Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] Super Bowl

[Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Christian M. Cepel wrote:

> Mike Miller wrote:
> > I'm sure they have some good ideas but for all the wrong reasons.  For 
> > example, one might oppose sex before marriage because of sexually 
> > transmitted diseases, unwanted pregnancies, and other good reasons 
> > (emotional, social, etc.), but not "because God says so!"  I also would 
> > oppose laws prohibiting sex before marriage.  That doesn't mean that I 
> > think sex before marriage is a good idea.  In fact, if I were to be a 
> > leader of a social movement, one of my rules would be "no sex before 
> > marriage."
>
> Ah, but all your reasons are those of social conservatives as well.... 
> oh.. and that God thing added in :)

If they want a "no sex before marriage" rule for pragmatic reasons, I 
haven't heard them say so.  What I've heard has been 100% driven by 
religion.


> > So I differ from most social conservatives on the reasons for social 
> > rules and I differ with them on what should be put into law.  It might 
> > be good, for example, to have a rule against abortions for birth 
> > control (but allowing abortion for severe defects, health of the 
> > mother, etc.),
>
> Far and away, the majority of social conservatives (those with their 
> heads on straight) are right there with you on this one.

They are a silent group.  We hear from whacked-out religious extremists 
all the time.  Are the social conservatives afraid of those people or 
something?


> > but I wouldn't make a law restricting abortion rights.
>
> But of course they would as just not wanting it to be abused for birth 
> control wouldn't change the state of abortion on demand of things one 
> iota.

You can change people just by telling them what you think is right.  Most 
of what we do day-to-day is not driven by avoidance of breaking the law. 
A lot of it is social conformity though, that and behaving in accordance 
with our self-descriptions, stuff like that.


> > Not everyone will like my rules, so let them live their way while we 
> > live our way.  In the end, the best rules win.
>
> As a person with Libertarian leanings, I agree with this, but it doesn't 
> extend to cover what I consider to be one person murdering another.

I don't see it as murder...


> I consider a fetus with a heartbeat (especially if it has reached 
> viability) to be a person.

The viability aspect should be much more central, I think.  The way you 
write it, viability is more of an afterthought.  The heartbeat starts very 
early in pregnancy (probably before the mother knows she's pregnant), and 
I don't see any logical reason why the heartbeat should be important.


> I don't condone murder and insist on having laws against it (as do most 
> libertarians), I consider abortion after 24 days (and especially later) 
> to be murder, and I don't condone that either.

There are a number of problems with that idea.  One is that you seem to be 
saying that abortion at 23 days is just fine, not a crime, but abortion at 
25 days is homicide - the most serious crime on the books.  That creates 
tons of problems.  It is unnecessary to set up such a tricky legal 
situation and it is also not possible, in my view, to present a strong 
argument for a cutoff at 24 days.  The growth process is pretty continuous 
after the first few days.  At somewhere around 20 weeks viability becomes 
a possibility.  If someone wanted a law against abortion after 20 weeks 
gestation except in cases where the health of the mother was in jeopardy 
or the fetus was severely ill/deformed/whatever, then I'd be totally fine 
with that law.  I haven't been hearing much talk about such things.  It 
would make logical sense to argue against killing a viable fetus, so I 
don't have a problem with arguments based on viability.


> Now if the health of the mother is in jeopardy, it would then not be 
> murder, but more along the lines of self-defense.

We agree about the implications of the health of the mother.

Mike

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion