Nerdy Time
Sometimes a slippery slope argument is the most rational argument.
I remember being chastized for going against a lawsuit alleging that a ten commandment display in a public square violated the constitution by saying that the better and more broad claim would be against our nations Coinage and national Motto..."In God We Trust"...
I was told that would not happen and my slippery slope argument failed to address the question properly...
Well...here ya go undergraduate debate person who accused me of an "outlandish" hypothetical....
Class today did get me wondering and I'd like to continue the discussion here if I may.
"If marriage and sodemy are protected under the fourteenth amendment, why not Pologomy?"
Why not Beastiality? Why not Incest? Further, with genetic engineering, would I be disallowed from creating a genetic copy of my wife and than marrying her when she turns 18 after raising her as my daughter?
(Of course this is all purely hypothetical)
Don't we have to draw the line somewhere? And shouldn't the people's power of the polls be the correct place to draw the line?
Just wondering...Please get Nerdy on this stuff...
I remember being chastized for going against a lawsuit alleging that a ten commandment display in a public square violated the constitution by saying that the better and more broad claim would be against our nations Coinage and national Motto..."In God We Trust"...
I was told that would not happen and my slippery slope argument failed to address the question properly...
Well...here ya go undergraduate debate person who accused me of an "outlandish" hypothetical....
Class today did get me wondering and I'd like to continue the discussion here if I may.
"If marriage and sodemy are protected under the fourteenth amendment, why not Pologomy?"
Why not Beastiality? Why not Incest? Further, with genetic engineering, would I be disallowed from creating a genetic copy of my wife and than marrying her when she turns 18 after raising her as my daughter?
(Of course this is all purely hypothetical)
Don't we have to draw the line somewhere? And shouldn't the people's power of the polls be the correct place to draw the line?
Just wondering...Please get Nerdy on this stuff...
6 Comments:
I would love to "get nerdy" with you. (That sounds sexual, however, and makes me uncomfortable, yet I will not rephrase it.)
I heard about that case. I hope they lose. "I'm sorry, just take all my money. It mentions God and I find that so oppressive that I just can't take the money."
And the answer to the bigger question is, I see no distinction as long as children are not involved. I don't think there can be a rational distinction. Once you take the reproductive aspect out (man-woman) then brother-sister and man-aardvark (the sexiest animal there is) seem to be perfectly fine.
And you know my answer to the question of "Should we be a democracy?" which is, in effect the question you have asked.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I think the question is:
Should democracies favor the attitudes that democracies like or the attitudes that preserve democracy?
I think the answer must be those that preserve democracy. If there is no regulation as to what the state would like to promote, there is no longer any state of men but a nation of animals, or aardvarks.
Men have goals and ideals which we use to measure our progress and restrict and regulate our conduct to foster those ideals. It seems as though the ideal of "Every man for himself" is contrary to the view that "We are a Society"
That question has broad application to everything that we've discussed in the realm of substantive due process. It seems to me that the views that promote democracy itself are necessarily the views that we should promote. All else should take a back seat, at least in the courts.
Agreed.
Probably too late for me to jump in on this one, huh.
I will say this, though:
Jon: I really do not want to throw you and your "Augustine-fitted" concrete shoes into the river.
Hold your ground if you must, but consider this. Sure, maybe the fetus becomes a person somewhere along the way. But the issue of what we are at liberty to DO to that fetus, person or not, is an altogether separate question, maybe even to Augustine? That is, simply because in Augustine's mind, the fetus got its soul sometime after conception, does it follow that he would have understood that to mean that the state was at liberty to destroy the thing anytime prior? Maybe so, but I wonder. What would an abortion have been like in the 4th century A.D.?
Otherwise, your point is well taken. I like Augustine, too, but I am just not sure yet that what he knew and believed about human gestation shouldn't be lumped into the pile of incorrect notions held by our esteemed and righty beloved Fathers.
Post a Comment
<< Home