"Unborn Child"

[Trolldor]

Why do people keep assuming I'm arguing against abortion?

[Trolldor]

I don't like the idea of late term abortions much but it's not up to me to prevent a woman having one if needed.

If that was law, you end up with a ludicrous situation, where minutes before birth, it's legal to kill a fetus, minutes after, it's a horrendous crime.
It's a bit like underage sex. When a girl is 15 yrs, 364 days, if you fuck her before midinight you're a pedophilic rapist, wait a few minutes after midnight and you're a lucky dog.
.

There's an important distinction between law and morality.

No there's not.

[Tero]

Why do people keep assuming I'm arguing against abortion?

It's kind of like me bringing up religion on a different message board. They are a bit conservative so I have to bug them. They think I am feeling empty due to my lack of religion and try to cure me. Why else would I bring up their religion?

[Svartalf]

I don't like the idea of late term abortions much but it's not up to me to prevent a woman having one if needed.

If that was law, you end up with a ludicrous situation, where minutes before birth, it's legal to kill a fetus, minutes after, it's a horrendous crime.
It's a bit like underage sex. When a girl is 15 yrs, 364 days, if you fuck her before midinight you're a pedophilic rapist, wait a few minutes after midnight and you're a lucky dog.
.

There's an important distinction between law and morality.

No there's not.

Yes there is. If there weren't, the banks would not have been bailed out, but all the execs and stockholders would have had their assets confiscated to rebuild the economy... but the law doesn't work like that, does it?

[Trolldor]

But the law does work like that. The law is morality enforced. The banks were bailed out because somebody thought it was the right thing to do. That you disagreed doesn't change the fact that law is moral judgement enforced.

[Svartalf]

Nope, some laws are based on morality, but not all, and the enforcement of laws has exactly nothing to do with morality.

You can do morally commendable acts that will nonetheless be fully pursued under the law, and clever use of the law system enables one to get away with properly heinous deeds.

[Trolldor]

But the laws still stem from moral judgements, they are passed based on moral principles and in line with establishing moral norms within a society.

[Pappa]

But the laws still stem from moral judgements, they are passed based on moral principles and in line with establishing moral norms within a society.

Just because they derive from moral norms it doesn't make them one and the same thing. Most people would regard a 50 year old guy having sex with a girl on her 16th* birthday to be immoral, but it's not illegal and I don't know of any country in the world that has a system of law that would make it so.

Likewise, many things people regard as immoral are perfectly legal. I don't think it's just a matter of practicalities either (ie. it being difficult to codify everything that's immoral). I think there's just an acceptance that morality and law are not exactly the same thing.




* Or whatever the given age of consent is.

[Trolldor]

Right, so because some people consider it immoral, a law is not a moral judgement?

[Svartalf]

A law is not a moral judgment, it's a state enforced norm. It may be enacted because it aims at forcing people to behave in moral ways, but once it's a law, it's applied to the letter, and actual morality no longer has anything to do with it.

Remember, all the speculating on toxic assets that let bankers and their stockholders makeaway like thieves may be immoral as all hell, but it was all perfectly legal, and it looks like nobody is taking measures to prevent them from doing it again.

[hiyymer]

Why are people so adverse to the term? In particular, those that support abortion seem incredibly hesitant to acknowledge that you are, in fact, killing a human.

The typical aborted fetus is very far from a "child". In every sense it is not an unborn child, but an unborn not yet a child.

I often think that pro-lifers are insecure people whose parents really didn't want them very much, so they project what might have happened if their parents had considered an abortion. Giving birth to an unwanted child can be a bigger tragedy than an abortion. The jails are full of those "children".

[Trolldor]

A law is not a moral judgment, it's a state enforced norm. It may be enacted because it aims at forcing people to behave in moral ways, but once it's a law, it's applied to the letter, and actual morality no longer has anything to do with it.

Remember, all the speculating on toxic assets that let bankers and their stockholders makeaway like thieves may be immoral as all hell, but it was all perfectly legal, and it looks like nobody is taking measures to prevent them from doing it again.

And why is that?
Because those with the power to do so find no reason to do so.

The law is not 'to the letter' at all, there is both police and judicial discretion. A recent case here, for example, lowered a drug dealer's sentence because his parents turned him in. That is a moral judgement is it not? It is a moral judgement acted through the legal system at one Judge's discretion.
And if a law is aimed to forcing people to behave in a particular way, that is an attempt to establish a moral framework. What is 'right' and what is 'wrong'.
That law is not an objective system, it is subjective. The judgements passed down and the regulations made, all those prohibitions and incentives stem from someone's moral framework. The recent attempt to introduce a mandatory internet filter in Australia is legislation stemming from somebody's moral framework. The refusal to allow R18+ classification for games in Australia is a result of someone's moral framework.
What about freespeech? A country that inhibits freespeech is called 'oppressive' when it contradicts somebody's moral framework, but the Government that enacted that legislation believes it is justified according its moral framework.
Private drug use is, in most cases, a 'victimless crime'. Nevertheless, it is considered immoral by legislators here and so there are laws prohibiting private drug use.

Law is far from divorced from morality.

[JOZeldenrust]

A law is not a moral judgment, it's a state enforced norm. It may be enacted because it aims at forcing people to behave in moral ways, but once it's a law, it's applied to the letter, and actual morality no longer has anything to do with it.

Remember, all the speculating on toxic assets that let bankers and their stockholders makeaway like thieves may be immoral as all hell, but it was all perfectly legal, and it looks like nobody is taking measures to prevent them from doing it again.

And why is that?
Because those with the power to do so find no reason to do so.

The law is not 'to the letter' at all, there is both police and judicial discretion. A recent case here, for example, lowered a drug dealer's sentence because his parents turned him in. That is a moral judgement is it not? It is a moral judgement acted through the legal system at one Judge's discretion.
And if a law is aimed to forcing people to behave in a particular way, that is an attempt to establish a moral framework. What is 'right' and what is 'wrong'.
That law is not an objective system, it is subjective. The judgements passed down and the regulations made, all those prohibitions and incentives stem from someone's moral framework. The recent attempt to introduce a mandatory internet filter in Australia is legislation stemming from somebody's moral framework. The refusal to allow R18+ classification for games in Australia is a result of someone's moral framework.
What about freespeech? A country that inhibits freespeech is called 'oppressive' when it contradicts somebody's moral framework, but the Government that enacted that legislation believes it is justified according its moral framework.
Private drug use is, in most cases, a 'victimless crime'. Nevertheless, it is considered immoral by legislators here and so there are laws prohibiting private drug use.

Law is far from divorced from morality.

Noone's saying law is divorced from morality. We're saying they're not exactly the same thing, and the distinction is important. Law is formal, morality doesn't have to be.

[Svartalf]

A law is not a moral judgment, it's a state enforced norm. It may be enacted because it aims at forcing people to behave in moral ways, but once it's a law, it's applied to the letter, and actual morality no longer has anything to do with it.

Remember, all the speculating on toxic assets that let bankers and their stockholders makeaway like thieves may be immoral as all hell, but it was all perfectly legal, and it looks like nobody is taking measures to prevent them from doing it again.

And why is that?
Because those with the power to do so find no reason to do so.

The law is not 'to the letter' at all, there is both police and judicial discretion. A recent case here, for example, lowered a drug dealer's sentence because his parents turned him in. That is a moral judgement is it not? It is a moral judgement acted through the legal system at one Judge's discretion.
And if a law is aimed to forcing people to behave in a particular way, that is an attempt to establish a moral framework. What is 'right' and what is 'wrong'.
That law is not an objective system, it is subjective. The judgements passed down and the regulations made, all those prohibitions and incentives stem from someone's moral framework. The recent attempt to introduce a mandatory internet filter in Australia is legislation stemming from somebody's moral framework. The refusal to allow R18+ classification for games in Australia is a result of someone's moral framework.
What about freespeech? A country that inhibits freespeech is called 'oppressive' when it contradicts somebody's moral framework, but the Government that enacted that legislation believes it is justified according its moral framework.
Private drug use is, in most cases, a 'victimless crime'. Nevertheless, it is considered immoral by legislators here and so there are laws prohibiting private drug use.

Law is far from divorced from morality.

Maybe you're not wrong, but the discretion allowable in applying the law is reduced, and if morality was the only reason behind law, then the people in power would not balk at ennacting laws to prevent immoral actions from happening.

[Trolldor]

Yes, they would. The people in power have their own moral standards.