271–280 of 388 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If Congress could get an amendment passed to the effect of "Abortion is a right" , then the issue of how SCOTUS interprets the privacy argument becomes moot.
The likelihood of any amendment passing on any matter whatsoever seems about as close to zero as anything in the US political landscape. It's even smaller for one regarding abortion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
First of all: What a terribly-made PDF... It's so compressed I can't even read the text at the top. Secondly, it's just from an awful source: The Family Research Council (FRC) is designated as a hate group (for good reason!) by the Southern Poverty Law Center: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/grou... Even after all that it has yet another problem : It uses loaded terms like, "unborn children" t…
FWIW, the SPLC is an extremist hate group from my perspective.
But neither of these things changes the fact that the USA has extraordinarily permissive abortion laws.
Almost every serious non-partisan legal scholar agrees that Roe v. Wade is on tenuous legal footing. It's purely a logical argument, and it doesn't follow very well from the Constitution. We have a very simple mechanism to rectify this: amend the Constitution. But that ship has long sailed, and the problem now is stare decisis †, which complicates things further. So there's a very real justification for keeping Roe i…
Citation needed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Hard lines being drawn, people unwilling to even talk with others based on ideological labels, economic sanctions against ‘offenders’, propaganda clearly targeted at specific identifiable groups used to raise funds and attack the ‘other’ side, fear and loathing/us vs them. You're describing today's conservatives. Liberals seem to be always willing to entertain the discussion of basically anything . It's sort of a c…
>Liberals seem to be always willing to entertain the discussion of basically anything. It's sort of a core tenet of liberalism... Open discussion and debate. I'm not sure that is true anymore. Liberals have extremist wings (like Antifa) just like conservatives do. People making liberal arguments now spew the same venom that only conservative groups did 10 years ago. At least in my experience. I think part of the prob…
OK where's the anti-fascist extremism here in the US (which is the relevant region of this discussion) that's shutting down discussions?
If you look at Wikipedia's extensive (but non-exhaustive) page about Terrorism in the United States there's just a single entry for an Antifa activist:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States
...but there's a number of entries for:
* Anti-abortion violence
* Antisemitism
* Right-wing and anti-government extremism
* White nationalism and white supremacy
https://www.advocate.com/law/2022/3/29/16-states-pushing-don...
So again, definitely not a "both sides" issue. Bringing up Antifa as some sort of equivalency is absolutely ridiculous.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You understood the point though. Abortion is a third rail political topic so for most unenlightened people on either side of the issue, there is no middle ground.
The extreme positions are "a four-cell zygote should be protected from abortion", and "a baby being born may be aborted". Most citizens are in the middle ground.
Now suppose that you are asked to decide where exactly that line is, taking into account this knowledge from the Oracle. But, imagine that at some point in the future, the Oracle might reveal where the line should have been drawn, and if your guess is a higher number than the Oracle's, then you are retrospectively guilty of manslaughter of all the zygotes/babies that were aborted at an age between your number and the Oracle's.
I suspect that in this hypothetical scenario, you would pick "a five-cell zygote should be protected from abortion" as the line.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
You’ve got some strong self rationalization going. No one has forced you to do anything. There are plenty of people who aren’t extreme, in fact, most people don’t take extreme positions on abortion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Hard lines being drawn, people unwilling to even talk with others based on ideological labels, economic sanctions against ‘offenders’, propaganda clearly targeted at specific identifiable groups used to raise funds and attack the ‘other’ side, fear and loathing/us vs them. You're describing today's conservatives. Liberals seem to be always willing to entertain the discussion of basically anything . It's sort of a c…
>Liberals seem to be always willing to entertain the discussion of basically anything. It's sort of a core tenet of liberalism... Open discussion and debate. I'm not sure that is true anymore. Liberals have extremist wings (like Antifa) just like conservatives do. People making liberal arguments now spew the same venom that only conservative groups did 10 years ago. At least in my experience. I think part of the prob…
Antifa[1] generally aren't Liberals, except in the overly-broad definition where anyone who opposed fascism is antifa. American Antifa is based on the German Antifa, which is explicitly leftist and anticapitalist, and the majority of self-identified American Antifa are the same.
GP is talking about political Liberalism[2], of which open discussion is a core tenet. US politics has muddied the term "liberalism" to be essentially meaningless, but as far as words have actual meanings, GP is correct.
(The word you're looking for might be "progressives", if you're trying to describe "people left of what the US calls conservatives")
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do not know ethics, nor any branch of philosophy (as my below comments show, the issue I could discuss was the "law" part). However, what I have never understood is how does the a priori science of ethics map onto real life, where morality is borne out of emotions and instinctual human social conditioning. I think it's rather obvious from observing young humans that they do not discover ethics from first principles…
.
> What you're talking about has nothing to do with what philosophers do, which is talk about how things ought to be.
How is that of any use? It's not like people are going to drop what they're doing and change their morals because ethics professors said so. That would be ridiculous.
> Your metaethical position is just one among very many and there are arguments for and against it and all the others. It's not special.
You can say that against anything, really.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’ve got some strong self rationalization going. No one has forced you to do anything. There are plenty of people who aren’t extreme, in fact, most people don’t take extreme positions on abortion.
I agree. But moderate views are not represented in federal law.
To my knowledge, the extent of federal law on abortion is limited to bans on public funding for abortion. Where else is it “extreme”?