Currently Listening Are You Experienced By The Jimi Hendrix Experience see related

I suppose it’s about time to update, but I don’t really have a lot of time at the moment so I’ll just take on a light issue.  How about… abortion?  Sure, why not.  So here is my view of the abortion issue.

LAW

I personally find the legal reasoning behind the Supreme Court’s decision in the case Roe v. Wade appalling.  I tend to agree with Robert Bork that there is insufficient documentation to argue that a “right to privacy” is implicit in the Constitution.  Certainly there is a limit set on how intrusive the government can be, but there is no absolute right to privacy outside the scope of judicial precedent.  On a legal basis I disagree with the cases that set that precedent i.e. Griswold, Eisenstadt, Texas v. Lawrence ect. however appealing the social aspects of the decisions may be.  Without using the precedent of abusing power that the Supreme Court has no ground to reverse the state legislation. 

ETHICS

I personally find any law prohibiting a woman from attaining an abortion regardless of circumstance morally apprehensible and a shameful epithet on the Judeo-Christian tyranny of the majority based on a nonexistent abstract so-called “right to life”.  In this society we prohibit murder but not self defense or capital punishment.  But we do live in a society of law, and to maintain any sort of social cohesion we must enforce certain laws however needlessly homogeneous they may seem.  Without such laws we would suffer behavior uninhibited by possible legal consequences and would almost certainly experience a decline in human quality of life.  As such we ought look at what “rights” should be protected by law based on the typical perceived utility of each right.  Obviously life would be an object we would want to protect based on the utility principle.  But to what ends exactly are we protecting such a right (or prohibiting murder to be more accurate) and who should be protected by the law?  Once again I would like to refer to the utility principle.  We ought to ask the question;  to what ends exactly would protecting such a “right” bring about the highest yield in social utility, and protecting whom by the law would bring those individuals the greatest happiness?  To answer this we must first decide who is capable of utility.  Humans obviously have shown not only the capacity to seek out pleasure and avoid pain in general, but have demonstrated the ability to describe the utility of something in comparison with others.  Animals have also shown the ability to seek out pleasure and avoid pain and could perhaps be afforded some “rights” justified by this knowledge.  Non sentient beings, however, have never once shown an ability to experience pleasure or pain.  This applies to the Plant Kingdom, nonliving formations, and in the earliest stages of development, the unborn human.

Obviously I would be foolish to think such an issue could be examined so succinctly, but I don’t have time right now to continue my analysis.  I will provide further insights into population control, production potential, crime in relation to abortion, and the psychological harm caused by abortion in the very near future, but please, feel free to comment, complain, or just shoot the breeze.

Thank you France, for visiting my xanga.

The whole footprint thing is kinda strange.  I keep getting visited by states and countries.

Currently Listening Californication By Red Hot Chili Peppers see related

It has been a long time since I've updated now...

So,

"It goes without saying that no definite and final answer can ever be given.  But I am convinced that an answer can be obtained significantly probable that reliance can be placed in it." --Milton Friedman, An Empirical Study of the Relationship Between Railroad Stock Prices and Railroad Earnings.

If somebody tries to state that something is true and proceeds to prove that statement it will typically take the form of a syllogism.  For instance, A is always equal to C.

1. A is always equal to B

2. B is always equal to C

ergo

3. A is always equal to C.

The problem with proving that A is always equal to C is that it requires an step that is presumed to be known a priori.  If I were to question the validity of statement 1 (which is unproven so I have every reason to do so) it would take on a new syllogism which again would have the same problem.  The argument would either continue forever or would reach a point in which statement X justifies statement X'.  When statement X is brought into question it is justified by statement X'.  This is circular logic; quite simply, it is begging the question and is therefore fallacious.  The argument could also presume that what is perceived is accurate and could base all conclusions on empiricism.  To state, however, that something is true because I sensed it is, once again begging the question.

It is of course argued that the argument above (often described as The Problem of Criterion, The Regress Argument, the diallelus, or solipsism) is self refuting as perception is a cognitive process just as reasoning is.  Therefore the reasoning used could just as well be skewed or completely wrong.  This argument of course presupposes that reasoning is a faculty and does not necessarily refute the main argument.  It also does not prove that anything could be known to be true, so the argument that any given premise could be false still stands.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, I've been really busy at work lately.  Darn projects that I will only address as "Project 1184" and "The Baxter Redeployment Project" have had me busting my hump as of late.  On top of that my boss has been on my ass lately for no apparent reason.  Oh well, I'm planning on leaving soon! 

Currently Listening Pinkerton By Weezer see related

     Even if god does exist, he's an asshole.