No, only some. Those who share your views.

Well...fancy that...

well, the argument US Christians use to support their anti-abortion stance is very much derogatory of Jews, so maybe rational people should can leave Religion out of this?

The point is that early stage personhood is an idea that originates from certain religions. Even if you don’t believe there is a constitutional right to bodily autonomy, and it is in everyone’s best interest for their to be one, it definitely isn’t constitutional to enact a law that gives preference to one religious belief over a different religious belief.

This ruling was a bad one from start to finish.

Agreed. Especially the hilited.

The liberal idea of equality comes from the equality of souls before God. Does the Constitution ban laws based on notions of equality?

Meh.

Liberals are all over the map with this. One minute they are screaming about religion and "early stage personhood", the next they are saying there shouldn't be restrictions on third trimester abortions.

Like I say, nothing is good enough for them. Even my prior stance of accepting Roe, supporting legal abortion in cases of rape and incest, and advocating for education, community outreach, and free birth control. That wasn't good enough because I had the audacity to suggest crazy things such as a greater emphasis should be placed on personal responsibility for both men and women.

So, guess what? Liberals get nothing, now. They lost their bargaining chip via political failure and unreasonable demands. And the scotus is now a conservative's wet dream, and likely will be for a very long time. This is just the beginning.

Partly this is because in the utopia everybody will be free to pursue happiness without moral censure, and everybody will be protected from the consequences of their choices. It's a bit like how, when Communist man emerges, he will only want to do things that are compatible with equality, hence the obvious contradictions between freedom and equality will resolve. You can't view it as the pragmatic balancing off evils. You have to celebrate abortion as an expression of individual freedom. When everybody abandons traditional morality, a stable society of hedonistic individuals will emerge who sleep with whoever they feel like without guilt, envy or consequences.

Sorry can I ask if this is an entirely serious post? Because some people here play Devil’s Advocate.

If it’s serious your slippery slope argument is too ridiculous to address.

I was listening to Fox News last night on the radio while driving--I go there sometimes on commercial breaks just to peek at what the other side is talking about. Not sure who was speaking but they were complaining about how the left is so intolerant on this issue and can't they just understand that some people may find abortion to be morally wrong.

I get that. That is not the point. The point is if you don't agree with it, then don't have one, but leave others free to choose. Why should their moral choices be forced upon everyone else? Why can't they understand that??

What is a liberal idea of equality?

Often, but equally between whom?

Well, I doubt your average person who supported the communists back in 1920 wouldn't have read the philosophical workings out of how liberty and equality could be made compatible. They may never have considered that they weren't. The useful idiots of the revolution. If people thought in that way, you wouldn't get incoherent notions like "liberté, égalité, fraternité" becoming so popular. Maybe if they had been aware that their leaders meant something very different by "liberty" than they did, it would have made a difference, and maybe it wouldn't? It's the same today. Most people don't read the history of the ideas they support, or consider what the implications of their ideas are beyond the things they want their ideas to deliver. You see this on the "Trans women are not women" thread where you get people simultaneously supporting the process of deconstructing concepts that stand in the way of the free self-creation of the individual.... they support the deconstruction of the family, and the social role of women, but are shocked that the concept of women itself ends up getting deconstructed. People think they can board the train and then get off wherever they want.

All nonsense. Thanks, it doesn’t need to be addressed.

You're looking for a coherent argument from reasoned moral principles. You will not find one. The sole point is to claim victimization even while victimizing others. That's all.

There is no neutral environment where one persons choices don't restrict the choices of other people. If in a State most of the population don't want to live under an individualistic moral system, will you let them? If you impose an individualistic system on them, then you set up tragedy of the commons type incentives that drives people to behave individualistically. Some people value community, family etc... over individual freedom. The system you see as neutral is an existential threat to them.

So we have abortion rights relentlessly attacked and pushed back at the state level to the point that, despite Roe vs. Wade, in many states abortion might as well have been illegal even before this ruling; but it's actually the liberals' fault because look what you made me do, you just tried too hard and pushed too much?

Yeah, that makes total sense!

I'm afraid it's you who doesn't understand.

Everyone forces moral choices on other people. We need a shared moral code, and much of that moral code is enforced by law. It cannot be otherwise. You may have mistakenly believed that it was otherwise because you may not have even noticed all the morality that's encoded into law, but it's absolutely there.

I'll give you an example: laws against animal cruelty. That's a moral choice that we have made as a society. We didn't have to outlaw animal cruelty. We didn't do so for purely pragmatic reasons. We did so because we believe it is morally wrong to be cruel to animals. I'm guessing you share that belief. I'm also guessing you never really objected to forcing that moral choice on other people. But that's still what's happening. You don't actually object to forcing moral choices on other people. Nobody really does, not categorically. You only object to doing so when it's a moral choice you disagree with.

I see once again that conservatives place a greater value of life and freedoms on that of a unthinking, unformed fetus over that of an actual thinking human female.

Of course, fetus' are only valued until they're born.

Oops! Someone's caveat negates their point! In addition to a massive false equivalency over limiting what someone does with their body based on other people's morals with limiting what people do to other animals based on pragmatic and moral considerations.

Further, you don't believe your own reasoning to give objection. If you did you'd be fine with banning gay sex (hell, you probably will defend the state that tires it) or banning meat eating because of a minority moral consideration enforced on a majority of people.

I don't think you've understood Ziggurat's point.

No, I did and I understand that not only is it a dodge, it's a self refuting one.

I look forward to your defense of bans on meat eating.

But the majority of the US society does agree with the right to abortion.
So what is it called when a minority abuses processes to force it's will on the majority?

It isn't self refuting. You didn't understand the point. Eating meat isn't against my morality, so I'm not against it. All societies impose some form of morality on people, the only question is what that morality should be.

Authoritarianism?

It's weird watching the same conservatives who argued that being illegal doesn't impede anything at all when it comes to gun laws argue here that we need laws to impose morality wrt abortion.

The RCC only adopted ensoulment at conception in the nineteenth century.

Guns are a god given divine right!

Rights to bodily autonomy for womensplit-tails is not. They're just incubators.

Protect the babies! (Until they're born)

if foetuses don't want to be aborted, they can make use of their 2nd amendment right to defend themselves - if they don't get a gun, that's their mistake.

First, you assume there are no pragmatic implications of abortion, but there are. Second, you have created caveats of your own which weren't part of your original claim, and basically constitute special pleading.

shuttit is right, you don't understand my point at all.

And to be explicit, I'm not fine with banning gay sex. But the reason I'm not fine with it isn't because it's based on morals. There are other reasons I'm opposed to it, including that it conflicts with my own morals. And yes, being opposed to a law because it's based on morality that you disagree with is a reasonable reason to oppose such a law. Same goes for abortion. I've got no problem with you opposing abortion restrictions because they conflict with your morality. But again, that's different than being opposed to it because it's based on morals. That isn't the argument you made before.

But not an overwhelming majority, and not without some restrictions (for example, the majority doesn't support 9th month abortions).

So how do we resolve differences of opinion among the citizenry? Well, one way to do it is to devolve the question from the federal level back to the states. And I think you will find that the degree of support for and opposition to abortion varies from state to state. States where a majority support abortion can keep it legal. States where a majority oppose abortion can restrict it. If the outcome you're after is laws that most closely resemble the desires of the people, then overturning RvW is a step in the right direction. Which makes me think you aren't actually making this argument in good faith, but just trying whatever you think might stick. The problem is, it doesn't.

Such as when 7 unelected judges declare that states cannot prohibit abortion, no matter how unpopular the decision is within that state?

You really can't use this argument to defend Roe v. Wade. It doesn't work.

Although the GOP elite pose as pro-forced birth, I doubt there is a single state where the populace is. If you have evidence of one rather than assumptions that there is one, feel free to share. Otherwise, your argument falls apart.

For example:
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion...tion/by/state/

Given that the facts contradict your expectations, will this prompt any introspection about why you got it so completely wrong?

No, it was disgusted sarcasm toward hypocrites who claim to be Christians but behave in very unChristian ways. Maybe it's just their interpretation that when Jesus said "Suffer the little children to come unto me" he really meant they should suffer as in being forced to give birth after being raped at 10 years old.

Christians who practice what Christianity preaches...love, kindness, unselfishness, forgiveness... have my respect. The others don't.

You failed to answer my question:

"Since Roe v Wade in 1973, exactly what 'ever-increasing demands for relaxed abortion law" have liberals made? "

True story. Before that, I believe, they also held to the quickening time-frame.

Who was talking about Christians? Why even bring it up? Probably they might say that murdering the unborn is worse than forcing raped children to give birth to one of God's beautiful creations. God has a plan, after all. Who are we to question it?

So, I don't think that is hypocritical at all.

It's in the Book of Jerry Falwell. It's not, unsurprisingly, in the Bible anywhere. Now men OTOH, sin if they spill their seed on the ground. Could be that's where the Catholics got the idea condoms were bad.


I wonder where the Catholics got their pro-life stance from. Anyone know?

Cool, so almost a decade ago there were 11 states where the majority of respondents answered that abortion should be illegal in all/most cases. As in, out of 511 Alabamians (population 4.9 million), 58% said illegal in all/most cases. Out of 311 Arkansas (pop 3 million) respondents, it was 60%. It's weak evidence, but it's better than you usually offer! :thumbsup:

Are there people fighting for their right to be cruel to animals? or to murder or to neglect children or ...

The point is half the country doesn't buy the morality argument for abortion. For that reason your analogy fails.

Do you know what triggered the position?

Name them, they aren't readily coming to me.

No one is special pleading. In your mind failure to agree means the person didn't understand you. That is a common fallacy.

We both understand as do others reading your post. It's a false equivalence and a bad analogy.

WTF?

Those split hairs aren't relevant whatever twisted reasoning you mean by it.