91–100 of 388 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Show me someone who is pregnant from rape and I'll show you 100 couples who eagerly want to adopt the baby.
And I'll show you 400k children -currently- in the foster care system, unadopted.
People want babies, not so much children.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it? I strongly disagree with such a position. But it seems clear to me that many such people: 1. Believe that the foetus is alive (and often also that it is human) 2. Believe that life is sacred or otherwise precious. 3. Believe that the foetus's right to life outweighs the mother's right the self-determine use of her body. I can understand how one can have a thought process like that even if I think it's wrong in…
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…
If they believe all three of these things, as well as the unsaid and equally necessary fourth that it is the government's job to enforce them regardless of the will of the people, then they must also believe -
It is the government's job to ensure -everyone- receives necessary care. That means, minimally, food, shelter, healthcare, regardless of your work situation, age, (dis)ability, etc.
Life > personal autonomy, so organ donation is not optional, nor is blood donation. If your kidney is a match for someone who needs one, you're forced to donate, that sort of thing. And expect monthly trips to the blood donation van.
Etc.
Anything else and these are logically inconsistent.
It is frustrating. I am on one side of the abortion debate, but I understand the other side, yet I have no success in even explaining it to my side.
Same here. I find it very annoying that on most major issues, the sides argue at right angles to one another. They say the other side is wrong without saying what they believe is wrong. Anti-abortion activists don't address the issue of bodily autonomy and pro-abortion activists don't address the issue of the definition of personhood. If you're like me and settled on strictly-consistent stances on the topic you find…
Here is the thing, the majority of people who actually reason and think about these topics have heard the same arguments now for 20 years or more. There is nothing new being said, there is no movement on the position of people on either side, and thus there is no more discussion. All you see is propaganda, which I don't care to engage with. So I vote and donate so that "my side" wins and that's that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well yes, but as much as I am a proponent of both the right to privacy and abortion, the latter doesn't really follow from the former. Just because one has a right to privacy, it doesn't follow that everything done in private is legal. Nor is abortion necessarily private - one could declare one is going to have one, or one could be visibly pregnant and then get an abortion. It would be a bizarre law if abortion was l…
>Just because one has a right to privacy, it doesn't follow that everything done in private is legal. No one, anywhere, has ever argued that the right to privacy means everything done in private is legal. That is not even remotely close to what the debate is about. You have constructed an impressively bad strawman.
In all other contexts I know of, the 4th amendment does not grant anyone rights to do things that would otherwise be illegal. It sets careful restrictions on the governments ability to investigate. In other words, the government is prohibited from doing things we consider to be a burden upon people whom the government lacks sufficient reason to suspect. However, given a sufficient reason to suspect them of a crime the government can then fulfill due process and continue in it's investigations of those suspected crimes.
So lets by very precise here. Lets take some action a person might engage in, lets call it 'throwing strings', which is just made up nonsense. To be informative here, we will say that the constitution does not have anything to say regarding throwing strings, and that state or local governments can outlaw it as they see fit. However, in the existence of a right to privacy the act of throwing strings becomes a right under the constitution.
How can a right to unreasonable search and seizure (or however other way privacy is derived) possibly create a right to openly and notoriously throw strings?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And I'll show you 400k children -currently- in the foster care system, unadopted.
The comment said baby. Not children. People want babies, not so much children.
This blog post touches on a topic with far-reaching consequences that I think a lot of people are missing because they are focusing only on the question of abortion, and that is PRIVACY. In a nutshell, Roe makes abortion legal by guaranteeing the privacy of a woman to make that decision with her doctor. If Roe is overturned then it's this assumption of privacy which will have been vacated... and once it is I suspect…
The timing is notable, coming on the heels of an emphatic conservative critique of compelled vaccination . For the first time in memory the right side of the aisle has been arguing for bodily autonomy and the left for the state's right to compel people to accept medical treatment over objection (or even an extended form of home-confinement). It's the first time in memory I have some hope the different sides of the de…
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…
No, you can also refute the premises/axioms and there other ways to do that than needing to demonstrate inconsistency.
"Seek first to understand, then to be understood." -- habit #5 of the 7 habits of highly successful people
Quoted post unavailable.
That we believe we can justly inflict capital punishment on a rapist's child is also interesting.
You know, there was once another Supreme Court case where individual rights (namely, property rights) came into conflict with (controversial) claims of personhood: Dred Scott.
You could say I'm trolling here, because the truth is I do not vote on the basis of abortion issues, and, when push comes to shove, I would tend to allow it. So I am not, politically, quite the person you might think I am.
Nevertheless, it does make me extremely, morally, uncomfortable; it's something I wouldn't want to be mixed up in; and I can absolutely understand the philosophical arguments against it. Which is why I am able to make analogies like those above.
If you stop and think about it, Republicans' opposition to abortion, perversely, demonstrates that at least in some areas they have moral principles (though you might disagree with them) -- that they do what they believe is right, even when it's not in their interest. Because the people most disproportionately impacted by restrictive abortion rules are women of color. If Republicans were ruthless consequentialists, this is exactly the person whose abortion rights they would not want to restrict. So in a perverse way it tells me that (some of them) actually believe something.
There's another tactic that you could list under the "strategic model" so that it becomes like the "outlier model": misrepresent how many people actually hold the opposing view. For example, with abortion, by the way it's presented on social media, you would think it's a men vs women topic. But as recently as 2019[0], of pro-lifers, women were the majority. And pro-lifers are nearly half of the population. But if you…
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…
> Morality and law both work like mathematics. This is something only engineers are able to believe.