How powerful is the religious right within the Republican Party at the moment?

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I get where you're coming from now, & it makes a lot of sense. Actually, it was rather misleading for me to have described myself as pro-life. I mean, I personally would like to see an end to abortions, but I have suspected for a long time that it might not be good for me to decide that for others.

     Truth be told, in a truly libertarian society, the pro-life thing to do would be to work to eliminate the conditions that generally lead to people having abortions. I believe it was Obama who said that that would be the ideal compromise to be made.

     I guess the lesson to be learned is that pro-life sentiments have a place in the libertarian paradigm; just not in the traditional sense of restricting/outlawing abortion.

[Scam of God]

     I get where you're coming from now, & it makes a lot of sense. Actually, it was rather misleading for me to have described myself as pro-life. I mean, I personally would like to see an end to abortions, but I have suspected for a long time that it might not be good for me to decide that for others.

     Truth be told, in a truly libertarian society, the pro-life thing to do would be to work to eliminate the conditions that generally lead to people having abortions. I believe it was Obama who said that that would be the ideal compromise to be made.

     I guess the lesson to be learned is that pro-life sentiments have a place in the libertarian paradigm; just not in the traditional sense of restricting/outlawing abortion.

And I would agree with most of that. I don't like abortions, and it certainly is preferable for someone not to have one, if just for the sake of their emotional stability, but if Roe v. Wade had never been adopted, we'd have added something like fifty million individuals to our present population level, and we could indeed be looking at something akin to Malthusian catastrophe today.

The really 'pro-life libertarian' thing to do, I think, would be to work towards ending government funding of Planned Parenthood, and pushing for privatization of what really amounts to an abortion industry. That might sound disgusting to non-libertarians, but it would almost certainly cut down on the number of abortions, out of sheer disgust (or cost) if nothing else. I myself would have no problem with this, provided that the rhetoric used - and rhetoric is important in the implementation and public perception of policy - was not overly authoritarian. Moreover, it might help to kickstart the 'personalized eugenics' industry, which I am all in favor of.

It is possible to be both personally opposed to abortion and libertarian, particularly if you are the one considering getting an abortion. It is not possible to attempt to foist that position on others and remain libertarian.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I get where you're coming from now, & it makes a lot of sense. Actually, it was rather misleading for me to have described myself as pro-life. I mean, I personally would like to see an end to abortions, but I have suspected for a long time that it might not be good for me to decide that for others.

     Truth be told, in a truly libertarian society, the pro-life thing to do would be to work to eliminate the conditions that generally lead to people having abortions. I believe it was Obama who said that that would be the ideal compromise to be made.

     I guess the lesson to be learned is that pro-life sentiments have a place in the libertarian paradigm; just not in the traditional sense of restricting/outlawing abortion.

And I would agree with most of that. I don't like abortions, and it certainly is preferable for someone not to have one, if just for the sake of their emotional stability, but if Roe v. Wade had never been adopted, we'd have added something like fifty million individuals to our present population level, and we could indeed be looking at something akin to Malthusian catastrophe today.

The really 'pro-life libertarian' thing to do, I think, would be to work towards ending government funding of Planned Parenthood, and pushing for privatization of what really amounts to an abortion industry. That might sound disgusting to non-libertarians, but it would almost certainly cut down on the number of abortions, out of sheer disgust (or cost) if nothing else. I myself would have no problem with this, provided that the rhetoric used - and rhetoric is important in the implementation and public perception of policy - was not overly authoritarian. Moreover, it might help to kickstart the 'personalized eugenics' industry, which I am all in favor of.

It is possible to be both personally opposed to abortion and libertarian, particularly if you are the one considering getting an abortion. It is not possible to attempt to foist that position on others and remain libertarian.

     Quite true. The pro-life libertarian action I suggested was more geared towards a society where such widespread freedoms were the accepted paradigm.

     Anyway, have you ever read Richard Rorty? I would highly recommend him.

[paul718]

A fetus is not sentient, and so cannot claim possession of rights. 

Is a person in a vegetative state sentient?  If not, does he have possession of rights?

At what point does a fetus become sentient?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then what do you base your opinion upon?
[/quote]

A basic morality, I guess.  If an Atheist were in the wild west, with no laws and no fears of retaliation, I don't think he would necessarily kill, steal, to get what he wants.  Therefore, I don't think common morality has to be based on religion at all.

    I get where you're coming from now, & it makes a lot of sense. Actually, it was rather misleading for me to have described myself as pro-life. I mean, I personally would like to see an end to abortions, but I have suspected for a long time that it might not be good for me to decide that for others.

 

I've struggled with this, too.  Just because I believe a fetus is entitled to a right to survive, doesn't mean everyone else does (obviously), and I don't like forcing my beliefs on others.  But am I supposed to just stand by and let something I think is so horrible keep happening?   

[Scam of God]

Is a person in a vegetative state sentient?  If not, does he have possession of rights?

No, he does not. In such a case, whichever relative holds legal claim over him may take him into his or her possession.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

When it develops the proper neurological synapses that allow for self-awareness. I've read - but I am by no means an expert in the field - this is usually around the seventh month of gestation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"You guess" isn't good enough.

[paul718]

Is a person in a vegetative state sentient?  If not, does he have possession of rights?

No, he does not. In such a case, whichever relative holds legal claim over him may take him into his or her possession.

Wierd hypothetical, but if I hold legal claim over a comatose relative (a relative I don't particularly like), can I walk into the hospital room and punch him in the face?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"You guess" isn't good enough.
[/quote]

So I'm wrong?  Does an Atheist behave morally only out of fear of reprisal?  If there were no laws, and no fear of retaliation, would every Atheist take whatever he or she wants by force? 

[Scam of God]

Wierd hypothetical, but if I hold legal claim over a comatose relative (a relative I don't particularly like), can I walk into the hospital room and punch him in the face?

Does the relative feel reflexive pain, and register it mentally in some fashion? If so, it retains sentience and is protected. Is it entirely comatose - 'living dead', so to speak - and feels nothing? Then yes, you may. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is entirely possible to base an ethos - not a morality, but an ethos - on temporal, transient qualities.

[paul718]

Wierd hypothetical, but if I hold legal claim over a comatose relative (a relative I don't particularly like), can I walk into the hospital room and punch him in the face?

Does the relative feel reflexive pain, and register it mentally in some fashion? If so, it retains sentience and is protected. Is it entirely comatose - 'living dead', so to speak - and feels nothing? Then yes, you may. 

I disagree.  So long as he is alive, he still has rights. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is entirely possible to base an ethos - not a morality, but an ethos - on temporal, transient qualities.
[/quote]

Such as?

[anvi]

I think that deciding the abortion question on the basis of competing metaphysical views of what a fetus is, a non-sentient though living being or a person, is not the right framework to base a woman's right to choose upon.   It's true that, before the 20th week and perhaps up to the 24th week, the cortical neurons of a developing fetus do not communicate with one another and so the fetus cannot be said to have any sort of experience or sentience at all.  It is also true that the fetus has what philosophers used to call the "entelechy" or the potential to be born as a human being and so the fetus must be considered a human fetus.  But I don't think the metaphysics of the fetus, whether articulated by the embryologist or the religious believer, should decide the issue, especially since there are equally valid, competing views on the matter in the context of a representative democracy that is precisely the system that guarentees everyone's right to believe as they do.

The issue is about the woman who carries the child, and what sorts of rights or protections she is entitled to.  After all, for various reasons and under various circumstances, women will feel compelled to terminate their pregnancies.  Some of these women will be very young, and will have found themselves taken advantage of by others in either forced or more subtly coerced ways, or who will, for whatever reasons, be unwilling to reveal their pregnancies to their parents or gaurdians.  Some will be adults who need not consult anyone about their circumstances and whose circumstances will also doubtlessly be quite complicated.  The question then becomes one of the health of the woman seeking the abortion.  Does she have the right to be sufficiently protected to have this procedure performed in santitized spaces by medical professionals, or in unsanitary venues by people who may well be medically untrained and/or unequipped?  The question is not one of anyone "liking" or "approving of" or "disapproving of" or "sanctioning" abortions, but rather one of protecting the health of indisputably living and sentient citizens. 

I have always found, in a religious vein, the way Japanese Buddhists deal with abortions. moving.  Buddhists generally do not approve of abortion, as for most of them it represents the termination of a life that has reached the karmically fortunate circumstance of being born into a human womb.  Nonetheless, when a woman has an abortion, Shin Buddhists in Japan perform two rituals, the first for the aborted fetus, which attempts to secure for it a happy and fortunate rebirth, and the other for the mother, which attempts to provide her with comfort and guidence after the trauma that she has been through.  The attitude for Japanese Buddhists then is one of compassion and not legislation and condemnation. 

But, as far as the truly democratic state is concerned, since it is not in a position to decide among competing moral and religious beliefs in a pluralistic society with regard to the metaphysical status of the fetus, must at minimum secure the rights of female citizens to necessary health care in this circumstance.  I think, therefore, that President Clinton had it right when he said in his campaigns that "abortion should be safe, legal and rare."

[Matt Damon™]

Closing down immigration, stigmatizing large families and stigmatizing having kids when you're a minor/too young to raise them well would do alot to solve our various problems that stem from massive population growth.

[pbrower2a]

The Religious Right has become powerful enough within the Republican Party that it can have only one possible partner: the Corporate Right. The GOP has been steadily losing moderates, and it's only a matter of time that  people like Specter, Lugar, McCain, and Voinovich join the likes of John Warner and Lincoln Chaffee in the political past and are replaced by Democrats. How long will it be before Collins, Snowe, and perhaps Murkowski drift away from the GOP?

It's one thing to bring enthusiasm to the Base, but another thing to offend the political middle, people who don't have strong partisan convictions.