Discussion on Morals

[Kalfear]

"We need to balance science and Morals" - Bush

BANG it was a moral issue that everyone was involved in from there on. It sounded great but was it true. Does science have morals. well does algebra have morals? Its the people behind science.

 

Those are my thoughts on the matter. can the intellects add on this or any other tough moral issue.

 

Abortion

Gay Rights

UN

Iraq

Blair

Energy

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Morales will always play apart in every topic. And will be argued because people have different beliefs or morals.

 

Just no two ways around it sadly. Abortion will never truely be embraced or ostrasized and polititions will never make a hard and fast rule because they need to be popular to be elected.

UN has different cultures all clashing.

Iraq a short term issue (compared to others) but comes down to religion when all is said and done, and when religions involved its always ugly).

Energy shouldnt have moral issues you would think but fundamentalists will always make sure there is (science really should be able to finalize this issue when you think about it)

Gay Rights, its always going to be a issue. So many different things involved in it that its never going to be finalized either.

 

LOL, I know as I get older (40 now) I start paying more and more attention to this topics and politics in general and be it Canada, USA, England, or where ever, its just a cluster F*. Just gotta shake your head and hope you get a say in the topics that matter to you the most and that common sence prevails in the topics that dont. Course politics being the way it is, that will probably never happen either.

 

Lately I been paying more attention to discoveries in Stem Cell Reaserch. Its illegal here in Canada so I have to wait for news from Europe regarding it, but as someone with a debilitating herditary condition, I blow my top everytime I hear someone not suffering the pain and financial cost of $13,000+ a year in medication cost say its wrong to study these things.

 

But theres going to be two (or more) sides to every topic no matter what.

 

Someone above spoke about gay rights. Some folks are for it, some folks against it, some dont care, and others like myself more concerned with "special privliges" over and above the rights of everyone else (IE: NOT for granting MORE rights then everyone else has). Multifacited topic that will probably never be completely worked out. Courts want the polititions to answer it, polititions want the courts to answer it, religion wants to answer it, gay communities want to answer it. Until one and all of these parties actually willing to sit down and work out compromises, it will never be answered.

[metadigital]

"We need to balance science and Morals" - Bush

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Morales will always play apart in every topic. And will be argued because people have different beliefs or morals.

 

...

Lately I been paying more attention to discoveries in Stem Cell Reaserch. Its illegal here in Canada so I have to wait for news from Europe regarding it, but as someone with a debilitating herditary condition, I blow my top everytime I hear someone not suffering the pain and financial cost of $13,000+ a year in medication cost say its wrong to study these things.

 

...

Until one and all of these parties actually willing to sit down and work out compromises, it will never be answered.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Regarding my previous comment about politically expedient actions being the norm, and linking that to "victors write the history", I see another parallel: the wanton intimidation, blackmail and terrorism being deployed, by extremist sections of our democratic societies, to extort changes to our societies.

 

I'm thinking specifically about "the-end-justifies-the-means", e.g. Against Animal Testing coercion, targeting upstream commercial suppliers of staples like staiionery to legal labs (and even exhuming the body of an woman who supplied animals, in the UK recently), or the fanatic on Death Row in the US who blissfully, earnestly believes that he is doing "God's work" by murdering an abortion doctor.

[Atomic Space Vixen]

(Clever economics? Hmm, it's a bit early to say whether Mr Regan was lucky, made his own luck by being utterly unflinching in his Supply-side Economics, or truly brilliant. Still, it worked, so the debate about whether he knew what he was doing is moot.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've been avoiding posting in this thread, despite some mouth-watering tidbits I'd love to have jumped on, because I've been tired and really don't want to get into some of the endless arguments again, but this one was too much.

It's far from settled that Reaganomics "worked". In fact, in many aspects not only did they not work, they were at best an abject failure, at worst did immeasurable harm. But that depends on how you look at it. There were people who made great money, but any trickle down didn't make up for the losses the poor faced.

So no, the debate is far from moot.

[metadigital]

(Clever economics? Hmm, it's a bit early to say whether Mr Regan was lucky, made his own luck by being utterly unflinching in his Supply-side Economics, or truly brilliant. Still, it worked, so the debate about whether he knew what he was doing is moot.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've been avoiding posting in this thread, despite some mouth-watering tidbits I'd love to have jumped on, because I've been tired and really don't want to get into some of the endless arguments again, but this one was too much.

It's far from settled that Reaganomics "worked". In fact, in many aspects not only did they not work, they were at best an abject failure, at worst did immeasurable harm. But that depends on how you look at it. There were people who made great money, but any trickle down didn't make up for the losses the poor faced.

So no, the debate is far from moot.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What if the poor financed the defeat of the Soviet Union? Is that a reasonable dividend for their contribution during the eighties? After all, Regan did significantly contribute to the end of the Cold War ...

 

(...And welcome to the discussion. )

[Atomic Space Vixen]

What if the poor financed the defeat of the Soviet Union? Is that a reasonable dividend for their contribution during the eighties? After all, Regan did significantly contribute to the end of the Cold War ...

 

(...And welcome to the discussion. )

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not really. Is the average Russian better off than they were before the collapse of the USSR? Most of the non-Chechyens have somewhat more freedom, but in a nation run by thugs and gangsters.

Besides which, it was the rich that were salivating over the Russian markets, why should the poor suffer to help the rich get even richer?

 

(...Thanks.)

[213374U]

(now this is merely a topic I am throwing for debate skill growing ... it has nothing to do with honest feelings.  I challenge the bold of you to "hypothetically" play devils advocate.  You will be suprised how easy it is to support the above point of view.)

It is not so easy to support because it's based on a false premise. While it's true that famine is a serious problem in some parts of the world, it's not true that there isn't enough food in the world to feed everyone, or that enough food couldn't be produced.

 

Not to mention that killing people for whatever reasons (even if they are a burden to society) is forbidden in most countries. And last time I checked, when you eat someone, they tend to die in the process. That would make implementing your suggestion complicated... from a legal standpoint.

 

 

Not really. Is the average Russian better off than they were before the collapse of the USSR? Most of the non-Chechyens have somewhat more freedom, but in a nation run by thugs and gangsters.

I guess that depends on how you define "better". By my standards they are way better off this way. But I don't think the USSR was some kind of utopic eden, so that's just my opinion. And about the mafias, well, with the USSR it was more or less the same, only back then gangsters wore uniforms and addressed you as "comrade".

 

 

Besides which, it was the rich that were salivating over the Russian markets, why should the poor suffer to help the rich get even richer?

Can't argue with the fact that the rich got even richer, but it's true too that the world is a safer place now without the menace of MAD hovering over our heads, so all in all I'd say it was a fair exchange.

[~Di]

Ok, listen.  Pregnancy is not "torture".  Abortion is much more damaging to a womans body than giving birth.  Get over it.  Basically, your saying that a woman can kill for convinence sake.  I can't disagree with you more.  Pregnancy is one of the possible results of sex.  If you can't deal with the possibility of having to give birth, don't have intercourse. 

 

I can't let this kind of misinformation go uncorrected. First, I've given birth to two children and can say from first-hand experience that pregnancy and childbirth can indeed fall into the category of torture! :D

 

Seriously, those who pretend that pregnancy and childbirth is little more than a slight inconvenience are revealing serious ignorance on the matter. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of women still die in childbirth annually, including women in "civilized" nations. Complications of pregnancy and childbirth are a leading cause of death of women around the world.

 

The average abortion is NOT more damaging to a woman's body than giving birth (the exception being a late-term abortion, a miniscule percentage of those performed because of the danger, and nearly always done because of a life-threatening condition, dispite what extremists would have folks believe). An early abortion is definitely a safer alternative, physically, than carrying a child to term. Ask any physician (at least one who doesn't have anti-abortion protest signs stored in the garage!).

 

I don't want to get into a link war, or big argument about how females aren't entitled to have sex unless they are willing to bear children as a consequence, or about how very young, immature females who experiment with sex and find themselves pregnant should be forced to reap the physical, emotional and permanent consequence of their deed (the "childbirth is God's punishment for slutty women" defense), but this dismissive attitude as if pregnancy and childbirth is little more than a headcold or a hangnail that I see in so many of these kind of threads truly irks me.

 

No matter what one's personal views on the matter happen to be, please have some respect for women, and do not deliberately distort and dismiss the reproductive process simply to bolster your own personal beliefs.

 

Anyway, sorry to have diverted the conversation. Carry on!

[Archmonarch]

Hooray for Di!

[~Di]

Another subject touched upon here, and a fascinating topic indeed. Embryonic stem cell research, or whether a microscopic cluster of cells the size of a pin-point has more rights than the potential of a fully-developed human to be cured of spinal cord injury, diabetes, parkinson's, or any number of potential life-threatening diseases and injuries.

 

I'll confess, I find it difficult to understand the other side of the equasion on those who would make research into this incredibly exciting potential illegal based upon the moral belief that said pinpoint-sized cluster of cells, potential human life to be sure, should be of more value than the millions, and eventually perhaps billions, of fully-formed humans who could potentially be saved. Embryonic stem cells, as opposed to adult stem cells, have proven to possess the potential of cellular repair on a near miraculous level. To shut the research down for "moral" reasons astounds and saddens me.

[Kaftan Barlast]

Its all bussiness and politics, morals have nothing to do with the real goings-on in the stemcell area. The very second Pfizer or another giant begins to generate revenue from the research, the christian lobbyists will be kicked out of Washington in a heartbeat and the whole thing will be a non-issue.

 

 

The christian right is a powerful lobby that controls a substantial portion of the votes but even they will have to step back when the money begins to talk.

[Archmonarch]

Unfortunately, with the direction this country is headed, I am unsure whether the pharmaceutical firms will have the chance to proceed far enough in this research to even begin to generate funds. While I do not consider myself patriotic, I am concerned with quality of life. The longer the U.S. waits, the farther behind we fall in this field (and in many others considered morally objectionable). This, in turn, leads to delays in other related fields, and while the rest of the technological world advances, we would be left in the genetic "stone age." Eventually, unless this issue is resolved in a mutually agreeable fashion (hopefully, in the positive), we would be unable to breach the gap between our medical technology and that of other countries.

 

While I do not consider it a necessarily bad thing that Americans (I know; Mexico and Canada are in North America too.) are set to be startled out of their supposed inherent superiority by growing Chinese economic might, I believe democracy should survive as the dominant sociopolitical order. Yet when a group of religious fanatics (of any religion) overtake reason and attempt to impose their beliefs and morals on others, all that occurs is the slow downfall of the republic into a dictatorial theocracy. Already one member of my family is considering relocating to escape the growing religious grip on the United States. Bush and his cronies are a sign of the impending times and I for one am not enamored of his vision.

[213374U]

I don't want to get into a link war, or big argument about how females aren't entitled to have sex unless they are willing to bear children as a consequence, or about how very young, immature females who experiment with sex and find themselves pregnant should be forced to reap the physical, emotional and permanent consequence of their deed (the "childbirth is God's punishment for slutty women" defense), but this dismissive attitude as if pregnancy and childbirth is little more than a headcold or a hangnail that I see in so many of these kind of threads truly irks me.

I'm all for people accepting responsibility for their actions. While I accept that in some cases and under certain circumstances abortion is not only an acceptable but the preferable option, I'm not sure I like the idea of abortion being equiparable to condoms or the day-after pill as an anti-conceptive method.

 

It might be shocking to some, but pregnancy is the obvious result of sex. As things are right now it's easy enough to avoid that result (provided that we aren't talking about rape) without resorting to abortion. If anything, the only reason I can find that would warrant abortion (again, provided there are no other medical reasons) would be to spare the child the experience of having such stupid parents and to prevent that stupidity from being passed on to the child by the genes.

 

And please don't resort to putting words in people's mouths (I'm referring to that comment about childbirth and God) because not everyone that is against an "anything goes" attitude towards abortion is a religious zealot. You can do better than that.

[WITHTEETH]

I don't want to get into a link war, or big argument about how females aren't entitled to have sex unless they are willing to bear children as a consequence, or about how very young, immature females who experiment with sex and find themselves pregnant should be forced to reap the physical, emotional and permanent consequence of their deed (the "childbirth is God's punishment for slutty women" defense), but this dismissive attitude as if pregnancy and childbirth is little more than a headcold or a hangnail that I see in so many of these kind of threads truly irks me.

I'm all for people accepting responsibility for their actions. While I accept that in some cases and under certain circumstances abortion is not only an acceptable but the preferable option, I'm not sure I like the idea of abortion being equiparable to condoms or the day-after pill as an anti-conceptive method.

 

It might be shocking to some, but pregnancy is the obvious result of sex. As things are right now it's easy enough to avoid that result (provided that we aren't talking about rape) without resorting to abortion. If anything, the only reason I can find that would warrant abortion (again, provided there are no other medical reasons) would be to spare the child the experience of having such stupid parents and to prevent that stupidity from being passed on to the child by the genes.

 

And please don't resort to putting words in people's mouths (I'm referring to that comment about childbirth and God) because not everyone that is against an "anything goes" attitude towards abortion is a religious zealot. You can do better than that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You don't get laid often do you?

[213374U]

You don't get laid often do you?

Not as often as I'd like to, no.

 

Now please enlighten me. Exactly, how does that relate to anything?

 

I'd like to hear your opinions as a sex lame retort master.

[Kaftan Barlast]

What I think he's saying is that when you're having sex, stuff happens that you have little or no conscious control over. Nothing that takes place during such heated moments is ever done with careful consideration, its the reptile brain speaking all the way. And you cant expect people to take responsability for something they wouldnt have done under normal circumstances.

[213374U]

What I think he's saying is that when you're having sex, stuff happens that you have little or no conscious control over. Nothing that takes place during such heated moments is ever done with careful consideration, its the reptile brain speaking all the way. And you cant expect people to take responsability for something they wouldnt have done under normal circumstances.

Right. People with anger management issues wouldn't snap your neck "under normal circumstances" either, but if you piss them off, they will. They lose control too and their instincts take over. Does that mean that people with such issues shouldn't be prosecuted?

[Cantousent]

...And, as much as I hate to clarify something I wrote earlier, I'm not in the habit of condemning women even if I think the unwanted pregnancy is a result of a

[213374U]

It was he, the one accused of standing in judgment over others, who offered a shoulder.  There he is... our "religious zealot."

 

"...not everyone that is against an 'anything goes' attitude towards abortion is a religious zealot."

Uh, I'm not sure what was your intent with that comment, but I know mine wasn't to offend anyone. I wasn't baiting... this time. If anyone has taken offense, I apologize.

[Cantousent]

Actually, I added your comment without further word simply because I didn't think I could improve it.

[metadigital]

... I'll confess, I find it difficult to understand the other side of the equasion on those who would make research into this incredibly exciting potential illegal based upon the moral belief that said pinpoint-sized cluster of cells, potential human life to be sure, should be of more value than the millions, and eventually perhaps billions, of fully-formed humans who could potentially be saved.  Embryonic stem cells, as opposed to adult stem cells, have proven to possess the potential of cellular repair on a near miraculous level.  To shut the research down for "moral" reasons astounds and saddens me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, your arguing a utilitarian philosophy over a moral "the end doesn't justify the means" argument -- fi that helps. "

 

Seriously, though, the only caveat I would stress to the aforementioned utilitarian argument is that, in extremis, you might end up with "hedonistic economics", whereby convicted criminals would have their organs harvested for more worthy members of society, for example. (I can see some people in the audience are all for this ... )

 

Another point that is rarely mentioned in these dicsussions is that, right now, there are more embryos in existence than can possibly live on the planet, unless we start mass exterminations right now. (This policy also might have some support out there ...) I guess we could start with all the stupid people ...

[~Di]

Hmm. Talk about shoving words into a person's mouth! :D I never used either the word "religious" or "zealot" in my post. I simply paraphrased a generalized argument that I have heard often around various forums over the years. Odd that everything else I said on the topic was basically ignored, while that one line was singled out in an effort, apparently, to presume I was saying that anyone who was against abortion was a religious zealot. My entire post in context makes that presumption quite obviously false.

 

@metadigital: I hardly see the slippery slope you imply that embryonic stem cell research will lead to the murder of folks to harvest their organs. Then again, perhaps I am one of those "stupid people" you refer to that should be sacrificed for mass extinctions?

 

Seriously, in your zeal to be clever I think your message got lost. I presume, however, that you are not in favor of stem cell research. Certainly you have a right to that opinion, if my presumption is correct. And I have a right to respectfully disagree!

[213374U]

Odd that everything else I said on the topic was basically ignored, while that one line was singled out in an effort, apparently, to presume I was saying that anyone who was against abortion was a religious zealot.  My entire post in context makes that presumption quite obviously false. 

It's true that you didn't explicitly claim that everyone that's against abortion is a religious zealot, but a certain quoted comment was meant to dismiss that stance as the result of bigotry (in this case, religious). And if it didn't then it was just out of line. But anyway.

 

In fact only the last paragraph of my post was about that. Now it's you who's ignoring stuff.

 

And why the hell do I sound more and more like a religious person each passing day!?

[metadigital]

@metadigital: ... Seriously, in your zeal to be clever I think your message got lost.  I presume, however, that you are not in favor of stem cell research.  Certainly you have a right to that opinion, if my presumption is correct.  And I have a right to respectfully disagree!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not at all, I am all in favour of scientific research. Morals are definitely required to temper the implementation of our discoveries into our societies, but they play no part in scientific research.

 

(I was just playing a little Devil's advocado )

... And why the hell do I sound more and more like a religious person each passing day!?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, morality is not necessarily religiousity ... maybe your "Chaotic Evil" forum alter ego is reforming ...? Or is it a cunning feint ?

[Cantousent]

Yeah, I personally was quite a bit confused by the last page. Must be my reading skills. Anyhow, my post was actually directed at you, Di.

 

However, in reading your post and our numbered friend's post, I see that I got some of the wording mixed up between the two.

 

Oh well, my post still conveys my thoughts, but they aren't necessarily pointed at Di.

 

I'm not really sure of your stance concerning abortion, Di. You write:

 

"No matter what one's personal views on the matter happen to be, please have some respect for women, and do not deliberately distort and dismiss the reproductive process simply to bolster your own personal beliefs."

 

Inasmuchas abortion is less physically damaging than child-birth, then I will agree with your statement. ...But are abortions an "easier" decision? I don't believe most women want an abortion. ...Or at least I've only heard one woman say that she was glad to have an abortion and she immediately burst into tears thereafter. (I found that quite suspicious) I've known some women whom I've known truly felt they had no choice. In one particular case, I was just happy I didn't have to make the decision myself. It's an ugly decision to be forced to make.

 

I'm dead set against casual abortions. If that makes me judgemental, then I'll bear the charge gladly.

[metadigital]

...But are abortions an "easier" decision?  I don't believe most women want an abortion.  ... I've known some women whom I've known truly felt they had no choice.  In one particular case, I was just happy I didn't have to make the decision myself.  It's an ugly decision to be forced to make.

 

I'm dead set against casual abortions.  If that makes me judgemental, then I'll bear the charge gladly.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Now its my turn to require clarification: I am sure you are contradicting yourself in the above abstract of your last post.

 

I assume you are saying that most women don't find abortion "causal" nor "easy". I would agree. There are always the sociopaths, but it pays us not to focus on the the extremes. (An estimated 2% of the men didn't feel emotionally bankrupt after the several weeks' non-stop combat commenced from the D-Day landing, for example: nowadays we refer to such people as sociopaths and psychopaths.)

 

My objection to the pro-life campaign is the insistence of these people that their beliefs entitle them to decide how a woman may deal with what is ultimately the most private of all decisions.

 

I still say we should all be compulsorily (reversibly) sterilized pre-puberty, and selectively licenced couples should be allowed to procreate. ...