Sunday School

Sunday School November 13th 2022

This topic contains 117 replies, has 10 voices, and was last updated by  TheEncogitationer 1 week, 1 day ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 118 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #45651

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Objective standards? Objectivity is a funny word and a slippery one at that.
    When the putative objectivity is dependent on the off chance that the theist has landed correctly only one landing can be into the slot of objectivity. Monarchs in the middle ages exploited the notion of divine right monarchy. No questioning the emissary of God and a draconian hand of justice was the natural outcome of upholding such a preposterous notion. Upholding such nonsense also cements the social order and results in inequitable treatment for the majority and stagnation. Why not permit theocracy everywhere so that absolute morality reigns? Nuance and nebulous issues? No worries. Just a mind-numbing solution that is black and white and no time is wasted in contemplation. Contemplation/reason/inquiry is the enemy of absolute morality borne of mythology and promulgated by fiat. The whole thing is abhorrent.

    The ones to be most cautious about are the ones who tell us not to question us because they are the authority and you are their subject. Ever notice how priests and prelates of all stripes pull that BS in addressing others as son? Fuck them and their absolute nonsense.

    #45652

    _Robert_
    Participant

    Ever notice how priests and prelates of all stripes pull that BS in addressing others as son? Fuck them and their absolute nonsense.

    Here, here. Leave it to the religious to be so confused about where morality comes from. Far be it for them to observe a gorilla family for a few hours. Morons.

    #45653

    Autumn
    Participant

    I don’t see the problem. If you don’t want an abortion, don’t have one.

    The problem is if someone is possessed of the belief that abortion is tantamount to murder (or should be classified as murder), that line of reasoning doesn’t stand. Arguably, many who push anti-abortion views aren’t all that motivated by protecting the unborn, but I am sure for many “pro-life”ers it is their sincere conviction that they are saving lives, even if they may hypocritically have little concern for what happens to the child after birth.

    And if you can’t raise the child properly in the US, be assured the pro-life crowd’s work is all done as far as the baby is concerned.

    One of the people running for the Conservative Party of Canada was trying to work this angle. Rather than place emphasis on anti-abortion stances, her platform tried to work the angle of better support for prospective parents. But the plan was pretty tepid and likely would have been grossly inefficient. Maybe it’s a little too cynical to say it was all for show, but… it was all for show.

    #45654

    Unseen
    Participant

    While there’s a small chance that the Dems will win both the House and Senate (the Senate’s sewn up apparently) and resuscitate Roe v. Wade by codifying it, the Supremes could still fuck that up by the simple act of the conservatives deciding that the protections of citizenship start at conception. Would they do that?

    I think the best protection would come from codifying the right to privacy, the right we all think we have but isn’t in the Constitution.

    Let’s ask Jake.

    #45655

    Autumn
    Participant

    That would make the 14th Amendment more interesting:

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    The amendment refers to those born on US soil, but an interpretation that citizenship rights extend to those conceived on US soil would apply to abridging the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.

    That said, non-citizens are also protected against bodily harm, so if the Supreme Court could make that sort of interpretation, they could do so on the basis of personhood. But that’s an old debate. Conventionally, it’s not something the court should be weighing in on to my understanding, but I suspect that hasn’t proven to be an absolute limitation historically.

    #45656

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Unseen, you are correct there is no explicit right to privacy in the US constitution. It was a bit of judicial activism in Griswold v. Connecticut in which privacy was discovered in the penumbras (learned that word in law school reading the above case) of the bill of rights.

    As to the broad and reasonable expectations that we oughtn’t stow Rowe i agree the best move is to codify it federally. That done the states would have a road block to criminalizing abortion because the Supremacy Clause stands for the proposition that federal law and Constitutional law take precedence over state law where the 2 are in conflict.

    Waiting for a change in the composition to the Supreme Court to change it back could take a long long time.

    #45658

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    to the extent that they stand behind an action or belief as moral, it’s very hard to justify them as such without reference to something outside themselves as a standard. In other words, something objective.

    That’s true I think.  But the structure of what we need to do in order to cooperate, and hence, the ideals of cooperation, are impartial and external to the individual, as well as shared.  This is objective in the sense you are talking about.  This is what I mean: morality is semi-objective.

    “The fact is, in my opinion” is an oxymoron.

    It’s a fact that I hold this opinion.

    I don’t see anything else in that last paragraph … other than your opinion, which you offer without proof.

    There is a logical structure to morality that hangs together in a similar way to mathematics.

     

    #45659

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    As I stated, if all he means is that the foetus is impacted by your moral position, that was always the case where you were, hypothetically, in a position to make the decision regarding termination.

    OK, then I propose to hypothetically impose the consequences of my moral belief (necessarily hypothetically, since I can’t give birth) on a foetus or embryo.

    It’s pretty hard to legitimately minimise the impact of death on the individual.  I don’t feel it would be OK for someone to come along and snuff me out in my sleep, even if I didn’t feel anything (ever again).

    The whole point of the anti-abortion movement (which I disagree with) is that the foetus or embryo is a person and therefore has the right like any other person not to be snuffed out.  There’s no need to ask its permission: no living thing wants to be snuffed out.

    #45660

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    @strega – that’s true, I can see your point.

    #45661

    Autumn
    Participant

    As I stated, if all he means is that the foetus is impacted by your moral position, that was always the case where you were, hypothetically, in a position to make the decision regarding termination.

    OK, then I propose to hypothetically impose the consequences of my moral belief (necessarily hypothetically, since I can’t give birth) on a foetus or embryo. It’s pretty hard to legitimately minimise the impact of death on the individual.

    I am not minimizing anything, but even if I were, it’s irrelevant. Once a foetus comes into existence, you can’t escape the fact that it bears the consequences of the actions of others. If one views abortion as a moral issue, or views birth as a moral issue, that foetus is imposed upon by the consequences of that moral decision. It doesn’t choose to live neither does it choose to be terminated.

    I don’t feel it would be OK for someone to come along and snuff me out in my sleep, even if I didn’t feel anything (ever again).

    I didn’t say it would be okay. I said I don’t suffer. At the point I am dead, I am the least invested party in the morality of the person who killed me. I am the least imposed upon because I am dead. My personhood no longer exists. This isn’t the same as saying it’s okay for someone to kill me in my sleep.

    The whole point of the anti-abortion movement (which I disagree with) is that the foetus or embryo is a person and therefore has the right like any other person not to be snuffed out.

    That really isn’t relevant here. The issue raised is moral imposition and there is none. Not only that, but if we interpret ‘moral imposition’ to mean the consequences of the moral decisions of others, then no matter what you do the foetus unwillingly is subject to such consequences. It’s not a situation where someone deciding to terminate is imposing consequences on a foetus and someone deciding not to terminate is not imposing consequences.

    #45662

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    no matter what you do the foetus unwillingly is subject to such consequences. It’s not a situation where someone deciding to terminate is imposing consequences on a foetus and someone deciding not to terminate is not imposing consequences.

    But the consequences are not indifferently felt by the foetus.  There’s a world of difference between life and death.  No organism is going to say “meh” when faced with those options.

    #45663

    _Robert_
    Participant

    You say fetus, I say foetus and some say foe-to-us.

    #45664

    Autumn
    Participant

    But the consequences are not indifferently felt by the foetus. There’s a world of difference between life and death.

    A foetus’s response to the issue is a step below ‘meh’. It’s can’t process the question or weight the outcomes. It’s irrelevant anyway.

    You are seemingly talking about what choice is hypothetically better. I am talking about a) moral imposition, and b) the inescapability of consequences from decisions made by a parent regarding the fate a foetus.

    #45665

    TheEncogitationer
    Participant

    Strega,

    The disposal of a corpse (within the bounds of the private property of others, of course,) is a right of autonomous, living, rational human beings, so it’s not a corpse that has rights, but the living human who once had it and that human’s legal and appointed agents.

    Likewise, the decision of whether to get pregnant or carry a non-viable fetus to term is the right of autonomous, living, rational human beings, whether the law acknowledges it or not.

    • This reply was modified 2 weeks, 2 days ago by  TheEncogitationer. Reason: AutoCorrect made "human" into "Hunan.". Racist AI!
    #45667

    Strega
    Moderator

    Hi Encogitationer,

    If a dying person refuses usage of his organs after death, the organs are not used. Therefore the corpse he is about to become, cannot be harvested. It had the right to remain intact when living, under general laws. Once it is dead, it has the right not to be harvested.

    The right to not get pregnant is rather optimistic, considering the inadequacy of contraception, coupled with the forceful imposition of rape impregnation.

     

     

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 118 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.