Adrian wrote:So Timber, you oppose the death penalty and abortion? Or the other way round?
Neither way around.
watchmakers guidedog wrote: And it works both ways. Those who are for the death penalty are often against abortion. People are strage sometimes. Then again moral positions aren't always going to be logical, they're emotional processes which tend to be held somewhat seperately from intellectual reasoning.
Yup - pretty much gotta agree with that.
watchmakers guidedog wrote:Quote:Moral relativism and ... situational ethics equal ... intellectual ... bankruptcy
I disagree. What proof do you have for this? (apologies for the edit. I attempted to abbreviate it without altering context, let me know if I cut anything relevant out).
It goes to the nature of truth. A truth either is or is not, an act or thought either is moral or it is not, is ethical or not; else, the paradox of conditional absolute.
goodfielder wrote:
Nope. That's why there's no logical connection. In one instance (the death penalty) we're referring to a person. In the other, abortion, we're talking about a foetus not a person.
A mere convenience of semantics. By that token, your work has no value untill the bank has cleared your paycheck and you have cash in hand. Carryin' that a bit further, the cash itself has no value unless and untill converted to goods or services.
goodfielder wrote:And then it goes off into arguments about when life begins and all that and becomes the usual circus of assertion and denial. Ends up going nowhere.
Only if one is given to moral and ethical semantic games. That way lies sophistry, not philosophy.
goodfielder wrote:Why the two are compared is beyond me. Two different issues. Not connected.
There's the disconnect. You make my point. I understand why you've not made the connection; your baggage is slowin' you down and the train has left without you.
goodfielder wrote:yitwail wrote:
here's one connection. a person about to be executed is potentially innocent--reasonable doubt not being the same as certainty, assuming the individual maintains his innocence. the foetus is likewise a potentially innocent human being--given there is no way to establish when a foetus becomes a human being, premature births showing that it's well before actual childbirth.
Streeeeeeeeetching......
I believe, goodfielder, the only "stretch" involved is that entailed by attempts to fit your argument to reality. "A moral precept is valid only in so far as it is not inconconsistent with my preference" just makes no sense.
Now, with all that said, I do not endorse abortion-as-birth-control-by-way-of-convenience, but I support anyone's right to make choices, even poor ones. I am not big on tryin' to legislate morality - a practice I consider somethin' somewhere between an excercize in futility and an advertisement for the proscribed behavior.
I do not endorse the death penalty in any but the circumstance of the most egregious, heinous, clearly, irrefutabley proven crime against life, national security, or humanity (as in the case of warcrime/atrocity). I support, even in that circumstance, the principal's right to full, thorough, and dispassionately objective review and appeal, in accordance with every protection of law and Constitution. For most of what today are considered capital offenses, I endorse life without parole, and without privilege beyond food, clothin', shelter, protection from harm, basic medical care, and sufficient excersize to prevent significant muscular atrophy.
Edit to add: Good points, Linkat - seems you snuck in there with 'em while I was typin' the above.
Edited again to correct a misattribution. Too bad life doesn't have an "Edit" button.
