Roe v. Wade overturned -- this is some BS

[Upchurch]

No, the constitution doesn't say "no no".

It's the First Amendment.

People have moral intuitions. Those intuitions are necessarily informed by the cultural traditions they are raised in. You have an intuition that these are "not-yet-beings", other people's intuitions say different.

I was raised in a cultural setting that would likely go with "God puts the soul in the little-bitty babies the moment the sperm touches the egg". I was capable of questioning my indoctrination with skepticism and critical thought. Technically, everyone is capable of it, though few seem to make the effort.

Historically, the concept comes from the Catholic religion and was adopted quite quickly, ironically enough, by evangelical sects of Christianity. The concept that the early zygote or embryo is anything equivalent personhood was based solely on the idea that it has a soul. Otherwise, there is nothing being-like about it. Prior to that, a good number of religions and traditions held that the fetus was a person once the quickening had happened, and not before.

 

[Upchurch]

The meaning was clearly implied, as it always is around here. Perhaps you should rephrase your allegation if you are not pinning it on Christians, or contending that it is just a matter of religious belief.

I was pinning the origins of the idea on particular Christian sects, in the US anyway, not all Christian sects. In fact, there were some Christian sects specifically opposed to it. Arguably, it isn't far fetched to call unrelated sects different religions. I'm sure the Catholics, Lutherans, and Protestants would agree.

 

[cosmicaug]

And a tiger is a cat, but you'd still be a fool to fear the family puss will eat you.

I don't know. I see how they look at me!

 

[shuttlt]

It's the First Amendment.

No it isn't.

I was raised in a cultural setting that would likely go with "God puts the soul in the little-bitty babies the moment the sperm touches the egg". I was capable of questioning my indoctrination with skepticism and critical thought. Technically, everyone is capable of it, though few seem to make the effort.

Your moral intuitions are not derived from reason. You sit on top of a great mound of moral intuitions that have come out of thousands of years of religious tradition. That tradition has been in dialogue with reason and experience the whole time. You may have rejected one collection of beliefs derived from that tradition for a somewhat different set.

Historically, the concept comes from the Catholic religion and was adopted quite quickly, ironically enough, by evangelical sects of Christianity. The concept that the early zygote or embryo is anything equivalent personhood was based solely on the idea that it has a soul. Otherwise, there is nothing being-like about it. Prior to that, a good number of religions and traditions held that the fetus was a person once the quickening had happened, and not before.

Sure, there are variable viewpoints on this. Since, as with any other moral injunction, there is no purely rationalistic foundation to it... the question is not rationally resolvable. But then again, that is true of all moral questions.

 

[Upchurch]

No it isn't.

Do you genuinely have no familiarity with the First Amendment's Establishment Clause? Or are you being contrarian because it does not literally use the phrase "no-no", even though I was paraphrasing and never stated it as a direct quote?

Or, perhaps, are you being credulous of the oft-repeated claim that there is no separation between church and state?

Your moral intuitions are not derived from reason. You sit on top of a great mound of moral intuitions that have come out of thousands of years of religious tradition. That tradition has been in dialogue with reason and experience the whole time. You may have rejected one collection of beliefs derived from that tradition for a somewhat different set.

Speak for yourself. I may have not analyzed every minor moral stance through the lens of critical thinking, in which case, I may fall back on cultural tradition, but don't for a minute believe that moral stances cannot be derived from reason.

Sure, there are variable viewpoints on this. Since, as with any other moral injunction, there is no purely rationalistic foundation to it... the question is not rationally resolvable. But then again, that is true of all moral questions.

I reject your premise entirely. Moral foundations absolutely can be rational.

 

[Segnosaur]

The meaning was clearly implied, as it always is around here. Perhaps you should rephrase your allegation if you are not pinning it on Christians, or contending that it is just a matter of religious belief.

It is certainly possible that a person came to believe that preteen girls should be forced to give birth to their rapist's baby for reasons other than christian beliefs. (Yes, there are some members of other religions, or even atheists, who are anti-choice.)

But, christians (in particular evangelical christians) appear to make up the biggest demographic in the anti-abortion movement, and it is unlikely that the republicans would have bothered suppressing women the way they did without the influence of christians. As such, I have no problem linking christian with anti-abortionists.

 

[Trebuchet]

Do you genuinely have no familiarity with the First Amendment's Establishment Clause? Or are you being contrarian because it does not literally use the phrase "no-no", even though I was paraphrasing and never stated it as a direct quote?

Or because there's only one amendment that matters to the Religious Right in today's America.

 

[bruto]

It is certainly possible that a person came to believe that preteen girls should be forced to give birth to their rapist's baby for reasons other than christian beliefs. (Yes, there are some members of other religions, or even atheists, who are anti-choice.)

But, christians (in particular evangelical christians) appear to make up the biggest demographic in the anti-abortion movement, and it is unlikely that the republicans would have bothered suppressing women the way they did without the influence of christians. As such, I have no problem linking christian with anti-abortionists.

Even if Christians did not invent the idea they are linked if they take it on. And I think very many Christians would be happy to take the credit, as they are very happy to consider their position in the context of their faith. It would seem a disservice to many Christians to suggest that their argument should be seen as secular.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Could be that pro choice candidates are also seen as having more general socialist agendas which are even more unpalatable to a majority of voters. I do wonder what result would be obtained if a pure referendum on the subject of abortion was held. As to a broken political system, maybe - as to incapable of flexibility, most definitely.

I highlighted the propaganda talking points spouted incessantly by the right wingers.

Police, fire, Medicare, Social Security all "socialist" programs. Are those OK with the majority of voters?

Instead of repeating and therefore amplifying the nonsense that those of us on the left, including Progressives are evil socialists try actually being specific. Oh, no one liked the ACA... until the GOP tried to take it away. Such evil.

Do you even know what socialism is? I doubt it.

Sorry this is off-topic and I'll leave it at this instead of going further. I'm in a blood-boiling mood and sick of hearing this socialism NONSENSE.

 

[Ziggurat]

It is certainly possible that a person came to believe that preteen girls should be forced to give birth to their rapist's baby for reasons other than christian beliefs. (Yes, there are some members of other religions, or even atheists, who are anti-choice.)

But, christians (in particular evangelical christians) appear to make up the biggest demographic in the anti-abortion movement, and it is unlikely that the republicans would have bothered suppressing women the way they did without the influence of christians. As such, I have no problem linking christian with anti-abortionists.

Link them all you like, but it's not a legally relevant argument. Separation of church and state isn't actually implicated just because of the correlation.

 

[Upchurch]

Separation of church and state isn't actually implicated just because of the correlation.

Of course, neither is an individual right to keep and bear arms. That's only about 14 years old and could just as easily be overturned by the right court as bodily autonomy.

 

[shuttlt]

Do you genuinely have no familiarity with the First Amendment's Establishment Clause? Or are you being contrarian because it does not literally use the phrase "no-no", even though I was paraphrasing and never stated it as a direct quote?

Or, perhaps, are you being credulous of the oft-repeated claim that there is no separation between church and state?

No, not at all.

Speak for yourself. I may have not analyzed every minor moral stance through the lens of critical thinking, in which case, I may fall back on cultural tradition, but don't for a minute believe that moral stances cannot be derived from reason.

You are incorrect. It's like trying to build mathematics without any assumed truths. Some basic moral axioms have to be assumed, rather than derived from reason. The sorts of assumptions you are likely to choose will vary significantly to those that would have been chosen in other times and in other places. Maybe one could argue some kind of perennialist position, but those are still not moral axioms derived by reason.

I reject your premise entirely. Moral foundations absolutely can be rational.

I've never seen it done, and I don't see how it could be done. "We hold these truths to be self-evident...". Self evidence truths aren't the product of reason.

 

[Bob001]

The basic issue is that if you ask people these questions in isolation, you get nonsense. You find people want high public spending, low taxations, a reduction in the debt and low inflation. The public are incoherent about what they want.

If you asked more specific questions, like "In exchange for guaranteed health coverage, would you pay higher taxes that are lower than your current health insurance premiums?," or "Would you pay higher taxes to ensure that every child had affordable access to higher education?," I think you would still find the majority in support.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

And that'd be right. I've mentioned this enough times in the past couple of weeks to feel like I'm harping, but the Democratic party as a whole has not been in favor of abortion rights until very recently. In hindsight it's obvious that they should have been, but the people who have argued that they should invest some political capital into redundantly preserving the legality of abortion have been the more generally socialist side who don't understand that incrementalism, bipartisanship and compromise are the real key to lasting change.

This is just crap! And Moscow Mitch hasn't compromised on one single thing. He makes sure he blocks everything.

And that'd be wrong. Taken as a whole and divorced from political context, voters support socialist goals like universal health care and codified abortion rights. That's why those issues get ignored by moderate Democrats; anyone who cares are already safe blue votes. What they're unpalatable with are the "swing" voters that moderate dems fall over themselves to court, the people who see one party of hateful face-eating leopards and the other trying to make things better for everyone and genuinely can't decide.


That's a lot of unpacking for "ooga booga."

More crap.

 

[Bob001]

.....
I've never seen it done, and I don't see how it could be done. "We hold these truths to be self-evident...". Self evidence truths aren't the product of reason.

We can make moral judgments based on practical assessments of what's best for the community as a whole and the individuals within it. We can agree that we are all better off if we don't murder each other or assault each other or steal each other's stuff. We can agree that if somebody else needs help, the rest of us should provide it, secure in the knowledge that we will get help when we need it. Etc., etc. We don't need stone tablets to know what's right. And the premise of our democracy is that we decide as a community who can hold power and how they can exercise it.

ETA: Keep in mind that from WWII to the beginning of the Reagan administration, we did pay higher taxes in exchange for affordable college and broader social services. In the '70s there was actually bipartisan support for universal health care, for example, but the Repubs and the Dems couldn't agree about single-payer vs. closely regulated private insurance. The right-wing anti-tax movement is a part of what is fundamentally a long-term anti-government worldview. Where we are is not only not where we have to be, it's not even where we have been in recent history.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

I've never seen it done, and I don't see how it could be done. "We hold these truths to be self-evident...". Self evidence truths aren't the product of reason.

Self-evidence

In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident proposition is a proposition that is known to be true by understanding its meaning without proof, and/or by ordinary human reason...

The following proposition is often said to be self-evident:

A finite whole is greater than, or equal to, any of its parts​

 

[shuttlt]

If you asked more specific questions, like "In exchange for guaranteed health coverage, would you pay higher taxes that are lower than your current health insurance premiums?," or "Would you pay higher taxes to ensure that every child had affordable access to higher education?," I think you would still find the majority in support.

Maybe, but you are still talking about each little thing in isolation. People are just bad at answering these kinds of questions. If you ran things based on what people say they want, you'd crash the economy. In as much as it has any meaningful existence, the "will of the people" is wildly incoherent in what it wants, has a memory of about 5 minutes, can maybe hold 2 things in it's head at once and has never read a book.

Also, your framing of the questions is fundamentally progressive.

 

[shuttlt]

Self-evidence

Yeah! That's the wrong kind of self-evident. All men being created equal isn't true in any logical sense. It is just asserted.

 

[Upchurch]

No, not at all.

With all the same depth and consideration: yeah-huh!

It's like trying to build mathematics without any assumed truths. Some basic moral axioms have to be assumed, rather than derived from reason.

Perhaps, but like with mathematics, these do not have to be taken unquestioningly on faith. They can be merely granted for the sake of argument but do not limit them from further investigation, if a reason arises.

The sorts of assumptions you are likely to choose will vary significantly to those that would have been chosen in other times and in other places. Maybe one could argue some kind of perennialist position, but those are still not moral axioms derived by reason.

Again, speak for yourself. Do not presume to be speaking for me.

I've never seen it done, and I don't see how it could be done.

Argument from incredulity: Just because you don't understand how something works, doesn't mean it doesn't work.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident...". Self evidence truths aren't the product of reason.

A quote you are taking grossly out of context. That is a linguistic flourish in a document whose primary purpose was to tell the King of England to go off. The actual philosophy behind those self-evident truths were argued and debated and took quite a while to be understood before actually being adopted. If anything, those "truths" are a great example of reason and rational thought, especially the parts deconstructing the sovereignty of royal birthright.

 

[shuttlt]

We can make moral judgments based on practical assessments of what's best for the community as a whole and the individuals within it.

Absolutely, if the community has a common culture and a common set of moral assumptions, you can absolutely do this. That isn't the issue, though.

We can agree that we are all better off if we don't murder each other or assault each other or steal each other's stuff.

On purely rationalistic grounds? No you can't. You may end up with some kind of utilitarian contract where everybody agrees not to murder everybody else, but that isn't morality. You might just as equally come up with a contract that said nobody could murder anybody, except for some group nobody liked. Morality has to be more than just reaching an agreement on a set of laws.

We can agree that if somebody else needs help, the rest of us should provide it, secure in the knowledge that we will get help when we need it.

We could equally well agree to enslave the weaker members of our group and steal their women.

Etc., etc. We don't need stone tablets to know what's right. And the premise of our democracy is that we decide as a community who can hold power and how they can exercise it.

None of this is deriving morality from reason.