When people try to say that laws are always about morality.

I left this somewhere else but felt like it was a valid argument. What makes people think a law always has to be morally justifiable? I'm sure some laws are but that's a few problems with the moral arguments generally. Abortion is a very complex issue with many underlying circumstances influencing individual decisions. It is not a popularity contest. People seek abortions for various reasons, and this is often driven by personal and socio-economic factors rather than a moral choice.

Laws do not need to be morally justifiable because morality is subjective and can vary widely between individuals and cultures. Morality changes with context. For instance, in a country without welfare, individuals might resort to extreme measures such as selling their bodies or joining a militia, to survive. These situations highlight the desperation and lack of choices that can shape decisions, including the decision to have an abortion.

Don't get me wrong, I am not equating these examples directly to abortion but rather illustrating that many of us cannot fully understand the personal circumstances others face. Most people do not "want" abortions, but they may find themselves in situations where it seems like the best or only option. For many, it might be the only option.

Moreover, in countries where there is free access to abortion, the rates of abortion are often lower. This suggests that providing access does not increase abortion rates but can contribute to better health and social outcomes. Therefore, framing abortion strictly as a moral issue is flawed. If the goal is to reduce abortions and support families, laws should reflect practical solutions rather than moral judgments.

You do not have to like the concept of abortion to recognize its necessity in certain situations. The focus should be on creating laws that support public health and individual circumstances, rather than imposing a singular moral viewpoint on a diverse population.

Top | New | Old

BRUUH

People pass laws because they want to get at some outcome, or prevent some outcome. The outcome people want to create with the laws they pass or vote to be passed (or hope will get passed), is telling about either their morality, or lack thereof (some laws are just passed because lobbyist or bureaucrat wants power). Literally every law is based on some legal theory that is going to take a stand on morality, even when it claims it's being a-moral. For instance: If i'm a jeffersonian who says "your rights end where my rights begin" I am enforcing my morality on your, by saying that it's wrong for you to violate other people's autonomy. I am enforcing my libertarian enlightenment idea of freedom onto you. If i'm a fascists who thinks everything is for the state, and nothing is outside the state, I am enforcing my morals of collectivism on you. People can say "i'm a libertarian, and I don't beleive in forcing morality on people" but then you literally are taking a moral stand, saying it's wrong to use coercion. Whether you avoid using words like "right" or "wrong", it's the same exact concept mentally.

We can either strive to be upright and just, or not.

View 6 more replies »

BRUUH

@SatanBurger

You don't need morality to see where the numbers are, you only need to be able to read Google and accept that there's things you don't like out there that helps others, I think this is more of a logical position than a moral one

But isn't the desire to help people itself just compassion? And isn't compassion a virtue? Therefore, aren't we being 'virtuously' motivated? I'm not trying to be pedantic about words here either, i just really think it's important to see things in light of the virtues and principals we strive to live up to, that's why I think most everything that isn't aesthetic choices and mundane things have moral components if we look deep enough.

SatanBurger · 36-40, F

@BRUUH I agree that wanting to serve the greater good is a moral motivation, driven by virtues like compassion. However, the method of achieving these goals through evidence-based policies is distinct from purely moral reasoning which is my main point in saying that laws don't always have to be rooted on purely moralistic ideals.

While our motivations may be moral, effective laws should be grounded in empirical data to ensure they are fair and objective. This would be separate from morals, you talk about subjective morality but I'm talking about objectivity and pragmatism as a whole.

BRUUH

@SatanBurger I think that the brain and the heart are allies, and that when the two align we can achieve great things. If we are motivated by love, and guided by reason, we can't go wrong. I just say that employing logic and reason in service of a positive outcome motivated by pure intent is as virtuous and enterprise as I can imagine.

ViciDraco · 41-45, M

I think a lot of this comes down to definitions of morality. In my view, morality is objective. What is moral does not change. Our understanding of morality is what changes. As applied to law, that is essentially the same thing, I guess, because we can only legislate to our understanding.

My definition of morality is doing the greatest good with the least harm. That's almost always impossible to quantify with information at the time of action. The best we can do is strive towards it. For me, good and harm tends to align with both respecting the autonomy of other sentient beings while promoting their freedom of action. It is more complex than that overall, but that is the short version.

A fetus is not sentient. The mother carrying it is. Therefore, to me, the act of legally restricting abortions is immoral. The autonomy of a sentient being is being restricted in favor of a non-sentient being.

Given that definition of morality, I would prefer if laws were aspirational to morality with the understanding that we may have some things wrong and need to make updates.

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

Reason10 · 70-79, M

So this thread is about baby killing. You could have saved ALL those paragraphs just by coming clean.

SatanBurger · 36-40, F

@Reason10 Not by any reasonable scientist no.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9532882/

As scientists that work in this field, we are in the best position to point out that the concept of life beginning at fertilization is not evidence-based. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine has been very good about putting out talking points on the Dobbs decision (4); however, I would argue that we need to focus specifically on this observation: life does not begin at fertilization (5). The egg is alive; the sperm is alive; and after fertilization, the zygote is alive. Life is continuous. Dichotomous thinking (0% human life for the egg, 100% human life for the zygote) is not scientific. It is religious thinking. Fertilization is not instantaneous, embryonic development is not precise, and individual blastomeres can make separate individuals. Some pregnancies develop normally and others are doomed, either from the start (e.g., if they possess an incorrect chromosomal complement) or later in pregnancy (e.g., if the central nervous system fails to develop). Religious leaders are neither scientists nor clinicians. They do not understand pregnancy and should not make decisions about the pregnancies of others.

We, who dedicate our lives to helping patients achieve pregnancies and build their families, know that we do not create life in the laboratory. We do not witness a human death when an embryo fails to survive cryopreservation. We observe the continuous nature of human life, with fertilization representing only one key step, and know that from a biologic point of view, no new life begins when fertilization is achieved. Let us be clear that “life begins at conception” is a religious, not a scientific, concept.

SatanBurger · 36-40, F

@Reason10 https://www.wired.com/2015/10/science-cant-say-babys-life-begins/

A few key points to consider below, fertilization researcher said that fertilization doesn't take place in a moment of passion, it takes place the next day.

50 to 80% of fertilized eggs, self abort, the woman may never know she was pregnant.

Scientists reasonably disagree among themselves when personhood begins and is heavily reliant in their chosen fields.

As the fertilization researcher Harvey Florman has said, “Fertilization doesn’t take place in a moment of passion. It takes place the next day in the laundromat or the library.”

But even fertilization isn't a clean indicator of anything. The next step is implantation, when the fertilized egg travels down the fallopian tube and attaches to the mother’s uterus. “There’s an incredibly high rate of fertilized eggs that don’t implant,” says Diane Horvath-Cosper, an OB-GYN in Washington, DC. Estimates run from 50 to 80 percent, and even some implanted embryos spontaneously abort. The woman might never know she was pregnant.

Assuming that fertilization and implantation all go perfectly, scientists can reasonably disagree about when personhood begins, says Gilbert. An embryologist might say gastrulation, which is when an embryo can no longer divide to form identical twins. A neuroscientist might say when one can measure brainwaves. As a doctor, Horvath-Cosper says, “I have come to the conclusion that the pregnant woman gets to decide when it’s a person.”

samueltyler2 · 80-89, M

@SatanBurger for generations, we calculate a woman's "due date" by subtracting days from her last period and adding months. Think of that, we could consider her pregnancy having begun before her last period!

The other method is to subtract 3 months and add 8 days. Really weird, but is worked pretty well. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK536986/#:~:text=Naegele%27s%20rule%2C%20derived%20from%20a,menstrual%20periods%2C%20and%20hormonal%20contraceptives.

Add a comment...