The Effect of "Abortion Rights" on the Political Landscape

[HoosierLife]

Your interpretation of that book. Others have a very different interpretation.

Plus, no one equated the two, that is all you. We were discussing his belief in an absolute right to life.

You know as well as I do that many make that claim from the same logic.

And an “absolute right to life” is one of those weird beliefs that can pop up without taking God’s Word into account.

There may be some difficult passages to interpret correctly from the Word of God.

But abortion and capital punishment do not fall into that category.

 

[loudgroove]

Sure. If you want to take bits and pieces out of context to apply silliness to your life.

It also says to “judge righteous judgment.”

Well for starters, I am not a bible person. If that means you see my life as silly, then so be it.

 

[HoosierLife]

Well for starters, I am not a bible person. If that means you see my life as silly, then so be it.

I gathered that…

But if you’re not a “Bible person” why would you throw out a random mis-quoted out of context Bible verse you thought you heard as reason for your argument?

That’s the silliness I’m talking about.

When people reject the Word of God, either deliberately or through ignorance, they can and will start to believe in anything.

There has to be an Objective Standard or then, left/right, Christian/Atheist, capitalist/communist etc are just arguing subjective preference.

At that point, who are you to tell anyone that another view is moral or not?

If you have no Objective Standard, then you have nothing to base anything off of past your personal feelings.

You guys are cutting off the branch your sitting on by undercutting the Word of God.

 

[loudgroove]

I gathered that…

But if you’re not a “Bible person” why would you throw out a random mis-quoted out of context Bible verse you thought you heard as reason for your argument?

That’s the silliness I’m talking about.

When people reject the Word of God, either deliberately or through ignorance, they can and will start to believe in anything.

There has to be an Objective Standard or then, left/right, Christian/Atheist, capitalist/communist etc are just arguing subjective preference.

At that point, who are you to tell anyone that another view is moral or not?

If you have no Objective Standard, then you have nothing to base anything off of past your personal feelings.

You guys are cutting off the branch your sitting on by undercutting the Word of God.

Maybe you should go back and read everything I have wrote. Including the ? that was put at the end "quoted out of context Bible verse".

 

[AndreusMaximus]

I hope you don’t view me as your enemy simply because we view the world so differently. Enemies want to destroy each other. I want to be free to live a life consistent with my values, and I imagine you want much the same.

Certainly, I do not view you as my enemy, and I am glad you do not view me as yours.

That being said, I recognize the gravity of our differences. As you said, we would both like to live a life consistent with our values, but given how radically different our values are, and how different the starting point is from which we determine our values, I don't think it's possible for us to find a society or system of laws that would give us both the freedom to do that.

So we're probably going to find ourselves at odds with each other on most fundamental political and moral questions, with little chance of reconciling our difference through discussion. But fortunately, that doesn't mean we have to hate each other.

 

[KLB]

This is specious. MY right to life is absolute and for me takes precedence when in conflict with that of another. In an existential situation, there can be only one

What are you even talking about? I really don't see how that fits into the conversation at all.

 

[Tombs]

No, I'm trying to say that the right to life cannot be forfeited. Even a person who commits murder doesn't forfeit their right to life.

The only case where I think it is moral to kill a person, is when that is literally the only way to stop them from their current, ongoing action of taking more innocent lives, because in that situation your the action of killing them is being done with the intent and effect of saving innocent people, who also have an absolute right to life, therefore you are not violating the principle.

The reason this is different than saying that a person who commits murder forfeits their right to life, is because if that were the case, than it would be moral to kill someone at any point after they had committed murder. But I don't believe in revenge killing, or in capital punishment used punitively. Since even a murderer has a right to life, the second someone is no longer in the process of taking innocent lives at this exact moment, killing them is again immoral, in my book.

I think a better way to word what you're saying would be...

The reason it is permissible to take someone's life in self defense, is because everyone has a right to life, and defending one's life from being taken away is part of that right. If it results in the person trying to violate their right to life, dying, then the higher bar of morality has been met by the person defending themselves.

 

[jamil]

Why can INGO not have reasonable discussions without posted telling others what they believe? You are not even grasping the concept so discussion is impossible.

So you're saying that INGO is a bunch of unreasonable old men who fart too much? I'm so offended!

 

[LeftyGunner]

Certainly, I do not view you as my enemy, and I am glad you do not view me as yours.

That being said, I recognize the gravity of our differences. As you said, we would both like to live a life consistent with our values, but given how radically different our values are, and how different the starting point is from which we determine our values, I don't think it's possible for us to find a society or system of laws that would give us both the freedom to do that.

So we're probably going to find ourselves at odds with each other on most fundamental political and moral questions, with little chance of reconciling our difference through discussion. But fortunately, that doesn't mean we have to hate each other.

I think the very nature of binary politics exaggerates the distance between us.

I support abortion on demand not because I hate babies, or my neighbors, or America…hate doesn’t factor into my position at all.

Politically, my primary motivating value is liberty. Unless there is a legitimate need for the government to intervene I think people should be left alone to make their own decisions and live their own lives.

I think liberty means a woman decides when an abortion is appropriate, not other people, and not the government.

I know you disagree with this assessment, but I think the world is big enough for the both of us, and I think that ideal is central to the concept of our United States.

The United States is not supposed to be a monolith. Liberty is about living the lives we want to live, and letting others do the same…even when we have deep disagreements with one another.

The appropriate place to settle legal issues surrounding culture war issues is at the state level, at least in my opinion.

RvW was bad law. Abortion should be decided state by state…and we need to be accepting of one another’s decisions regarding these divisive topics.

Liberty breeds social and economic diversity, and that fact is what makes America different from anywhere else in the world.

 

[jamil]

A their root, rights are social permissions built into the framework of a shared culture.

Rights are a purely social construct, a concept only applicable within a functioning social framework. Rights are necessarily a work of consensus. A single person living alone in a wilderness has no need for rights…we cannot infringe our own rights, and who else is there infringe upon them?

No right is absolute, and no right is unabridged.

Nah. Rights are an issue of whether or not someone is in the right for a given action, objectively, all things considered.

One of the simplest rights is possession, for example. If I want to take your stuff I am not in the right to do so. You are in the right to protect your possessions. And pretty much everyone ever, has this sense. People don't need to consult the prevailing social constructs to know when their right to their possessions has been violated. Pretty much every society ever has rules against theft, because of that sense. Not every society across time has/had the same rules, because it's the rules societies construct that are the social constructs.

The laws every society has in common projects what are the natural rights. So a given society's laws tend to follow the innate sense of right and wrong, not the other way around. Some societies strictly enforce this sense, and some override it. Some societies construct rules such that that theft is punished by cutting the thiefs hand off. Some societies construct rules to override the sense of possession, such that certain thefts are unpunished because bat **** crazy are trying to build ClownWorld™.

No right is absolute only because sometimes rights collide. I don't have a right to live, per se. I have a right to pursue life by living. You don't have a right to take it away. But if I am using my life to threaten yours, your right to pursue your life makes it right for you to end the threat, even at the expense of mine. Some societies have overridden that sense, change the social construct to make you in the wrong for protecting your life. Because ClownWorld™.

Okay so it's kinda the same thing with abortion. Is the mother in the right not to want to share her body with another life? Is the unborn in the right to pursue life? Those are two "rights" that collide. Society has socially constructed a preference in favor of the mother's right, against the right of the unborn to pursue life. But that doesn't make it any less of a right.

I can see both sides of the issue. I think that it would be way less an issue if couples acted responsibly. Don't get pregnant if you don't want kids and no one's rights collide.

 

[jamil]

Politically, my primary motivating value is liberty. Unless there is a legitimate need for the government to intervene I think people should be left alone to make their own decisions and live their own lives.

I think liberty means a woman decides when an abortion is appropriate, not other people, and not the government.

But this favors the right of the mother over the right of the unborn. And I get that there are nuances there. We can argue about when or if the unborn has rights. But that's really an ought argument, not a is argument. It's an argument over what the social construct should be. Living beings have the right to pursue life, consciously or otherwise. Is it socially acceptable to prefer the mother's right? You say yes. AM says no. But there should be no disagreement whether either has a right. Unless you completely reject the idea of natural rights, which I laid out in the last post.

 

[jamil]

In general, a discussion about moral principles has to have some point of agreement to start from. It looks like we've finally dug down to the very core of what the two of us believe regarding human life and human rights, and we just have a fundamental difference in the premises we start with.

This is why parts of the US may need a divorce. I'm not talking about the abortion issue specifically, but there are fundamentally irreconcilable differences on how society should order itself generally. The abortion issue is just more of a thorn issue really. It gets both sides upset, and motivated against the other, even though there are worse societal issues to resolve. Don't stone me for saying that.

Maybe we can give Southern California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico to the People's Republic of ClownWorld™. That should give them plenty of room for the giant 15 minute cities (otherwise known as ****-holes). That should be enough space to house them all. I mean, look how many people this 15 minute city can house!



The US can just deport all the clowns from every state to the PRoC. Unfortunately, that's gonna make NYC unpopulated. I suppose we could raize it and send the scrap to PRoC to help build their ****-holes. I suppose we'll also need a Hooveresque purge-o-commies program to deport all the clowns to PRoC.

I just don't see us coexisting for much longer. And we're still arguing about abortion. There's no middle ground on stuff like "men can get pregnant, and you should die if you don't believe it." There's no middle ground on "white people are inherently racist and PoC should not tolerate their existence." We have white people killing white children because they're white. For **** sake!

We're in deep **** territory right now as a society, and resolving the question of abortion isn't going to fix any of it. I may get flamed Ben Shapiro style for saying there are more important existential issues right now. But life's tough. I have a helmet.

 

[jamil]

To me a person that has an absolute belief in a right to life would not take another life, period. That person would literally allow someone else to kill them before they would kill that other person. Anything less is not absolute. The rest of us believe in a right to life, but we all have our exceptions.

I think that included in the belief of an absolute right to life is a belief that one's own life is just as sacred. So then the person who tries to violate that right has forfeited his own. Like I said above, natural rights are about rightness. Who is in the right? Someone who takes a life to protect one's own, or others? Or the person who is trying to take the life for his own personal gain?

 

[AndreusMaximus]

…hate doesn’t factor into my position at all.

I get that completely, and I wasn't trying to imply otherwise. Sometimes I sound sarcastic when I don't mean to, but I'm not trying to be.

Politically, my primary motivating value is liberty. Unless there is a legitimate need for the government to intervene I think people should be left alone to make their own decisions and live their own lives.

I think liberty means a woman decides when an abortion is appropriate, not other people, and not the government.

I know you disagree with this assessment, but I think the world is big enough for the both of us, and I think that ideal is central to the concept of our United States.

The United States is not supposed to be a monolith. Liberty is about living the lives we want to live, and letting others do the same…even when we have deep disagreements with one another.

The appropriate place to settle legal issues surrounding culture war issues is at the state level, at least in my opinion.

RvW was bad law. Abortion should be decided state by state…and we need to be accepting of one another’s decisions regarding these divisive topics.

Liberty breeds social and economic diversity, and that fact is what makes America different from anywhere else in the world.

We agree on the liberty part.

The trouble is that I see abortion as an issue that does have a legitimate need for government to intervene, whereas you see it as the opposite; an individual liberty issue that it is fundamentally wrong for the government to intervene in. So as long as we live under the same government, we're both going to be voting in favor of laws that the other one sees as a fundamental infringement on basic human rights.

The world is definitely still "big enough for the both of us", though, in the sense that we're not going to try to hunt each other down or want the other one sent off to re-education camp, or even remotely want anything like that.

But I don't see there being any system of laws that would allow us both to say "Okay, these laws allow some things I don't agree with, but they don't infringe on my rights, and I recognize that the things they allow are within the realm of issues that individuals should have the right to decide for themselves, and so I see them as more or less moral." That's the extent of the divide I see between us; no more, no less.

 

[jamil]

I hope you don’t view me as your enemy simply because we view the world so differently. Enemies want to destroy each other. I want to be free to live a life consistent with my values, and I imagine you want much the same.

I think an argument over abortion is not worth making enemies. But an argument over whether a person who says men can't get pregnant, or a person who happens to be white, should even be allowed to breathe, if you think that, you are my enemy. And most people aren't saying that. But a lot of people with a platform, are. They're my enemy because they have declared themselves to be that.

Abortion is a spat over what the social constructs should be. People who can't accept the idea that a woman is in the right to prefer not to share her body. And that the unborn is in its right to pursue life, need to step back and ponder some things. There are two sides of it. This is an example of where rights collide. And whatever ends up being the resolution is a social construct to prefer one over the other.

Personally I prefer the couple regards life as sacredly as I do and decides to use the proportional care when ****ing. If the woman doesn't want to share her body at that point in her life, either **** responsibly or don't ****. But you're not my enemy if you disagree. You're only my enemy if you agree with the ClownWorld™ existential stuff. Or you prefer Glocks over 1911's. Or if you put pineapple on your pizza. Okay. Maybe if you're a Kimber Fanboi.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

This is why parts of the US may need a divorce. I'm not talking about the abortion issue specifically, but there are fundamentally irreconcilable differences on how society should order itself generally. The abortion issue is just more of a thorn issue really. It gets both sides upset, and motivated against the other, even though there are worse societal issues to resolve. Don't stone me for saying that.

Maybe we can give Southern California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico to the People's Republic of ClownWorld™. That should give them plenty of room for the giant 15 minute cities (otherwise known as ****-holes). That should be enough space to house them all. I mean, look how many people this 15 minute city can house!

View attachment 312340

The US can just deport all the clowns from every state to the PRoC. Unfortunately, that's gonna make NYC unpopulated. I suppose we could raize it and send the scrap to PRoC to help build their ****-holes. I suppose we'll also need a Hooveresque purge-o-commies program to deport all the clowns to PRoC.

I just don't see us coexisting for much longer. And we're still arguing about abortion. There's no middle ground on stuff like "men can get pregnant, and you should die if you don't believe it." There's no middle ground on "white people are inherently racist and PoC should not tolerate their existence." We have white people killing white children because they're white. For **** sake!

We're in deep **** territory right now as a society, and resolving the question of abortion isn't going to fix any of it. I may get flamed Ben Shapiro style for saying there are more important existential issues right now. But life's tough. I have a helmet.

Oh, hi, jamil. I was wondering when you'd show up in this thread. Finally I'm not the only one writing essays.

I won't flame you for saying that there's more pressing issues than abortion, even though I strongly disagree. But I know it lines up with your principles, more or less, and I think we've already hashed that one out about as far as an online discussion can go...

I, too, think our country is being divided by irreconcilable differences. I've even spoken in favor of secession, if a non-violent way of accomplishing it can be realized.

The trouble I see with dividing our country into Lefty Clownworld vs. Righty Freedomville is that there will be some folks who really just can't fit in with either side. For all our disagreement, I recognize that @LeftyGunner is not a Clownworld type, and he wouldn't be at home in your PRoC, under the oppressive thumb of a government that wants to regulate everything down to how many times you fart per day, while shoving "men-can-get-pregnant"nonsense down your throat.

 

[jamil]

Oh, hi, jamil. I was wondering when you'd show up in this thread. Finally I'm not the only one writing essays.

I won't flame you for saying that there's more pressing issues than abortion, even though I strongly disagree. But I know it lines up with your principles, more or less, and I think we've already hashed that one out about as far as an online discussion can go...

I, too, think our country is being divided by irreconcilable differences. I've even spoken in favor of secession, if a non-violent way of accomplishing it can be realized.

The trouble I see with dividing our country into Lefty Clownworld vs. Righty Freedomville is that there will be some folks who really just can't fit in with either side. For all our disagreement, I recognize that @LeftyGunner is not a Clownworld type, and he wouldn't be at home in your PRoC, under the oppressive thumb of a government that wants to regulate everything down to how many times you fart per day, while shoving "men-can-get-pregnant"nonsense down your throat.

No, I suspect LG might not opt not to move to PRoC. I think most people would stay in what's left of the US.

That's the thing. When there are exactly two pigeon holes, everyone still self-sorts. The sum of all things is rarely a tie even if something infinitesimally better or worse about one is the decider.

Also, I don't think it would be "Righty Freedomville" that's the alternative to PRoC. I think right now the dichotomy in this country is ClownWorld™ and not ClownWorld™. It's that the not ClownWorld™ is not always willing to stand up and say, no. This is nutty. We're not doing this.

I'll also say that Not-ClownWorld™ will be filled with people who are amenable to abortion and those who are not. It's not even close to a majority of people who are anti-abortion absolutists. And that probably closest consensus law of the land would be to ban it within the first trimester.

 

[jamil]

This is why parts of the US may need a divorce. I'm not talking about the abortion issue specifically, but there are fundamentally irreconcilable differences on how society should order itself generally. The abortion issue is just more of a thorn issue really. It gets both sides upset, and motivated against the other, even though there are worse societal issues to resolve. Don't stone me for saying that.

Maybe we can give Southern California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico to the People's Republic of ClownWorld™. That should give them plenty of room for the giant 15 minute cities (otherwise known as ****-holes). That should be enough space to house them all. I mean, look how many people this 15 minute city can house!

View attachment 312340

The US can just deport all the clowns from every state to the PRoC. Unfortunately, that's gonna make NYC unpopulated. I suppose we could raize it and send the scrap to PRoC to help build their ****-holes. I suppose we'll also need a Hooveresque purge-o-commies program to deport all the clowns to PRoC.

I just don't see us coexisting for much longer. And we're still arguing about abortion. There's no middle ground on stuff like "men can get pregnant, and you should die if you don't believe it." There's no middle ground on "white people are inherently racist and PoC should not tolerate their existence." We have white people killing white children because they're white. For **** sake!

We're in deep **** territory right now as a society, and resolving the question of abortion isn't going to fix any of it. I may get flamed Ben Shapiro style for saying there are more important existential issues right now. But life's tough. I have a helmet.

It occurred to me what to do with NYC after we send all the progressive clown population to the People's Republic of ClownWorld™. Sell the land back to the Native Americans for what it's worth. They can probably afford it with all that casino income.

 

[jamil]

I gathered that…

But if you’re not a “Bible person” why would you throw out a random mis-quoted out of context Bible verse you thought you heard as reason for your argument?

That’s the silliness I’m talking about.

When people reject the Word of God, either deliberately or through ignorance, they can and will start to believe in anything.

There has to be an Objective Standard or then, left/right, Christian/Atheist, capitalist/communist etc are just arguing subjective preference.

I think when it's clear cut objective morals that's one thing. That's a basis for societal laws. Laws against things like murder, theft, rape, etcetera are fairly universal and consistent across cultures and time. I think that's a pretty good indicator when it's derived on an objective moral.

However, when you can tell a law is based in religion, it's only objective for that religion. Enforcing it will then seem unjust for people who are not of that religion. The separation between church and state is for that very reason. Forcing businesses to close on Sunday in observance of a day of worship is obviously a subjective law.

But now I've gone and done it. People be coming out of the woodwork to nag at me, "there's no such separation! blah blah blah!"

At that point, who are you to tell anyone that another view is moral or not?

If you have no Objective Standard, then you have nothing to base anything off of past your personal feelings.

You guys are cutting off the branch your sitting on by undercutting the Word of God.

Who are you to tell me that I have to worship on Sunday? Or worship at all? Thankfully, no one's doing that any more. Society has done away with all the blue laws. You may believe that your religion is the right one. But other people believe theirs is. Better to leave people free to observe their religious doctrines themselves, and impose their tenants only on themselves. Laws should be based on truly objective standards.

 

[jamil]

When it comes to human rights, though, inalienability is a conceptual ideal…not a factual descriptor.

Gravity is demonstrably inalienable…it simply cannot be ignored or denied.

It stretches credulity to describe something that gets ignored and denied as often as human rights as inalienable.

I think that inherent to the fact of life is the right to pursue it. Describing that as inalienable doesn't mean no one can ignore it. It's a moral phrase. One can ignore it. One cannot ignore it and be a moral person. But one can also not care about morality. We have laws against killing people unjustly for a reason. It's harmful to propagation of the species for one thing.