Playing devil's advocate here, why does the concept of human life supersede any possible imaginable suffering absolutely? What exactly makes life so sacred? Hell, I'm inclined to think this way myself but I can't help suspecting it's almost an instinctual gut reaction, which is not necessarily moral in all applicable cases.

The notion of life in and of itself may be clearly definable and homogeneous but surely anyone can agree that the standard of life various people enjoy varies. So surely the satisfaction derived from that life does not originate purely from being alive, but from enjoying the time you spend on this earth. Going by that argument and considering the notion we have considerable power of when to bring new 'life' into the world surely it's not too much of a leap of faith to argue we also have the power to ensure that when we do so, we leave that child with the greatest potential to accomplish whatever they wish within society? In an ideal world sure, every unwanted baby will be handed over to a loving family, but until that comes to pass why should an innocent child have to suffer through a life of lovelessness, underachievement and perceived inferiority that could potentially occur as a result of being adopted or left to fend for themselves as an orphan? Sure you could argue this is a result of underfunded or failing government programmes, or social inequality but the problem still stands.

Totally off that topic, the abstract notion that 'life' is morally sacred and precious questionably defies our preordained instincts. Women in third world countries tend to have more children, arguably as a unconscious reaction to the relative decreased chance of each child's survival and the need to pass on their genes.

^thepinky:
For example, my stance against the death penalty is a matter of principle. It is a fact that the death of a murderer often gives the family and friends of the victim closure and a feeling of justice. To deny the death penalty is to cause many people to suffer for the rest of their lives. But the death penalty is wrong because if even one innocent person is executed, it is too many. Monsters may be living semi-comfortable lives on our taxpayer dollars, families may be constantly harrowed up by the thought that their loved-one's murderer is still living, but the death penalty is still WRONG. I carry the same logic into the topic of abortion. Many children may be born unwanted and unloved and have to live off of taxpayer money, women may have to suffer even more pain by carrying a child and then knowing that it is living, but abortion is STILL WRONG.


I suspect what you're really talking about here is revenge not justice or potentially closure, in which case I'd disagree. As I see it justice should not be about punishment but about be about protecting social order and the public good, it would be seeing to it that the perpetrator never commits whatever they did again, so I don't see it as being analogous to an eye for an eye kind of thinking. Sure punishment is an inherent side-product and deterrant aspect of say getting jail-time but it's not the point of it. So in that sense unless you're considering any crime an in-mate could commit against another as a result of not being put to death, applying the death penalty serves not judicial purpose.

>> ^imstellar28
It is our contemporary philosophy which has led us into warfare, moral decay, social inequality, increased governmental power, restrictions on personal freedom, economic disaster, and the bankruptcy of a once wealthy nation.
We don't have to replace our politicians, force policy, or start a violent revolution--all we need is start a grassroots movement to replace the defective philosophy thats been pulled over our eyes for the past 80-100 years. One which has become so ingrained in our lives, it's as if we forgot what America really stands for.


in my opinion, "population" is a more appropriate word than "philosophy" for that first quoted paragraph. it's not a perfect fit, but i believe it starts one thinking about the inadequacy of a two-party system. you speak of framers' intent, and while i would also advocate a return to that, it has clearly become impossible... previously, 200 years ago, voters were envisioned as property owners with a vested interest in informed policy-making. that personal interest dictated the democracy, and worked so well for a while because the participants in the system cared about issues that affected their livelihoods, not their sensibilities.

at any rate, i'd argue that the current massiveness of america -- and i include its global reach through corporate (over)extension -- prevents any sort of meaningful difference between the two parties. these days, everyone pretty much wants the same things: they want their money to buy needed things like shelter, food, luxuries; they want their government to provide things like mail, roads, and security; and they want to be left alone in things that do not directly influence their daily lives.

shrug, i don't really know for certain what an alternative is, and that's bad form for debate... it should be obvious that something is completely broken when solutions to problems or stances on issues are not discussed, and instead things like "he seems like a good guy" or "she has nice bangs" or "his name is funny" matter the most.

in conclusion,

^aaronfr

I admire anyone who has the ability to revise their viewpoint after being presented with new information.

The biggest problem is that our government is philosophically broken. At the start of the 20th century there was a ideological shift which began to permeate society--one which sought to replace "equality of opportunity" with "equality of outcome". This philosophy is still with us today--and is the very reason both parties have such widespread support as compared with third party alternatives.

In order to get this country back on track we need a similar ideological shift--one which reverts back to an emphasis on personal liberties and economic freedom--the very philosophy which was dominant from the 18th century to the dawn of the 20th century. It was this philosophy which gave us the constitution, the declaration of independence, the emancipation of the slaves, and what transformed America into a dominating power on the world stage.

It is our contemporary philosophy which has led us into warfare, moral decay, social inequality, increased governmental power, restrictions on personal freedom, economic disaster, and the bankruptcy of a once wealthy nation.

We don't have to replace our politicians, force policy, or start a violent revolution--all we need is start a grassroots movement to replace the defective philosophy thats been pulled over our eyes for the past 80-100 years. One which has become so ingrained in our lives, it's as if we forgot what America really stands for.

it's hard to make a rational decision when the whole nation is afraid of the future and it's even harder to take the road of compassion when everyone is afraid of the truth.
and yes, we should be cautious. the prospect of EU becoming the next totalitarian superstate running a huge bureaucratic apparatus with countless regulations, restrictions of personal freedom and ever growing social inequality frightens me. if shit happens to hit the fan I'm moving to Antarctica