|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On May 04 2022 05:25 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2022 04:49 Acrofales wrote:On May 04 2022 02:46 KwarK wrote:On May 04 2022 02:29 Acrofales wrote:On May 04 2022 02:24 Slydie wrote:On May 04 2022 01:41 Acrofales wrote:On May 04 2022 01:03 JimmiC wrote:On May 04 2022 00:26 NrG.Bamboo wrote:On May 03 2022 23:46 JimmiC wrote:On May 03 2022 23:17 NrG.Bamboo wrote:
[quote]
Ah, fair enough. For whatever reason I always forget about Disney (although they are already running into issues recently with the FL "don't say gay" bill and losing independent district status). Thanks for clarification. DeSantis is trying to take that away, but if he does he will have to pay off their billions in Bonds based on the law, he is going like Trump was with the wall saying "Disney will pay", but I'm sure that will work as well as Mexico paying. The Reps are just full social conservative/Baptist culture war party now. They want massive government intervention into peoples private lives, into businesses, and so on. Also the whole "states rights" thing is the stupidest argument, what about city and towns rights? I know I'm not alone in the speaking with my wallet, it will not be everyone of course but a lot of these places are going to feel the pinch when they already just got pinched. Yeah as I understand it, it's not a smart financial move, and that's before taking into account the repercussions of losing patrons that disagree with their stances. I wonder, though, if conservatives would have been able to keep up by simply ignoring the culture war and keeping their sights on other matters. I think there is a certain point in which representatives should be expected to speak up for their constituents, however loony their views might seem. It's not like they haven't already held their beliefs, but that the "certain point" has arrived and the remaining question is whether pushing back is worth the economic backlash. I'm sure you're not the only person who will withdraw vacation stays based on this, and am personally curious to see how much of an impact it has on these areas. Cities and counties can pass their own laws though, I don't know what you're trying to get at. Does state law contradict federal law? If not then go ahead. Does city law contradict state law? If not then go ahead. This court challenge simply moves the decision to a more local level. Of course there are more intricacies but that's the gist. If you're trying to say that it's absurd that a small community cannot make their own choices on what should occur in its borders, yes I agree with you :3 Your logic flows, it is just not the logic of the current Republicans. They want "state rights" so they can have their rules but then when city makes rules that are contrary to the state, they make rules outlawing the rule in the city. Also, these confirmation hearings on SCJ are shown again to be complete BS. This decision requires the last 3 to have voted against what they said they would. Sadly there is no recal mechanism. Well, states cannot make laws that go against national law, just as cities cannot make laws that go against state law. If a state passes a law that outlaws abortion, that cannot be overruled at a city level. It could be overruled at a national level, but that would require congress to actually do something. Is a fetus really life, though? Most of these abortions happen way before the fetus have any chance of surviving, no matter the artificial help it gets. Only 100 years ago even newborn babies were barely considered human beings as the child mortality was so high. That fetuses are suddenly so important to protect seems like a stance stenched with secondary motives, the main motivation is that women should not have sex unless they want to be pregnant. It goes hand in hand with how religious institutions fail deal with reality when facing undesired sexual relations. This is church policy, Jesus himself embraced prostitutes. I think that is a bad faith argument. I am sure there are some people who don't give a shit about fetuses or their lives and use this as a stick to keep the uppety womenfolk in the kitchen. But I also believe someone like Introvert (or, for that matter, xDaunt) truly believe fetuses have the right to live, and that that right to live trumps the mother's right to bodily autonomy. There is no need to argue that they don't actually believe that when there are plenty of solid arguments to make against what they claim they do believe. If they actually believed that they’d have the government requisitioning organs. People with diabetes would have their blood hooked up to people with healthy kidneys for filtration. The ethical implications of believing that when a life is at stake bodily autonomy isn’t absolute are huge. Take the thought experiment of the violinist. You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you. If pro-life beliefs were in good faith they would insist that unplugging is murder. I feel the last few pages of this thread have been too much bandwagoning and not enough discussion, so I am happy to play devil's advocate if it actually gets people thinking and discussing rather than piling onto the "hurrdurr pro-life evil". Let me state first and foremost that I don't think the Republicans have a coherent pro-life argument, but I do believe there is one to be made. I'd say the closest I've seen is from the Christen Unie, a Dutch political party that is best described as strongly religious social democrats. I won't claim to voice their viewpoints, as I don't think it's particularly relevant, but they are generally in favor of strong social projects to help those in need, including the poor, immigrants, women and children. At the same time, they are against abortion, as they see it as murder. The main point I want to make is that a coherent ethical argument against abortion can be made starting from two axioms: 1. Fetuses are humans. 2. Saving another human's life is a greater good than bodily autonomy. If you then allow that there is a distinction between doing and allowing (as many philosophers do), it is entirely defensible to argue that abortion should be outlawed (doing murder of the fetus), and also that the government should not oblige people to donate their kidneys (allowing people to die). As for the thought experiment of the violinist: from these points of view, it should be entirely clear that yes, in the highly unlikely event that this happens, it should be forbidden to unplug that person. That said, it is also forbidden to put you in that situation without your consent, and the Society of Music Lovers should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. However, that won't help you in your current predicament, and you will have to bear the violinist to term: the situation has changed from one where you can help, but inaction allows the violinist to die, to one where you do cause the violinist's death by unplugging yourself. The doing vs allowing distinction is utterly absurd. If a doctor says “say yes if you want to be unplugged” and you affirm yes then it’s murder. If they say “say yes if you don’t want to be unplugged” and you say nothing then you have merely allowed the natural course of events to take place and you’re fine. The choice to say “yes” represents a choice. Both saying the word and not saying the word are deliberate actions, we can’t twist this so that no choice has been made. And once we’re good with forbidding people to choose bodily autonomy over human life we’re going on a wild ride of mandatory seizures, utilitarian organ farming, and slavery. There’s a reason bodily autonomy is viewed as such a fundamental right.
Given that you basically never change your mind and are here mainly to lecture others and you wouldn't know nuance if it hit you in the face, I expect this won't convince you, but here you are: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/doing-allowing/
By the way, my impression of you is that you seem to be fairly well off. Due to your inaction, you are allowing hundreds of innocent Africans to die every year from malaria, hunger and other very preventable causes. If doing and allowing hold equal moral weight, that is as if you are personally murdering them. Shame on you!
|
A few things, tho my time is short. Acro did a good job with the thought experiment, I would just emphasize the choice aspect. Getting pregnant is not a comparable situation, it's not a malignant tumor that just appears. Even if pregnancy isn't intentional, it's always a possibility. I think that also sufficiently distinguishes it from the example.
It's absurd to think that because you oppose killing kids in the womb you have to favor the cradle to grave nanny state to the same extent as your furthest left aquantinance. That obviously doesn't follow but man, rhetorically it feels good to say.
Re:judges
This is just more hypocrisy. No one thinks that because, say Citizens United is precedent that many left-wing judges wouldn't overrule it given the first chance. If memory serves Sotomayor has acknowledged that Heller is precedent and has pretty much always ruled to undermine it. Also, IIRC, Kagan said there was no right to gay marriage in the constitution. But she found one always! This yapping is just politicians trying to score points (Dems) or cover their behinds (Collins). Judges don't commit to outcomes ahead of time, not explicitly.
|
Can someone explain to me law hierarchy? Let’s say in some stupid, totally not real scenario where all these made up blue dog socialists rise up and choose to only vote now that communists are running as democrats, and democrats take a super majority, and they pass an abortion rights law, couldn’t the Supreme Court strike it down?
My understanding of law power dynamics is that technically the Supreme Court has no means of enforcing their decisions. That means anyone could just ignore it and nothing would happen. I assume the same is not true of the senate.
|
On May 04 2022 07:21 Introvert wrote:
It's absurd to think that because you oppose killing kids in the womb you have to favor the cradle to grave nanny state to the same extent as your furthest left aquantinance. That obviously doesn't follow but man, rhetorically it feels good to say.
If someone can explain to me how providing a right is shoving something down other people's throats, as opposed to the other way around, that'd be swell.
|
|
|
On May 04 2022 02:46 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2022 02:29 Acrofales wrote:On May 04 2022 02:24 Slydie wrote:On May 04 2022 01:41 Acrofales wrote:On May 04 2022 01:03 JimmiC wrote:On May 04 2022 00:26 NrG.Bamboo wrote:On May 03 2022 23:46 JimmiC wrote:On May 03 2022 23:17 NrG.Bamboo wrote:On May 03 2022 23:05 JimmiC wrote:On May 03 2022 22:40 NrG.Bamboo wrote:
[quote]
Two questions: what removal of gun laws are you referencing, and how often do you spend money in red states? I'm talking about Florida pushing for no permits as well as Texas. Pre pandemic 2 weeks a year vacation. Often Sandpoint/whitefish. We have been to Disneyland as the larger family and were talking about Disneyworld, now that is off the table. Ah, fair enough. For whatever reason I always forget about Disney (although they are already running into issues recently with the FL "don't say gay" bill and losing independent district status). Thanks for clarification. DeSantis is trying to take that away, but if he does he will have to pay off their billions in Bonds based on the law, he is going like Trump was with the wall saying "Disney will pay", but I'm sure that will work as well as Mexico paying. The Reps are just full social conservative/Baptist culture war party now. They want massive government intervention into peoples private lives, into businesses, and so on. Also the whole "states rights" thing is the stupidest argument, what about city and towns rights? I know I'm not alone in the speaking with my wallet, it will not be everyone of course but a lot of these places are going to feel the pinch when they already just got pinched. Yeah as I understand it, it's not a smart financial move, and that's before taking into account the repercussions of losing patrons that disagree with their stances. I wonder, though, if conservatives would have been able to keep up by simply ignoring the culture war and keeping their sights on other matters. I think there is a certain point in which representatives should be expected to speak up for their constituents, however loony their views might seem. It's not like they haven't already held their beliefs, but that the "certain point" has arrived and the remaining question is whether pushing back is worth the economic backlash. I'm sure you're not the only person who will withdraw vacation stays based on this, and am personally curious to see how much of an impact it has on these areas. Cities and counties can pass their own laws though, I don't know what you're trying to get at. Does state law contradict federal law? If not then go ahead. Does city law contradict state law? If not then go ahead. This court challenge simply moves the decision to a more local level. Of course there are more intricacies but that's the gist. If you're trying to say that it's absurd that a small community cannot make their own choices on what should occur in its borders, yes I agree with you :3 Your logic flows, it is just not the logic of the current Republicans. They want "state rights" so they can have their rules but then when city makes rules that are contrary to the state, they make rules outlawing the rule in the city. Also, these confirmation hearings on SCJ are shown again to be complete BS. This decision requires the last 3 to have voted against what they said they would. Sadly there is no recal mechanism. Well, states cannot make laws that go against national law, just as cities cannot make laws that go against state law. If a state passes a law that outlaws abortion, that cannot be overruled at a city level. It could be overruled at a national level, but that would require congress to actually do something. Is a fetus really life, though? Most of these abortions happen way before the fetus have any chance of surviving, no matter the artificial help it gets. Only 100 years ago even newborn babies were barely considered human beings as the child mortality was so high. That fetuses are suddenly so important to protect seems like a stance stenched with secondary motives, the main motivation is that women should not have sex unless they want to be pregnant. It goes hand in hand with how religious institutions fail deal with reality when facing undesired sexual relations. This is church policy, Jesus himself embraced prostitutes. I think that is a bad faith argument. I am sure there are some people who don't give a shit about fetuses or their lives and use this as a stick to keep the uppety womenfolk in the kitchen. But I also believe someone like Introvert (or, for that matter, xDaunt) truly believe fetuses have the right to live, and that that right to live trumps the mother's right to bodily autonomy. There is no need to argue that they don't actually believe that when there are plenty of solid arguments to make against what they claim they do believe. If they actually believed that they’d have the government requisitioning organs. People with diabetes would have their blood hooked up to people with healthy kidneys for filtration. The ethical implications of believing that when a life is at stake bodily autonomy isn’t absolute are huge. Take the thought experiment of the violinist. Show nested quote + You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you. If pro-life beliefs were in good faith they would insist that unplugging is murder.
We missed this energy in the COVID thread when there were very few of us defending bodily autonomy vs "saving lives"!
Although we probably have similar views on a women's right to choose, I don't think think this is that great of an argument. I don't think you can broadly declare that anyone that supports any limitations on bodily autonomy also has to be okay with whatever hypothetical extremes you can imagine. There are even pro-lifers that support abortion in the instance of rape. I don't think this nuance is inherently hypocritical.
|
|
|
On May 04 2022 07:21 Introvert wrote:
A few things, tho my time is short. Acro did a good job with the thought experiment, I would just emphasize the choice aspect. Getting pregnant is not a comparable situation, it's not a malignant tumor that just appears. Even if pregnancy isn't intentional, it's always a possibility. I think that also sufficiently distinguishes it from the example.
It's absurd to think that because you oppose killing kids in the womb you have to favor the cradle to grave nanny state to the same extent as your furthest left aquantinance. That obviously doesn't follow but man, rhetorically it feels good to say.
Re:judges
This is just more hypocrisy. No one thinks that because, say Citizens United is precedent that many left-wing judges wouldn't overrule it given the first chance. If memory serves Sotomayor has acknowledged that Heller is precedent and has pretty much always ruled to undermine it. Also, IIRC, Kagan said there was no right to gay marriage in the constitution. But she found one always! This yapping is just politicians trying to score points (Dems) or cover their behinds (Collins). Judges don't commit to outcomes ahead of time, not explicitly.
Abortion does not kill kids.
Abortion does not kill babies.
Both kids and babies, definitionally, have already been born, whereas abortion is literally pre-birth.
This sort of loaded, inaccurate language, like "killing children" or "murdering babies" or "pro-life" really should receive more push back. But if people want to say they're pro-life, don't be surprised when other people point out that they're actually just pro-forced-birth.
|
United States44056 Posts
On May 04 2022 07:15 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2022 05:25 KwarK wrote:On May 04 2022 04:49 Acrofales wrote:On May 04 2022 02:46 KwarK wrote:On May 04 2022 02:29 Acrofales wrote:On May 04 2022 02:24 Slydie wrote:On May 04 2022 01:41 Acrofales wrote:On May 04 2022 01:03 JimmiC wrote:On May 04 2022 00:26 NrG.Bamboo wrote:On May 03 2022 23:46 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
DeSantis is trying to take that away, but if he does he will have to pay off their billions in Bonds based on the law, he is going like Trump was with the wall saying "Disney will pay", but I'm sure that will work as well as Mexico paying.
The Reps are just full social conservative/Baptist culture war party now. They want massive government intervention into peoples private lives, into businesses, and so on.
Also the whole "states rights" thing is the stupidest argument, what about city and towns rights?
I know I'm not alone in the speaking with my wallet, it will not be everyone of course but a lot of these places are going to feel the pinch when they already just got pinched.
Yeah as I understand it, it's not a smart financial move, and that's before taking into account the repercussions of losing patrons that disagree with their stances. I wonder, though, if conservatives would have been able to keep up by simply ignoring the culture war and keeping their sights on other matters. I think there is a certain point in which representatives should be expected to speak up for their constituents, however loony their views might seem. It's not like they haven't already held their beliefs, but that the "certain point" has arrived and the remaining question is whether pushing back is worth the economic backlash. I'm sure you're not the only person who will withdraw vacation stays based on this, and am personally curious to see how much of an impact it has on these areas. Cities and counties can pass their own laws though, I don't know what you're trying to get at. Does state law contradict federal law? If not then go ahead. Does city law contradict state law? If not then go ahead. This court challenge simply moves the decision to a more local level. Of course there are more intricacies but that's the gist. If you're trying to say that it's absurd that a small community cannot make their own choices on what should occur in its borders, yes I agree with you :3 Your logic flows, it is just not the logic of the current Republicans. They want "state rights" so they can have their rules but then when city makes rules that are contrary to the state, they make rules outlawing the rule in the city. Also, these confirmation hearings on SCJ are shown again to be complete BS. This decision requires the last 3 to have voted against what they said they would. Sadly there is no recal mechanism. Well, states cannot make laws that go against national law, just as cities cannot make laws that go against state law. If a state passes a law that outlaws abortion, that cannot be overruled at a city level. It could be overruled at a national level, but that would require congress to actually do something. Is a fetus really life, though? Most of these abortions happen way before the fetus have any chance of surviving, no matter the artificial help it gets. Only 100 years ago even newborn babies were barely considered human beings as the child mortality was so high. That fetuses are suddenly so important to protect seems like a stance stenched with secondary motives, the main motivation is that women should not have sex unless they want to be pregnant. It goes hand in hand with how religious institutions fail deal with reality when facing undesired sexual relations. This is church policy, Jesus himself embraced prostitutes. I think that is a bad faith argument. I am sure there are some people who don't give a shit about fetuses or their lives and use this as a stick to keep the uppety womenfolk in the kitchen. But I also believe someone like Introvert (or, for that matter, xDaunt) truly believe fetuses have the right to live, and that that right to live trumps the mother's right to bodily autonomy. There is no need to argue that they don't actually believe that when there are plenty of solid arguments to make against what they claim they do believe. If they actually believed that they’d have the government requisitioning organs. People with diabetes would have their blood hooked up to people with healthy kidneys for filtration. The ethical implications of believing that when a life is at stake bodily autonomy isn’t absolute are huge. Take the thought experiment of the violinist. You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you. If pro-life beliefs were in good faith they would insist that unplugging is murder. I feel the last few pages of this thread have been too much bandwagoning and not enough discussion, so I am happy to play devil's advocate if it actually gets people thinking and discussing rather than piling onto the "hurrdurr pro-life evil". Let me state first and foremost that I don't think the Republicans have a coherent pro-life argument, but I do believe there is one to be made. I'd say the closest I've seen is from the Christen Unie, a Dutch political party that is best described as strongly religious social democrats. I won't claim to voice their viewpoints, as I don't think it's particularly relevant, but they are generally in favor of strong social projects to help those in need, including the poor, immigrants, women and children. At the same time, they are against abortion, as they see it as murder. The main point I want to make is that a coherent ethical argument against abortion can be made starting from two axioms: 1. Fetuses are humans. 2. Saving another human's life is a greater good than bodily autonomy. If you then allow that there is a distinction between doing and allowing (as many philosophers do), it is entirely defensible to argue that abortion should be outlawed (doing murder of the fetus), and also that the government should not oblige people to donate their kidneys (allowing people to die). As for the thought experiment of the violinist: from these points of view, it should be entirely clear that yes, in the highly unlikely event that this happens, it should be forbidden to unplug that person. That said, it is also forbidden to put you in that situation without your consent, and the Society of Music Lovers should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. However, that won't help you in your current predicament, and you will have to bear the violinist to term: the situation has changed from one where you can help, but inaction allows the violinist to die, to one where you do cause the violinist's death by unplugging yourself. The doing vs allowing distinction is utterly absurd. If a doctor says “say yes if you want to be unplugged” and you affirm yes then it’s murder. If they say “say yes if you don’t want to be unplugged” and you say nothing then you have merely allowed the natural course of events to take place and you’re fine. The choice to say “yes” represents a choice. Both saying the word and not saying the word are deliberate actions, we can’t twist this so that no choice has been made. And once we’re good with forbidding people to choose bodily autonomy over human life we’re going on a wild ride of mandatory seizures, utilitarian organ farming, and slavery. There’s a reason bodily autonomy is viewed as such a fundamental right. Given that you basically never change your mind and are here mainly to lecture others and you wouldn't know nuance if it hit you in the face, I expect this won't convince you, but here you are: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/doing-allowing/By the way, my impression of you is that you seem to be fairly well off. Due to your inaction, you are allowing hundreds of innocent Africans to die every year from malaria, hunger and other very preventable causes. If doing and allowing hold equal moral weight, that is as if you are personally murdering them. Shame on you!
I agree that by my inaction, and my general participation in capitalism as a whole, I am allowing people to die. Every time I choose something selfish I am choosing not to buy malaria nets. If there is a heaven I’m not getting in.
That said I may be more altruistic than you’re giving me credit for. For example the last time there was a frost in my city I took a morning off work and spent it buying and giving away tents at a nearby homeless camp. It’s not a lot but I hope it made a difference to the people in question.
|
|
|
On May 04 2022 07:44 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2022 02:46 KwarK wrote:On May 04 2022 02:29 Acrofales wrote:On May 04 2022 02:24 Slydie wrote:On May 04 2022 01:41 Acrofales wrote:On May 04 2022 01:03 JimmiC wrote:On May 04 2022 00:26 NrG.Bamboo wrote:On May 03 2022 23:46 JimmiC wrote:On May 03 2022 23:17 NrG.Bamboo wrote:On May 03 2022 23:05 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
I'm talking about Florida pushing for no permits as well as Texas.
Pre pandemic 2 weeks a year vacation. Often Sandpoint/whitefish. We have been to Disneyland as the larger family and were talking about Disneyworld, now that is off the table. Ah, fair enough. For whatever reason I always forget about Disney (although they are already running into issues recently with the FL "don't say gay" bill and losing independent district status). Thanks for clarification. DeSantis is trying to take that away, but if he does he will have to pay off their billions in Bonds based on the law, he is going like Trump was with the wall saying "Disney will pay", but I'm sure that will work as well as Mexico paying. The Reps are just full social conservative/Baptist culture war party now. They want massive government intervention into peoples private lives, into businesses, and so on. Also the whole "states rights" thing is the stupidest argument, what about city and towns rights? I know I'm not alone in the speaking with my wallet, it will not be everyone of course but a lot of these places are going to feel the pinch when they already just got pinched. Yeah as I understand it, it's not a smart financial move, and that's before taking into account the repercussions of losing patrons that disagree with their stances. I wonder, though, if conservatives would have been able to keep up by simply ignoring the culture war and keeping their sights on other matters. I think there is a certain point in which representatives should be expected to speak up for their constituents, however loony their views might seem. It's not like they haven't already held their beliefs, but that the "certain point" has arrived and the remaining question is whether pushing back is worth the economic backlash. I'm sure you're not the only person who will withdraw vacation stays based on this, and am personally curious to see how much of an impact it has on these areas. Cities and counties can pass their own laws though, I don't know what you're trying to get at. Does state law contradict federal law? If not then go ahead. Does city law contradict state law? If not then go ahead. This court challenge simply moves the decision to a more local level. Of course there are more intricacies but that's the gist. If you're trying to say that it's absurd that a small community cannot make their own choices on what should occur in its borders, yes I agree with you :3 Your logic flows, it is just not the logic of the current Republicans. They want "state rights" so they can have their rules but then when city makes rules that are contrary to the state, they make rules outlawing the rule in the city. Also, these confirmation hearings on SCJ are shown again to be complete BS. This decision requires the last 3 to have voted against what they said they would. Sadly there is no recal mechanism. Well, states cannot make laws that go against national law, just as cities cannot make laws that go against state law. If a state passes a law that outlaws abortion, that cannot be overruled at a city level. It could be overruled at a national level, but that would require congress to actually do something. Is a fetus really life, though? Most of these abortions happen way before the fetus have any chance of surviving, no matter the artificial help it gets. Only 100 years ago even newborn babies were barely considered human beings as the child mortality was so high. That fetuses are suddenly so important to protect seems like a stance stenched with secondary motives, the main motivation is that women should not have sex unless they want to be pregnant. It goes hand in hand with how religious institutions fail deal with reality when facing undesired sexual relations. This is church policy, Jesus himself embraced prostitutes. I think that is a bad faith argument. I am sure there are some people who don't give a shit about fetuses or their lives and use this as a stick to keep the uppety womenfolk in the kitchen. But I also believe someone like Introvert (or, for that matter, xDaunt) truly believe fetuses have the right to live, and that that right to live trumps the mother's right to bodily autonomy. There is no need to argue that they don't actually believe that when there are plenty of solid arguments to make against what they claim they do believe. If they actually believed that they’d have the government requisitioning organs. People with diabetes would have their blood hooked up to people with healthy kidneys for filtration. The ethical implications of believing that when a life is at stake bodily autonomy isn’t absolute are huge. Take the thought experiment of the violinist. You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you. If pro-life beliefs were in good faith they would insist that unplugging is murder. We missed this energy in the COVID thread when there were very few of us defending bodily autonomy vs "saving lives"!
Although we probably have similar views on a women's right to choose, I don't think think this is that great of an argument. I don't think you can broadly declare that anyone that supports any limitations on bodily autonomy also has to be okay with whatever hypothetical extremes you can imagine. There are even pro-lifers that support abortion in the instance of rape. I don't think this nuance is inherently hypocritical.
I think it was addressed several times (in the relevant covid thread) how this is a completely false analogy, because being pregnant is not a seriously infectious, potentially deadly disease that can spread to the people around you. Simple bodily autonomy doesn't work the same way if your autonomy actually harms the people around you. If your decision to have an abortion spontaneously forced your neighbors to have abortions too, then it'd be a little better of a parallel.
|
United States44056 Posts
On May 04 2022 07:44 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2022 02:46 KwarK wrote:On May 04 2022 02:29 Acrofales wrote:On May 04 2022 02:24 Slydie wrote:On May 04 2022 01:41 Acrofales wrote:On May 04 2022 01:03 JimmiC wrote:On May 04 2022 00:26 NrG.Bamboo wrote:On May 03 2022 23:46 JimmiC wrote:On May 03 2022 23:17 NrG.Bamboo wrote:On May 03 2022 23:05 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
I'm talking about Florida pushing for no permits as well as Texas.
Pre pandemic 2 weeks a year vacation. Often Sandpoint/whitefish. We have been to Disneyland as the larger family and were talking about Disneyworld, now that is off the table. Ah, fair enough. For whatever reason I always forget about Disney (although they are already running into issues recently with the FL "don't say gay" bill and losing independent district status). Thanks for clarification. DeSantis is trying to take that away, but if he does he will have to pay off their billions in Bonds based on the law, he is going like Trump was with the wall saying "Disney will pay", but I'm sure that will work as well as Mexico paying. The Reps are just full social conservative/Baptist culture war party now. They want massive government intervention into peoples private lives, into businesses, and so on. Also the whole "states rights" thing is the stupidest argument, what about city and towns rights? I know I'm not alone in the speaking with my wallet, it will not be everyone of course but a lot of these places are going to feel the pinch when they already just got pinched. Yeah as I understand it, it's not a smart financial move, and that's before taking into account the repercussions of losing patrons that disagree with their stances. I wonder, though, if conservatives would have been able to keep up by simply ignoring the culture war and keeping their sights on other matters. I think there is a certain point in which representatives should be expected to speak up for their constituents, however loony their views might seem. It's not like they haven't already held their beliefs, but that the "certain point" has arrived and the remaining question is whether pushing back is worth the economic backlash. I'm sure you're not the only person who will withdraw vacation stays based on this, and am personally curious to see how much of an impact it has on these areas. Cities and counties can pass their own laws though, I don't know what you're trying to get at. Does state law contradict federal law? If not then go ahead. Does city law contradict state law? If not then go ahead. This court challenge simply moves the decision to a more local level. Of course there are more intricacies but that's the gist. If you're trying to say that it's absurd that a small community cannot make their own choices on what should occur in its borders, yes I agree with you :3 Your logic flows, it is just not the logic of the current Republicans. They want "state rights" so they can have their rules but then when city makes rules that are contrary to the state, they make rules outlawing the rule in the city. Also, these confirmation hearings on SCJ are shown again to be complete BS. This decision requires the last 3 to have voted against what they said they would. Sadly there is no recal mechanism. Well, states cannot make laws that go against national law, just as cities cannot make laws that go against state law. If a state passes a law that outlaws abortion, that cannot be overruled at a city level. It could be overruled at a national level, but that would require congress to actually do something. Is a fetus really life, though? Most of these abortions happen way before the fetus have any chance of surviving, no matter the artificial help it gets. Only 100 years ago even newborn babies were barely considered human beings as the child mortality was so high. That fetuses are suddenly so important to protect seems like a stance stenched with secondary motives, the main motivation is that women should not have sex unless they want to be pregnant. It goes hand in hand with how religious institutions fail deal with reality when facing undesired sexual relations. This is church policy, Jesus himself embraced prostitutes. I think that is a bad faith argument. I am sure there are some people who don't give a shit about fetuses or their lives and use this as a stick to keep the uppety womenfolk in the kitchen. But I also believe someone like Introvert (or, for that matter, xDaunt) truly believe fetuses have the right to live, and that that right to live trumps the mother's right to bodily autonomy. There is no need to argue that they don't actually believe that when there are plenty of solid arguments to make against what they claim they do believe. If they actually believed that they’d have the government requisitioning organs. People with diabetes would have their blood hooked up to people with healthy kidneys for filtration. The ethical implications of believing that when a life is at stake bodily autonomy isn’t absolute are huge. Take the thought experiment of the violinist. You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you. If pro-life beliefs were in good faith they would insist that unplugging is murder. We missed this energy in the COVID thread when there were very few of us defending bodily autonomy vs "saving lives"! Although we probably have similar views on a women's right to choose, I don't think think this is that great of an argument. I don't think you can broadly declare that anyone that supports any limitations on bodily autonomy also has to be okay with whatever hypothetical extremes you can imagine. There are even pro-lifers that support abortion in the instance of rape. I don't think this nuance is inherently hypocritical.
I don’t have to extrapolate to hypothetical extremes, mandating that someone carry a pregnancy to term is already very extreme. It’s an extremely traumatic condition. The fetus cannibalizes the mother for the resources it needs, even if the mother has sufficient dietary resources they may still have lifetime tooth and bone damage. A flood of unwanted chemicals attacks the mother’s very self, who you are is in part a result of brain chemistry which is casually reworked and hijacked by the fetus. She may find herself impatient, depressed, introverted, and cautious where previously she was impetuous, confident, outgoing etc. Gestational diabetes exists and doesn’t always go away after birth. Major surgery is often needed to even have birth. Women’s bodies are not the same after pregnancy.
Pregnancy is substantially more intrusive, damaging and dangerous than the violinist by any criteria. The violinist is not some extreme hypothetical, you’re just unaware of how extreme pregnancy is. Assuming I didn’t actually want a baby I’d choose renting my kidneys to the violinist over pregnancy 11 times out of 10.
|
|
|
On May 04 2022 07:52 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2022 07:44 BlackJack wrote:On May 04 2022 02:46 KwarK wrote:On May 04 2022 02:29 Acrofales wrote:On May 04 2022 02:24 Slydie wrote:On May 04 2022 01:41 Acrofales wrote:On May 04 2022 01:03 JimmiC wrote:On May 04 2022 00:26 NrG.Bamboo wrote:On May 03 2022 23:46 JimmiC wrote:On May 03 2022 23:17 NrG.Bamboo wrote:
[quote]
Ah, fair enough. For whatever reason I always forget about Disney (although they are already running into issues recently with the FL "don't say gay" bill and losing independent district status). Thanks for clarification. DeSantis is trying to take that away, but if he does he will have to pay off their billions in Bonds based on the law, he is going like Trump was with the wall saying "Disney will pay", but I'm sure that will work as well as Mexico paying. The Reps are just full social conservative/Baptist culture war party now. They want massive government intervention into peoples private lives, into businesses, and so on. Also the whole "states rights" thing is the stupidest argument, what about city and towns rights? I know I'm not alone in the speaking with my wallet, it will not be everyone of course but a lot of these places are going to feel the pinch when they already just got pinched. Yeah as I understand it, it's not a smart financial move, and that's before taking into account the repercussions of losing patrons that disagree with their stances. I wonder, though, if conservatives would have been able to keep up by simply ignoring the culture war and keeping their sights on other matters. I think there is a certain point in which representatives should be expected to speak up for their constituents, however loony their views might seem. It's not like they haven't already held their beliefs, but that the "certain point" has arrived and the remaining question is whether pushing back is worth the economic backlash. I'm sure you're not the only person who will withdraw vacation stays based on this, and am personally curious to see how much of an impact it has on these areas. Cities and counties can pass their own laws though, I don't know what you're trying to get at. Does state law contradict federal law? If not then go ahead. Does city law contradict state law? If not then go ahead. This court challenge simply moves the decision to a more local level. Of course there are more intricacies but that's the gist. If you're trying to say that it's absurd that a small community cannot make their own choices on what should occur in its borders, yes I agree with you :3 Your logic flows, it is just not the logic of the current Republicans. They want "state rights" so they can have their rules but then when city makes rules that are contrary to the state, they make rules outlawing the rule in the city. Also, these confirmation hearings on SCJ are shown again to be complete BS. This decision requires the last 3 to have voted against what they said they would. Sadly there is no recal mechanism. Well, states cannot make laws that go against national law, just as cities cannot make laws that go against state law. If a state passes a law that outlaws abortion, that cannot be overruled at a city level. It could be overruled at a national level, but that would require congress to actually do something. Is a fetus really life, though? Most of these abortions happen way before the fetus have any chance of surviving, no matter the artificial help it gets. Only 100 years ago even newborn babies were barely considered human beings as the child mortality was so high. That fetuses are suddenly so important to protect seems like a stance stenched with secondary motives, the main motivation is that women should not have sex unless they want to be pregnant. It goes hand in hand with how religious institutions fail deal with reality when facing undesired sexual relations. This is church policy, Jesus himself embraced prostitutes. I think that is a bad faith argument. I am sure there are some people who don't give a shit about fetuses or their lives and use this as a stick to keep the uppety womenfolk in the kitchen. But I also believe someone like Introvert (or, for that matter, xDaunt) truly believe fetuses have the right to live, and that that right to live trumps the mother's right to bodily autonomy. There is no need to argue that they don't actually believe that when there are plenty of solid arguments to make against what they claim they do believe. If they actually believed that they’d have the government requisitioning organs. People with diabetes would have their blood hooked up to people with healthy kidneys for filtration. The ethical implications of believing that when a life is at stake bodily autonomy isn’t absolute are huge. Take the thought experiment of the violinist. You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you. If pro-life beliefs were in good faith they would insist that unplugging is murder. We missed this energy in the COVID thread when there were very few of us defending bodily autonomy vs "saving lives"!
Although we probably have similar views on a women's right to choose, I don't think think this is that great of an argument. I don't think you can broadly declare that anyone that supports any limitations on bodily autonomy also has to be okay with whatever hypothetical extremes you can imagine. There are even pro-lifers that support abortion in the instance of rape. I don't think this nuance is inherently hypocritical. I think it was addressed several times (in the relevant covid thread) how this is a completely false analogy, because being pregnant is not a seriously infectious, potentially deadly disease that can spread to the people around you. Simple bodily autonomy doesn't work the same way if your autonomy actually harms the people around you. If your decision to have an abortion spontaneously forced your neighbors to have abortions too, then it'd be a little better of a parallel.
Yes, that's exactly the point. Each idea has to be judged on its own merits and it's not right to say that if you think the government should restrict bodily autonomy in some way that it means you have to agree the government should restrict bodily autonomy in any way it wants. The first sentence of my post was facetious.
|
It's clear that many of you are of the opinion that fetuses don't count as lives in the same way that babies are.
I believe that you can't count unborn fetuses as lives in the same way that you count babies, but that is just my opinion.
It's a philosophical and moral belief inherently. Using science to explain it one way or another helps nothing at all.
The unborn child has been generally viewed as a life of its own in history across multiple cultures, not just European culture. For example, in ancient China killing a pregnant woman was considered to be killing two people. So it's not just a Christian thing.
It is not surprising that many people still view the fetus as a life of its own, and that doesn't mean they are bad people. They just view the world differently, and you have to respect that.
This is also why I think trying to decide this issue by legal challenge is an awful idea. Laws deal with the enforcement of societal norms, and if the norm itself is in question, the law can't help.
|
On May 04 2022 07:58 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2022 07:44 BlackJack wrote:On May 04 2022 02:46 KwarK wrote:On May 04 2022 02:29 Acrofales wrote:On May 04 2022 02:24 Slydie wrote:On May 04 2022 01:41 Acrofales wrote:On May 04 2022 01:03 JimmiC wrote:On May 04 2022 00:26 NrG.Bamboo wrote:On May 03 2022 23:46 JimmiC wrote:On May 03 2022 23:17 NrG.Bamboo wrote:
[quote]
Ah, fair enough. For whatever reason I always forget about Disney (although they are already running into issues recently with the FL "don't say gay" bill and losing independent district status). Thanks for clarification. DeSantis is trying to take that away, but if he does he will have to pay off their billions in Bonds based on the law, he is going like Trump was with the wall saying "Disney will pay", but I'm sure that will work as well as Mexico paying. The Reps are just full social conservative/Baptist culture war party now. They want massive government intervention into peoples private lives, into businesses, and so on. Also the whole "states rights" thing is the stupidest argument, what about city and towns rights? I know I'm not alone in the speaking with my wallet, it will not be everyone of course but a lot of these places are going to feel the pinch when they already just got pinched. Yeah as I understand it, it's not a smart financial move, and that's before taking into account the repercussions of losing patrons that disagree with their stances. I wonder, though, if conservatives would have been able to keep up by simply ignoring the culture war and keeping their sights on other matters. I think there is a certain point in which representatives should be expected to speak up for their constituents, however loony their views might seem. It's not like they haven't already held their beliefs, but that the "certain point" has arrived and the remaining question is whether pushing back is worth the economic backlash. I'm sure you're not the only person who will withdraw vacation stays based on this, and am personally curious to see how much of an impact it has on these areas. Cities and counties can pass their own laws though, I don't know what you're trying to get at. Does state law contradict federal law? If not then go ahead. Does city law contradict state law? If not then go ahead. This court challenge simply moves the decision to a more local level. Of course there are more intricacies but that's the gist. If you're trying to say that it's absurd that a small community cannot make their own choices on what should occur in its borders, yes I agree with you :3 Your logic flows, it is just not the logic of the current Republicans. They want "state rights" so they can have their rules but then when city makes rules that are contrary to the state, they make rules outlawing the rule in the city. Also, these confirmation hearings on SCJ are shown again to be complete BS. This decision requires the last 3 to have voted against what they said they would. Sadly there is no recal mechanism. Well, states cannot make laws that go against national law, just as cities cannot make laws that go against state law. If a state passes a law that outlaws abortion, that cannot be overruled at a city level. It could be overruled at a national level, but that would require congress to actually do something. Is a fetus really life, though? Most of these abortions happen way before the fetus have any chance of surviving, no matter the artificial help it gets. Only 100 years ago even newborn babies were barely considered human beings as the child mortality was so high. That fetuses are suddenly so important to protect seems like a stance stenched with secondary motives, the main motivation is that women should not have sex unless they want to be pregnant. It goes hand in hand with how religious institutions fail deal with reality when facing undesired sexual relations. This is church policy, Jesus himself embraced prostitutes. I think that is a bad faith argument. I am sure there are some people who don't give a shit about fetuses or their lives and use this as a stick to keep the uppety womenfolk in the kitchen. But I also believe someone like Introvert (or, for that matter, xDaunt) truly believe fetuses have the right to live, and that that right to live trumps the mother's right to bodily autonomy. There is no need to argue that they don't actually believe that when there are plenty of solid arguments to make against what they claim they do believe. If they actually believed that they’d have the government requisitioning organs. People with diabetes would have their blood hooked up to people with healthy kidneys for filtration. The ethical implications of believing that when a life is at stake bodily autonomy isn’t absolute are huge. Take the thought experiment of the violinist. You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you. If pro-life beliefs were in good faith they would insist that unplugging is murder. We missed this energy in the COVID thread when there were very few of us defending bodily autonomy vs "saving lives"! Although we probably have similar views on a women's right to choose, I don't think think this is that great of an argument. I don't think you can broadly declare that anyone that supports any limitations on bodily autonomy also has to be okay with whatever hypothetical extremes you can imagine. There are even pro-lifers that support abortion in the instance of rape. I don't think this nuance is inherently hypocritical. I don’t have to extrapolate to hypothetical extremes, mandating that someone carry a pregnancy to term is already very extreme. It’s an extremely traumatic condition. The fetus cannibalizes the mother for the resources it needs, even if the mother has sufficient dietary resources they may still have lifetime tooth and bone damage. A flood of unwanted chemicals attacks the mother’s very self, who you are is in part a result of brain chemistry which is casually reworked and hijacked by the fetus. She may find herself impatient, depressed, introverted, and cautious where previously she was impetuous, confident, outgoing etc. Gestational diabetes exists and doesn’t always go away after birth. Major surgery is often needed to even have birth. Women’s bodies are not the same after pregnancy. Pregnancy is substantially more intrusive, damaging and dangerous than the violinist by any criteria. The violinist is not some extreme hypothetical, you’re just unaware of how extreme pregnancy is. Assuming I didn’t actually want a baby I’d choose renting my kidneys to the violinist over pregnancy 11 times out of 10.
The "extreme" part of the analogy is not that the violinist uses a lot of your resources. It's that you wake up connected to him after being kidnapped. This is not how most pregnancies start, although it's definitely how some pregnancies start. It's a deceptive way to frame the debate around abortion in the instance of rape without explicitly stating so, which is a much more sympathetic starting point for the pro-choice crowd.
|
On May 04 2022 08:34 gobbledydook wrote:
It's clear that many of you are of the opinion that fetuses don't count as lives in the same way that babies are.
I believe that you can't count unborn fetuses as lives in the same way that you count babies, but that is just my opinion.
It's a philosophical and moral belief inherently. Using science to explain it one way or another helps nothing at all.
The unborn child has been generally viewed as a life of its own in history across multiple cultures, not just European culture. For example, in ancient China killing a pregnant woman was considered to be killing two people. So it's not just a Christian thing.
It is not surprising that many people still view the fetus as a life of its own, and that doesn't mean they are bad people. They just view the world differently, and you have to respect that.
This is also why I think trying to decide this issue by legal challenge is an awful idea. Laws deal with the enforcement of societal norms, and if the norm itself is in question, the law can't help.
I think a big hangup that a lot of people have is not understanding that some people can see a fetus (or embryo or wherever they feel like drawing the distinction) as a human life, but also accept that aborting that life is still acceptable. This may sound ridiculous at first, but it's [somewhat] like the distinction between killing someone in self-defense and murdering someone. Just because a life was taken does not mean that it is unjustifiable. This is where my heart lies, personally. I find abortion to be a rather shameful, disgusting act, but that doesn't mean that everyone should be restricted from being given the choice. I don't have the right to judge a woman for doing something I personally find upsetting or wrong (especially in cases of rape, incest, etc.) It is up to the individual to decide whether they are okay with their actions, and if the zealots take umbrage with that, they can rest easy believing that God will sort it out later. If you own nothing else in this world, you own your body, do with it what you feel.
Congrats on your DT by the way 
|
|
|
On May 04 2022 10:33 JimmiC wrote:
There is probably a case to be made that you could prevent more abortions with proper sex ed and easy access to various forms of birth control than you could by outlawing abortion. And you could drastically reduce STIs as well.
You could make the case, it just wouldn't be a very good one.
|
On May 04 2022 11:06 dp wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2022 10:33 JimmiC wrote:
There is probably a case to be made that you could prevent more abortions with proper sex ed and easy access to various forms of birth control than you could by outlawing abortion. And you could drastically reduce STIs as well.
You could make the case, it just wouldn't be a very good one.
You could make this argument, it just wouldn't be a very good one.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
