[Trinidad]

phil_20686, on 2012-October-26, 05:27, said:

(2) At trinidad: You seem to think that its `clear' that there is no answer to this question. But this is itself an expression of a philosophical point of view that thinks its not clear because it isnt measurable/scientifically definable.

It is not entirely true that there is no answer to this question -you have given one below. I stated that there is no single correct answer. I cannot say that my answer is better than yours and you cannot say that yours is better than mine, as long as we respect that neither of us is morally superior to the other. And neither of us can say that our answer is better than that of the pregnant woman.

phil_20686, on 2012-October-26, 05:27, said:

Those of us with other philosophical predilections can easily conclude that life must/probably begin(s) at, or within a few days of, conception. The forging of two separate dna sequences into a single unique one is clearly a less arbitary line than any other time between conception and birth.

I'll ignore the flaw in your biology because that is not what the discussion is about. To my taste conception is certainly less arbitrary than e.g. "at the end of the first trimester". But if that were really the deciding factor then the moment of birth is even less arbitrary. Less arbitrary is not equivalent to more accurate or better.

And finally, your "conclusion" that "life" begins at conception is not a conclusion, but an opinion. And, of course, you are entitled to that opinion.

Rik

[gwnn]

1) Yes, as a matter of fact I do: humanity as a whole, including men and women, after careful discussion (discussion not involving strawmen and holy books etc), also consulting scientists, but not to get the 'right answer,' but in case we are curious about questions like whether the fetus can feel pain and to what extent they are conscious (in case we are interested, and I think we should be interested).

2) This is probably a very rare case, but if it happens to be true, the woman is likely insane and we should not trust her judgement. I am not saying she is surely insane, perhaps she was raped and she decided to keep the baby but then suddenly couldn't go through with it anymore or so, or several different other reasons, I can understand this urge for several different reasons although I do not think we (as a society) should let her go through with it.

edit: deleted two or three words

This post has been edited by gwnn: 2012-October-26, 06:03

[y66]

kenberg, on 2012-October-26, 05:55, said:

I am sometimes amused by wording. This morning's Washington Post has an article discussing Obama's standing with various demographic groups. Toward the end it says:



"age out"? This is an intriguing way of putting it. I am hoping not to age out for a while yet.

second that

[phil_20686]

gwnn, on 2012-October-26, 03:59, said:

Yes, I am a man and worse of all, trying to inject some objectivity into moral questions.

In this thread we have already heard that pro-life people are condoning murdering innocent doctors.

And I know that a lot of 'pro life' arguments are just citing scripture which is even more absurd. I am just arguing for an argument that is devoid of subjective experience, emotions, holy books and would explore the issues with defining the principle "do not kill" for these cases.

I don't think `objectivity' is the right word. How about Logic, or Rationality. It is not irrational to look for answers to moral questions in religious texts. If you believe that religion to be correct. Now you can claim its irrational to believe in any particular religion etc, but that is a different point of view. Everyone has to make some assumptions about morality to function in the world, and even if you believe religions to be bollocks, its not clear that the Atheist/agnostic assumptions are any more rational/lead to better outcomes.

I think of religious doctrine as being a set of short cuts for moral reasoning. I hold out hope that one day there will be broad agreement between secular and catholic thinkers. But if you want a secular argument for the pro life position, here is one that I think is pretty strong. Citing scripture is not absurd if you believe that the person you are arguing with is also invested the same or a similar holy book. If I met a pro-choice christian religious arguments would be my preferred method of argument. If I was speaking to an atheist they would not be.

Start out asking "Why is murder wrong", and you might start with an answer like "because it harms me" but then you can kill someone in a totally painless way, and if he has no relatives etc to grieve for him its not obvious what the harm is, and then you might come to the conclusion that "The future days that he might have lived have value, and I am taking that good from him", and if you think about it some more you will see that this corresponds well to moral intuition about killing people, e.g. its worse to murder children than adults, its acceptable to kill in a just war since you are weighing up the relative values of different futures. However, as soon as you say that the value of a life in the present is (at least partly) tied up in its future/potential, then when you ask "when does the moral value of a life start" you will come to the conclusion that the moral value starts as soon as the process of development of that unique organism begins, which brings us back to conception/fertilisation, or some fuzzy period within a few days of that.

Re pro-life violence. It is just generally true that large groups of people arguing about emotive subjects will have a crazy fringe. That is as true of the pro-choice lobby as it is of the pro-life lobby. You can see a (semi) regular update on violence against pro-lifers at prochoiceviolence.com. Famously Eric Henry murdered his grandmother, a reverend for telling him she was pro life and would not give him money for his gf's abortion. Prominent Pro-life Blogger Gerard Nadal received death threats and a bomb threat against both himself and his children. I mean I don't really follow this stuff, I just assume that both sides have a crazy fringe. I mean, I heard that Convenience store clerk is at a higher risk of being murdered per person than an abortionist in the US. More churches were vandalised by the gay community in the early nineties than there are abortion clinics in the US. I mean, I have never personally sourced these statistics, so I will not vouch for them, but they are things I have heard that seem plausible. There are only 700 or so clinics, which is fewer catholic churches then there are in LA, which had a particular problem with homosexual vandalism against churches I think.

If you include beatings, then I suspect that pro lifers have actually suffered more. The few people I know who do regularly picket in the US say that being attacked or threatened (even with guns) by people going into and out of the clinic is fairly routine. In short, while obviously not supporting this kind of violence, it does seem like people have it way out of proportion. There have only been 8 murders of abortionists by pro-life activists ever in the US I think.

[phil_20686]

Trinidad, on 2012-October-26, 05:56, said:

And finally, your "conclusion" that "life" begins at conception is not a conclusion, but an opinion. And, of course, you are entitled to that opinion.

No my assumptions are matters of opinion, my conclusion is a statement that follows from my assumptions.

Also, I don;t like "matter of opinion" as if all opinions are of equal worth. Arguments have value. Opinions do not.

The problem with all "entitled to my opinion arguments" is that someone, has the opinion that your opinion is nonsense and should be ignored. Then it is no longer possible to treat all opinions on equal footings. Thus the ballot box was invented!!! It is our democratic right to "force" our opinions on other people by the simple expedient of convincing enough other people that we are right. Exactly like every other issue of law and order. That is how differences of opinion are settled (or not) in a democracy.

[Zelandakh]

kenberg, on 2012-October-26, 05:55, said:

"age out"? This is an intriguing way of putting it. I am hoping not to age out for a while yet.

It is also misleading. It is generally accepted that older people prefer conservative parties while younger people prefer more radical parties in Western democracies. It might seem logical that this leads to radical parties becoming more popular over time but it does not because the radicals become more conservative at the same rate as the older conservatives die off. Notice that the "senior research associate" only commented about the change in colour demographics and the comment about "aging out" is from the writer. It is typical of such pieces that they mix facts, statistics and commentary together and try to make them all appear equally convincing.

[billw55]

phil_20686, on 2012-October-26, 06:53, said:

No my assumptions are matters of opinion, my conclusion is a statement that follows from my assumptions.

Also, I don;t like "matter of opinion" as if all opinions are of equal worth. Arguments have value. Opinions do not.

The problem with all "entitled to my opinion arguments" is that someone, has the opinion that your opinion is nonsense and should be ignored. Then it is no longer possible to treat all opinions on equal footings. Thus the ballot box was invented!!! It is our democratic right to "force" our opinions on other people by the simple expedient of convincing enough other people that we are right. Exactly like every other issue of law and order. That is how differences of opinion are settled (or not) in a democracy.

(emphasis mine)

In my opinion (heheh), the world would be a better place if that was actually true. In reality, rational persuasion is virtually dead. Almost everyone thinks what they think and won't be convinced by any argument. The portion of people who will actually change their position based on rational persuasion is near vanishingly small.

Emotional persuasion, however, is alive and well. At every level, this is how most decisions are made. Just look at our presidential debates - lots of motivational rhetoric, inspiration, loudness, petty insults, humor, talking over each other ... and very little rational discourse based in facts. This is how the candidates are attempting to persuade voters. They're doing it because that is what works.


edit: phil, I see now that I misread what you were saying.

[kenberg]

About logic, opinions, etc. For me, any argument that leads to the conclusion that a rape victim must bear and raise the child will be rejected by me. If the logic is tight, as i suspect Phil's is, then I reject the premises.

It occurs to me that this is something of a replay of thinking I went through oh so many years ago.I recall, sometimes with considerable detail the teachings of my church but I am a little vague on some of it. There was something about having to pluck out my eyes because of how i might have felt about a female I viewed. I was a serious youngster and I took this seriously. It was a matter of psychological survival to deal with it and I did. Religion had to go, the conclusions were unacceptable to me.

In the Minnesota working class neighborhood where I grew up, most took a different view. Most everyone believed in God, or said they did, and most everyone ignored the most rabid teachings. Very practical. I cannot recall a single moment from my childhood when anyone ever brought Biblical teachings to bear on any item of importance. A memory I find amusing is the preacher over at our house scolding my mother for not getting in to church often enough. She said the services just came too early. The minister quoted "Early to bed, early to rise, makes a person healthy wealthy and wise." . My mother responded with her version "Early to bed, early to rise, and your wife goes out with the other guys". Everyone believed in God, just ask them they would say so. No one let it dictate their lives. I took it all seriously, my mistake, and so I had to give it up.

I like my eyes where they are, and I think a woman gets to deal with rape as best she can and as she sees fit.

So we have to outvote the true believers. From my recollections of childhood, this should not be as difficult as is sometimes advertised. We are a Christian nation as long as no one gets too serious about it.

[hrothgar]

phil_20686, on 2012-October-26, 05:27, said:

(4) Hrothgar: So I am quite interested in this. When I think of mainline protestant theology I think of Anglicanism + church of scotland + evangelicals, because that is what we have in the UK. So I have looked out a copy of Luther's Large Cathechism, which you can fine online at http://bookofconcord...5-ourfather.php , and it says (quote numbers refer to the numbers on the internet for the verses, they are not the same as the text one that I have)

And his small cathechism, discussing the meaning of "give us our daily bread" in the Our Father,

And that was roughly in keeping with my understanding of Lutherans and Prayer, (I know a couple of German Lutherans). Re providence, I did eventually dig up the following quote from "The bondage of the Will" another Martin Luther text

In the US, the expression mainline Protestant has a pretty specific meaning. Here's the wikipedia definition:
http://en.wikipedia....line_Protestant

With respect to the quotes from Luther: Churches evolve over time. I don't think that the Lutheran church feels bound by any particular statements or beliefs that Martin Luther might have had. (If we did, modern Church teaching regarding Jews, for example, would be very different).

In North America, the Lutheran church went through a very nasty schism 40 odd years ago focusing on whether seminaries should interpret the bible guided by historical criticism or assume Biblical inerrancy. For Lutherans, this is a very big question given Martin Luther's focus on the Bible as the only source of divinely reveal knowledge. The Evangelical Lutheran Church of America evolved out of the more progressive side of this schism. (If your at all interested in this, you should google "Seminex").

In any case, the ELCA emerged as the progressive wing of an already progressive church with a strong commitment towards social justice.
Moreover, the original schism focused on the application of historical criticism to the Bible.

Its not too surprising that Church teaching has evolved beyond "Martin Luther said foo 500 odd years ago

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on 2012-October-16, 06:25, said:

i look at it a little differently... if O doesn't stop the bleeding, it's a landslide loss for him... R has made up about 8 points with women, about 3 or 4 with both hispanics and blacks... hawaii and illinois are 2 of the most liberal states in america, along with massachusetts... it's absolutely no surprise when they go democratic... i can't remember the last time they didn't, in a nat'l election... i think you might be giving michigan to obama a little quick, though

Where I live in Upper Michigan, you see mostly Obama signs and we've received only one Romney mailer in October. The house seat is being strongly contested, though, with almost daily mailers and many, many TV ads.

Auto Rescue and Low Home-State Bonus Keep Michigan Out of Play

Quote

Mr. Obama is a 97 percent favorite to carry Michigan, according to the current FiveThirtyEight forecast.

It is impossible to know what would have happened if General Motors and Chrysler had not been rescued, but Michigan’s economy might have been in far worse shape than it is now. The state’s unemployment rate is relatively high, at 9.3 percent, but it has dropped precipitously from a peak of more than 14 percent.

In addition, Mr. Romney doesn’t appear to be getting a substantial home-state benefit, both Mr. Ballenger and Mr. Grossman said.

Looks like Louisiana is solid for Romney though...

[PassedOut]

Conservative David Brooks has a great column today: What Moderation Means

Quote

First, let me describe what moderation is not. It is not just finding the midpoint between two opposing poles and opportunistically planting yourself there. Only people who know nothing about moderation think it means that.

Moderates start with a political vision, but they get it from history books, not philosophy books. That is, a moderate isn’t ultimately committed to an abstract idea. Instead, she has a deep reverence for the way people live in her country and the animating principle behind that way of life. In America, moderates revere the fact that we are a nation of immigrants dedicated to the American dream — committed to the idea that each person should be able to work hard and rise.

On the mark.

[luke warm]

PassedOut, on 2012-October-26, 10:27, said:

Where I live in Upper Michigan, you see mostly Obama signs and we've received only one Romney mailer in October. The house seat is being strongly contested, though, with almost daily mailers and many, many TV ads.

Auto Rescue and Low Home-State Bonus Keep Michigan Out of Play


Looks like Louisiana is solid for Romney though...

last numbers i looked at for MI

President Barack Obama 46.92%
Republican Nominee Mitt Romney 46.56%
another candidate 2.30%
Undecided 4.23%

also, the detroit news just endorsed him... don't know what that means exactly, but it is one of two largest in the state

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on 2012-October-26, 11:40, said:

last numbers i looked at for MI

President Barack Obama 46.92%
Republican Nominee Mitt Romney 46.56%
another candidate 2.30%
Undecided 4.23%

Of course that is the same poll that had Romney up by 3.8% in August.

[luke warm]

oh, and gallup nationwide today had 51% R, 46% O (yesterday was 50% - 47%, so moving for R)... seems to me like O supporters must be a little worried that he is under 50% almost everywhere, seeing that undecideds tend to break for the challenger

[ArtK78]

luke warm, on 2012-October-26, 12:26, said:

oh, and gallup nationwide today had 51% R, 46% O (yesterday was 50% - 47%, so moving for R)

Yes - according to Nate Silver, the Gallup Poll is one of several that have Romney ahead, and there are a number of polls that have Obama ahead. All in all, a tied popular vote race. Not that the overall popular vote is particularly relevant, as the state-by-state polling information gives Obama a significant lead in the Electoral vote.

This post has been edited by ArtK78: 2012-October-26, 12:30

[lalldonn]

Nate's summary on Michigan, including every poll (I think?) he is using out of that state since October.

Michigan
Polling average Obama +5.6
Adjusted polling average Obama +6.8
State fundamentals Obama +8.7
Now-cast Obama +7.1
Projected vote share Obama +7.2
Chance of winning Obama 98%

Polls
FMW/Baydoun Consulting 10/23 Obama +0.4
Angus Reid 10/20 Obama +9.0
EPIC/MRA 10/17 Obama +6.0
YouGov 10/11 Obama +10.0
Rasmussen 10/11 Obama +7.0
Denno Research 10/10 Obama +3.7
Detroit News 10/8 Obama +6.7
Gravis Marketing 10/8 Obama +1.6
EPIC/MRA 10/6 Obama +3.0
FMW/Baydoun Consulting 10/5 Obama +3.4

Lukewarm, which poll or polls are you using to reach your conclusion that it's almost tied in Michigan?

[lalldonn]

luke warm, on 2012-October-26, 12:26, said:

oh, and gallup nationwide today had 51% R, 46% O (yesterday was 50% - 47%, so moving for R)... seems to me like O supporters must be a little worried that he is under 50% almost everywhere, seeing that undecideds tend to break for the challenger

They aren't. I feel much better now than I did even a week ago. What it seems to me is that you didn't read the article linked to in this thread that explains the history of gallup performing very poorly when it's an outlier to the other polls.

[hrothgar]

lalldonn, on 2012-October-26, 12:48, said:

They aren't. I feel much better now than I did even a week ago. What it seems to me is that you didn't read the article linked to in this thread that explains the history of gallup performing very poorly when it's an outlier to the other polls.

I think that you misunderstand the prupose of Luke Warm's posts...

He's not trying to provide accurate information.
Rather, he is building a case for the voter fraud claims that will be levied when Obama wins OH, MI, and the like.

I am expecting some real Florida 2000 type ugliness come election day
(I'm taking the following day off work just so I can watch)

[ArtK78]

I am just hoping not to be washed out to sea before election day, as the Frankenstorm (a/k/a Hurricane Sandy) bears down directly on Atlantic City.

Should be a lot of fun around here starting Sunday.

[kenberg]

ArtK78, on 2012-October-26, 13:41, said:

I am just hoping not to be washed out to sea before election day, as the Frankenstorm (a/k/a Hurricane Sandy) bears down directly on Atlantic City.

Should be a lot of fun around here starting Sunday.

We expect on the spot reports. Maybe the candidates can give us their views .