141–150 of 388 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where in the U.S. (other than in the military, where different structures apply) has anyone been compelled to be vaccinated?
Haven't school kids in the US been required to be vaccinated against numerous diseases for ages?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not fair. Those extremists are succeeding in pushing their agenda.
Show me a law on the books in any state that would outlaw abortion in the case of rape. Obviously it would be a "trigger law" since states can't actually have such a law right now, but no such law exists as far as I'm aware. Unless you can do that, it's not fair to claim that those extremists are succeeding in pushing anything. Edit: I'm not going to individually address all of the dishonest rhetoric from the article…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not true at all. It's something philosophers and mathematicians have explored. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlQaP4c_Jxk
I think you're conflating the philosophy of mathematics with describing the entirety of philosophy (or even just morality) using mathematics. I cannot claim to understand philosophy but I can claim to understand law, and it is _not_ like mathematics. Human discretion is paramount to the system, and laws are written in such a way that humans reinterpret them afterwards, as influenced by their own cultural and social b…
Edit: changed example
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People certainly do believe these things and I don’t know if it’s even something they can be “logically” wrong about. Where they are factually wrong is that they think they’re traditional but these are fully modern ideas. The actual Jewish tradition is against several of those; the actual Christian tradition may be for them, but the idea that you should actually read the Bible, know what an official position is, or d…
> The actual Jewish tradition is against several of those I think that Josephus, the first-century Jewish historian, would have something to say[0] about that: “The law, moreover, enjoins us to bring up all our offspring and forbids women to cause abortion of what is begotten, or to destroy it afterward; and if any woman appears to have so done, she will be a murderer of her child, by destroying a living creature, an…
I mean, he’s not a rabbi or anything. It was considered somewhat less bad than murder, or possibly is only bad when Romans do it.
https://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/sites/default/files/publi...
> That's like saying that Protestants didn't believe in God until recently, because they defined themselves as against Catholics who are theists.
Surely the Protestants’ idea was they’re the ones who believe in God and Catholics are idolators who worship saints?
> Do you have any example of historic Protestant teaching that approved of abortion?
They switched to being against it in the 70s, so is 68 historic?
https://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/30/my-take-when-evang... (page is somewhat broken)
> So, here’s a timeline: The 14th amendment was passed in 1868. For 135 years, it was perfectly consistent with that amendment for states to put people in jail for having the wrong kind of sex. Then, one day, it wasn’t anymore. This is wrong. When precedent is overturned, it's because the law struck down was never consistent with the amendment(s) at issue. Segregation was not perfectly consistent with the 14th Amendm…
So if a future court overturns Brown v. Board, then it means that segregation is consistent again (and always has been)? How is this not exactly the kind of capriciousness that TFA is illustrating?
Morality and law both work like mathematics. This means that my beliefs are constructed, and once I have a construction, the only in bounds way to convince me to change my mind about them is to show me that my beliefs are inconsistent. Moreover, understanding someone who has already demonstrated an inconsistent belief system is easy. They believe X because they believe something and its negation, and at least one of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
It's also hard to understand why a fetus is to be protected but homeless children and people shouldn't be sheltered or fed, wars shouldn't be protested and education shouldn't be funded, but here we are. Political tools are used as wedge issues, not as logical thinking points. "Not in my back yard" is a wonderful summation of this. While many upper class liberals support more homeless shelters, they don't want one in…
I believe it's the distinction between active killing vs. the passive lack of support.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> one could be visibly pregnant and then get an abortion. People don't talk about it a lot, but the miscarraige rate is something like 10-20%. You probably know at least a handful of women who've experienced one. It's fallacious to conclude somebody had an abortion because they're no longer pregnant but don't have a baby.
...what does this have to do with what GP said? As far as I can tell, nothing. They never said, "anyone who's visibly pregnant and then later on visibly not-pregnant had an abortion."
> Nor is abortion necessarily private [...] or one could be visibly pregnant and then get an abortion.
You wouldn't know that person had an abortion unless they told you. But then you might as well simply say "An abortion isn't private if the woman tells everyone she had one", which is the same as "one could declare one is going to have one" so I think that's not what was meant.
This misunderstands the role of a Constitution. One of the central points of a Constitution is to mark certain things off-limits to democracy. People cannot debate with each other and vote for legislators who will pass laws that are forbidden by the constitution. It doesn't matter how many of them want to, or how solid the argument is. The Constitution says "nope, don't care, you cannot do that".
Even if every single voter in a state wanted to prevent anyone from ever saying "Turtles Suck!", the state cannot pass such a law. Even if there is vigorous disagreement over whether or not people should be allowed to say "Turtles Suck!", the Constitution says "don't care. You cannot pass a law prohibiting this."
So in the case discussed at the top of the article, the core question is whether the Constitution allows states to pass laws that ban abortion.
Roe said that the Constitution does not allow them to do so, because (not meant sarcastically, just not worth enumerating them here).
As long as the Constitution is understood in that way, it makes no difference how much debate and disagreement there is about such laws: the Constitution says "you cannot pass laws that function in this way."
Now, of course, currently SCOTUS appears to be ready to present a different understanding of the Constitution in which it does not prevent states from passing laws that ban abortion (or otherwise restrict it). That makes no difference to the central point: if the Constitution is understood to prevent legislation that restricts behavior, the level of disagreement in society about that behavior is of no legal consequence.