Abortion bill pass in Kentucky

[turingtest]

Thank you for providing Fast Eddie B with the case and opinion in my absence.

I think the opinion boiled down to "We the people, believe in a Supreme Being and our institutions likewise presuppose this, but we don't force others to. And, we're not gonna stop believing in a Supreme Being simply because you don't."

Chris B.

That would be the Saturday morning cartoon version, sure.

Anyway...in summary, your evidence that the US was "founded on Christian principles" is

1) not being able to actually find anything in the founding document that embodies Christian principles, but mind-reading the writers to infer it while disregarding what they actually wrote,

and

2) snipping out of context a quote from a SC decision of around 170 years later which said that the government is not in the business of legally treating the Christian "Supreme Being," or Christianity itself as an institution, any worse (or any better) than any other religious institution or its Supreme Being.

What kind of "Christian principles" are these anyway? And I thought the whole idea of being a "Supreme Being" was to be...you know...supreme...and not just equal to any other.

 

[Belz...]

I also believe hurdles to adoption should be minimal.

They'll let anyone have a kid. We just deal with the fallout later. So let's let anyone adopt a kid, and deal with the fallout later. What's with all the background checks, etc.? I'd say most people who want a kid on purpose have at least some redeeming qualities, as minimal as they might be. And it gives the child at least a fighting chance.

I agree with that on principle but how do you apply this without veering dangerously close to authoritarian-level social engineering? Something like "you must be in ideological group X in order to reproduce".

ETA: Upon re-reading Spock's post, I'm an idiot.

 

[Spock Jenkins]

I agree with that on principle but how do you apply this without veering dangerously close to authoritarian-level social engineering? Something like "you must be in ideological group X in order to reproduce".

I actually thought it was quite the opposite. I'm advocating getting away from that and allowing more people who want to be parents to have that opportunity, and giving more people the opportunity to experience "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" by not being terminated.

Perhaps I phrased it poorly.

 

[marplots]

I wonder if Kentucky has planned for the expected uptick in state services for the additional unwanted babies? Probably not.

Curious to know how many abortions they have now and what the impact of the new law is going to be on this number.

 

[Belz...]

I actually thought it was quite the opposite. I'm advocating getting away from that and allowing more people who want to be parents to have that opportunity, and giving more people the opportunity to experience "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" by not being terminated.

Perhaps I phrased it poorly.

You argued that only people with certain qualities should be able to have kids. That's logically a smaller group than "all people".

ETA: Upon re-reading Spock's post, I'm an idiot.

 

[Spock Jenkins]

You argued that only people with certain qualities should be able to have kids. That's logically a smaller group than "all people".

Did I? I thought I said that we should reduce the barriers to adoption to make it easier for both the adoptive parents and the birth mother. Thereby making that choice more attractive than terminating a pregnancy.

I must have really botched my wording.

 

[Belz...]

Did I? I thought I said that we should reduce the barriers to adoption to make it easier for both the adoptive parents and the birth mother. Thereby making that choice more attractive than terminating a pregnancy.

I must have really botched my wording.

Holy hell, no. That was all me. I misread your post and managed to botch my reading on the second read too, basically reading words in the wrong order or adding punctuation that wasn't there. Sorry about that.

Nothing to see here, move along!

 

[turingtest]

Holy hell, no. That was all me. I misread your post and managed to botch my reading on the second read too, basically reading words in the wrong order or adding punctuation that wasn't there. Sorry about that.

Nothing to see here, move along!

Well, not so fast, maybe there is something to see here. There are certainly people who could benefit from pausing to consider your post as an example of someone admitting error through misreading (or misunderstanding) someone else's words. (Yes, including me at times) That's too rare a thing, here or anywhere, to say it's "nothing to see."

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Take your own advice. Since when is a fetus the sole property of a woman? I don't know of a woman since the virgin Mary who reputedly conceived a child without a dick with sperm involved. Who's rights are involved here? Why do you elevate a woman's right over man who caused that woman to conceive?

Do you see the problem here? The promiscuous nature of the current attitude toward morality is what has caused this to be a problem in the first place. That is what's wrong. It is not a question of women's exclusive right at all except in the case of rape. Seek a guide your own morality before lecturing me on women's rights.

I challenge you to cogently argue the ethics from first principles without an appeal to authority. So far, all I see is pure opinion with no work shown. The declarative mode is not a form of rational argument, much to the chagrin of Fox News.

Or, to make the work load lighter, who decides what is ethical behavior in a democracy, and how is this done without undermining the foundations thereof? (It certainly can be done, and is straight-forward to argue; not a trick question.)

 

[Belz...]

Well, not so fast, maybe there is something to see here. There are certainly people who could benefit from pausing to consider your post as an example of someone admitting error through misreading (or misunderstanding) someone else's words. (Yes, including me at times) That's too rare a thing, here or anywhere, to say it's "nothing to see."

No, no, no. The last thing I want you to notice is that I have the ability to make mistakes!

 

[fuelair]

Or how about:

"The right to choose to kill another human without going to jail for it"

A little more truth and a little less deception is what's required. Snowflake terms applied to a murderous act just don't do it justice. Let's call it what it is.

Everyone has the "right to choose" whether to take a life or not. It's the ease by which taking a life is viewed and the get out of jail free part that are upsetting so many Bible thumpers.

Abortion is currently legal though. I wonder if we can put a new law on the books that allows a mother to kill her child up until it's one year old instead?

Better you think? The morality of the one is no different than the other.

Chris B.

No one (outside of any remaining cultures practicing leaving a deformed/otherwise unwanted baby out somewhere to die) is saying kill a delivered baby. Prior to birth, abortion should be legal. After birth, protected. ETA: YMMV, but that would not make it right.

 

[fuelair]

So am I!

You would think, that a general improvement in public health, better education, not constantly making an effort to keep the poor as poor as possible would be a priority for any decent person?


But when you look at the US as an outsider (I have lived in the US too), it honestly looks like it is a well defined political agenda, to keep as many people as possible both dumb and poor.

Not so long ago the US was in the forefront of developed nations with regards to science, education, health, innovation and such.
The rest of the world basically adored the US.

And then they lost it.
Somehow the people who would have a real benefit from real health and education reforms were convinced, that they should vote for the people least likely to do that.
And now they have elected an orange buffoon for president. The very type of person who has ********** up their lives, health and economy.


I really wonder why!

Stupidity, ignorance, inability to distinguish friend from foe or semi-good from pure evil for starters.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Whomever and whatever they do now.



That doesn't make sense. Unless you think moral judgements are dependent on the willingness to pay for the consequences? Is there a name for that moral theory?

I think having moral opinions is one thing. I think imposing those moral opinions is going to mean a change in the results observed, i.e. consequences.

I call that the theory of reality.

 

[marplots]

I think having moral opinions is one thing. I think imposing those moral opinions is going to mean a change in the results observed, i.e. consequences.

I call that the theory of reality.

Requiring others act morally sounds like a moral judgement as well. If I take the antiabortion side seriously - that is, they believe what they say - then what am I to make of the "abortion is murder" slogan? Surely, I too would act to prevent murders without much regard for what happens next, simply because murder is so morally objectionable. If the victim of the hypothetical murder were, for instance, someone with ALS, I wouldn't feel I'd taken on the burden of their care, just because I prevented the killing.

Now, I should be clear - I am not against abortion on those grounds, I'm trying to point out that antiabortion advocates don't necessarily take on the chore of "what happens next." At least, not on moral grounds.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

That would be the Saturday morning cartoon version, sure.

Anyway...in summary, your evidence that the US was "founded on Christian principles" is

1) not being able to actually find anything in the founding document that embodies Christian principles, but mind-reading the writers to infer it while disregarding what they actually wrote,

and

2) snipping out of context a quote from a SC decision of around 170 years later which said that the government is not in the business of legally treating the Christian "Supreme Being," or Christianity itself as an institution, any worse (or any better) than any other religious institution or its Supreme Being.

What kind of "Christian principles" are these anyway? And I thought the whole idea of being a "Supreme Being" was to be...you know...supreme...and not just equal to any other.

1. I've already demonstrated the Christian principles that were used and the founders reasons and background as Christian men. This also ties with the fact that they were Masons and so each had professed a belief in a Supreme being. If you missed my post please go back and reread.

2. A Supreme Court decision based on an opinion stating we (The US) presuppose the existence of a Supreme being negates your argument completely. That's it, end of story. So there it is.

Chris B.

 

[thaiboxerken]

What Christian principles?

Also, the presupposition of a "supreme being" is not a Christian principle, but a theist principle.

 

[marplots]

What Christian principles?

Also, the presupposition of a "supreme being" is not a Christian principle, but a theist principle.

Aren't Christians theists?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Aren't Christians theists?

Yes. What's your point?

All theists believe there is a supreme being. Not all theists are christian. In other words, for the small-minded, proving something is theistic doesn't mean it is christian.

 

[marplots]

Yes. What's your point?

All theists believe there is a supreme being. Not all theists are christian. In other words, for the small-minded, proving something is theistic doesn't mean it is christian.

No, but belief in a supreme being is a Christian principle. Not exclusively or uniquely Christian, but part of the Christian package.

I don't see how it serves the argument to dodge this.

 

[thaiboxerken]

It's not a "Christian principle" if it is common to every theist.