Thursday, January 06, 2005

Anonymous said...
am I corect in my understanding here that you DO infact agree with abortion in a common law sense? IE you agree that it should be legal to have an abortion.

Purposefully Neutral?

At this stage in the common law sense, if I was to respond to a survey, I would still put myself in the "undecided" camp. This means I am still open to intellectual argument from both sides. In an econometric sense, I don't have any doubt that legal abortions as it stands in Australia are "beneficial" as they are. I also think that the pre Rowe vs Wade USA had started to spiral towards moral warfare which would have defeated the point of prohibition in the first place. If anti-abortionists start to think that it is ok to have collateral deaths in their war against abortion, I don't think there would be a net gain for morality. I think the right way to fight abortion is by prayerful & peaceful protest. A reduction in abortions due to people deciding individually against them is a lot more valuable in all ways than with reduced "choice" to the individual with all the power in the mother/child relationship. I think my emotional investment in this issue must be very low, since I can talk impartially about it. My intellectual investment, however, is gradually increasing.

2 comments:

Dr. Clam said...

Just like there was no net moral gain from all the collateral deaths to oust Hitler, I expect. O Tempora! O Mores! It is indisputable that men who kill a thousand babies a year should be hanged, higher than Haman.

Dr. Clam said...

"I think a reduction in food poisoning by restuarants deciding individually against shonky practices is a lot more valuable in all ways than reducing the choice to the individual with all the power in the chef/diner relationship."

"I think a reduction in car accidents by drivers deciding individually against driving 110 kph in school zones is a lot more valuable in all ways than reducing the choice to the individual with all the power in the hoon/pedestrian relationship."

"I think a reduction in terrorism by fanatic bearded guys deciding individually against blowing things up is a lot more valuable in all ways than reducing the choice to the indiviual with all the power in the terrorist/victim relationship."

Well, so do I! I would much rather everyone did the right thing without having to be forced to, it is better for their souls (assuming they have any) and much more efficient in an econometric sense. But good government is all about increasing the choice of the individual without power in the X/Y relationship.

So who is this God you sometimes talk about? When I mention God, it is the God that I believe in, the God who underpins and is inseparable from the core moral principles of Judaeo-Christo-Islamic civilisation. When you mention God, do you mean, 'this superstition that slow-thinking folk like you and other rednecks believe in'?