Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy's retirement

[GreenScapularedHuman]

4 hours ago, Anomaly said:

The question isn’t really a moral absolutism.    It’s asking what principles your moral framework (if any) you base your judgement on abort. 

Very strongly disagreed. I can tell you that from a scholastic ethics sense the anti-abortion movement, in particular that which aims to ban all abortions categorically, is a prime example of moral absolutism. The whole 'is it wrong or is it right' dynamic is kinda a obvious give away to it being a categorical assertion and/or question.

It is also in a scholastic ethical sense not a very coherent or comprehensive moral construct... as significant numbers of anti-abortion proponents do not oppose war, gun rights, use of deadly force by police, bombing of civilian targets, use of compulsory conscription into the armed services... so the position is not anti-death... And it surely isn't pro-life... not even just on the being alive front... as many public health policies that would engender that life and quality of life is simply not included. For example we know for a fact that certain mental health matters, moreover when they relate to substance abuse/overdose and/or suicide, results in death... a preventable and avoidable death... the resistance to invest public funds to minimize and/or prevent that is kinda just one example how life isn't of the upmost importance.

So in a ethical sense... and a logical sense... the anti-abortion position is largely a single-horse show... and while not unheard of in other nations it is very unique to America in the vigor and importance that it receives. So the question becomes why? I've answered why already. Its political. Its been something the Republican party has held certain segments of the electorate hostage by promising that they will do something about this for 30-40 years despite never ever doing it... its a very deceptive exploitation.

So I don't even think it is about morality... I think the moral argument is an after thought. And as evidence of that there are plenty of nations which are far more overwhelmingly and supermajority Catholic... and abortion is illegal and even more funded than it is in America.

4 hours ago, Anomaly said:

I’m not the brightest color, but it seems that your opinion is that abortion is vaguely undesirable, and restrictions are impractical and/or ineffective whilst infringing on the rights of the mother. But fundamentally, you aren’t against it in principle.   Please clarify where I may be in error. 

Abortion is a very regretful but very correct outcome of secularism (the use of reason and evidence in public policy making over dogma/superstition), democracy (the popular consent and will of the governed), fair rule of law (the use of fair and consistent legal standards to govern that is resistant to obstruction or interference in that process), and most importantly civil rights (the admission that the power of the state is not and should not be supreme).

So vaguely undesirable? Thats a gross understatement.

But in practice I think that most if not all abortion restrictions, including the political movement that put them in place, fail to address the causes of abortion and does very little to actually prevent them. This is where euthenics comes in and the reality that the Republican party has on the balance rejected euthenics, euthenics being the use of external factors to improve quality of life and to reduce waste, such as through health care, education, public infrastructure, welfare, and so on and so on...

So the Republican party's proposal that just banning abortion is sufficient I think is a giant step backwards... I dare say since it flies in the face of evidence that euthenics has worked far better at reducing abortion... that it flies in the face of democracy, that it flies in the face of the fair rule of law, it flies in the face of civil rights, and it flies in the face of secularism (in the sense of evidence and reason guiding public policy)...

The position is reduced down to a very few basic questions? Do you think life begins at conception? Do you think its moral to kill said life? Do you think that should be illegal?

Its very overly simplistic... and as I mentioned an exercise in moral absolutes and/or an attempt to create a categorical imperative. Its also begging the question...

4 hours ago, Anomaly said:

Many people voted for Trump with the hope he’d select SC Judges of a generally “conservative” tendency.

That was a rather insignificant campaign point during the 2016 election and I didn't see polls that indicated that this was a high reason for voting for Trump... can you show me otherwise?

4 hours ago, Anomaly said:

Conservatism is defined differently within these voters, but this being mostly a Catholic populated website, the definition mostly includes anti abortion. 

Looking at Catholicism internationally and even nationally I think it is fair to say that Catholics, at least as a demographic, are divided on the subject. Pope Francis I know has signaled that he wants the church to be less hyperfocused on human sexuality like abortion. But I would concede that the Catholic Church proper is very anti-abortion... but not as anti-abortion as I think some here are. As most Catholic hospitals will still give emergency contraception to rape victims... which some here seem to think that is abortion.

So... I have noticed that Phatmass is an ultra-conservative and ultra-traditional haven for Catholics... so I get that the audience I am writing to/around is not going to be super-receptive to my views... and I have no doubt that group-think among other biases are present. But I would reject that Catholics are just inherently anti-abortion or inherently conservative. Moreover to the degree I have observed Phatmass to be. Not that I mind too much... if I didn't see a benefit in writing here I wouldn't write here at all.

4 hours ago, Anomaly said:

Most have hope that a conservative judge may lead to an eventual overturn of Roe v Wade.    I don’t think most expect it to happen quickly, but see it as a step in the right direction.   You yourself point at the power of general opinion that it is legal and practically convenient.   That is similar to theprevious  legal and social opinions about slavery and alcohol.  

I know that is something that anti-abortion proponents like to imagine... that abortion is a modern day slavery... but I think that is bunkum. I think it is also a bit of a red herring.

4 hours ago, Anomaly said:

Prohibition was rejected on practical reasons.  Slavery was much harder to eliminate because it took a development of general social and legal opinions based on moral principles and effected in a messy melange of military and legal battles.  Hopefully the US will limit the abortion wrangling to media and political fields.

It is curious that you mention prohibition. I think the want to ban abortion has some similarity to the want to ban alcohol in as much as those who wanted to ban it argued it was a categorical evil and wrong, they argued that it subverted human dignity and liberty, and that it could not be tolerated. But in reality the ban of alcohol actually made the situation of drinking in America far worse not better.

But I am not going to compare other issues even if I think they are similar because I want to avoid red herrings in my arguments. And since it seems you are minimally trying with me I will at least do the same back. But since you mentioned it on your own... I will just toss that in as a in the alternative.

I reject the idea that slavery and abortion have significant similarities politically culturally but moreover economically I think these issues are very dissimilar. In regards to morality... the opposition and abolition of slavery was not a categorical or moral absolutism... and while the American civil war had the very immutable cause and ultimate outcome of abolishing slavery it certainly wasn't the only nor first desired outcome of the American civil war. So I would really disagree that on the morality and American civil war respects that these topics relate.

4 hours ago, Anomaly said:

So, along with hope in an anti abortion opinion, anti abortionists arguments address moral principles.   It’s logical to ask the questions that may box opponents onto the horns of  a dilemma.

No... you should learn about the general logic fallacies because there are too many to briefly mention in there... and more specifically it is not intellectually honest. Which the latter I think is more important because if your standard is 'we aren't going to be intellectually honest', then all intellectual conversation after that point is moot and irrelevant. There is also little reason or perhaps even want to pretend otherwise after that point.

4 hours ago, Anomaly said:

Given that a woman is a person with rights, it follows that persons have rights.   When is an entity not a person, such as an in-womb entity, a terminally ill entity, a non-independent immature entity, a damaged by illness or genetic abnormality entity?   Who or what constitutes “personage” is the crux of the issue that needs to be addressed and understanding and application evolved and developed within human societies. 

No right, even the right to life, is not absolute and/or inviolate.

People also have varying degrees of rights. Babies have less rights than children, children have less rights than teens, teens have less rights than young adults, and young adults have less rights than full adults. This covers a wide arena of civil political social cultural and legal rights. We also know that certain persons with certain intellectual impediments or are in particular vulnerable do not have the same rights as others.

So... legally speaking the idea that all rights are absolutely equal and absolutely inviolate is a very extremely radical and very extremely alien proposition to inject into any legal system... its also grossly impractical.

From an ethical point of view... like I learned when I went to school and eventually later when I took up the profession myself... Lets for simplicity sake say that the moral imperative or mandate is to firstly preserve and promote life, secondly in particular quality and length of life, and thirdly optimize happiness and decrease suffering. To execute that moral mandate suppose there was a brutal tyrannical state that indiscriminately killed and oppressed the people, a revolution to stop and even change that state, is morally defensible. Catholic just war doctrine agrees to this under certain circumstances. Which to note Catholic just war doctrine covers a rather wide breathe of areas that can make permissible, just, or even required war/revolution...

So the overly simplistic and moral absolute position that... no one may die... isn't very practical and it might eve be a bit self-defeating. I would also argue it is not logical.

5 hours ago, Anomaly said:

It is human nature to narrowly define personage so that some can be labeled as ”others” and be subservient to the needs and wants of the “us”.    The issue and discomfort at our borders is rooted in the same principle causing issue and discomfort in wombs, in access to education, and economic security., etc. 

Impractical, inconvenient, and not the majority social opinion are not reasons to ignore the issues.   They’re the reasons to discuss, disagree, argue, listen, identify principles, and come up with marginally effective and flawed solutions as human societies stumble on through history. 

Being without core principles is less than helpful.  

I think you are using the term personage incorrectly by the way...

And the tangent into labeling others as subservient is just candidly a little odd... and I am not seeing how that logically or even ostensibly follows from your previous comments.

But your ending comments that practical, democratic, and fair rule of law causes is no reason (in your view) to change or lessen your activism on the abolition of abortion. That is again proof that this is moral absolutism, a rejection of secularism, rejection of democracy, rejection of fair rule of law, rejection of euthenics, and even a rejection of reason... You have decided that this moral absolute and categorical imperative that all abortions are wrong must be implemented in disregard of anything else.

While that is your right in our liberal democracy for you to think, believe, and even promote that idea... it is not honest to in the same breath argue that you are being fair, reasonable, practical, or concerned with the rule of law or rights. Those are afterthoughts at best.

And to be candid I would respect someone who would stop at making an absolute moral imperative as a matter of faith and not try to rationalize or market their position. Christian Scientists categorically reject modern medicine, this results in children dying of very easily treatable conditions... I can at least respect that their belief is radically different than mine and even seems abusive... but once they try to start to inject antiscience or pseudoscience into trying to rationalize or market their position as something other than a belief, I would say a very misguided belief, I take great offense at that. But while respecting their civil right to hold such an absurd absolute belief if it means using the force of the state to secure the minimal life safety and health of said individuals moreover children I am very okay with that. Namely because I think that holding such a dogmatic and morally absolute position is inherently unreasonable and inherently lessens ones right to exercise one's own civil rights.

[Anomaly]

Did you confuse me with being a Catholic?

Parsing the tldr, and misdirection,  you’re ambivalent about the basic right to life, it being qualified by the person’s actions (engaging in crime or war), as well as age and/or mental capacity.  

 

[GreenScapularedHuman]

27 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

Did you confuse me with being a Catholic?

Parsing the tldr, and misdirection,  you’re ambivalent about the basic right to life, it being qualified by the person’s actions (engaging in crime or war), as well as age and/or mental capacity.  

 

No. At no point have I ever imagined you as a Catholic... or treated you as one.

Misdirection? No.

Ambivalent? Absolutely not. I just don't propose the very radical and more or less incoherent perhaps even a bit hypocritical moral absolutist idea of a right to life.... that you very seem to.

So tell me... do you oppose war? bombing of cities? oppose lethal force by police? oppose involuntary conscription into uniformed service? These are obvious violations to an inviolate and absolute right to life. But somehow I bet you will equivocate with me...

In fact you already have... you concede that abortion in case of rape and incest should be permissible. Could it be that you fear yourself ambivalent?



I very deliberately chose options that attempted  to exclude or minimize the possibility of arguing age, fault, or choice. You don't get to choose if another nation goes to war with your nation. You don't get to choose if you are drafted into the military. You don't get to choose if police opt to use lethal force against you (which doesn't even mean that a crime or even illegal activity necessarily occurred).

And I would note you are the one arguing for a categorical statement that all abortions are morally wrong and should be banned... at the moment on the grounds that it violates a right to life... which you seem to claim is absolute and inviolate... so by qualifying age, fault, or choice is special pleading.

[Anomaly]

Well sir, it is apparent you don’t really try to comprehend my posts, or I’m worse at conveying my thoughts than I imagined. 

[GreenScapularedHuman]

It seems I misread one of your previous posts about rape and incest.

A very minor oversight that really doesn't change the nature or quality of my comments nor does it rebut anything I wrote above...

I was willing to assume you were at least minimally trying with me... but with the comment

Quote

"it is apparent you don’t really try to comprehend my post"

With that... I think there is no point in continuing purely for the reason you think I am not trying. Sorry you feel the need to be less than very honest with me.

[little2add]

 abortion in Judaism is permitted only if there is a direct threat to the life of the mother by carrying the fetus to term or through the act of childbirth. In such a circumstance, the baby is considered tantamount to a rodef, a pursuer6 after the mother with the intent to kill her. Nevertheless, as explained in the Mishna,7 if it would be possible to save the mother by maiming the fetus, such as by amputating a limb, abortion would be forbidden. Despite the classification of the fetus as a pursuer, once the baby's head or most of its body has been delivered, the baby's life is considered equal to the mother's, and we may not choose one life over another, because it is considered as though they are both pursuing each other.

[little2add]

No matter whom our fairly elected President Donald Trump picks for the Supreme Court this time around, the nominee is almost certain to come under withering liberal attack as a grave threat to women’s rights. Several conservatives close to the White House, however, say they know just how to blunt that looming assault: Pick a woman for the job.

[Peace]

On 6/29/2018 at 10:41 PM, GreenScapularedHuman said:

I am not an anti-abortion fanatic. My opinion on abortion is 'legal, safe, and rare'. Which is what almost every conservative says worldwide when talking about abortion... Going to show how American political culture, in particular the political right-wing and the Christian right-wing has really pushed themselves pretty far out there.

Legal, safe and rare murder is still murder. It is the intentional killing of an innocent human being for the convenience of another.

Holding a belief that murder should be legal is more than "pretty far out there". It is downright bizarre and twisted.

On 6/29/2018 at 10:41 PM, GreenScapularedHuman said:

Most people don't even know what Roe v Wade said. It said that the government cannot interfere in the medical decisions of a woman and her doctor without violating her right to privacy in everything that privacy means from health, the ability to make choices based on medical and personal circumstance, and that it is an intimate and non-public matter.

Yes we have a right to privacy and that is good. But that right is not constitutionally protected. The text of the constitution does not say anything about a right to privacy. And the right to privacy is not absolute.

It is twisted and bizarre to think that one may kill an innocent human being because to prevent one from doing so would be a violation of one's privacy.

On 6/29/2018 at 10:41 PM, GreenScapularedHuman said:

The general public when polled generally support Roe v Wade. The general public when asked if the government should make illegal abortion, as in take it out of the realm of the woman and doctor, its ver unpopular. When the question is asked should doctors or women be criminalized for seeking abortions the general sense isn't that its unpopular but that the mere thought is offensive.

The general public has been completely wrong many times before on many things, so that is irrelevant. Slavery and Jim crow are obvious examples if you want to limit your inquiry to the USA.

On 6/29/2018 at 10:41 PM, GreenScapularedHuman said:

We live in a democracy... the will of the people should be the upmost importance... the fair rule of law which internationally has meant that reasonably legal and safe access to abortion is a norm... and if going against that means overturning a rather complex legal theory and going against the will of the people... I can't call that justice.

I do not know where you live, but I live in the USA. Your views are completely inconsistent with the principles on which my country was founded. Democracy does not merely mean "the majority rules". The founding fathers wrote against the tyranny of the majority, not in favor of it.

The principle of our Republic is to allow decisions to be made by local communities to the extent possible, and to protect the minority against the will of the majority. That is why we have states. People in different parts of the country have different views and beliefs and should be free to make their own laws to govern themselves.  If you have policy A and policy B, the ideal is to let states whose citizens prefer policy A enact policy A in those states, and to let states whose citizens prefer policy B enact policy B in those states. What you want to do is take policy A and impose it on every state of the country, regardless of the fact that there are many states who prefer policy B.

And please stop pretending anyway. You know plenty well that if 75% of Americans were in favor of banning abortion you would still be in favor of keeping it "legal, safe, and rare". You are simply using this "will of the majority" stuff as a smokescreen. The will of the majority would mean nothing to you if it was inconsistent with your personal beliefs.

On 6/29/2018 at 10:41 PM, GreenScapularedHuman said:

But I do want abortions rare as possible. And on that front abortions in America have decreased through better public services, welfare, education, economic conditions, and easy access to contraception. There are some signs that abortions are more rare than prior to roe v wade. Meaning that the public health approach to lessening abortion has worked far better than an outright ban has.

Oh I highly doubt that the overall number of abortions has decreased since Roe. Please provide some statistics if you want to back up that claim.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States#Number_of_abortions_in_United_States

The annual number of legal induced abortions in the US doubled between 1973 and 1979, and peaked in 1990. There was a slow but steady decline throughout the 1990s. Overall, the number of annual abortions decreased by 6% between 2000 and 2009, with temporary spikes in 2002 and 2006.[71]

By 2011, abortion rate in the nation dropped to its lowest point since the Supreme Court legalized the procedure. According to a study performed by Guttmacher Institute, long-acting contraceptive methods had a significant impact in reducing unwanted pregnancies. There were fewer than 17 abortions for every 1,000 women of child-bearing age. That was a 13%-decrease from 2008's numbers and slightly higher than the rate in 1973, when the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision legalized abortion. The study indicated a long-term decline in the abortion rate. The rate has dropped significantly from its all-time high in 1981, when there were roughly 30 abortions for every 1,000 women of reproductive age. The overall number of abortions also fell 13% from 2008 to nearly 1.1 million in 2011. In 2013, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also reported a decline in abortion rates.[72][73][74][75]

The number of abortions literally doubled immediately after Roe v. Wade, so that dispels any ridiculous notions that legalizing abortion has led to its decrease. Whatever decrease there has been has been due to other factors (mainly contraception which has reduced the amount of unwanted pregnancies).

And you want abortion as rare as possible? That is nice. I want rape as rare as possible. That is why we have laws against it. This is not rocket science buddy.

And I am completely in favor of better public services, welfare, improved education, etc. These can be added as an additional means to reduce the number of abortions.

On 6/29/2018 at 10:41 PM, GreenScapularedHuman said:

So if I told you that you could ban abortions, getting a sense of moral justification, even though it would require overturning settled law and the will of the American people, being virtually unenforceable without criminalizing it which is wildly unpopular... and that it would likely mean there would be not only an increase in abortions but also unsafe abortions....

Again, it is absolutely absurd to think that making abortion illegal will lead to increased abortion. By this silly logic why don't we go ahead and legalize rape and theft as well so that they will decrease?

And this is not about "getting a sense of moral justification." This is about preventing innocent human beings from being killed. I already addressed your other points.

On 6/29/2018 at 10:41 PM, GreenScapularedHuman said:

Or you could stay the path that the Supreme Court laid out and forced the government to take by approaching this matter with an enlightened and benevolent public health approach which has resulted in less abortions.

I choose the latter. I suppose you choose the former because reality and policy can be too complex.

There is no such thing as an "enlightened and benevolent public health approach" to murder.

On 6/30/2018 at 1:25 PM, GreenScapularedHuman said:

And to put it more flatly... right-wing and radical anti-abortion activists have for a very long time hoped prayed voted and more for 30-40 years that roe v wade be overturned... and have for 30-40 years been promised that roe v wade will be overturned. Yet... nothing.

And that is what I expect will happen again... and again.. and again... and again... and again... and again... and again... and again... and again... and again... and again... and again...

Who cares what you expect? The "Oh you may as well stop trying because it is never going to happen" argument is lame. It took the Supreme Court much longer than that to overturn its decisions on racial segregation. You want just want people to give up but that is not going to happen so you can just spare us with the argument. It will be overturned and then you can get back to your "this is against the will of the people" mumbo jumbo.

 

[Peace]

On 6/30/2018 at 3:50 PM, GreenScapularedHuman said:

I dislike and oppose abortion. I just don't think a ban is the right way to do it. I think that it will cause more problems and not really address the underlying causes, the public health approach has.

Please. You do not oppose anything. You want it to be legalized. Why don't you oppose rape and theft by making them legal too?

On 6/30/2018 at 3:50 PM, GreenScapularedHuman said:

I don't think if a pre-born human is a person or not is relevant. We do plenty of things to post-born human persons who have full rights, including kill them, even when they were not at fault (like drafting them to serve in the military during time of war, which the Catholic Church in just war doctrine not only says is permissible but sometimes just and required). I don't think the calculation of 'is it a human person' is an absolute sacrosanct matter of morality and even if it was I don't think it is practical to have it as a matter of law.

But the morality of abortion is a red herring. The OP and the relevant matter is will a new supreme court justice overturn roe v wade. The answer is almost unquestionably no... it won't...

Well why shouldn't it be legal for me to come over to your house right now and murder you for no reason? Under what principle should it be illegal for me to murder you, if not because it is immoral?

And drafting someone during a time of war is not the equivalent of killing the person. That is nonsense.

On 6/30/2018 at 8:23 PM, GreenScapularedHuman said:

But that is sort of missing the point.... the whole abortion issue is a fake issue. The Supreme Court will almost certainly never ever overturn roe v wade and even if so it would revert back to congress and the states... and being an open political question, a real political question, the American public rather substantially supports abortion rights... it would be shooting themselves in the foot if Republicans masterminded such a move.

No, it is not a fake issue. The only reason you keep calling it a fake issue is because you want to discourage pro-life people from trying. You are extremely naive if you think that anyone is going to be influenced by these types of statements.

On 7/1/2018 at 2:09 PM, GreenScapularedHuman said:

No right, even the right to life, is not absolute and/or inviolate.

 

People also have varying degrees of rights. Babies have less rights than children, children have less rights than teens, teens have less rights than young adults, and young adults have less rights than full adults. This covers a wide arena of civil political social cultural and legal rights. We also know that certain persons with certain intellectual impediments or are in particular vulnerable do not have the same rights as others.

The right to privacy is not absolute. And the right to live is more important than a right to privacy.

You would even legalize late term abortions, wouldn't you?

[GreenScapularedHuman]

13 hours ago, Peace said:

Legal, safe and rare murder is still murder. It is the intentional killing of an innocent human being for the convenience of another.

Except it doesn't fit the definition of murder. Not traditionally or legally. It is also a very gross dishonest and emotionally charged argument.

13 hours ago, Peace said:

Holding a belief that murder should be legal is more than "pretty far out there". It is downright bizarre and twisted.

~18% of the American public when polled think there should be a no-exception ban on abortion and ~22% of the American public when polled thinks that abortion should be more restricted. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

But it is not murder. At least according to the law. Unless a very radical change in word definition, legal precedent, the law as written, or something else when one says abortion it does not mean murder. In the same way that war does not mean murder or capital punishment does not mean murder.
 

13 hours ago, Peace said:

Yes we have a right to privacy and that is good. But that right is not constitutionally protected. The text of the constitution does not say anything about a right to privacy. And the right to privacy is not absolute.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment

Except it is very explicitly in this regard in the bill of rights, the fourth amendment. It clearly states that unreasonable intrusions by the state is not to be tolerated. The court found in roe v wade that a ban on abortion unavoidably was an unreasonable intrusion. By extension the court found that it was the state telling women what they can or cannot do with their bodies when it directly relates to their course of their life, the choices they can or can't reasonably make, the obtaining of sound medical opinion and treatment options, and over control of their very own bodies... thus is a violation of the security of their own bodies.

14 hours ago, Peace said:

It is twisted and bizarre to think that one may kill an innocent human being because to prevent one from doing so would be a violation of one's privacy.

Again a gross emotionally charged argument. But if we may... lets reword that a bit...

It is twisted and bizarre to think that one may [let a man plead the fifth after killing] an innocent human being because to prevent one from doing so would be a violation of one's [right against self-incrimination].
It is twisted and bizarre to think that one may [own firearms which have the almost exclusive purpose of killing] a human being because to prevent one from doing so would be a violation of one's [right to bear arms].

This is why emotionally charged arguments are inherently illogical and dishonest.

14 hours ago, Peace said:

The general public has been completely wrong many times before on many things, so that is irrelevant. Slavery and Jim crow are obvious examples if you want to limit your inquiry to the USA.

The general public has been, is, and will have opinions I disagree with... that I think arguably would be considered wrong moreover in retrospect.

Slavery was a very complex moral challenge for the United States. The anti-black laws and ordinances were largely in very direct and very obvious violation of the fourteenth amendment. But these are red herrings.

It is also irrelevant to the fact that in the United States government is by the popular consent and will of the governed. This is a reality and legitimacy that even the Catholic Church has conceded.

14 hours ago, Peace said:

I do not know where you live, but I live in the USA. Your views are completely inconsistent with the principles on which my country was founded. Democracy does not merely mean "the majority rules". The founding fathers wrote against the tyranny of the majority, not in favor of it.

Abortion was generally not illegal in the United States till the mid 1800s. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10297561

It is curious that your argument is that the popular consent and will of the governed, the fair rule of law, the protection of civil rights, and similar does not matter... which by definition lends itself to tyranny.

As a hypothetical: Suppose if someone told you that they didn't care that African Americans were counted as people or citizens, that they didn't care what the courts/law had found, they didn't care what the fourteenth amendment promised them, that they quite candidly considered it was wrong of them to be treated as equals...
Would that be tyranny? Why or why not? I will jump ahead and say yes it is tyranny. Because it disregards democracy, the the fair rule of law, and well established civil rights...

This is what you are telling me... these things don't matter to you. The only thing that does matter is ending abortion.

14 hours ago, Peace said:

The principle of our Republic is to allow decisions to be made by local communities to the extent possible, and to protect the minority against the will of the majority. That is why we have states. People in different parts of the country have different views and beliefs and should be to make their own laws to govern themselves.  If you have policy A and policy B, the ideal is to let states whose citizens prefer policy A enact policy A in those states, and to let states whose citizens prefer policy B enact policy B in those states. What you want to do is take policy A and impose it on every state of the country, regardless of the fact that there are many states who prefer policy B.

The Fourteenth Amendment promised the federal government would protect equality before the law and individual rights even when not relating to the federal government.

So that is simply no longer the case.

14 hours ago, Peace said:

And please stop pretending anyway. You know plenty well that if 75% of Americans were in favor of banning abortion you would still be in favor of keeping it "legal, safe, and rare". You are simply using this "will of the majority" stuff as a smokescreen. The will of the majority would mean nothing to you if it was inconsistent with your personal beliefs.

Oh I am not pretending. But then again I don't think you are pretending either. I think you really are just this misguided and foolish.

The popular consent and will of the governed is one element that I mentioned... very repeatedly... the fair rule of law, civil rights, and secularism are other things I very clearly cited as causes...

But supposing that there was no bill of rights at all... that it was utterly the choice of the public... and the public wanted to ban abortion. That would be how it worked. I would disagree with it because I don't think that would be fair rule of law, protecting civil rights, or secularism. But I would at least concede that without a bill of rights to mandate such a legal norm... my opinion would merely be my opinion.

But that would also mean that under a no bill of rights or fair rule of law society governed by the popular consent and will of the governed... that would mean that if a majority of Americans wanted to line up all Catholic Priests and Bishops having them molested and shot. That would be the reality.

14 hours ago, Peace said:

Oh I highly doubt that the overall number of abortions has decreased since Roe. Please provide some statistics if you want to back up that claim.

 

 

14 hours ago, Peace said:

The number of abortions literally doubled immediately after Roe v. Wade, so that dispels any ridiculous notions that legalizing abortion has led to its decrease. Whatever decrease there has been has been due to other factors (mainly contraception which has reduced the amount of unwanted pregnancies).

It is curious that you cited the wiki page which largely dispels your own doubts and claims.

It is also kinda amusing and disturbing that you literally mention from the wiki article that the rate of abortions in the United States has in fact decreased and is below pre-roe-v-wade levels.

So... you think that women who want an abortion will simply not seek abortions if it is not available?

Kinda like how allegedly if guns were banned or people didn't have easy legal access to them... people would get guns another way right?
 

14 hours ago, Peace said:

And you want abortion as rare as possible? That is nice. I want rape as rare as possible. That is why we have laws against it. This is not rocket science buddy.

I am not your buddy. You are a very dishonest and very tyrannical troll who just happens to have the favor of the community you are apart of. Your extremely charged emotional arguments, disregard for facts, dishonest citations, and even citing things that contradict you then pretending as if you didn't process it... I would never ever want to be your buddy. Most of all because you seem very hateful... and very bigoted... and very toxic...

I wouldn't want that even remotely in my life...

BUT... I want it legal and safe... and then rare. The word order is quite apt.

Then again the whole idea that banning something will solve the problem...

If I were to have a mental image of you in this conversation it would be this by the way...

I assume that is an invitation for you to find something even worse to portray me as because dehumanizing me like you have already has not been enough for you... So looking forward to that.

14 hours ago, Peace said:

And I am completely in favor of better public services, welfare, improved education, etc. These can be added as an additional means to reduce the number of abortions.

Too bad Republicans oppose all of those things now...

Also kinda sad that Republicans will almost undoubtedly never ever get Roe v Wade overturned... but yet this is why you vote for them again and again and again...

You keep putting dollar bills into the broken vending machine...

14 hours ago, Peace said:

Again, it is absolutely absurd to think that making abortion illegal will lead to increased abortion. By this silly logic why don't we go ahead and legalize rape and theft as well so that they will decrease?

Making abortions illegal will remove incentive to approach the matter with a public health approach. It could even further stigmatize the subject.

So... where is the public health approach on rape? These are very deranged individuals who engage in rape. Maybe if there was a more comprehensive mental health care system that could be further prevented. But the public sees that the ban is sufficient and thinks that rapists shouldn't get mental health care but sentences.

But the extremely extremely extremely emotionally charged argument of rape being so very extremely dishonest... let me ask... what civil right would be used to make rape legal? Just out of idle curiosity? Because far as I can see there would be absolutely and utterly none. The fourth amendment protects the security of person... even that would seem to protect against rape.

Which is exactly the point. It is an extremely dishonest and emotionally charged argument. Which is why I pointed out before that the anti-abortion argument is not logical... it has to unavoidably appeal to emotion.

14 hours ago, Peace said:

And this is not about "getting a sense of moral justification." This is about preventing innocent human beings from being killed. I already addressed your other points.

Not really... you just have been shouting rape and murder...

Your post would be more honest and more coherent if your post was just rape and murder in all caps repeated over and over and over and over and over again.

And I am fairly sure that when it comes to all the other ways that human life is ended by sanction of the state... that you have failed to even ostensibly address... shows that it has nothing to do with this...

14 hours ago, Peace said:

There is no such thing as an "enlightened and benevolent public health approach" to murder.

I suppose you are right... shall we start to brutally torture to death everyone in our jails accused of murder now?

15 hours ago, Peace said:

Who cares what you expect? The "Oh you may as well stop trying because it is never going to happen" argument is lame. It took the Supreme Court much longer than that to overturn its decisions on racial segregation. You want just want people to give up but that is not going to happen so you can just spare us with the argument. It will be overturned and then you can get back to your "this is against the will of the people" mumbo jumbo.

If it is overturned I will be genuinely surprised...

But unless it is radically overturned... it will simply go back to Congress and the States... and even those States that choose to ban it if that happened I suspect won't last for very long.

Also... racial segregation did not have an aggressive campaign to end it at the ballot box for 30-40 years... So that is a Non Sequitur. Not that you have shown me that you even remotely care about logic or honesty...

Also yes... I will always support the popular consent and will of the governed, fair rule of law, civil rights, and secularism. I am glad that at least I know that regardless of what happens you will be opposed to such things...

14 hours ago, Peace said:

Please. You do not oppose anything. You want it to be legalized. Why don't you oppose rape and theft by making them legal too?

Because there is no legal right to rape or theft... and it is against the legal tradition of the United States (unlike abortion that only started to be illegal really in the mid 1800s)... rape and theft also have everything to do with the violation of the security of another person... unreasonably at that...

I really think you would make more sense if you just shouted rape and murder over and over and over again till your head popped...

14 hours ago, Peace said:

Well why shouldn't it be legal for me to come over to your house right now and murder you for no reason? Under what principle should it be illegal for me to murder you, if not because it is immoral?

Because there is a valid law that prohibits it. Also because you concede there is no reason for it.

Your inability to make distinctions even from your own arguments is kinda disturbing and makes me think that my effort to try to address your comments with any modicum of reasonableness or evidence is just a waste of time... and just gives the illusion that you are somehow making a sensible or valid argument when you very grossly are not.

Also its fun to be ostensibly threatened to be murdered by someone on a Catholic website! Considering your gross fixation on murder and rape I imagine you will be asking about coming to rape me next...

14 hours ago, Peace said:

And drafting someone during a time of war is not the equivalent of killing the person.

What do you think happens in war???

Just in case you somehow didn't know... murder happens in war... Including the killing of innocent civilians... men, women, and children... That is kinda the whole war thing humans do...

And you are saying that forcing someone to go kill other humans isn't related at all to murder? Really?

That is such an absurd claim that I am kinda surprised your brain just didn't shut down from a critical error message.

14 hours ago, Peace said:

No, it is not a fake issue. The only reason you keep calling it a fake issue is because you want to discourage pro-life people from trying. You are extremely naive if you think that anyone is going to be influenced by these types of statements.

Keep putting that dollar into the broken vending machine. It will work someday...

14 hours ago, Peace said:

The right to privacy is not absolute. And the right to live is more important than a right to privacy.

You would even legalize late term abortions, wouldn't you?

The right to privacy is not absolute or inviolate. That is true.

The right to life is not absolute or inviolate. This is true.

[Anomaly]

If a woman has rights to her body and health as a person, so does a fetus unless it is legally defined as a non-person.  

The Catholic Church opposes abortion based on identifying a fertilized egg as a person. 

Roe V Wade probably should and could not be overturned, but the definition of a person should be expanded to provide civil rights to an in-womb person.   The rights of a mother has to consider the rights of the person in the womb.  A new Judge may be open to arguments for providing equal rights to the fetus.   Society in general, also has to acknowledge and care both as people.   Quite a challenge when rights are often ignored, based on gender, race, economics, parental identity, etc.

How to accomplish a legal and social definition for “persons in-womb and protect their rights, is the challenge.

[GreenScapularedHuman]

1 hour ago, Anomaly said:

If a woman has rights to her body and health as a person, so does a fetus unless it is legally defined as a non-person.  

The Catholic Church opposes abortion based on identifying a fertilized egg as a person. 

Roe V Wade probably should and could not be overturned, but the definition of a person should be expanded to provide civil rights to an in-womb person.   The rights of a mother has to consider the rights of the person in the womb.  A new Judge may be open to arguments for providing equal rights to the fetus.   Society in general, also has to acknowledge and care both as people.   Quite a challenge when rights are often ignored, based on gender, race, economics, parental identity, etc.

How to accomplish a legal and social definition for “persons in-womb and protect their rights, is the challenge.

Kinda laughable that after you said I am not trying you are going at this again... so let me say the joke is now on you for doing this again...

But despite that...

The right has to do with the state intervening to stop the choice and security of the woman. So to say the fetus has the same right is basically to say that the state cannot stop the fetus from obtaining an abortion...

But I am not thinking you are wanting a fair reading of the law or argument... as you admitted earlier you are not trying or wanting to be intellectually honest...

A fetus being defined as a person would very likely change roe v wade none. Because the law already concedes they are a person and a human. The law just doesn't concede that they have an absolutely equal or inviolate right to life. To ban abortion it would require a very radical change to legal theory and/or a very major shift in American political culture...

Ending abortion is just a hopeless and lost cause... Its not a happy situation.... honestly if there was a viable option to put a fetus into an artificial womb easily and safely I would argue very strongly for a full and complete abolition of abortion. It is as it is a regretful logical reality that has to be endured hopefully till technology gives us better options and in the meantime all legally ethical options of state used to reduce rates of abortions.
 

[GreenScapularedHuman]

I wanted to comment on my most major concern for another Supreme Court pick by Trump...

Its the Muller investigation and prosecution.

Almost undoubtedly this will eventually lead to obstruction of justice and collusion indictments, at very least... of Trump organization, campaign, and administration officials likely even Trump himself.

So Trump has said he may pardon them, may pardon himself, and that he can't be indicted... These are somewhat unsettled law areas if the President can pardon someone to authorize criminal activity, its a violation of the faithful execution of the law and a failure to defend the constitution, not to mention that its a violation of the principle that the courts have upheld that no one can be a judge in their own case.

But being unsettled.... presumably it would go before the Supreme Court... which Trump seems to be stacking...

It is disturbing enough that Trump has gotten his base to believe that the Muller investigation... along with all criticism against him... are lies from liars... that Trump is the only non-corrupt and honest person around... that the only scandals and conspiracies are against him... has gotten the Republican party to fight for trade wars, backing dictators of North Korea and Russia, minimizing concerns about Kremlin backed espionage, attacking US allies and trading partners like NAFTA/NATO/EU, and generally holding Trump unaccountable for things that many of the same Senators and Representatives voted to impeach and convict Clinton of.

What is even crazier is that Republicans still think Obama and Clinton are guilty of so many wackier and evidence-less, even evidence-against, conspiracy theories... which after years of Republican backed investigations they have gotten not a single shred of evidence, not a single indictment, and not a single convictions. The Muller investigation, by Republicans (Muller is a Republican, the FBI director (both of them) are Republican, the Congress is Republican, the justice department is Republican) has turned up >20 indictments and >10 convictions....

How Trump got the Republican party to go from pro-nato to anti-nato, pro-free-trade to anti-free-trade, pro-law-enforcement to anti-law-enforcement, pro-intelligence-community to anti-intelligence-community, pro-public-decency to anti-public-decency.... really baffles and floors me...

Comments from Trump that he wants to be President for life and wants to be like Putin, who is a dictator, or the leader of China who is also a dictator... just gets a chuckle and a roll of eyes. Obama says he intends to serve his full term and may run a second time and Republicans decided he wants to be President for life and be a dictator. I mean..

The disconnect is scary...

So I don't trust the Republican base to elect and hold accountable Congress to hold the President accountable...

So that leaves the courts... and now Trump is getting his chance to warp the courts to his own perverse image of Trump too...

I assume its just a matter of time before the Trump goldshirts come and arrest me and mow me down with a machinegun for admitting Turmp is a malignant narcissist... something that should be so painfully obvious that no one should be able to doubt it.

[Luigi]

"I assume its just a matter of time before the Trump goldshirts come and arrest me and mow me down with a machinegun..."

So Mr. That's-A-Logical-Fallacy reverts to the Slippery Slope logical fallacy, to the point of catastrophizing!

Take a breath.

[Laurie]

On 7/1/2018 at 2:09 PM, GreenScapularedHuman said:

Very strongly disagreed. I can tell you that from a scholastic ethics sense the anti-abortion movement, in particular that which aims to ban all abortions categorically, is a prime example of moral absolutism. The whole 'is it wrong or is it right' dynamic is kinda a obvious give away to it being a categorical assertion and/or question.

It is also in a scholastic ethical sense not a very coherent or comprehensive moral construct... as significant numbers of anti-abortion proponents do not oppose war, gun rights, use of deadly force by police, bombing of civilian targets, use of compulsory conscription into the armed services... so the position is not anti-death... And it surely isn't pro-life... not even just on the being alive front... as many public health policies that would engender that life and quality of life is simply not included. For example we know for a fact that certain mental health matters, moreover when they relate to substance abuse/overdose and/or suicide, results in death... a preventable and avoidable death... the resistance to invest public funds to minimize and/or prevent that is kinda just one example how life isn't of the upmost importance.

So in a ethical sense... and a logical sense... the anti-abortion position is largely a single-horse show... and while not unheard of in other nations it is very unique to America in the vigor and importance that it receives.

....
And to be candid I would respect someone who would stop at making an absolute moral imperative as a matter of faith and not try to rationalize or market their position.

(I bolded a few things from your quote.)

I find it curious that you use the term "scholastic" -- which in philosophy circles refers to Medieval Catholic philosophers -- and then claim that the point of view you are labeling "scholastic" is a weird, modern American construct held by a rabid few.

You also conflate the "anti-abortion movement" with an anti-abortion philosophical position.

1. Moral absolutes in philosophy did not originate with Christians. Crack open Aristotle. Consider Plato. (In this response, I'm giving your thoughts more cohesion than they have because you also conflate ideas held by faith with ideas held through philosophical positions. You can hold moral absolutes through faith alone, or hold them through a philosophical position, or you can maintain that certain absolutes held via faith are simultaneously perfectly in accord with philosophical reason. The Catholic church, for example, does the latter. Some evangelical churches do the former.)

2.  Scholastic philosophy -- medieval Catholic philosophy -- did conclude there are such things as moral absolutes. In hashing over such thoughts, those philosophers were in rich dialogue with the past -- the ancient Greek & Jewish philosophers, predominantly -- plus the Jewish & Muslim philosophers who were their contemporaries.

3. Time marched on, the Protestant Reformation happened, yet a lot of Protestant scholars, while splitting off on issues of faith, kept a bedrock of philosophy going back to certain ancient thinkers that the scholastics had built up. Richard Hooker, prime example.

4.  Time marched on and because a lot of scholastic & later Catholic philosophers were pretty good at what they did -- that is, thinking -- a lot of their ideas stuck around. Their ideas also stuck around because, well, they were Catholic & the Catholic church stuck around, too. (You can argue that their ideas only stuck around because the Church has power. But then I would point you to the hundreds of atheist & agnostic scholars who have seen and do see real merit in many of these thinkers and their positions even if, at the end of the day, they also think they are in error.)

5. Time marched on, and of course there were voices who had very different ideas about philosophy than many of the ancients, and scholastic, and Jewish & Muslim philosophers who maintained there are such things as moral absolutes. But that's nothing new, because there was a plethora of ideas about all sorts of philosophical things, right from the dawn of philosophy. Just as the scholastics didn't invent the idea that some things are objectively good and some bad, neither did "modern" thinkers invent the idea that morality is relative or subjective. That idea goes w-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-y back. Or, as you would put it: way back, way back, way back, way back, way back, way back. Before that even.

Oh, and if you want to tally philosophers who think some things are absolutely bad and some absolutely good, you can throw Confucius on the pile. Add him along with Socrates & Plato & Aristotle.

6. So, time marches on. We arrive at Roe v. Wade in the USA in the final 1/4 of the 20th century. The Catholic church has something to say, philosophically, about that legal decision in light of what she understands a human person to be & what she understands human rights to be. And she doesn't simply base that understanding on a Bible quote. She understands it based on the philosophy she has worked out & embraced over 2 millennia, much of it rooted in what she has deemed reasonable, true, and good in the philosophies of many people who were pagan, or Jewish, or Muslim, or what have you. (She also understands it based on the 10 Commandments, as noted above, because she maintains truth is truth & some truths we can know via 2 routes: divine revelation and the good old human mind.)

7. The "anti-abortion movement" in the USA, in reaction to Roe v. Wade, isn't one single phenomena. To pretend it is to create a straw man that can easily be knocked down. People are anti-abortion for a lot of reasons (some logical, some not, some based on faith only, some not). What I can say is that the Catholic church's position regarding Roe v. Wade is not something invented by a bunch of conservative American Catholics who have their undies unduly in a bunch. She holds one view, globally, and she's held it consistently through history.

8. You can say her position is not a coherent or comprehensive moral construct. You might not agree with the conclusions she draws but to argue that her position is not coherent or comprehensive is laughable. (See notation above about atheist philosophers who take Catholic philosophy seriously precisely because it is comprehensive and coherent.) It is also laughable to say her pro-life position, or any of her positions regarding human life, is based in faith alone.   I realize you in part are saying it's not a coherent or comprehensive moral position because you are lumping every Tom, Dick, and Walter who doesn't support abortion in with a (supposedly) monolithic "anti-abortion movement," but that conflation is on you.

9. And so: There is a radically coherent & comprehensive moral position about the value of human life that addresses, in minute detail, in millions of pages, over thousands of years, all the things you say "pro-lifers" don't really care about. It is maintained, globally, to this very moment, by millions of well-formed Catholics. It was maintained, historically, by millions more of well-formed Catholics. The kind of philosophical thinking that undergirds it -- the idea that some things can be demonstrated via reason and logic to be inherently bad, and some things inherently good -- is and was and has been held by all kinds of other peoples and cultures, not the least among whom are some of the world's brightest (non-Catholic, non-Christian) philosophers.

I realize I only responded to .666% of your comments here. That's how the cookie crumbled.