Lots of really good court rulings

Other discussions not related to the Permanent Portfolio

Moderator: Global Moderator

Kshartle
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3559
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:38 pm

Re: Lots of really good court rulings

Post by Kshartle »

moda0306 wrote: A MUCH more efficient method of supplying people birth control would be to just make it free.
Moda, you kill me.

Look, I'm glad you agree that even pricks should be able to hire/fire/serve whoever they want. I really am glad of that.

But free anything? The government can't make anything free, it can just force other people to pay which in turn actually makes the stuff more expensive.

Gee whiz if they're gonna make stuff free why stop at birth control ;)  I want a jaguar. Actually, two. One automobile and one feline. 
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7680
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Lots of really good court rulings

Post by moda0306 »

K,

Well we can get in a semantic debate about whether contraception is really "free" to those who would receive it without paying directly for it... but whatever word you want to apply to the process of putting no direct cost on a product via the economic FORCE (oh my!  :-[) of government, this is what I'm talking about...

How about we call it a Socialist Hand-Out rather than "free."

Does that rub your belly right? :)

Look, I get it. Anytime the government does something, it involves, at some level, force or the threat of force, and all of this comes at a cost.  What I am saying is that we live in a world of certain uncomfortable physical and social realities, and that given those realities, I advocate for some forms of this force to exist, because they are better than the likely alternative.

We don't have to have this debate, though, if you'd just bury us all with deductive reasoning in the "Proving Morality" thread :).
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."

- Thomas Paine
Kshartle
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3559
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:38 pm

Re: Lots of really good court rulings

Post by Kshartle »

moda0306 wrote: How about we call it a Socialist Hand-Out rather than "free."

Does that rub your belly right? :) YES

We don't have to have this debate, though, if you'd just bury us all with deductive reasoning in the "Proving Morality" thread :). You're right
On a side note, I think condoms are "free" in Cuba. I guess they are everywhere and being used in a lot of creative ways by people. Also they have a huge shortage (funny term) <http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/04/16/4 ... -cuba.html>
User avatar
Jan Van
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 717
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 5:42 am
Location: Charlotte, NC

Re: Lots of really good court rulings

Post by Jan Van »

Xan wrote: How is whether or not it's legal to kill your baby or not a women's issue?
I thought this ruling was about abortion, not infanticide?
"Well, if you're gonna sin you might as well be original" -- Mike "The Cool-Person"
"Yeah, well, that’s just, like, your opinion, man" -- The Dude
User avatar
Pointedstick
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8883
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Lots of really good court rulings

Post by Pointedstick »

jan van mourik wrote:
Xan wrote: How is whether or not it's legal to kill your baby or not a women's issue?
I thought this ruling was about abortion, not infanticide?
To some, they are synonyms. That's why abortion is controversial, and why there were protesters of it, and laws regarding where they can stand for the court to rule about.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
User avatar
Jan Van
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 717
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 5:42 am
Location: Charlotte, NC

Re: Lots of really good court rulings

Post by Jan Van »

Pointedstick wrote: To some, they are synonyms. That's why abortion is controversial, and why there were protesters of it, and laws regarding where they can stand for the court to rule about.
Kind of like the Westboro Church thang in a different context.
"Well, if you're gonna sin you might as well be original" -- Mike "The Cool-Person"
"Yeah, well, that’s just, like, your opinion, man" -- The Dude
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4555
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: Lots of really good court rulings

Post by Xan »

Jan,

We're trying to be more civil around here lately, and I don't think equating every pro-lifer with the Westboro Baptist Church is productive along those lines.

Do you truly believe that the position that abortion is the premeditated killing of an innocent human is an untenable one that only unreasonable people can hold?
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7680
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Lots of really good court rulings

Post by moda0306 »

Xan wrote: Jan,

We're trying to be more civil around here lately, and I don't think equating every pro-lifer with the Westboro Baptist Church is productive along those lines.

Do you truly believe that the position that abortion is the premeditated killing of an innocent human is an untenable one that only unreasonable people can hold?
I would say that automatically labelling any fertilized egg as a "baby" (when this isn't really the correct term) is essentially equating anyone with an other-than-completely-100 %-pro-life stance to be the equivalent of a baby-killer.

Now maybe in God's eyes we are, but using language like that, while it may seem harmless, can tend to offend and shut off conversation rather than expand thought on the issue.

I am certainly not offended by it.  Just one thought.  It's obviously about the most sensitive topic one can try to touch on.
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."

- Thomas Paine
User avatar
Jan Van
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 717
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 5:42 am
Location: Charlotte, NC

Re: Lots of really good court rulings

Post by Jan Van »

Xan wrote:......  I don't think equating every pro-lifer with the Westboro Baptist Church is productive along those lines...
I thought this was about protesters and free speech rights?
"Well, if you're gonna sin you might as well be original" -- Mike "The Cool-Person"
"Yeah, well, that’s just, like, your opinion, man" -- The Dude
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7680
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Lots of really good court rulings

Post by moda0306 »

jan van mourik wrote:
Xan wrote:......  I don't think equating every pro-lifer with the Westboro Baptist Church is productive along those lines...
I thought this was about protesters and free speech rights?
It is... but the Westboro Baptists ridicule families at their most vulnerable time, when there is no positive change that can be made (you can't take a dead soldier and make him go back in time to choose not to fight in an "evil war").  Their vehimence and obnoxiousness accomplishes NOTHING.

There probably are plenty of abortion protestors that (along with some condescention) carry a loving message that they want to get accrossed to a potential mother at a VERY crucial decision-making time.

Perhaps the analogy would be correct if the Westboro Baptists hung out outside of gay night clubs and Army recruitment centers.  Their protesting at funerals is a whole other level of obnoxiousness, IMO.

But perhaps this is what you meant by "in a different context."  To me, it's not just a different context... it's an entirely different nature of action.
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."

- Thomas Paine
User avatar
Ad Orientem
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3483
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 2:47 pm
Location: Florida USA
Contact:

Re: Lots of really good court rulings

Post by Ad Orientem »

moda0306 wrote:
jan van mourik wrote:
Xan wrote:......  I don't think equating every pro-lifer with the Westboro Baptist Church is productive along those lines...
I thought this was about protesters and free speech rights?
It is... but the Westboro Baptists ridicule families at their most vulnerable time, when there is no positive change that can be made (you can't take a dead soldier and make him go back in time to choose not to fight in an "evil war").  Their vehimence and obnoxiousness accomplishes NOTHING.

There probably are plenty of abortion protestors that (along with some condescention) carry a loving message that they want to get accrossed to a potential mother at a VERY crucial decision-making time.

Perhaps the analogy would be correct if the Westboro Baptists hung out outside of gay night clubs and Army recruitment centers.  Their protesting at funerals is a whole other level of obnoxiousness, IMO.

But perhaps this is what you meant by "in a different context."  To me, it's not just a different context... it's an entirely different nature of action.
The Westboro cultists are emotional terrorists. They are scum. If someone feels the need to lump me in with that crowd, it's certain their right to do so. It's also my right to resent it.
Trumpism is not a philosophy or a movement. It's a cult.
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4555
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: Lots of really good court rulings

Post by Xan »

moda0306 wrote:I would say that automatically labelling any fertilized egg as a "baby" (when this isn't really the correct term) is essentially equating anyone with an other-than-completely-100 %-pro-life stance to be the equivalent of a baby-killer.

Now maybe in God's eyes we are, but using language like that, while it may seem harmless, can tend to offend and shut off conversation rather than expand thought on the issue.

I am certainly not offended by it.  Just one thought.  It's obviously about the most sensitive topic one can try to touch on.
I see your point.  And definitely it's an extremely sensitive topic.

If it's not a baby, though, what is it?  It seems like the difference between "baby" and "other-than-baby" is whether or not the child is wanted.  When a three-year-old points at his mom's belly and says "there's a baby in there" does she say "No, dear, that's just a fetus; it'll be a baby at XYZ time, and until then I can kill it"?  No.  There's a baby in there.

When a woman takes a pregnancy test and announces that there's a baby growing inside her, should her husband say "That's nice, dear, but really it's just a blob of cells that might one day become a fetus and then eventually a baby"?  No.

But, I'm arguing the specifics, which you didn't really, and I'm not addressing your point that referring to the in-utero "thing" as a "baby" closes off discussion, and is not biologically accurate.  You may be right about that.  Would "kill your son or daughter" be more accurate?  Because a fertilized egg is definitely either a son or a daughter.
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4555
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: Lots of really good court rulings

Post by Xan »

jan van mourik wrote:
Xan wrote:......  I don't think equating every pro-lifer with the Westboro Baptist Church is productive along those lines...
I thought this was about protesters and free speech rights?
Oh, I misunderstood your point.  I suppose the legal issues are similar, yes.
User avatar
Jan Van
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 717
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 5:42 am
Location: Charlotte, NC

Re: Lots of really good court rulings

Post by Jan Van »

moda0306 wrote:It is... but the Westboro Baptists ridicule families at their most vulnerable time, when there is no positive change that can be made (you can't take a dead soldier and make him go back in time to choose not to fight in an "evil war").  Their vehimence and obnoxiousness accomplishes NOTHING.
I like that point and I agree.
moda0306 wrote: There probably are plenty of abortion protestors that (along with some condescention) carry a loving message that they want to get accrossed to a potential mother at a VERY crucial decision-making time.
*Plenty* probably do. but then when I look at pictures of protests outside abortion clinics, my gut feeling isn't that it looks like a caring loving crowd. Especially not if you have to wade through or step over protesters to get into a clinic. What does that accomplish?

In the end it's just different points on the same free speech line. From the dispicable Westboro Church people, to the caring anti-abortion people, to maybe even Occupy... But in each case, how do you weigh the rights of the people on the other side?
"Well, if you're gonna sin you might as well be original" -- Mike "The Cool-Person"
"Yeah, well, that’s just, like, your opinion, man" -- The Dude
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7680
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Lots of really good court rulings

Post by moda0306 »

Xan wrote:
moda0306 wrote:I would say that automatically labelling any fertilized egg as a "baby" (when this isn't really the correct term) is essentially equating anyone with an other-than-completely-100 %-pro-life stance to be the equivalent of a baby-killer.

Now maybe in God's eyes we are, but using language like that, while it may seem harmless, can tend to offend and shut off conversation rather than expand thought on the issue.

I am certainly not offended by it.  Just one thought.  It's obviously about the most sensitive topic one can try to touch on.
I see your point.  And definitely it's an extremely sensitive topic.

If it's not a baby, though, what is it?  It seems like the difference between "baby" and "other-than-baby" is whether or not the child is wanted.  When a three-year-old points at his mom's belly and says "there's a baby in there" does she say "No, dear, that's just a fetus; it'll be a baby at XYZ time, and until then I can kill it"?  No.  There's a baby in there.

When a woman takes a pregnancy test and announces that there's a baby growing inside her, should her husband say "That's nice, dear, but really it's just a blob of cells that might one day become a fetus and then eventually a baby"?  No.

But, I'm arguing the specifics, which you didn't really, and I'm not addressing your point that referring to the in-utero "thing" as a "baby" closes off discussion, and is not biologically accurate.  You may be right about that.  Would "kill your son or daughter" be more accurate?  Because a fertilized egg is definitely either a son or a daughter.
"Son" or "daughter" might get into a biological discussion, again.  But that is all semantics.  Semantics, though, can always either open or shut the door on conversation.  But it certainly doesn't get into an easy "we can kill" or "can't kill" discussion just based on semantics.  What matters is conversations about really what constitutes either "self-ownership" or "intrinsic value" worth protecting, and how those traits weave into-and-out-of the natural process of birth and death.

We've already seen that the concept of "ownership" and morality is an extremely ambiguous area of debate, even when talking about something as simple as whether it is "immoral" to grab your 6-year-old child in a grocery store to "force them" back into the car, or whether it's immoral to watch someone die if you could save them, easily.  Anything regarding children and morality is inherently extra nightmarish to try to debate.  This is why we gave Kshartle a pass when trying to "prove morality" with that piece.

This is why I try to be as factual as possible with semantics (in this area).  Not because it tells us whether something is worth protecting or ok to kill, but because it just adds more fuel to an already messy debate to be calling a fertilized egg a "baby" and abortion "murder," and the like.
Last edited by moda0306 on Mon Jun 30, 2014 1:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."

- Thomas Paine
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7680
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Lots of really good court rulings

Post by moda0306 »

jan van mourik wrote:
moda0306 wrote:It is... but the Westboro Baptists ridicule families at their most vulnerable time, when there is no positive change that can be made (you can't take a dead soldier and make him go back in time to choose not to fight in an "evil war").  Their vehimence and obnoxiousness accomplishes NOTHING.
I like that point and I agree.
moda0306 wrote: There probably are plenty of abortion protestors that (along with some condescention) carry a loving message that they want to get accrossed to a potential mother at a VERY crucial decision-making time.
*Plenty* probably do. but then when I look at pictures of protests outside abortion clinics, my gut feeling isn't that it looks like a caring loving crowd. Especially not if you have to wade through or step over protesters to get into a clinic. What does that accomplish?

In the end it's just different points on the same free speech line. From the dispicable Westboro Church people, to the caring anti-abortion people, to maybe even Occupy... But in each case, how do you weigh the rights of the people on the other side?
A lot of abortion protestors are probably quite obnoxious in their methods... but they still have something to prevent.  Protesting a funeral is just pointless.

I guess I don't know where I stand on personal space and sound.  Do I have a right to yell at someone walking down the road while getting right up in their face?

I mean we have nuisance laws for a reason.  I can't run naked down a public sidewalk.  Should I be able to stand in someone's face and yell at them, calling them a murderer?

These are just questions.  I really don't have answers.  I don't like protesting, myself, as I much prefer the discussing of ideas rather than the implementation of how obnoxiously we can throw those ideas out into the public sphere.
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."

- Thomas Paine
User avatar
Mountaineer
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5080
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am

Re: Lots of really good court rulings

Post by Mountaineer »

moda0306 wrote:
Xan wrote: Jan,

We're trying to be more civil around here lately, and I don't think equating every pro-lifer with the Westboro Baptist Church is productive along those lines.

Do you truly believe that the position that abortion is the premeditated killing of an innocent human is an untenable one that only unreasonable people can hold?
I would say that automatically labelling any fertilized egg as a "baby" (when this isn't really the correct term) is essentially equating anyone with an other-than-completely-100 %-pro-life stance to be the equivalent of a baby-killer.

Now maybe in God's eyes we are, but using language like that, while it may seem harmless, can tend to offend and shut off conversation rather than expand thought on the issue.

I am certainly not offended by it.  Just one thought.  It's obviously about the most sensitive topic one can try to touch on.
moda,

I appreciate your perspective, but I must say in all honesty that what I hear you saying is that when the pro-life people say "life begins at conception" and the pro-choice people are "put off" by that statement, you apparently want the pro-life to make their comments PC so the pro-choice people are not offended.  I expect the pro-life people are very much put off by that line of reasoning as it seems slanted very one way and shuts down conversation. 

And, if one does not believe life begins at conception, exactly when does it begin?  That question usually gets several different responses which to me is proof the varying answers are not based on fact.

From my perspective, it seems we have a most strange culture that does not want to face facts (or does not want to admit what they are advocating).  Murder of the inocent fertilized egg which is a future son or daughter is somehow OK but Texas proclaiming the death sentence for those convicted of murder isn't - completely irrational and extremely self-centered, selfish, from my point of view.  If you don't want to start a new life, take precautions before jumping into the throws of passion for a real good feel good moment of pleasure - not the next day.

And, I'm not certain abortion is the most sensitve area to discuss; what to give the completely irrational self-centered unrepentant  "LGBT" lifestyle a whirl?  :o

... Mountaineer
Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no help. Psalm 146:3
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7680
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Lots of really good court rulings

Post by moda0306 »

Mountaineer wrote:
moda0306 wrote:
Xan wrote: Jan,

We're trying to be more civil around here lately, and I don't think equating every pro-lifer with the Westboro Baptist Church is productive along those lines.

Do you truly believe that the position that abortion is the premeditated killing of an innocent human is an untenable one that only unreasonable people can hold?
I would say that automatically labelling any fertilized egg as a "baby" (when this isn't really the correct term) is essentially equating anyone with an other-than-completely-100 %-pro-life stance to be the equivalent of a baby-killer.

Now maybe in God's eyes we are, but using language like that, while it may seem harmless, can tend to offend and shut off conversation rather than expand thought on the issue.

I am certainly not offended by it.  Just one thought.  It's obviously about the most sensitive topic one can try to touch on.
moda,

I appreciate your perspective, but I must say in all honesty that what I hear you saying is that when the pro-life people say "life begins at conception" and the pro-choice people are "put off" by that statement, you apparently want the pro-life to make their comments PC so the pro-choice people are not offended.  I expect the pro-life people are very much put off by that line of reasoning as it seems slanted very one way and shuts down conversation. 
This is different Mountaineer... IMO at least.

When having a discussion about something as ambiguous as morality, it is really important to make very clear what your premises are, and state them as such, rather than just burying them deep in some broader analysis.  This was a HUGE bone I had to pick with Kshartle.  He wouldn't state what his argument was in traditional rational logic format, and I couldn't tell how he was building it.

So if someone wants to say "life begins at conception," that is something we can then discuss.  There's nothing "offensive" about this.  It may have a bit of an ambiguous aspect to it, and might beg 10 more difficult questions, but at least it isn't along the lines of "Sure, let's have a debate about how young and innocent your baby has to be before it is ok to murder it."

You're simply not going to have a meaningful conversation if you insist on loading your statements with one-sided things like that.  Let us be particular about the words we use.  I required this of our anarchist friends, I TRY to require it of myself, and I think it will help any discussion coming from your direction.

But, by all means, if you believe some base-premise, state so, and don't be afraid of me being offended... and if liberals are, shame on them.  Just try to do so in as honest, clear, and respectful a way as possible, no loading-up your commentary with passive-aggressive premise-building, please :).

And, if one does not believe life begins at conception, exactly when does it begin?  That question usually gets several different responses which to me is proof the varying answers are not based on fact.

From my perspective, it seems we have a most strange culture that does not want to face facts (or does not want to admit what they are advocating).  Murder of the inocent fertilized egg which is a future son or daughter is somehow OK but Texas proclaiming the death sentence for those convicted of murder isn't - completely irrational and extremely self-centered, selfish, from my point of view.  If you don't want to start a new life, take precautions before jumping into the throws of passion for a real good feel good moment of pleasure - not the next day.

And, I'm not certain abortion is the most sensitve area to discuss; what to give the completely irrational self-centered unrepentant  "LGBT" lifestyle a whirl?  :o

... Mountaineer
Even if it were relevant to the debate about the value of life, the "selfishness" of people with different views on life and morality than your own would be a huge debatable premise all its own.  We are all selfish.  Either in that we wish to obtain more knowledge to make us feel more comfortable (or stimulated), or we wish to continue to reinforce the knowledge we already obtained (or think we have obtained).

But that's really not relevant. 

Regarding inconsistency towards the value of a life, there are likely a few overarching discussion points that would have to get hashed out:

1) The death penalty is an action taken by agents of the state.  Abortion is not. If I'm very anti-state, I could be anti-abortion AND anti-death-penalty without being pro-illegalization of abortion.

2) A fetus is tied to its mother.  It is not an independent being.  To enforce the rights of the fetus (if they have rights), you MUST take some form of control over the mother.  This is (theoretically) not the case in most areas where the government protects our negative rights. 

3) A zygote cannot feel pain or fear.  It has no concept of any "wrong" being done to it.  Therefore (perhaps) it is not a moral patient.

These are just ideas.  Not my positions.



There are reasons that when a Christian (or an atheist) says "we cherish life," they don't mean the life of a mushroom, or an oak tree.  They mean conscious life.  If we really look at what makes "life" so precious, if it even is, one could argue that a zygote does not carry these traits, yet.  The mere fact that they "might someday" carry these traits is perhaps worth mentioning, but as you can see, I can't even convince myself of any of this.

I would agree that people should be more responsible with actions they take, sexually.  But that isn't an argument... that's just a "wish" that I have.  I can't build an argument with much certainty that states that IF you end up pregnant with a 4-cell zygote, that elimination of that zygote is tantamount to murdering a conscious being.  That is surely irrational, if looked at from some criteria of what we consider worthy of protection and, more importantly, why we deem it worthy.


But this all gets real messy... if an ape doesn't have a soul, does a person with the mental capacity of an ape?

Are we upsetting "God's will" by engaging in certain forms of medicine?  Who decides?  And why is it not just "valuing life" to do so?

Are all forms of euthenasia immoral?  What about just letting someone starve to death or stop breathing if they can't on their own?

When does someone truly reach adulthood?  When can I hold them responsible for a contract they enact in with me?  Before that point, what forceful actions are parents morally able to perform against their child's wishes?

If we truly do value life, and we know SOME people will be falsely accused in our court-system, is it immoral to have a death penalty?

If we truly do value life, and we know SOME innocent people will suffer from our actions during even the most "justified" war, is it immoral to ever go to war?


It's hard to be rational in areas of ethics, ESPECIALLY when kids are involved.  Most liberal-minded people on this topic aren't being particularly, uniquely selfish or irrational, but simply addressing the competing realities of the issue involved, and the extremely ambiguous nature of discussions on morality, especially, as mentioned, when dealing with minors.
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."

- Thomas Paine
User avatar
Pointedstick
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8883
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Lots of really good court rulings

Post by Pointedstick »

Mountaineer wrote:
moda0306 wrote: I would say that automatically labelling any fertilized egg as a "baby" (when this isn't really the correct term) is essentially equating anyone with an other-than-completely-100 %-pro-life stance to be the equivalent of a baby-killer.

Now maybe in God's eyes we are, but using language like that, while it may seem harmless, can tend to offend and shut off conversation rather than expand thought on the issue.
moda,

I appreciate your perspective, but I must say in all honesty that what I hear you saying is that when the pro-life people say "life begins at conception" and the pro-choice people are "put off" by that statement, you apparently want the pro-life to make their comments PC so the pro-choice people are not offended.  I expect the pro-life people are very much put off by that line of reasoning as it seems slanted very one way and shuts down conversation.
I think we just found the reason why the abortion debate gets so heated: the logic of each perspective necessarily requires that people who believe differently support something monstrous.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7680
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Lots of really good court rulings

Post by moda0306 »

Pointedstick wrote:
Mountaineer wrote:
moda0306 wrote: I would say that automatically labelling any fertilized egg as a "baby" (when this isn't really the correct term) is essentially equating anyone with an other-than-completely-100 %-pro-life stance to be the equivalent of a baby-killer.

Now maybe in God's eyes we are, but using language like that, while it may seem harmless, can tend to offend and shut off conversation rather than expand thought on the issue.
moda,

I appreciate your perspective, but I must say in all honesty that what I hear you saying is that when the pro-life people say "life begins at conception" and the pro-choice people are "put off" by that statement, you apparently want the pro-life to make their comments PC so the pro-choice people are not offended.  I expect the pro-life people are very much put off by that line of reasoning as it seems slanted very one way and shuts down conversation.
I think we just found the reason why the abortion debate gets so heated: the logic of each perspective necessarily requires that people who believe differently support something monstrous.
Pointedstick wrote:
Mountaineer wrote:
moda0306 wrote: I would say that automatically labelling any fertilized egg as a "baby" (when this isn't really the correct term) is essentially equating anyone with an other-than-completely-100 %-pro-life stance to be the equivalent of a baby-killer.

Now maybe in God's eyes we are, but using language like that, while it may seem harmless, can tend to offend and shut off conversation rather than expand thought on the issue.
moda,

I appreciate your perspective, but I must say in all honesty that what I hear you saying is that when the pro-life people say "life begins at conception" and the pro-choice people are "put off" by that statement, you apparently want the pro-life to make their comments PC so the pro-choice people are not offended.  I expect the pro-life people are very much put off by that line of reasoning as it seems slanted very one way and shuts down conversation.
I think we just found the reason why the abortion debate gets so heated: the logic of each perspective necessarily requires that people who believe differently support something monstrous.
Similar to looking at history, I prefer to look at things first as truth or falsehood (usually not totally difficult), then as cause and effect (much more difficult).

In discussing these things, consistency and perspective help a ton, so I'm usually sure to get annoyed with somebody who has neither.

But when it comes to morality, it's really too difficult of a topic to really call someone else "monstrous."  In fact, It think it denotes a lack of perspective, which, as mentioned, annoys me a bit. 

And the ultimate perspective is this... there's enough to be learned about morality and intrinsic value, that I'm really rushing to some hasty judgments if I'm thinking of someone as monstrous.  Too arrogant to see the inconsistency of his/her position?  Fine.  A victim of groupthink and whatever "team mentality" they've found most appealing?  Totally fair. 

But "monstrous" is just hyperbole.  Someday, my financial support of torturous agricultural practices will be viewed as "monstrous" by people with decent morals (maybe) but bad perspective.
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."

- Thomas Paine
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4555
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: Lots of really good court rulings

Post by Xan »

I think PS was using "monstrous" from the perspective of the other person in the debate.  He's saying that if the pro-lifer's premise is correct, the pro-choicer can (correctly) interpret that his own position is considered monstrous by his counterpart.  And the converse is also true.  And that's how the debate gets so heated so quickly.

Although when it comes to comparing the monstrosities of killing a baby versus giving birth, it's pretty clear which is worse.
User avatar
Pointedstick
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8883
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Lots of really good court rulings

Post by Pointedstick »

Xan wrote: I think PS was using "monstrous" from the perspective of the other person in the debate.  He's saying that if the pro-lifer's premise is correct, the pro-choicer can (correctly) interpret that his own position is considered monstrous by his counterpart.  And the converse is also true.  And that's how the debate gets so heated so quickly.
Exactly.

Anyway, to move to a different ruling, I found Justice Ginsburg's dissent to today's Obamacare ruling quite interesting:
http://www.nationaljournal.com/health-c ... c-20140630

The majority view "demands accommodation of a for-profit corporation's religious beliefs no matter the impact that accommodation may have on third parties who do not share the corporation owners' religious faith—in these cases, thousands of women employed by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga or dependents of persons those corporations employ," wrote Ginsburg, a stalwart member of the Court's liberal wing.
I find it curious that she doesn't believe that corporations can have no claims to religious freedom for moral reasons; rather, she believes that corporations cannot have religious freedom because of any possible negative effects on others who receive benefits from being employed by the corporation.

In other words, she believes that an entity's ability to claim religious freedom is inherently limited by its concrete effects on those who have voluntarily chosen to become associated with the entity. In that respect, this doesn't really seem like any kind of freedom at all to me.

This is my biggest problem with liberal-style jurisprudence in America. It seems to rest on the principle that any particular freedom is limited at the point where it starts to affect other people, but because nearly everything affects other people, all this really means is that freedom doesn't really exist save for specific judicial interpretations where the particular freedom in question has been deemed to be more important. But that's simply a judgement call. Any judge can say, "well, I think the freedom is more important" or "well, I think the effects on other people trump the freedom." It's simply an opportunity for judges to impose their particular moral values on the task at hand. And there's nothing wrong with that as a concept if the system were designed around it, but that's not what the courts are supposed to be doing in the USA.
Last edited by Pointedstick on Mon Jun 30, 2014 5:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7680
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Lots of really good court rulings

Post by moda0306 »

Xan wrote: I think PS was using "monstrous" from the perspective of the other person in the debate.  He's saying that if the pro-lifer's premise is correct, the pro-choicer can (correctly) interpret that his own position is considered monstrous by his counterpart.  And the converse is also true.  And that's how the debate gets so heated so quickly.
Gotcha... makes sense.

Although when it comes to comparing the monstrosities of killing a baby versus giving birth, it's pretty clear which is worse.
But that is another loaded aspect to the conversation, and obfuscates the debate, ironically.

First off, biologically, a fetus is NOT a baby.  Neither is a zygote a baby.

Second, almost nobody is saying that it is "monstrous" to give birth.  They are saying, perhaps, that it is "monstrous" for an agent of the state to force a woman with a zygote (or perhaps a fetus) inside them to give birth.

----

The "baby" thing is sort of a semantics issue, but it sort of presupposes that a zygote/fetus is a human life, which really seems to be something worth debating, rather than just trying to hide it into another layer of debate.

The other piece was just a huge factual straw-man.  Not sure if it was intentional.  But for all intents and purposes, nobody is arguing that giving birth is monstrous.
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."

- Thomas Paine
User avatar
Pointedstick
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8883
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Lots of really good court rulings

Post by Pointedstick »

moda0306 wrote: Second, almost nobody is saying that it is "monstrous" to give birth.  They are saying, perhaps, that it is "monstrous" for an agent of the state to force a woman with a zygote (or perhaps a fetus) inside them to give birth.
Yes, that is the pro-choice position: that forced childbirth is the monstrosity. Especially if the pregnancy was the result of rape, which obviates the "well then don't have sex!" argument.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
User avatar
Mountaineer
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5080
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am

Re: Lots of really good court rulings

Post by Mountaineer »

Pointedstick wrote:
moda0306 wrote: Second, almost nobody is saying that it is "monstrous" to give birth.  They are saying, perhaps, that it is "monstrous" for an agent of the state to force a woman with a zygote (or perhaps a fetus) inside them to give birth.
Yes, that is the pro-choice position: that forced childbirth is the monstrosity. Especially if the pregnancy was the result of rape, which obviates the "well then don't have sex!" argument.
Are not the two fundamental questions: Who creates life?  When does life begin?  Those two questions force one to take a stand on a third fundamental question: Who is going to be god (man or God - definition of god that I'm using is who or what you put your ultimate trust in)? 

... Mountaineer
Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no help. Psalm 146:3
Post Reply