No, only some. Those who share your views.
- Status
No, only some. Those who share your views.
Susheel
Illuminator
Well...fancy that...
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2016
- Messages
- 30,004
well, the argument US Christians use to support their anti-abortion stance is very much derogatory of Jews, so maybe rational people should can leave Religion out of this?
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
The point is that early stage personhood is an idea that originates from certain religions. Even if you don’t believe there is a constitutional right to bodily autonomy, and it is in everyone’s best interest for their to be one, it definitely isn’t constitutional to enact a law that gives preference to one religious belief over a different religious belief.
This ruling was a bad one from start to finish.
This ruling was a bad one from start to finish.
kevbo
Critical Thinker
Agreed. Especially the hilited.
The liberal idea of equality comes from the equality of souls before God. Does the Constitution ban laws based on notions of equality?
Meh.
Liberals are all over the map with this. One minute they are screaming about religion and "early stage personhood", the next they are saying there shouldn't be restrictions on third trimester abortions.
Like I say, nothing is good enough for them. Even my prior stance of accepting Roe, supporting legal abortion in cases of rape and incest, and advocating for education, community outreach, and free birth control. That wasn't good enough because I had the audacity to suggest crazy things such as a greater emphasis should be placed on personal responsibility for both men and women.
So, guess what? Liberals get nothing, now. They lost their bargaining chip via political failure and unreasonable demands. And the scotus is now a conservative's wet dream, and likely will be for a very long time. This is just the beginning.
Last edited:
Partly this is because in the utopia everybody will be free to pursue happiness without moral censure, and everybody will be protected from the consequences of their choices. It's a bit like how, when Communist man emerges, he will only want to do things that are compatible with equality, hence the obvious contradictions between freedom and equality will resolve. You can't view it as the pragmatic balancing off evils. You have to celebrate abortion as an expression of individual freedom. When everybody abandons traditional morality, a stable society of hedonistic individuals will emerge who sleep with whoever they feel like without guilt, envy or consequences.
Last edited:
Sorry can I ask if this is an entirely serious post? Because some people here play Devil’s Advocate.
If it’s serious your slippery slope argument is too ridiculous to address.
dmaker
Graduate Poster
I was listening to Fox News last night on the radio while driving--I go there sometimes on commercial breaks just to peek at what the other side is talking about. Not sure who was speaking but they were complaining about how the left is so intolerant on this issue and can't they just understand that some people may find abortion to be morally wrong.
I get that. That is not the point. The point is if you don't agree with it, then don't have one, but leave others free to choose. Why should their moral choices be forced upon everyone else? Why can't they understand that??
I get that. That is not the point. The point is if you don't agree with it, then don't have one, but leave others free to choose. Why should their moral choices be forced upon everyone else? Why can't they understand that??
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Well, I doubt your average person who supported the communists back in 1920 wouldn't have read the philosophical workings out of how liberty and equality could be made compatible. They may never have considered that they weren't. The useful idiots of the revolution. If people thought in that way, you wouldn't get incoherent notions like "liberté, égalité, fraternité" becoming so popular. Maybe if they had been aware that their leaders meant something very different by "liberty" than they did, it would have made a difference, and maybe it wouldn't? It's the same today. Most people don't read the history of the ideas they support, or consider what the implications of their ideas are beyond the things they want their ideas to deliver. You see this on the "Trans women are not women" thread where you get people simultaneously supporting the process of deconstructing concepts that stand in the way of the free self-creation of the individual.... they support the deconstruction of the family, and the social role of women, but are shocked that the concept of women itself ends up getting deconstructed. People think they can board the train and then get off wherever they want.
All nonsense. Thanks, it doesn’t need to be addressed.
Beelzebuddy
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2010
- Messages
- 10,636
You're looking for a coherent argument from reasoned moral principles. You will not find one. The sole point is to claim victimization even while victimizing others. That's all.
There is no neutral environment where one persons choices don't restrict the choices of other people. If in a State most of the population don't want to live under an individualistic moral system, will you let them? If you impose an individualistic system on them, then you set up tragedy of the commons type incentives that drives people to behave individualistically. Some people value community, family etc... over individual freedom. The system you see as neutral is an existential threat to them.
Last edited:
cosmicaug
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2012
- Messages
- 1,963
So we have abortion rights relentlessly attacked and pushed back at the state level to the point that, despite Roe vs. Wade, in many states abortion might as well have been illegal even before this ruling; but it's actually the liberals' fault because look what you made me do, you just tried too hard and pushed too much?
Yeah, that makes total sense!
Last edited:
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,787
I'm afraid it's you who doesn't understand.
Everyone forces moral choices on other people. We need a shared moral code, and much of that moral code is enforced by law. It cannot be otherwise. You may have mistakenly believed that it was otherwise because you may not have even noticed all the morality that's encoded into law, but it's absolutely there.
I'll give you an example: laws against animal cruelty. That's a moral choice that we have made as a society. We didn't have to outlaw animal cruelty. We didn't do so for purely pragmatic reasons. We did so because we believe it is morally wrong to be cruel to animals. I'm guessing you share that belief. I'm also guessing you never really objected to forcing that moral choice on other people. But that's still what's happening. You don't actually object to forcing moral choices on other people. Nobody really does, not categorically. You only object to doing so when it's a moral choice you disagree with.
Shalamar
Dark Lord of the JREF
I see once again that conservatives place a greater value of life and freedoms on that of a unthinking, unformed fetus over that of an actual thinking human female.
Of course, fetus' are only valued until they're born.
Of course, fetus' are only valued until they're born.
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2008
- Messages
- 18,095
Oops! Someone's caveat negates their point! In addition to a massive false equivalency over limiting what someone does with their body based on other people's morals with limiting what people do to other animals based on pragmatic and moral considerations.
Further, you don't believe your own reasoning to give objection. If you did you'd be fine with banning gay sex (hell, you probably will defend the state that tires it) or banning meat eating because of a minority moral consideration enforced on a majority of people.
I don't think you've understood Ziggurat's point.
- Status