lead? Take a look around.

[Aedes]

I'm not idealizing our society. But it's a hell of a lot better than it was 100 years ago. You think corporations run America now? Do the names Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Vanderbilt ring a bell?