Abortion is None of the Government's Business!

This topic seems to be the most divisive of all (in the media). My core thoughts on this is that the arguments fundamentally depend upon the religious concepts of body, soul & spirit of the unborn. Religious ideas are guaranteed in the first amendment absolute freedom. Government should have as much a hands-off relationship to this as say the 10 commandments being displayed on taxpayer property.

Those people who believe it is wrong due to religious beliefs should trust in God to handle the situation.  I have a Golden Rule (somewhat Anthroposophical) belief that after death - in that backwards travel through the past life - a person gets to experience the other side of life from the perspective of the Cosmos. Hence those who abort will get to experience being aborted in the midst of anticipating the future joys of the mystery of coming to birth! OR, you are free to believe that God judges & punishes!

Those who hold the scientific point of view (or are Atheistic) are free to act in accordance with their own beliefs about the above, if any, and continue on to reap whatever consequences there are in the purely scientific & materialistic realm as well as the spiritual  (believed in or not). Only NOT with taxpayer money, sanctions or help!

Get abortion out of politics & politics out of abortions and maybe the processes of governments will be more civil & perhaps even FUN again!

Tags

  1. abortion
  2. urf
  3. src
  4. surviving residue
  5. item 1535

Comments


Mark de LA says
This idea is about the individual & individual responsibility. Governments try to solve many people's problems by writing laws to cover as many people as possible & then forcing the people to do it according to these laws. This topic is one that we should leave to the individual. We The People should take back any related powers, given government, on this topic. How to do that needs very careful examination.

Mark de LA says
spiritual laws -> morals -> codes of conduct -> man-made laws

Mark de LA says
Opening up the discussion by removing the political polarity, hate & narrow mindedness on this issue will have the consequence that we begin to look for solutions to the original problems to which abortion seemed to be a quick solution.  Some of these are:
  • teenage pregnancy
  • poverty & the lack of ability to support children or additional children
  • disintegration of the family .. mothers without husbands
  • lack of responsibility of men & women with regard to pregnancy i.e. irresponsible sex
  • careers vs motherhood & fatherhood
  • responsible & easier adoption laws
  • maternal healthcare
  • spiritual poverty
Most of these are NOT the responsibility of government. However, We the People are powerful enough & creative enough to come up with private solutions on our own. Just open up the conversation about any of the areas & you will see how many alternatives there really are & how many people want to help & assist!

Seth says
Well i agree that abortion is something that is outside the mandate of government. 

I also agree that as our society develops that we can find new solutions to social problems.  Erasing the assumption that goverment should solve these social problems might just be the first step in creating the mechinisms that will solve them. 

Basically people ignore other people, and their problems, unless those other people offend them.  The positive part of that ignoring is that it is the basis of freedom and tolerance.  Who wants a society where everybody buts their noses into your private business.   These are not easy problems to solve, and i certainly don't the solutions; but assuming that the government will solve them, might not be the best way.

Mark de LA says
Well, that is mostly what I am saying!! The possible exception is the responsible & easier adoption laws. A powerful conversation in the populace is where these things get solved & people get enrolled in solving them. Having more resources & more distinctions to work with is how things get solved. Conversations are easily started on the Internet & perhaps in FastBlogIt !

Seth says
Mark 2005-10-19 09:19:58 1535
Well, that is mostly what I am saying!! The possible exception is the responsible & easier adoption laws. A powerful conversation in the populace is where these things get solved & people get enrolled in solving them. Having more resources & more distinctions to work with is how things get solved. Conversations are easily started on the Internet & perhaps in FastBlogIt !
Yes conversations are essential to solving problems.  Fastblogit is good at that.  It also has some features, (and will have more), that make it more active.  These features move the converation out of the relm of talk into the relm of action.   The intentional tags are part of that.   Having focus and  clarity and  the ability to  erase as well as to write  so that one can see what is there that needs to be accomplished is another part of this. 

Your comment that "having more distinctions to work with helps get things solved" is very true. Continually improving our taggings is how that happens here. 

Mark de LA says
Oops! We are beginning to agree..... must be time to close the item!

Mark de LA says
It is a good idea, IMHO, to keep items to a reasonable length including comments.  This topic has evolved from abortion to how to get things done with/without government and beyone.  I am going to continue with this thought in life as a conversation.

Mark de LA says
This is a fairly cogent article on the subject with some interesting statistics. Statistics are possibly by poll. Item is written by a democrat.

krissa says
abortion is wrong... it is totally against what GOD had planned... u all should b ashamed for what u have done to innocent babies..!!!!!!!!!!

Mark de LA says
krissa 2007-02-21 14:13:24 1535
abortion is wrong... it is totally against what GOD had planned... u all should b ashamed for what u have done to innocent babies..!!!!!!!!!!
This video is just for you, Krissa, for missunderstanding the whole argument! Apparently your faith in God only goes to Man enforcing laws against what you think "what GOD planned".  Apparently you don't think GOD can handle the job.


Mark de LA says
WFB's arguments here support my contention that abortion is none of the government's business.  If it is a moral question to be considered then religion gets into the mix; religion seems to be prohibited to an extent by the first ammendment.  While pondering the aforementioned WFB editorial I was also struck by the fact that Roe -vs- Wade also found a right to privacy in the matter. I ask - Why is does not the right to privacy also preclude the government from interfering with or supporting it with tax dollars & institutions which support abortion.  I say again that no matter what source your moral instincts derive they must remain in the private sector & not be subject to governmental regulations pro or con except where the public safety must trump privacy.

Mark de LA says
That's an interesting point, but I disagree with it.  My argument on the abortion issue is simply that it is an issue that really can't be resolved scientifically.  Nobody can find a soul scientifically nor prove the absence of one by material science.  OTOH, the first ammendment doesn't say anything about religious concepts being used as considerations in making laws: to wit it does day:
source: ... Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

...
there is nothing in there about thinking about religious concepts - the thought police don't yet have that much of a grip, yet!  Also, fyi, there is nothing in there about separation of church & state - anywhere in the whole document! The point is that you have extended secularism & the argument far beyond my original scope. I just used the privacy right to keep abortion private (i.e. out of the government's purvue). If you can do stem cells without abortions - go for it! If you do it with abortions it's probably none of the government's business. There may be medical ethics to consider, though.  If embryonic stem cells are so useful & can actually cure something then the private sector should be falling all over itself to fund it with future profits anticipated; otherwise consider that it might be a boondoggle - another case of getting tax dollars to researchers for job security.

Seth says
M 2007-05-13 11:13:28 1535
WFB's arguments here support my contention that abortion is none of the government's business.  If it is a moral question to be considered then religion gets into the mix; religion seems to be prohibited to an extent by the first ammendment.  While pondering the aforementioned WFB editorial I was also struck by the fact that Roe -vs- Wade also found a right to privacy in the matter. I ask - Why is does not the right to privacy also preclude the government from interfering with or supporting it with tax dollars & institutions which support abortion.  I say again that no matter what source your moral instincts derive they must remain in the private sector & not be subject to governmental regulations pro or con except where the public safety must trump privacy.
Well one part of your logic holds together well: if the government is excluded from criminalizing abortion, it should also be excluded from helping with tax dollars.  Even that is a slippery slope: if the government cannot help a cause that goes against a religious teaching, then it cannot support featal stem cell research either just because some priest says it is wrong.  Now suppose some priest says that all of science is against religion, then suddenly must we stop all funding of scientific research?  But no, that is not the way it works.  The government has never been excluded from addressing moral issues, after all it has criminalized theft and murder.  What it should be excluded from is consulting any particular sectarian authority or belief in making its judgements. 

Mark de LA says
seth 2012-06-12 11:39:30 1535
i just checked and got ...
source: google search for "surviving residue of a copulation"
No results found for "surviving residue of a copulation".
... so apparently you do have the coin.

I was looking for a pronounceable acronym like a Surviving Residue of a Fuck would be a
Surf. I watched a movie the other day called Ondine. I think something like that word was used as a pejoritive for her people as sea creatures. If I used the Unfortunate Residue of a Fuck distinction it could be an URF. ...... etc.

Seth says
source: the essence clipped out of M's remarks above

science tells you that your subjective experience is merely the flow of electrochemical currents within that material world (the nerve substance) & some even think that the "I" or Ego is merely a particular electrochemical experience somewhere in the brain near the pineal gland.

... You know i heard that idea from you many years ago when you were talking bio-chem at UCLA ... strange i have not heard it any other place.

Be that as it may, it is a reasonable idea to contemplate, and over the years i have done so.  I think i have an antidote. It centers around a well known philosophical dilemma as well as from neuron science.  It works out that, and i believe you can delve into the science of the matter as deep as you wish and will find that my sentences are still true, ... no matter how closely you look at the electrochemical reactions, you will never see the subjective experience which they represent.  The only way to see that experience is to be the reaction.  When you see it from the outside as a third party all you see is your models and they look and feel nothing at all like the experience itself.  From that i conclude that the subjective experience is private and privileged to the experiencer ... and its value cannot be legitimately judged from the outside ... as you are doing.

Mark de LA says
seth 2012-06-12 11:36:43 1535
M 2012-06-12 08:18:29 1535
M 2012-06-12 07:41:05 1535
As a postscript, in the context of the material world is all there is, we are all just the surviving residue of a copulation - SRC's or SRF's for short. There is nothing sacred in any of this or us being alive. Birth control is simply a tool to control what's here & what copulations leave residue. If you are reading this congratulations - enjoy the residual effects.
Some have suggested that I substitute the word unfortunate for the word surviving and also include the word hasty before the word copulation. So far neither is sufficient to generate a catchy coin to use on each other.

Well i suggest using just the whole phrase, " surviving residue of a copulation", abbreviation does not help to spread the meme.

Of course it is an abominable meme ... there is no legitimate context  "the material world is all there is" ... because we all have ... first and foremost ... our own subjective experience, which can never be found in the material world. So the meme starts out by chasing a strawman.  Your "there is nothing sacred in any of this or us being alive" assertion which you just throw in there as if it followed from the former confusion ... is every bit as fallacious.  Being sacred comes from subjective experience ... or not ... just as you manifest what is experienced as sacred in your public and private deeds .... it does not come from the  material world ... nor could you ever find it there.  So there you chase a strawman as well. 
If you limit your world to the material world & the material 5 senses, as science does, then science tells you that your subjective experience is merely the flow of electrochemical currents within that material world (the nerve substance) & some even think that the "I" or Ego is merely a particular electrochemical experience somewhere in the brain near the pineal gland. Stick your tongue back in your mouth. Electrochemical stuff in the nerves is not sacred, i.e. worthy of worship as holy in a religious sense.
... now youn can use that tongue

Mark de LA says
seth 2012-06-12 12:44:24 1535
source: the essence clipped out of M's remarks above

science tells you that your subjective experience is merely the flow of electrochemical currents within that material world (the nerve substance) & some even think that the "I" or Ego is merely a particular electrochemical experience somewhere in the brain near the pineal gland.

... You know i heard that idea from you many years ago when you were talking bio-chem at UCLA ... strange i have not heard it any other place.

Be that as it may, it is a reasonable idea to contemplate, and over the years i have done so.  I think i have an antidote. It centers around a well known philosophical dilemma as well as from neuron science.  It works out that, and i believe you can delve into the science of the matter as deep as you wish and will find that my sentences are still true, ... no matter how closely you look at the electrochemical reactions, you will never see the subjective experience which they represent.  The only way to see that experience is to be the reaction.  When you see it from the outside as a third party all you see is your models and they look and feel nothing at all like the experience itself.  From that i conclude that the subjective experience is private and privileged to the experiencer ... and its value cannot be legitimately judged from the outside ... as you are doing.
I heard it recently on the science channel.  If an "I"  is a basic chemical reaction which builds up the whole thingy about subjectivity then it will be someday discovered by materialistic scientists as just another of the maybe quadrillion electrochemical things going on of no particular significance than an ant farting the Star Spangled Banner. It's hard to evaluate something in a material world as it's based on ever changing entropy of random causality. Judgements like good or bad are mere time-dependent agreements within the power structure of the moment.  Free Will is just how the dice rolled out that day & the electrochemical storm of pain or pleasure associated to the outcome; the illusion of will is but one more storm.
 

Mark de LA says
As a postscript, in the context of the material world is all there is, we are all just the surviving residue of a copulation - SRC's or SRF's for short. There is nothing sacred in any of this or us being alive. Birth control is simply a tool to control what's here & what copulations leave residue. If you are reading this congratulations - enjoy the residual effects.

Mark de LA says
M 2012-06-12 07:41:05 1535
As a postscript, in the context of the material world is all there is, we are all just the surviving residue of a copulation - SRC's or SRF's for short. There is nothing sacred in any of this or us being alive. Birth control is simply a tool to control what's here & what copulations leave residue. If you are reading this congratulations - enjoy the residual effects.
Some have suggested that I substitute the word unfortunate for the word surviving and also include the word hasty before the word copulation. So far neither is sufficient to generate a catchy coin to use on each other.


Mark de LA says
Through the Wormhole & Steven Hawking have interesting programs on the Science channel.


Seth says
M 2012-06-13 10:12:48 1535
seth 2012-06-13 09:58:43 1535
Well when there is a plane which has emerged from a substrata, it is a gross category error, to judge the value of the new plane from the the perspective of what can only be seen of the old ... because the values of those planes are in completely different contexts.  For example in Conway's Life game,  one does not get interested in a single cell blinking on and off ... no ... but one can get interested in the gliders that emerge from the substrata of cells blinking on and off.   Another example might be that the bits and bytes, atoms and grains of sand of Africa was not what inspired you here.  Again, the subjective experience which emerges from neuron activity of the brain can never be judged ... or even experienced ... by the most detailed possible models of that activity.  No, you must be that activity to experience it ... or to judge its value.  All else is a confusion of categories ... it is merely an intellectual error. 
Maybe there is value in electro-chemical & magnetic patterns in protoplasm & geoplasm, maybe NOT.  It's all mostly URFs all the way down.
 

Nope there is no "value in electro-chemical & magnetic patterns in protoplasm & geoplasm" ... or at least not any value that would interest you.  What is so very strange ... and frustrating ... with your responses to me ... is that you totally ignore what i say ... yet you respond to it as if your response had anything to do with what i am talking about.  In this case you repeated the same idea that i refuted ... yet you totally ignored my refutation.   [shrug]

Mark de LA says
seth 2012-06-13 09:58:43 1535
Well when there is a plane which has emerged from a substrata, it is a gross category error, to judge the value of the new plane from the the perspective of what can only be seen of the old ... because the values of those planes are in completely different contexts.  For example in Conway's Life game,  one does not get interested in a single cell blinking on and off ... no ... but one can get interested in the gliders that emerge from the substrata of cells blinking on and off.   Another example might be that the bits and bytes, atoms and grains of sand of Africa was not what inspired you here.  Again, the subjective experience which emerges from neuron activity of the brain can never be judged ... or even experienced ... by the most detailed possible models of that activity.  No, you must be that activity to experience it ... or to judge its value.  All else is a confusion of categories ... it is merely an intellectual error. 
Maybe there is value in electro-chemical & magnetic patterns in protoplasm & geoplasm, maybe NOT.  It's all mostly URFs all the way down.
 

Mark de LA says
seth 2012-06-13 14:14:26 1535
well it is not meaningless ... if you are interested you can consider it and if you don't understand it you can ask me pointed questions about it.
You have fairly well ignored what I wrote since I went down this train-of-thought. Opposition comes easy for you when you dislike the content. You took the opportunity to write about what you wanted.  I'm not surprised when I redirect back to what my train-of-thought that you would think I ignored it, because I did. In a material world with materialism as the primary "religion" & science is the primary authority I find values to be impermanent & the end boring entropy.  You can make of it what you like in the meanwhile, but it all ends up that way when you believe in materialism & science.


Mark de LA says
seth 2012-06-13 11:11:07 1535
M 2012-06-13 10:12:48 1535
seth 2012-06-13 09:58:43 1535
Well when there is a plane which has emerged from a substrata, it is a gross category error, to judge the value of the new plane from the the perspective of what can only be seen of the old ... because the values of those planes are in completely different contexts.  For example in Conway's Life game,  one does not get interested in a single cell blinking on and off ... no ... but one can get interested in the gliders that emerge from the substrata of cells blinking on and off.   Another example might be that the bits and bytes, atoms and grains of sand of Africa was not what inspired you here.  Again, the subjective experience which emerges from neuron activity of the brain can never be judged ... or even experienced ... by the most detailed possible models of that activity.  No, you must be that activity to experience it ... or to judge its value.  All else is a confusion of categories ... it is merely an intellectual error. 
Maybe there is value in electro-chemical & magnetic patterns in protoplasm & geoplasm, maybe NOT.  It's all mostly URFs all the way down.
 

Nope there is no "value in electro-chemical & magnetic patterns in protoplasm & geoplasm" ... or at least not any value that would interest you.  What is so very strange ... and frustrating ... with your responses to me ... is that you totally ignore what i say ... yet you respond to it as if your response had anything to do with what i am talking about.  In this case you repeated the same idea that i refuted ... yet you totally ignored my refutation.   [shrug]
Well, your first paragraph & most of what you said is meaningless. I'm sure it means something to you but it didn't come out for me in what you wrote. Anyway atoms running around in circles, regardless of what you make of them - given the timespan of 40 billion years until the black-hole swallows it all is pretty close to meaningless no matter how you slice it - especially to a URF.


Seth says
well it is not meaningless ... if you are interested you can consider it and if you don't understand it you can ask me pointed questions about it.

Seth says
M 2012-06-13 16:38:26 1535
seth 2012-06-13 14:14:26 1535
well it is not meaningless ... if you are interested you can consider it and if you don't understand it you can ask me pointed questions about it.
You have fairly well ignored what I wrote since I went down this train-of-thought. Opposition comes easy for you when you dislike the content. You took the opportunity to write about what you wanted.  I'm not surprised when I redirect back to what my train-of-thought that you would think I ignored it, because I did. In a material world with materialism as the primary "religion" & science is the primary authority I find values to be impermanent & the end boring entropy.  You can make of it what you like in the meanwhile, but it all ends up that way when you believe in materialism & science.

fine, there is no talking with you anymore  .... no reason anymore to attempt to communicate

Mark de LA says
seth 2012-06-13 17:07:08 1535
M 2012-06-13 16:38:26 1535
seth 2012-06-13 14:14:26 1535
well it is not meaningless ... if you are interested you can consider it and if you don't understand it you can ask me pointed questions about it.
You have fairly well ignored what I wrote since I went down this train-of-thought. Opposition comes easy for you when you dislike the content. You took the opportunity to write about what you wanted.  I'm not surprised when I redirect back to what my train-of-thought that you would think I ignored it, because I did. In a material world with materialism as the primary "religion" & science is the primary authority I find values to be impermanent & the end boring entropy.  You can make of it what you like in the meanwhile, but it all ends up that way when you believe in materialism & science.

fine, there is no talking with you anymore  .... no reason anymore to attempt to communicate
Q.E.D it's all empty & meaningless for URF's all the way down. 
FYI, I don't usually argue from the point-of-view of materialism, but enjoyed the sparring this time.


See Also

  1. Thought Means & Ends - the Good, Bad and the Ugly with 88 viewings related by tag "abortion".
  2. Thought Roe v Wade with 6 viewings related by tag "abortion".
  3. Thought about: Gallup: Will Abortion Issue Help or Hurt McCain? with 2 viewings related by tag "abortion".
  4. Thought about: Partial Birth Abortion with 1 viewings related by tag "abortion".
  5. Thought Sarah Palin has Trig problems with 1 viewings related by tag "abortion".
  6. Thought about: wall photos | facebook with 1 viewings related by tag "item 1535".
  7. Thought War on Women - #WarOnBabies with 0 viewings related by tag "abortion".
  8. Thought Imagine a War on Women - Democrats do! with 0 viewings related by tag "abortion".
  9. Thought Obama Carries Abortion Rights all the Way to Infanticide with 0 viewings related by tag "abortion".
  10. Thought Freedom of CHOICE with 0 viewings related by tag "abortion".
  11. Thought Abortion not solvable by the Government with 0 viewings related by tag "abortion".
  12. Thought Earth Week 2010 with 0 viewings related by tag "abortion".
  13. Thought Abortion Postscript with 0 viewings related by tag "abortion".
  14. Thought A Picture Saying More than the Words of Obama with 0 viewings related by tag "abortion".
  15. Thought I Wonder if Wikileaks Would Handle the Release of the Video Tapes with 0 viewings related by tag "abortion".
  16. Thought A simplified abortion argument with 0 viewings related by tag "abortion".
  17. Thought Continued Debate (or NOT) with 0 viewings related by tag "abortion".
  18. Thought My Grandfather's Son - Justice Thomas with 0 viewings related by tag "abortion".
  19. Thought [title (6891)] with 0 viewings related by tag "abortion".
  20. Thought Obamabortion! with 0 viewings related by tag "abortion".