On moral consistency:
I know a lot of people get upset and railed up about life, death, and choice issues like abortion, euthanasia, and capital punishment. I don’t have firm opinions on any of these issues, for reasons I’ll explain in a moment, but I tend to be liberal:
1. Pro choice
2. Anti-capital punishment
3. Pro-Euthanasia
The Conservative stance tends to be:
1. Pro-life (anti-abortion)
2. Pro-capital punishment
3. Anti-Euthanasia
Now, if you think about it, neither position is very consistent. Liberals (such as I) have no problem killing babies and old people, but we want to protect criminals.
Conservatives want to save babies and old people, but kill criminals.
I don’t know if there is a way to resolve this. I do understand that the issues are a bit more complex than this. For instance, Doctor assisted suicide is voluntary on the part of the patient, while capital punishment is involuntary. But there are some issues where one is inevitable dragged through the requirement of logical consistency, into uncomfortable moral positions.
Here is a really weird one: can you be (consistently) pro-choice, but anti-incest (in favour of laws banning it, not a fan of the practice itself)? Ok, think about it…. We all agree that consenting adults can do what they want in the bedroom. If you’re pro-choice, you also agree that the rights of the body outweigh the rights of the foetus, and probably even have the view that the foetus has no rights at all. So if you are pro-choice you cannot employ the most common objection to incest, namely, that it hurts the offspring. If you were to assert the rights of the child in this case, you would have a hard time defending your pro-choice stance. You simply can’t have it both ways, in my opinion.
Your logic is sound. However, the grossness of incest outdoes anything logic could aspire to.
ReplyDeleteGods, I can imagine it being difficult to come out of the closet as is, but doing it, literally, with your brother is unthinkable!
Besides, both anti-incest and abortion have as their roots a kind of Darwinian ideal.
Incest increases the odds of bringing about deformities in offspring while abortion is a method to avoid very serious life-long commitments, for a variety of reasons.
Having kid shouldn't be a punishment for sex, a kid should be something parents look forward to.
Having both anti-incest and pro-choice can, I believe, work together under logic, if you think that it is good policy to avoid serious and unnecessary consequences. Even if they are at odds with each other, the motivation is similar.
That makes sense. But if you're worried about consequences for the kid, you'll end up restricting the choices of women. For example, it would be logical to also make a law saying that women who are preggers can't drink or smoke because we know for a fact that ths can have long term consequences. Pro-choice ppl have a hard time going down this road b/c they want women to have the option of killing the feotus, so it's pretty hard to say: You can kill the kid, but... no drinking because it might hurt the kid.
ReplyDeleteYour a bad person just for making the comparason
ReplyDeleteOuch! A shot from the anonymous section!
ReplyDeleteWell, you're a bad person for misspelling?
And I'm a bad person for judging.
There, we're all bad people now, let's move on.
As to the drinking thing; that's a tough one.
Pro-choice means you can drink as much as you want to, because you can always "take care of it"?
(Ha, how's that for "bad person"?)
Seriously though, a person shouldn't need laws to tell them not to binge drink while pregnant.
If parents wanted to keep the kid, wouldn't it be to theirs and the kid's benefit not to drink heavily?
And if you know you're going to get an abortion, the drinking shouldn't be an issue.
(not to condone the practice)
I think pro-choice is a topic that should be closed already.
To suggest that anybody other than two people should have any influence in determining the outcome of offspring is insane; with the single exception for the offspring's detrimental health. If the parents make irresponsible decisions and raise the baby, then the state should step in.
(like if the parents are against blood transfusions, drink heavily, watch Glee, etc.)
LV, are you a supporter of capital punishment? or are you like me, someone who wants to allow old people and babies to die, but protect criminals? I remember Ann Coulter once saying: liberals want to kill babies and save trees. haha. It's kind of true.
ReplyDeleteAnon: so I see you're open to debate on this?
ReplyDeleteNo one is killing any babies. That's an extreme spin to put on it.
ReplyDeleteI can see a benefit to capital punishment as an alternative to a life sentence without parole, maybe in some kind of euthanasia form.
Generally speaking though, I don't see much use for capital punishment.
And allowing for euthanasia, much like pro-choice, is more about dignity than it is about life, if you ask me.
To tell someone in a terminal condition to "wait it out" because euthanasia is a little tacky or awkward or, for that matter, telling a woman to have a kid for the same reason, is to deprive another person the ownership of their own life.
It's no surprise that Coulture would condone this kind of behavior, but for those of us humans who have progressed beyond the age of high school taunting, well, a lot of us agree that no one should be able to make major life decisions for you but you.
I don't think it's a spin. In all fairness, late term abortions are basically killing babies. I'm pro choice, keep in mind. But at a certain point, a feotus becomes a baby. And that point is not "birth", It's clearly before: I mean, logically, if a baby is 5 minutes away from birth, it's the exact same thing it is when it comes out; now go back, 10 minutes, 30 minutes, 1 hour, 1 day, 1 week, 1 month. What's the cut off? It's arbitrary, to be sure, but "birth" clearly makes no sense.
ReplyDeleteWell you are more consistent: kill the babies, old people, and criminals. I still think we should save the crimnals... but maybe I should let them die, also. Kill everyone, save the animals!
I don't see the lack of consistency here. You can actually lump the "liberal" agenda here pretty easily.
ReplyDeleteThe first set of ideals you've listed (Pro choice, Anti-capital punishment, Pro-Euthanasia) is actually an "anti-suffering" stance (albeit somewhat abstract).
Allowing women the choice of what to do with their own bodies allows for less suffering in that children don't need to be born into homes that, for whatever reason, are not prepared to meet the needs of child-rearing.
The anti-capital punishment stance isn't really about defending criminals, it's more about the fact that the practice of execution is often unnecessarily barbaric and, in many proven cases, sentences innocent people to death.
Obviously euthanasia is likewise a direct plea to end suffering.
The other side of the coin is also consistent. The Pro-life, Pro-capital punishment, Anti-Euthanasia sect simply chooses to blindly follow a book written thousands of years ago and refuses to apply any logic or common sense to their argument.
That's nothing if not consistent.
However, none of this gets at the real issue you've tried to raise here and that's that you clearly just want moral justification for sleeping with your sister.
Sorry. It's just to going to happen.
haha... I just wanted to show that anyone who is pro choice must also be pro incest. Sorry, all you liberals out there. You either agree like incest, of you're a hypocrit.
ReplyDeleteNot sure about the suffering point. It works with euthanasia. Not sure if it works with abortion or capital punishment. In principle, I would not support capital punishment even if it were 100 percent painless and accurate. I just don't think we should be killing folks for retribution. I can't really defend this point, just my gut instinct.
Also, many people (me included) support the woman's right to choose for any reason, even if she's just being lazy or selfish, and it's the third trimester. The baby has no say. I really do understand why people are opposed to this... but I don't get why those people then turn around argue for capital punishment.
Does one have to be either pro or anti any given issue? Can one, such as myself, simply bow out let the issue be taken care of by those who have an interest? Those who want to sleep with their family can fight with those who want oppose their choice, and I'll just lie in the sun.
ReplyDeleteI think it's a fallacy to say those who are pro-choice have to 'agree to like' incest. We just simply cannot, nay, should not oppose those who wish to go down that road.
There are still topics that are taboo and Alex has chosen to touch upon one. There is no moral argument why consenting adults cannot partake in any activity that concerns only themselves.
Am I going to pick up the call to help fight for this egerious law to be changed? Hells no, that sheite is inappropriate. But, yeah, keep in your bedrooms sickos.
Anon/(TG?, RP?, CM?):
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment. IMO: You always have the option of not giving a shit. haha. I'm also happy with my anti-incest prejudice, even though I know it's not consistent with my thoughts on abortion etc...
AM,
ReplyDeleteYou grasp at straws for lack of a better argument / position. Being pro-choice when abortion is concerned doesn't mean you have to be 'consistently pro-choice' in every other aspect of life.
Should you decide to support pro-choice in the abortion context, do you have to be pro-choice when it concerns incest? Bestiality? How about choosing to be a rapist/killer? (Even if you were subject to the sentences we put forth for these crimes, is it OK to choose to be a rapist/killer in your eyes, because you are pro-choice?) How about racist? Is it viable to choose to be a racist? Is this OK with your liberal senses? (This one is technically not illegal).
Maybe I missed it completely, but I don't see a connection in your arguments/comparison at all. Pro-choice is a term used specifically to denote ones support of the choice of abortion.
pro-choice
adj
(Sociology) (of an organization, pressure group, etc.) supporting the right of a woman to have an abortion Compare pro-life
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003
Anon: I think of you may have missed the connetion. I'm not saying that pro-choice (which I agree referes to abortion) means that there are no restrictions on choice in all settings of life. I'm saying, if you are pro choice, you are necessarily of the opinion that human feotuses have no rights. If they did, then we'd restrict the choice of women to harm them. As pro choice advocates, we generally disagree with any law that would give unborn babies legal protection, on the grounds that this might slip into the abortion issue. So, if we accept this, on what grounds do we then limit incest between consenting adults? The normal argument is that: The child is affected by the choice of the adults. But by agreeing with abortion, we implicitly accept that children have no rights above the choices of their parents to do what they want with their own bodies before and during pregnancy. Hence, the most powerful anti-incest arugment evaporates in the face of this logic. We are left with two consenting adults doing somethingthat we're morally uncomofortable with, but that is really harmless to anyone. We don't normally restrict people's sexual behavior just b/c of moral prejudice. So then I ask you, on what grounds would you outlaw incest?
ReplyDeleteAM,
ReplyDelete"So, if we accept this, on what grounds do we then limit incest between consenting adults? The normal argument is that: The child is affected by the choice of the adults...So then I ask you, on what grounds would you outlaw incest? "
Is the possible harm to the incestual (what that's not a word?!) child your only issue with incest?
If you do your mother, and she is on birth control or you use a condom, what then? No argument from AM, moral or otherwise?
You're a sick fuck! (but have fun)
Lol.
ReplyDeleteThere must be others. I'm only talking about voluntary incest... We could make a pretty strong case against abuse that is probably what constitutes most cases.