quote:

Originally posted by Paradox Lost I don't see how any piece of legislation is independent of some moral framework. To determine things to be legal or illegal reflects some sort of moral position. For example, it is illegal to exceed the posted speed limit in a residential area because it is wrong endanger the lives of pedestrians and property. You can spin this in a variety of ways, but there's always a recourse back to the advancement of a moral position, and it is a moral position which has been enshrined into law.

... and that's probably the dumbest thing I've read all week. F

quote:

Originally posted by Paradox Lost It is not my intention to get involved in an abortion debate (I've had my fair share of those over the years), but I feel a couple of points are in order: I don't see how any piece of legislation is independent of some moral framework. To determine things to be legal or illegal reflects some sort of moral position. For example, it is illegal to exceed the posted speed limit in a residential area because it is wrong endanger the lives of pedestrians and property. You can spin this in a variety of ways, but there's always a recourse back to the advancement of a moral position, and it is a moral position which has been enshrined into law. When you advocate for the legalization of abortion, your advocating for the legislation of morality. So it's not a matter of whether or not we should legislate morality, but it's rather a question of whose morality we ought to legislate?

The basis of our law is the Constitution. It is not on any code of morality, for it is for this very reason why the Founding Fathers created our system of government. So that no one code of morality could impose itself on all of society. Speeding laws are in place because all of us have a right to life, in other words, I have the right to feel safe while driving on the roads and not worry about losing my life. Legislating morality is nothing more than authoritarianism and goes against the grain of our constitution.

quote:

Depending upon the underlying reasoning, there isn't necessarily a contradiction in these two positions. If, on the one hand, one opposed abortion by virtue of the premise that it is immoral to take any human life for any reason, then yes, there's an irreconcilable conflict here. On the other hand, if one opposes abortion, but accepts capital punishment on the premise that the criminal convicted of a capital crime thereby looses the right to protection an otherwise innocent person would have, then there's no inconsistency between them.

The purpose of punishment is to deter crime. It is a proven fact the death penalty does not deter violent crime. If the punishment does not work to deter crime, then you must seriously examine the merits of the punishment itself. Pro-lifers should be consistent with their views. If a fetus should be protected because it is a human life, than so should every other human life..

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter ... and that's probably the dumbest thing I've read all week. F

Yes, I suspected you would take issue with this, though I didn't anticipate a response nearly as constructive as the one you supplied.

quote:

Originally posted by Paradox Lost Yes, I suspected you would take issue with this, though I didn't anticipate a response nearly as constructive as the one you supplied.

No problem, buddy. And hey, I'm man enough to admit when I'm wrong. Take 13 USC § 3, for example:

quote:

The [Census] Bureau shall have a seal containing such device as has been selected heretofore, or as the Secretary may select hereafter. A description of such seal with an impression thereof shall be filed in the office of the Secretary of State. [...]

We obviously passed this legislation because it would be morally wrong not to file a description and impression of the Census Bureau's seal with the office of the Secretary of State.

That would just be unconscionable, right? What kind of morally bankrupt society would tolerate the Census Bureau not filing a description and impression of its seal with the office of the Secretary of State!?

I am completely certain that, if we reviewed the legislative history of the Act enacting this law, we would see a discussion of the profound moral issues at play here. Otherwise, why bother passing legislation? I mean, if we didn't have some sort of moral imperative then we never would have bothered, clearly.

And don't even get me started about the overwhelming moral significance of what device the seal shall contain, and how it shall be selected...

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov When the sources you bring to the table in the politics forum are Rush Limbaugh and FoxNews... you reap what you sow. But that's really neither here nor there. I'm sorry your thread turned out political - but did you expect anything else by bringing abortion to a public forum?

The only sources I brought to the table were from yours truly. YOU injected the politics by accusing me of lying in order to make a political point... which is ironic, and couldn't have been further from the truth. You could have simply asked me what my personal take on the issue was instead of making wild accusations about someone you don't know.

Sure I have strong opinions about some political stuff, but I'm not a liar... and you assumed that because I'm a republican that I must be pro-life, but you're wrong. I've never mentioned abortion on any post before, and that issue as a political vehicle doesn't matter to me a whole lot. Whatever direction this post were to go was fine with me... the only thing I didn't expect was for you to come in here and start pointing fingers at me for no reason

*point point point*

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter No problem, buddy. And hey, I'm man enough to admit when I'm wrong. Take 13 USC § 3, for example: We obviously passed this legislation because it would be morally wrong not to file a description and impression of the Census Bureau's seal with the office of the Secretary of State. That would just be unconscionable, right? What kind of morally bankrupt society would tolerate the Census Bureau not filing a description and impression of its seal with the office of the Secretary of State!? I am completely certain that, if we reviewed the legislative history of the Act enacting this law, we would see a discussion of the profound moral issues at play here. Otherwise, why bother passing legislation? I mean, if we didn't have some sort of moral imperative then we never would have bothered, clearly. And don't even get me started about the overwhelming moral significance of what device the seal shall contain, and how it shall be selected...

To the points made above, which had only the most slightly detectable elements of sarcasm, this had crossed my mind upon producing my post. I can only fathom the presence of myriad of dry mandates that you'd be hard pressed to read at length, much less determine the foundational moral elements that govern them.


If only I had included the phrase ' at least some laws...' or ' at least many laws...'

Lousy Georgetown know-it-all's.

With that in mind, this doesn't necessarily function to undermine my initial point; that is (and this is the since modified version), that laws can reflect the legislation of morality. To accept your response in the way you had apparently intended amounts to the acceptance of a 'some laws' conclusion insofar as the legislation of morality is concerned.

Was this what you were going for?

Also, is it not possible to reflect upon the the specific example you provided within the context of some sort of sequence that ultimately leads itself back to a moral position?

Looking at my original response again, it seems I may have biffed up my legalistic example by missing a few steps, though I still maintain the position as outlined above.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov *point point point*

by the way, you're wrong about Palin charging for rape kits in Wasilla. There is still not one piece of evidence to actually support the claim, even though it keeps getting repeated. Read this for full disclosure of the debunking:

http://campaignspot.nationalreview....TM3ZDk5ZGEwZDk=

quote:

Originally posted by Paradox Lost With that in mind, this doesn't necessarily function to undermine my initial point; that is (and this is the since modified version), that laws can reflect the legislation of morality. To accept your response in the way you had apparently intended amounts to the acceptance of a 'some laws' conclusion insofar as the legislation of morality is concerned.

Sure, I think there are plenty of laws that reflect the legislation of morality.

quote:

Also, is it not possible to reflect upon the the specific example you provided within the context of some sort of sequence that ultimately leads itself back to a moral position?

Maybe, but even if it advances some moral goal, do you really think that's why it was enacted? If not, I'm not sure you can really say it reflects the legislation of morality. The moral goal advanced could be entirely incidental.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Maybe, but even if it advances some moral goal, do you really think that's why it was enacted? If not, I'm not sure you can really say it reflects the legislation of morality. The moral goal advanced could be entirely incidental.

Agreed.

It seems in cases similar to the one you mentioned, the determining of it to be the legislation of morality rests upon something of a technicality that is of little or no practical significance, as opposed to something more morally upfront.

quote:

Originally posted by Paradox Lost Agreed. It seems in scenarios similar to the one you mentioned, the determining of it to be the legislation of morality rests upon something of a technicality, and is of little practical significance, as opposed to something more morally upfront.

Yeah.

Really, a particular piece of legislature has to get by many people, and each has individual reasons for supporting or opposing it... so what we can say about what attitude(s) it really reflects is limited.

Say we had a bill to take the bulk of the common law of contracts and codify it in a federal statute:
Senator A: votes for it because breaking promises is morally wrong
Senator B: votes for it because, although he sees nothing wrong with breaking promises, he doesn't want to answer for his opposition later
Senator C: votes for it because following the law is easier if it is constant across state lines
Senator D: votes for it because he tacked on some pork
Senator E: votes for it because it facilitiates cooperation and thus social prosperity
Senator F: votes for it because party whip told him to

There are a lot of reasons that legislature gets in the books. Some are better than others... and frankly, even though I'm not a big fan of morality as a justification, it seems better than most of those. I'd prefer E, and maybe C, but beyond that...

Democracy is so wonderful!