Roe v. Wade overturned -- this is some BS

Status
Not open for further replies.
shuttlt said:
I don't think you've understood Ziggurat's point.
Click to expand...

No, I did and I understand that not only is it a dodge, it's a self refuting one.

I look forward to your defense of bans on meat eating.
 
Ziggurat said:
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.
Click to expand...

But the majority of the US society does agree with the right to abortion.
So what is it called when a minority abuses processes to force it's will on the majority?
 
tyr_13 said:
No, I did and I understand that not only is it a dodge, it's a self refuting one.

I look forward to your defense of bans on meat eating.
Click to expand...
It isn't self refuting. You didn't understand the point. Eating meat isn't against my morality, so I'm not against it. All societies impose some form of morality on people, the only question is what that morality should be.
 
It's weird watching the same conservatives who argued that being illegal doesn't impede anything at all when it comes to gun laws argue here that we need laws to impose morality wrt abortion.
 
Upchurch said:
It's the First Amendment.



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.
Click to expand...
The RCC only adopted ensoulment at conception in the nineteenth century.
 
wareyin said:
It's weird watching the same conservatives who argued that being illegal doesn't impede anything at all when it comes to gun laws argue here that we need laws to impose morality wrt abortion.
Click to expand...

Guns are a god given divine right!

Rights to bodily autonomy for womensplit-tails is not. They're just incubators.

Protect the babies! (Until they're born)
 
Shalamar said:
Guns are a god given divine right!

Rights to bodily autonomy for womensplit-tails is not. They're just incubators.

Protect the babies! (Until they're born)
Click to expand...

if foetuses don't want to be aborted, they can make use of their 2nd amendment right to defend themselves - if they don't get a gun, that's their mistake.
 
tyr_13 said:
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.
Click to expand...

First, you assume there are no pragmatic implications of abortion, but there are. Second, you have created caveats of your own which weren't part of your original claim, and basically constitute special pleading.

Further, you don't believe your own reasoning to give objection. If you did you'd be fine with banning gay sex
Click to expand...

shuttit is right, you don't understand my point at all.

And to be explicit, I'm not fine with banning gay sex. But the reason I'm not fine with it isn't because it's based on morals. There are other reasons I'm opposed to it, including that it conflicts with my own morals. And yes, being opposed to a law because it's based on morality that you disagree with is a reasonable reason to oppose such a law. Same goes for abortion. I've got no problem with you opposing abortion restrictions because they conflict with your morality. But again, that's different than being opposed to it because it's based on morals. That isn't the argument you made before.
 
Last edited:
Lukraak_Sisser said:
But the majority of the US society does agree with the right to abortion.
Click to expand...

But not an overwhelming majority, and not without some restrictions (for example, the majority doesn't support 9th month abortions).

So how do we resolve differences of opinion among the citizenry? Well, one way to do it is to devolve the question from the federal level back to the states. And I think you will find that the degree of support for and opposition to abortion varies from state to state. States where a majority support abortion can keep it legal. States where a majority oppose abortion can restrict it. If the outcome you're after is laws that most closely resemble the desires of the people, then overturning RvW is a step in the right direction. Which makes me think you aren't actually making this argument in good faith, but just trying whatever you think might stick. The problem is, it doesn't.

So what is it called when a minority abuses processes to force it's will on the majority?
Click to expand...

Such as when 7 unelected judges declare that states cannot prohibit abortion, no matter how unpopular the decision is within that state?

You really can't use this argument to defend Roe v. Wade. It doesn't work.
 
Ziggurat said:
But not an overwhelming majority, and not without some restrictions (for example, the majority doesn't support 9th month abortions).

So how do we resolve differences of opinion among the citizenry? Well, one way to do it is to devolve the question from the federal level back to the states. And I think you will find that the degree of support for and opposition to abortion varies from state to state. States where a majority support abortion can keep it legal. States where a majority oppose abortion can restrict it. If the outcome you're after is laws that most closely resemble the desires of the people, then overturning RvW is a step in the right direction. Which makes me think you aren't actually making this argument in good faith, but just trying whatever you think might stick. The problem is, it doesn't.



Such as when 7 unelected judges declare that states cannot prohibit abortion, no matter how unpopular the decision is within that state?

You really can't use this argument to defend Roe v. Wade. It doesn't work.
Click to expand...

Although the GOP elite pose as pro-forced birth, I doubt there is a single state where the populace is. If you have evidence of one rather than assumptions that there is one, feel free to share. Otherwise, your argument falls apart.
 
Warp12 said:
I don't care now. Roe is dead. Children can be made to carry rape and incest babies to term for all I care. Complete abortion bans will not cause me to blink an eye. I do not care if all sex education is eliminated from schools, nor if birth control is outlawed.
I now have zero interest in seeing politicians working towards reasonable compromise on this matter. I don't care how many suffer now due to this ruling, either. As far as I am concerned liberals have brought this upon themselves through their loser political actions and ever-increasing demands for relaxed abortion law.
Click to expand...

Stacyhs said:
How very Christian of you. Oh, I'm sorry. Am I picking on Christians now?

" ever-increasing demands for relaxed abortion law"

Since Roe v Wade in 1973, exactly what 'ever-increasing demands for relaxed abortion law" have liberals made? They've fought against ever-increasing restrictive abortion laws like the one TX enacted. Get a grip on reality.
Click to expand...

Warp12 said:
I think yes, your comment is intended as being derogatory towards Christians.
Click to expand...

No, it was disgusted sarcasm toward hypocrites who claim to be Christians but behave in very unChristian ways. Maybe it's just their interpretation that when Jesus said "Suffer the little children to come unto me" he really meant they should suffer as in being forced to give birth after being raped at 10 years old.

Christians who practice what Christianity preaches...love, kindness, unselfishness, forgiveness... have my respect. The others don't.

You failed to answer my question:

"Since Roe v Wade in 1973, exactly what 'ever-increasing demands for relaxed abortion law" have liberals made? "
 
Stacyhs said:
No, it was disgusted sarcasm toward hypocrites who claim to be Christians but behave in very unChristian ways. Maybe it's just their interpretation that when Jesus said "Suffer the little children to come unto me" he really meant they should suffer as in being forced to give birth after being raped at 10 years old.

Christians who practice what Christianity preaches...love, kindness, unselfishness, forgiveness... have my respect. The others don't.
Click to expand...


Who was talking about Christians? Why even bring it up? Probably they might say that murdering the unborn is worse than forcing raped children to give birth to one of God's beautiful creations. God has a plan, after all. Who are we to question it?

So, I don't think that is hypocritical at all.
 
Upchurch said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's in the Book of Jerry Falwell. It's not, unsurprisingly, in the Bible anywhere. Now men OTOH, sin if they spill their seed on the ground. Could be that's where the Catholics got the idea condoms were bad.


I wonder where the Catholics got their pro-life stance from. Anyone know?
 
Ziggurat said:
For example:
https://www.pewresearch.org/religio...-study/compare/views-about-abortion/by/state/

Given that the facts contradict your expectations, will this prompt any introspection about why you got it so completely wrong?
Click to expand...

Cool, so almost a decade ago there were 11 states where the majority of respondents answered that abortion should be illegal in all/most cases. As in, out of 511 Alabamians (population 4.9 million), 58% said illegal in all/most cases. Out of 311 Arkansas (pop 3 million) respondents, it was 60%. It's weak evidence, but it's better than you usually offer! :thumbsup:
 
Ziggurat said:
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.
Click to expand...
Are there people fighting for their right to be cruel to animals? or to murder or to neglect children or ...

The point is half the country doesn't buy the morality argument for abortion. For that reason your analogy fails.
 
Ziggurat said:
First, you assume there are no pragmatic implications of abortion, but there are.
Click to expand...
Name them, they aren't readily coming to me.

Ziggurat said:
...Second, you have created caveats of your own which weren't part of your original claim, and basically constitute special pleading.

shuttit is right, you don't understand my point at all.
Click to expand...
No one is special pleading. In your mind failure to agree means the person didn't understand you. That is a common fallacy.

We both understand as do others reading your post. It's a false equivalence and a bad analogy.

Ziggurat said:
And to be explicit, I'm not fine with banning gay sex. But the reason I'm not fine with it isn't because it's based on morals. There are other reasons I'm opposed to it, including that it conflicts with my own morals. And yes, being opposed to a law because it's based on morality that you disagree with is a reasonable reason to oppose such a law. Same goes for abortion. I've got no problem with you opposing abortion restrictions because they conflict with your morality. But again, that's different than being opposed to it because it's based on morals. That isn't the argument you made before.
Click to expand...
WTF?

Those split hairs aren't relevant whatever twisted reasoning you mean by it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom