MarginOfError

Well, here's the thing, TFP...I will concede that a lot of law is codified morality. But importantly, it is the codification of widespread morality. But I would argue it is less about right vs. wrong and more about just vs. unjust. We evaluate concepts like, "should one individual be able to take another's property without compensation?" In terms of abortion, the concepts we are weighing are along the lines of "should one line be able to require another to host it to birth?" and "should one life be able to terminate the life growing within itself?" Which of those lives has just claim over the other? Neither is independent or free of the effects of the interests of the other. And I don't get the feeling there is widespread consensus regarding how to answer those questions. I'm not interested in relative moralism; I merely recognize that morality here isn't steady enough to build a meaningful decision.

Nothing hard. Just anecdotes of long timers laughing each time the tax went up a quarter a percent, since they knew never to buy their alcohol in Portland proper. This was one of those taxes that was being paid by people coming in from outside the city to be at the night clubs. It was brilliant, in its own way, as the city was able to boost revenue without laying the cost on the backs of its residents. (much like hotel taxes)

Don't forget the RFID tags. I'm not paying for a styrofoam cup unless it has an RFID tag that I can scan into my phone and then watch its world travels. I get very emotionally attached to my styrofoam.

Portland, Maine would be a good counter example to that claim. Its retail economy thrives on alcohol sales (night life). Every time it needed new revenue while I was living there, sales tax on mixed drinks went up. Business never suffered.

Should be easy enough. Once they get a taste of those sweet, sweet taxes, they'll be begging for more.

What you've been told is true. I don't see why that precludes charging three times the cost. Because capitalism.

I believe the technical term for that is "co-pay"

Truth be told, you may be on to something. Instead of banning straws, let's instead mandate they be manufactured with geotagging RFID readers. Each straw will cost an additional 16 cents. But then we'll finally be able to collect the data that shows how straws move about the globe after they are disposed of and we can finally and rightfully impose straw bans on those evil liberal coastal states and China while leaving Utah to consume its Diet Coke in peace.

There are days that I am not sure I belive humanity is worth saving.

Well, if we really want to get to the root of the problem, it is happening because people are throwing straws in the garbage. I vote we just eliminate all people who throw straws in the garbage. Problem solved. But hey, if you value your own conveniences more than you do the environment, then more power to your stewardship of the earth, I guess.

Well, for Mexico, I know the concern was less about the garbage patch and more about the damage to the local coral reefs. But yes, small acts can add up to large effects. And they can be worthwhile pursuits. But the argument, "the impact from small changes to my lifestyle won't be large enough to justify my personal inconvenience" don't get much sympathy from me. (Although I do empathize, because it's precisely the reason I hypocritically still drive a car to work). And for what it's worth, yes, let's ban scrapbooking. If only because I want to see what kind of people show up at the protests.

NIMBYism at it's finest.

I should have edited your quote. I was responding to the hygiene concern. With regards to your concerns about Chinese straws vs. American straws vs. what actually ends up in the oceans, my honest response is, "who cares? Why should any of that matter when we could be leaders on the issue? Where is all of that American Exceptionalism?" We're not really leaders, though. Mexico has done some great work with eliminating plastic straws, especially in resort areas. We're actually falling behind, and in time it may no longer be a discussion of American straws vs. Chinese straws, but that the Americans and the Chinese are the only civilizations barbaric enough to keep using the monstrosities.

That didn't really answer the question I was interested in. So let me rephrase: what are the criteria you would use for choosing which moral code gets implemented into law?

Hey, I'm all for getting rid of minivans. And churches too. Let's do everything online.

I wonder how people ingested fluids before straws.

Okay, so how do you choose which moral code gets implemented into law?

Let me emphasize this, and say it explicitly: I am claiming no moral argument for legalized abortion. And I think those that make a moral argument are shooting themselves in the foot. The framework I described was that of negotiating a legal (agnostic to morality) compromise between two parties using an objective measure to draw a line that recognized the interests of both mother and child. Also, I reject the "she shouldn't be able to have an abortion because she already made a choice that got her pregnant" argument. On the same grounds that it is a moral argument. I even reject that as a moral argument. Making one bad decision does not mean we don't get to make other bad decisions. A person may choose to abort a pregnancy and evade the mortal consequences of her decision to have sex, but that does nothing to mitigate the eternal consequences of either decision.

On this, we agree. Where we disagree is where that line should be drawn. And it is an incredibly difficult line to draw given the multitude of moral systems that exist in our society. This is the kind of element I would want to leave out of the discussion, as it seems to lean toward moral reasoning. Eventually, you get into questions of voluntary versus intentional blah blah blah. I don't see how you untangle those without appealing to the subjective, moral code. Perhaps it's the statistician in me, but I try not to draw subjective lines unless I have no other choice. This is somewhat compelling. At the same time, none of those situations are pure analogs to pregnancy--in none of those cases do the aggressors act as literal incubators for their victims. A nursing home worker isn't going to experience rapid weight gain, potential long term changes to body shape, urinary continence, etc. A man who chooses not to beat his wife doesn't develop gestational diabetes as a consequence. The reality is that women face serious and potentially life long changes to their health when they go through pregnancy. The thing about fetal viability that I find attractive is it draws an objective line between those interests. Well, yeah, I guess I kind of addressed this already. This would be an interesting development. Would we legally classify fetuses as parasites under this reasoning?

We're done here. If you're still buying into that line or garbage, there's no hope for reasoned discussion.

And on what grounds do you propose that the mighty (i.e., those with governmental power) be able to tell pregnant women they have no choice over their medical care and pregnancies beginning at the moment of conception? Keep in mind, JAG, I'm not weighing in on the morality of any abortion. But I am rather concerned with how we manage these rights and protections in a pluralistic society.

You should go back and read what I wrote more closely. "What the Roe v. Wade decision did was a brilliant piece of legal reasoning that somehow failed to make explicit its effect." I never claimed it was any part of any SCOTUS case. I lamented that it wasn't. I wish it were, because it's much cleaner piece of reasoning than what we have now. Actually, as I said before, it requires three physicians, at present. The law he was commenting on would reduce that from three physicians to one. And his comments were that it would be preferable to allow one physician to assist in that determination than waiting for delivery and palliative treatment following those births. But such nuances tend to be lost on reactionary lunatics.

Do you have an actual statement you're trying to make?

A not-so-fancy way of saying, "me-no-likey."

It would be nice if people realized that laws developed out of moral superiority over another group tend to be bad laws.