3 ms·

Segregation, marriage inequality, restrictions on abortion and contraception--what do each of these have in common? It's that the government is imposing an arbi

Segregation, marriage inequality, restrictions on abortion and contraception--what do each of these have in common? It's that the government is imposing an arbitrary value system on the behavior of private citizens. This is acceptable when said behavior could harm others. In these other cases, it feels pretty off to have this happening in 2014. (Do not respond to me about fetuses.)

mynewwork 13y ago
I love when people end an argument with "Do not respond to me about <the obviously controversial part of my opinion>". The fact is, people from all backgrounds and political viewpoints hold opinions which they view as absolute. Whether that's "being anti-gay is equivalent to being pro-slavery" or "abortion is murder", people are going to disagree even if they are both guided by the same fundamentally good goals.
- hyperbovine 13y ago
  I fully admit that it's controversial, I just don't have the time or the energy to debate it here. (Or anywhere.) The rationale I gave holds up, but good luck debating it.
bertil 13y ago
Well, demographics is not exactly fætuses… close though. Some people justify their intervention in all these issues by claiming that the up-coming generations are everyone‘s future, and needs to be protected as such. Hence many laws to prevent them from harm, most of which I’m sure you adhere to. The salient cases are often about disagreement about which is the greater harm: being Métis in a race-based, or living in a race-based society? Some (abortion) are about disagreements on what constitutes a child. I don’t think that you, or rather some other people on the same side as you on such issues, choose to make themselves better persons by disparaging your opponents openly. Like you, they are worried, and inconsistent. And, if you step away from absolutes, they would agree with you on many actual cases. Cognitive dissonance (which, admittedly, happens more often among your opponents) is very painful, and you want to respect that to effectively make the world a better place.
bugsbunnyak 13y ago
Abortion ban: government-imposed restrictions on the right to terminate genetically-undesirable fetuses. Which of these criteria should not be allowed: Gender? Height? Lack of physical strength? How about, say, statistically-probable homosexuality? All is not as it seems when you change the optics (edited, restored).
- hyperbovine 13y ago
  I admit, those scenarios are almost as odious as they are unbelievable. People already select for height, strength and a host of other genetic characteristics when they mate. But anyways, mother's choice. Her body, her choice. Very simple. PS I liked the line about optics better.
  - bugsbunnyak 13y ago
    Sex-selective abortion is abhorrent, but it's not at all unbelievable. The others are mostly hypothetical - for now - but amniocentesis and genetic testing for specific diseases is a very real thing, and the steady march of GWAS means we will have the rest soon enough.
anonymoushn 13y ago
It's true. We should either let gays and Mormons have their desired marital arrangements or do away with state recognition of marriage altogether.
- refurb 13y ago
  That's the libertarian stance. If the gov't had nothing to do with marriage and people were free to enter into whatever contract each party agreed to, we wouldn't be wasting time arguing about gay marriage.
  - tommorris 13y ago
    Why should we have to "waste time"? Gay people: We'd like to get married. Government: Okay, here you go. It's only because assholes go crazy about it that it's a problem. Also, gay couples have been doing the "set up a bundle of contracts" thing for years. It's expensive and doesn't actually provide the same protections that marriage provides.

mynewwork 13y ago

I love when people end an argument with "Do not respond to me about <the obviously controversial part of my opinion>". The fact is, people from all backgrounds and political viewpoints hold opinions which they view as absolute. Whether that's "being anti-gay is equivalent to being pro-slavery" or "abortion is murder", people are going to disagree even if they are both guided by the same fundamentally good goals.

hyperbovine 13y ago
I fully admit that it's controversial, I just don't have the time or the energy to debate it here. (Or anywhere.) The rationale I gave holds up, but good luck debating it.

bertil 13y ago

Well, demographics is not exactly fætuses… close though. Some people justify their intervention in all these issues by claiming that the up-coming generations are everyone‘s future, and needs to be protected as such. Hence many laws to prevent them from harm, most of which I’m sure you adhere to. The salient cases are often about disagreement about which is the greater harm: being Métis in a race-based, or living in a race-based society? Some (abortion) are about disagreements on what constitutes a child. I don’t think that you, or rather some other people on the same side as you on such issues, choose to make themselves better persons by disparaging your opponents openly. Like you, they are worried, and inconsistent. And, if you step away from absolutes, they would agree with you on many actual cases. Cognitive dissonance (which, admittedly, happens more often among your opponents) is very painful, and you want to respect that to effectively make the world a better place.

bugsbunnyak 13y ago

Abortion ban: government-imposed restrictions on the right to terminate genetically-undesirable fetuses. Which of these criteria should not be allowed: Gender? Height? Lack of physical strength? How about, say, statistically-probable homosexuality? All is not as it seems when you change the optics (edited, restored).

hyperbovine 13y ago
I admit, those scenarios are almost as odious as they are unbelievable. People already select for height, strength and a host of other genetic characteristics when they mate. But anyways, mother's choice. Her body, her choice. Very simple. PS I liked the line about optics better.
- bugsbunnyak 13y ago
  Sex-selective abortion is abhorrent, but it's not at all unbelievable. The others are mostly hypothetical - for now - but amniocentesis and genetic testing for specific diseases is a very real thing, and the steady march of GWAS means we will have the rest soon enough.

anonymoushn 13y ago

It's true. We should either let gays and Mormons have their desired marital arrangements or do away with state recognition of marriage altogether.

refurb 13y ago
That's the libertarian stance. If the gov't had nothing to do with marriage and people were free to enter into whatever contract each party agreed to, we wouldn't be wasting time arguing about gay marriage.
- tommorris 13y ago
  Why should we have to "waste time"? Gay people: We'd like to get married. Government: Okay, here you go. It's only because assholes go crazy about it that it's a problem. Also, gay couples have been doing the "set up a bundle of contracts" thing for years. It's expensive and doesn't actually provide the same protections that marriage provides.