Civil War Doomsday Clock

[Speaker to Animals]

You can’t base law on current technology.

That is correct, but advances in technology only undermine the positions of pro-aborts. Literally, nothing favorable to pro-aborts comes from technological advances. Better imaging demolishes the idea that they are "removing clumps of cells". This is why they lose their shit and try to destroy posters of fetuses. Worst of all: the very fact that technological advances can save the lives of premies born at ever earlier weeks undermines any moral defense pro-aborts can possibly make.

[Ex-California]

You can’t base law on current technology.

That is correct, but advances in technology only undermine the positions of pro-aborts. Literally, nothing favorable to pro-aborts comes from technological advances. Better imaging demolishes the idea that they are "removing clumps of cells". This is why they lose their shit and try to destroy posters of fetuses. Worst of all: the very fact that technological advances can save the lives of premies born at ever earlier weeks undermines any moral defense pro-aborts can possibly make.

The pro-abortion people will also screech ITS A FETUS NOT A BABY all day long un order to make the justification to themselves that abortion is not murder

[SuburbanFarmer]

You can’t base law on current technology.

That is correct, but advances in technology only undermine the positions of pro-aborts. Literally, nothing favorable to pro-aborts comes from technological advances. Better imaging demolishes the idea that they are "removing clumps of cells". This is why they lose their shit and try to destroy posters of fetuses. Worst of all: the very fact that technological advances can save the lives of premies born at ever earlier weeks undermines any moral defense pro-aborts can possibly make.

On the contrary, most moral arguments are unaffected by technology. Namely, the fact that unwanted children wind up hurting other people, and are a burden on the system. Also, you don’t want to see ‘black market’ abortions become a thing.

[BjornP]

What happens when it becomes possible to keep a baby alive from 20 weeks? 15? 5?

You can’t base law on current technology.

Of course you can. Happens all the time with any new technology. Circumstances change, therefore ethics change, and subsequently laws change.

[SuburbanFarmer]

What happens when it becomes possible to keep a baby alive from 20 weeks? 15? 5?

You can’t base law on current technology.

Of course you can. Happens all the time with any new technology. Circumstances change, therefore ethics change, and subsequently laws change.

It does happen all the time now, which inevitably leads to the nanny state.

Constitutions are built around universal truths. Not the carrying speed of the Pony Express at the time. We should legislate in the same way.

[BjornP]

It does happen all the time now, which inevitably leads to the nanny state.

Constitutions are built around universal truths. Not the carrying speed of the Pony Express at the time. We should legislate in the same way.

You didn't initially specificy that you were talking about constitutional law, but still... Nope. To both of your conclusions. Universal truths are not neccesary for any constitution and never has been. Our monarchy and how it's supposed to be structured is written into our constitution. Yet there is no assumption, whatsoever, of there being - or there needing to be - a universal truth to that, to our form of monarchy, or that all of mankind would benefit from the same system. We don't need to believe that our monarchy is some sort of eternal, universal model. Same with our state church, or that conscription is written into the constitution.

All values change over time. The vast majority of what is considered right and wrong now, will not be right and wrong two or three hundred years from now, just like it has always been. Loads of laws today are a direct result of new technologies from cars, to cameras, internet, new forms of weaponry, etc. like when it is considered invasive to photograph someone, what sort of online advertising behavior crosses over into spam and what doesn't.

[SuburbanFarmer]

It does happen all the time now, which inevitably leads to the nanny state.

Constitutions are built around universal truths. Not the carrying speed of the Pony Express at the time. We should legislate in the same way.

You didn't initially specificy that you were talking about constitutional law, but still... Nope. To both of your conclusions. Universal truths are not neccesary for any constitution and never has been. Our monarchy and how it's supposed to be structured is written into our constitution. Yet there is no assumption, whatsoever, of there being - or there needing to be - a universal truth to that, to our form of monarchy, or that all of mankind would benefit from the same system. We don't need to believe that our monarchy is some sort of eternal, universal model. Same with our state church, or that conscription is written into the constitution.

All values change over time. The vast majority of what is considered right and wrong now, will not be right and wrong two or three hundred years from now, just like it has always been. Loads of laws today are a direct result of new technologies from cars, to cameras, internet, new forms of weaponry, etc. like when it is considered invasive to photograph someone, what sort of online advertising behavior crosses over into spam and what doesn't.

Which is exactly what I’m talking about.

We shouldn’t be making thousands of laws and punishments every year based on issues of the moment. Just a few absolute laws would serve.

[BjornP]

Which is exactly what I’m talking about.

We shouldn’t be making thousands of laws and punishments every year based on issues of the moment. Just a few absolute laws would serve.

"Just a few absolute laws"? Which would work, how? You thinking like have a law against "Theft" and everything from burglary to online identity theft would just be covered by that? That sort of thing?

And how would you be able to make "absolute laws" for stuff like, say, abortion, if the attitude towards abortion has changed drastically in 200 years time? What sort of "absolute law" would cover a change in attitudes over centuries of time? If Americans 200 years from now want all abortion banned, are they just shit out of luck if an "absolute law" made today covering criminal law (I assume) allows abortion?

[Ph64]

e

[SuburbanFarmer]

Which is exactly what I’m talking about.

We shouldn’t be making thousands of laws and punishments every year based on issues of the moment. Just a few absolute laws would serve.

"Just a few absolute laws"? Which would work, how? You thinking like have a law against "Theft" and everything from burglary to online identity theft would just be covered by that? That sort of thing?

And how would you be able to make "absolute laws" for stuff like, say, abortion, if the attitude towards abortion has changed drastically in 200 years time? What sort of "absolute law" would cover a change in attitudes over centuries of time? If Americans 200 years from now want all abortion banned, are they just shit out of luck if an "absolute law" made today covering criminal law (I assume) allows abortion?

In a word, yes. We should have a few laws that everyone knows, not reams of ancient idiocy that we can be imprisoned/fined over.

In the event that we wish to change the law, we simply change that one law. Not repeal/debate/campaign over 100 stupid ass side issues and pork projects.

Theft. It’s illegal to take the property of another person without permission. Penalties for it are X.
End of story.