If you're pro-life, how far do you take that?

[vulcanlogician]

We do actually license things to prevent harm, or make us better able to punish those who commit it.

What do you think the purpose of ID and licenses are? Why do I need a lice to fish? To prevent over fishing and therefore harm. To drive? To make sure you are able to operate a vehicle as safely as possible, and track you down if you hurt someone.

I'm sure there are some examples of laws not protecting society and those living in it from harm, at least in intent, but mostly that is the very point.

Also, I never said laws are based on morals. I said morals are based on harm, as are laws. All oif which we are constantly reevaluating and updating... Hopefully.

I think we are getting tripped up on semantics. Some laws are based on "harm"... sure... by why? Because harm is generally regarded as "bad." As I see it, actions that cause harm to persons or the environment are morally wrong. Therefore, laws which aim to prevent those particular actions are based in morality... according to my way of seeing things.

But I suppose one could simply remove the whole step of attributing moral intention to laws which seek to reduce harm, which is what you have done. That doesn't work for me personally, because I ask myself the question "why is it wrong to cause harm?" Ultimately, that is an ethical question for which I have fashioned an answer by contemplating moral philosophy. A person need not go that route in their reasoning to end up at the same place I have, so that's why I say we are getting tripped up in semantics.

***

As for reevaluating and updating morality... absolutely. That must be done. The more information we have, the better moral decisions we can make. One of my biggest problems with religion is that it chains moral reasoning to a collection of edicts penned in the stone/bronze ages.

I see morality like any other thing in nature. Let's look at the solar system. We used to have the Aristotelian/Ptolemaic model with the earth in the center and the sun just beyond the moon, Mercury, and Venus. The model was wrong, but that's because those who constructed them didn't know a great many facts about the universe. However, we needed that wrong model to get to the right one, and (in fairness) that model--wrong as it was--established many principles that pointed us in the right direction (the general idea of circular orbits, that Venus and Mercury are between us and the sun, etc). Wrong as it was, it was the best model we could put together with the facts that were available.

Likewise, we once considered slavery permissible. We were wrong, but as we developed morally, we were able to arrive at a sort "Copernican revolution" in ethics and realize our mistake. Just like facts about celestial bodies and laws of physics made us batter able to construct accurate models of the cosmos, so too will better knowledge of psychology, sociology, economics, etc. enable us to make more accurate moral models.

***

In response to the other detail, I would reassert that there is nothing inherently harmful about fishing without a license. Overfishing is harmful. A system of licensure seeks to minimize the amount of this harmful behavior. But there is nothing inherently harmful about fishing without a license.

[LadyForCamus]

*Popcorn*

[The Grand Nudger]

In response to the other detail, I would reassert that there is nothing inherently harmful about fishing without a license. Overfishing is harmful. A system of licensure seeks to minimize the amount of this harmful behavior. But there is nothing inherently harmful about fishing without a license.

There is...even though it may not be harmful to civilization (caveat still in place).  I say this as an unapologetic poacher, from a long line of poachers...lol. 

[Succubus]

So is there anyone else disturbed by this?

FDA Transplating Aborted Fetus Parts into Mice

Aborted Fetus Parts sound so much more dramatic that foetal tissue.

'I' don't have a problem with this research.

[Succubus]

...But that doesn't change the fact that abstinence in these circumstances would still give the best outcomes and is also the more moral thing to do.

No dear, it's the Catholic thing to do.
As long as I was in Washington, I never met anybody that I thought was good enough, who knew enough, or who loved enough, to make sexual decisions for anybody else. [..] We've tried ignorance for a thousand years, it's time we try education.

When abstinence programs failed to reduce the teenage birthrate, the Bush administration instructed the US Centers for Disease Control to stop gathering data, and also forced them to shelve a project identifying those sex education programs which worked, after they found that none of the successful ones were "abstinence-only".[8]

Catholic_Lady
The Church has a duty to advocate morality, and it just wouldn't be within the realm of our understanding of morality to...

And a few pages later we have this:

Catholic_Lady
Yes to restraint.

Keep the woman anchored to a bed/seat for ~eight months?? That's some sick twisted moral code you have there missis.

Catholic_Lady
...It is unfortunate that most won't follow that and in turn the aids prevalence will continue to increase...

The most recent, and most damning, evidence comes in a large-scale study commissioned by the federal government and released in early 2007. The executive summary states that "[f]indings indicate that youth in the program group were no more likely than control group youth to have abstained from sex and, among those who reported having had sex, they had similar numbers of sexual partners and had initiated sex at the same mean age."[14]

Catholic_Lady
...The message given in Africa was never "have sex without a condom." It was "abstain from having sex." If this was actually practiced, it would have done more good than anything else in the prevention of pregnancy and the spread of aids...

Not content with domestic failure of abstinence programs, President George W. Bush pushed for abstinence programs in Africa (under the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, PEPFAR) in an attempt to ignore prevent the spread of AIDS.[16] The funding ranged from a high $260 million per year in 2008 to the current 2016 low of less than $50 million.[16] The abstinence program proved to be ineffective in Africa, just like in the US: surprise![16] One wonders how many people abstinence education killed.

Catholics don't wonder. They have this book you see.

My highlights.

[robvalue]

Abortion is a pretty unique issue, I think. It's very rare that you have to make a direct choice between giving rights to one entity or another, and the one that doesnt get it becomes completely and unavoidably trampled. It's very unfortunate that things turn out this way, but that's just reality. I wish it could be different.

Thank you RR and CL for your continued participation! I'd be interested to know if any other pro-lifers we have would support the law going as far as restraining women long term.

I have more to say about laws versus morals, but I don't want to sidetrack this further so I may start a new thread on that.

[robvalue]

Some more thoughts:

The world is overpopulated. It's a big problem that some countries don't even seem to be addressing at all (such as mine). Every new person puts extra strain on resources, public services, requires extra housing, and so on. Since we're not just full but over-full, it makes sense to me to concentrate on just bringing in children that are wanted, instead of cramming in every potential one for the sake of it. Foster systems are similarly over-saturated.

[Catholic_Lady]

Yes to restraint. She might hurt herself and/or the baby. In any scenario where someone might hurt themselves or another, we should stop them.  

So yes, restrain, but the protocol for dealing with such situation should also require care. Mental health care and counseling, as well as any help she needs during the pregnancy.

As to the last part, I believe I addressed that in detail on my first post here.

How many people find it easy to get a job after being "restrained" due to the threat of hurting another?
Can you see that such a view would only result in an increase of single unemployed mothers? What could go wrong?!

That's a good point. Part of the protocol should be that this couldn't be held against her for future jobs, etc.

---

Yes to restraint. She might hurt herself and/or the baby. In any scenario where someone might hurt themselves or another, we should stop them.  

So yes, restrain, but the protocol for dealing with such situation should also require care. Mental health care and counseling, as well as any help she needs during the pregnancy.

As to the last part, I believe I addressed that in detail on my first post here.

Are you stating that any woman that wants an abortion is mentally ill?

No. Just that she would probably need some emotional support in helping her deal with an unplanned/difficult pregnancy. Seeing a therapist is always a good thing while dealing with something difficult in life. Doesnt mean the person has to be mentally ill to see one.

---

Okay, so two for restraint now. I have to say I'm surprised, I didn't think anyone would admit to going that far. I find it more than a little scary, but I respect the honesty.

Would you restrain a mother that said she was going to kill her 1 year old baby? Why is that scary?

And also, illegal abortions done by self or others is not only dangerous to the baby, but to the mother as well. The restraint would be just as much for her safety as for her child's.