On the face of things, there is no conflict between thinking something is wrong, such as divorce and remarriage, and believing that we ought not to impose this as a restriction as a matter of law. There are many things I think are wrong that I oppose legislating against. I think you're a real slimebag if you lie to a woman in a bar in order to go to bed with her. But I don't think people who do that should be arrested.
The argument that is thrown back at people like Biden is that abortion, on the Catholic view, takes the life of an innocent human person. And, they argue, even the most minimal of governments ought to protect the lives of innocent human persons.
What Biden seems to think is that even though he as a Catholic has good reason to believe that every fetus has a right to life, he doesn't think that he has good reasons that he can provide to people who don't share his religion that every fetus has a right to life. The Jewish tradition, for example, seems for the most part opposed to the idea.
However, Catholics who disagree with Biden think that the beginning of life at conception isn't a matter of faith, but is rather a scientific fact. In other words, they not only think that abortion is in fact the taking of innocent human life and therefore unjustified, they think that good reason can be given to show people who aren't Catholic that abortion is that taking of innocent human life and therefore unjustified.
St. Thomas Aquinas, for example, argued that even though the Catholic Faith teaches that God exists, there are good reasons (five of them) that can be given to show everyone that God exists. The belief that the Universe had a temporal beginning, however, was something he thought you couldn't prove to the satisfaction of everyone, and so that was an article of faith that couldn't be proven.
Biden thinks the Catholic view of abortion is a matter of faith. His pro-life opponents think it is supportable by reason.
94 comments:
"The Jewish tradition, for example, seems for the most part opposed to the idea."
Depends on the Jew and their interpretation of tradition.
https://dailycitizen.focusonthefamily.com/ben-shapiro-debunks-abortion-myths-at-focus-on-the-familys-pro-life-event-seelife-2022/
I said "for the most part." There are supporters of the pro-life position in the Jewish community, to be sure. Michael Medved would be one significant example also.
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/abortion-in-jewish-thought/
Off topic but mesalmine for $33 per month
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/mark-cuban-cost-plus-drug-companys-online-pharmacy-launches-with-lowest-prices-on-100-lifesaving-prescriptions-301463491.html
In the spirit of "Be careful what you wish for," this nation's right wingers may soon rue the day they successfully overturned Roe v. Wade. For decades they held a death's grip over single issue voters who were 100% ready to sacrifice every other issue on the bloody altar of abortion. The environment? Voting rights? The bloated "defense" budget? Infrastructure? Health care? Immigration? Care for the stranger in our midst and the least among us? All tossed under the bus, as long as Roe v. Wade is overturned.
So I say hurray for today's Supreme Court decision! It is the best thing that could ever have happened to all the causes that actually matter. We will now see candidates who genuinely care for all the issues listed above win races in both red and blue states because their stand on choice will no longer matter to voters, who will from here on feel free to vote in their best interests.
Democrats haven't been so mad since Republicans freed the slaves.
But they (the Democrats) will end up ecstatic once they see their agenda roll over the reactionary opposition, now that the right wing has lost its single issue hold on voters.
In the meantime, what is bmiller going to post about now, now that he can't turn every conversation into a rant over abortion? How can he call people he disagrees with "baby killers" once no babies are being killed? He might have to come to grips with (shudder) real issues.
Never would have happened except for Trump.
What this decision does is make abortion a matter of democratic choice at the state level. If, as polling data shows, pro-lifers are in the minority even in red states, then pro-choice candidates will start winning in state legislatures and governor's mansions, and abortion rights will help Democratic candidates in Congress as well. So long as outlawing abortion was a pipe dream it just motivated a range of pro-life voters while people on the pro-choice side weren't so motivated. Now that abortion restrictions are going to be a reality, there will be people who weren't politically motivated who will be motivated now.
By the way, how do people vote who are pro-life, but also believe in universal health care, paid family leave, contraceptive availability and education, affordable or free childcare, a less restrictive immigration policy, oppose the border wall, support ending capital punishment, ensuring safe and affordable housing for everyone, etc. What are people like this supposed to do? Move to a country where they don't have our two-party system?
Victor, you just described me in your last paragraph. Just add pro environment, pro science, anti gun, and anti bloated "defense" budget" and slap my picture next to the description.
What this decision does is make abortion a matter of democratic choice at the state level.
Constitutionally, it always was and both liberal and conservative legal experts always knew it. Reality has a way of re-asserting itself in the course of time despite the best efforts of leftists.
By the way, how do people vote who are pro-life, but also believe in universal health care,....What are people like this supposed to do? Move to a country where they don't have our two-party system?
I don't get it. Starhopper won't vote any different than he did before and conservatives won't vote for a socialist America.
In 2016 I knew at least a dozen people who sided with Hillary Clinton on nearly every issue, but couldn't bring themselves to vote for her solely because of her pro choice stance. And that very small number is just people I knew personally. Now there will be no impediment to such people voting for their best interests rather than for politicians who oppose everything they hold dear on the basis of this single issue.
So yes, expect voting patterns to swing dramatically against Republicans over the next several elections.
More importantly, abortion defenders will have to try to convince voters why it should be legal to intentionally kill innocent human beings. Ultrasound is now common and people can see videos of the people abortionists want to kill.
You haven't woken up yet, bmiller, to the new reality. The issue is now dead. Abortion is illegal. There is nothing left for the anti-abortion movement to fight for, and after a few well earned victory celebrations the coalition will soon evaporate. Voters will rapidly move on to more important issues, such as the environment, health care, voter rights, sensible gun laws, anti racism, and income equality.
Starhopper. I doubt you were ever awake at all. Abortion is not "illegal" unless you live in Missouri.
Protesters are surrounding Chuck Schumer's house now to protest that he didn't pass federal laws to legalize abortions when Dems have 2 houses and the Executive. The issue is now open season for elected officials to either oppose or promote. No more, "personally I oppose it but it's the law of the land" excuses to hide behind.
Having said that, abortion was never the #1 issue for most voters, although Dems hope it will somehow save them in the mid-terms, there are bigger fish for the ordinary voters to fry, especially at the moment.
However, I am gratified that 2 Roe defenders have now seen the light that it is better to leave this decision up to the voters rather than have the SCOTUS override all state laws without legitimate legal reasoning.
I can't remember. Didn't anyone ever present this argument to you two before?
I didn't say it was better, or worse. I was just pointing out what the decision is. No, abortion is not illegal in America. They did not concluded that fetuses are persons, or that abortion is murder, or anything like that. They just said that the Constitution doesn't support the right to abortion.
If, as polling data shows, pro-lifers are in the minority even in red states, then pro-choice candidates will start winning in state legislatures and governor's mansions, and abortion rights will help Democratic candidates in Congress as well. So long as outlawing abortion was a pipe dream it just motivated a range of pro-life voters while people on the pro-choice side weren't so motivated. Now that abortion restrictions are going to be a reality, there will be people who weren't politically motivated who will be motivated now.
Dunno. This appears to be an argument about how you, as an abortion supporter and a Democrat, will come out better now that Roe (which was just a clump of words) is dead.
Also, Ghislane Maxwell didn't kill herself
The fact that I oppose certain methods of stopping abortion does not make me a supporter of that procedure. Is a person who agrees that abortion is murder, but thinks abortion should be legal, a supporter of abortion?
People who routinely support (via voting etc.) legislators that support abortion effectively support abortion. It's called remote material cooperation with an evil. So I disagree that you are not a supporter.
Regarding the question. I would conclude the person is a supporter of murder since he doesn't want to pass laws against it.
So. I personally despise rap "music" (sic). I believe it to be anti-music. But I would not favor making it illegal. Does that make me a supporter of rap music?
Do you want to decriminalize murder?
Stop deflecting and answer my question. If I am opposed to criminalizing rap music, does that make me a supporter of it, despite the fact I can't stand it?
I'm not deflecting. The answer you give to my question should also give you the answer to your own question if you're honest.
No. You're making the fallacy of assuming that since Benjamin Franklin is a man, then all men are Benjamin Franklin. It's not a matter of honesty, but of poor reasoning on your part.
Besides, why can't you answer my question? Probably because by doing so, you will blow holes in your own argument.
On the contrary. The reason you refuse to answer my question is because it exposes the irrelevance of your question wrt laws against murder.
Well then, I guess we are at an impasse. You refuse to answer my question, and I believe yours is a deflection.
By your reasoning, unless you think something should be made illegal, you are supporting it. By my reasoning, you are confusing apples with oranges.
Why do you consider it a deflection? The topic is "should murder be legal and if not, why not?"
Unless Rap musicians intend to use their music as an instrument to directly kill innocent people it is not the same as murder. So it is irrelevant to the topic.
However, if you know someone is going to commit a murder and you don't call the police, you are considered an accomplice.
You should re-read "The Abolition of Man".
Your problem is that you are confusing abortion with murder. I am 100% opposed to abortion, but I in no way consider it to be murder.
But my question is supremely relevant, and your objection to it is a category error. So let's hear it. If you are opposed to making something illegal, are you necessarily supporting it? Yes or no.
I am the opposite of a football fan (the game bores me), but I have no desire to make playing it illegal. By your logic, that means I support football (which I do not).
I've read The Abolition of Man at least 4 times. It's a great book.
And Lewis would see right through your illogic in a nanosecond.
Starhopper,
Your problem is that you are confusing abortion with murder.
You should read the context of the previous discussion before you accuse people of things. Victor's hypothetical person did equate abortion with murder and that was what I was responding to. If abortion is murder and you want to legalize abortion you thereby want to legalize murder.
Murder has been illegal in all places at all times in human history. The prohibition has been part of the Tao that Lewis speaks about. I've been given no reason to think someone who wants to decriminalize murder is not a supporter of murder and good reason to believe he is.
No. Now answer my question.
No, I don't think we should criminalize Rap music merely because you don't like it. There.
Now why don't you want to decriminalize murder?
Why should I want to?
Because you don't want to criminalize Rap music.
You've implied they these 2 things are morally equivalent and so if one shouldn't be criminalized why should the other?
There are tons of things that are sinful but not illegal. Marital infidelity is a sin, but is not illegal. (In my opinion) gambling is a sin, but within certain constraints it is legal. Suicide (absent mental illness) is a sin, but if a person survives a suicide attempt, they are not prosecuted for attempted murder. Are you of the opinion that all sins ought to be legislated against? Good luck with that!
But I asked you about murder specifically. It's a sin, right?. Why shouldn't it be legal if all those things you listed should be?
I don't understand your question. I've already made it clear that not all sins (for example: blasphemy) should be made illegal, and some things that are not sins (for example: zoning violations) should nevertheless not be legal.
We do not live in a theocracy. Morality and legality are separate, overlapping (but not identical) spheres.
I'm not sure how I can make the question more clear.
You say not all sins should be illegal. OK. You also say that some things that are not sins should be illegal. OK.
Then you say murder, (let's disregard whether you think it's a sin or not), should be illegal.
What is it about murder that should make it be illegal?
I'll turn your (rather weird) question around. What is there about murder that would make a case for it not being illegal? Until you can answer that, your question is meaningless - semantically null. It's like asking "Why is up not down?" or "How come there's not more red in Beethoven's 9th Symphony?" Such questions (to include yours) are unanswerable.
What a strange response.
I know what my reasons are and I've given them many times. I was wondering how leftists reasoned. I didn't figure this simple question would seize up the machinery but it does add weight to one of my working theories.
"I didn't figure this simple question would seize up the machinery"
Whereas I anticipated from the start that you would do everything in your power to deflect, and thus avoid answering my very simple question (which you still haven't).
I'll clarify it even further, so maybe you'll be able to respond:
If I am opposed to criminalizing X, does that necessarily make me a supporter of X?
I haven't disputed that some sins should not be criminalized and I've been assuming for the sake of argument that you are not a supporter of those sins. Here:
You say not all sins should be illegal. OK. You also say that some things that are not sins should be illegal. OK.
Looks like you can't explain why murder should be illegal. I assume then that you can't explain why anything should be illegal. Am I correct?
Is this the position? "Some sins should be legal so all sins should be legal"
"correct?"
True. That is the case with practically everything in this world. Cosmologists, when searching for the "initial conditions" for the so-called Big Bang, admit that they cannot reach back to the Beginning, but rather are stymied by an unscalable wall just before the event. Biologists, tracing the path of evolution back, and back, and back.... find themselves unable to say anything definitive about the origin of life itself.
I suspect it will be that way for all eternity. Faced with the infinity of God, we finite mortals will be forever learning (and experiencing) more and more and more about His nature, yet never arriving at that ultimate "explanation" of things.
And I wouldn't have it any other way.
Is this the position? "Some sins should be legal so all sins should be legal"
No. that is crude reductionism. The correct position is that some sins should be legal and others not.
Well since you've confirmed that you don't have any reasons for making these kinds of distinctions then it seems to me that it's rather pointless to nitpick.
It also seems to be pointless to be disputing these distinctions with people when you have no reasons to support your positions. Must be a leftist thing.
"Must be a leftist thing"
Must be. it also must be nice to avoid actually defending your positions by just punting to an undefined word... in this case, "leftist".
Bmiller's definition of "leftist": anything I disagree with. How wonderful! No need to reason, no need to engage with facts that upset your apple cart, no need to think at all. Just label any unpleasant reality of the world "leftist" and go back to sleep.
Ya know? Odysseus encountered a whole nation of bmillers, in The Odyssey, Book 9, lines 91-118.
No need to reason,
I know it's useless to point out to you the irony that you just admitted you can't give reasons for your position but I can't help myself.
I am thinking of someone who thinks, as a matter of faith, that abortion is unjustifiable homicide, but also thinks that society as a whole is invincibly ignorant of that truth, so legislation against abortion is not feasible.
If you define murder as unjustifiable homicide, I am not sure it's perfectly obvious that it all instances of it ought to be criminalized.
https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy/vol19/iss2/2/
I'm not happy with either party from the standpoint of concerns about life. Republicans seem to think it is sufficient to be anti-abortion in order to be pro-life, ignoring such important life issues as capital punishment and unjustifiable war. They also seem to think the only meaningful way of reducing abortion is access restriction through law, babies saved because their mothers could get the health care they needed, or could take time off from work without wiping out their paychecks, do not apparently count as saved babies. Only those saved by legal access restrictions count. Ones who were not aborted because they were never conceived because their mothers got good contraceptive information don't count either.
https://www.goodgoodgood.co/articles/how-to-reduce-abortions
But I am not happy with Dems who refuse to consider the deep tragedy of abortion, who defend it as, basically, backup birth control.
I am thinking of someone who thinks, as a matter of faith, that abortion is unjustifiable homicide, but also thinks that society as a whole is invincibly ignorant of that truth, so legislation against abortion is not feasible.
So the Spanish shouldn't have outlawed human sacrifice?
Republicans seem to think it is sufficient to be anti-abortion in order to be pro-life, ....
It is fallacious reasoning to tell us that since there are evil Republicans that have alternative solutions to poverty than Dem solutions we therefore have no choice but to encourage poor people to kill their offspring. Regardless of posturing, abortion just is a backup to birth control which just is a way of intentionally thwarting one of the natural outcomes of sexual intercourse. If you don't believe demons are anti-life, just look at the protesters this last week.
I don't think Biden thinks deeply anymore about anything important. He used to have interesting comments, mostly wrong, but interesting. I feel bad for our country that his administration is such a disaster for the country.
I think leftists are simply anti-life.
They tell us that we must do everything in our power to allow people to kill their offspring because there are politicians that oppose policies that are family/child-friendly. But any country that actually makes laws that are family/child-friendly are attacked by the left.
Just ask Hungary.
Thank you, bmiller, for that clarification.
Since I am most definitely not "anti-life", I must not be a leftist.
Never considered myself as such anyway, but I'm glad to learn that neither do you.
Leftists also think that if they self-identify as something they are not, that somehow makes them something they are not.
It's an anti-essentialism, which plays into their justification for abortion also.
I think this is a good background for how mainline Protestant churches became pretty much secular institutions and how that philosophy has infected some within the Catholic Church too.
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3749
For instance the acceptance of certain aspects of existentialism tell us that you don't really ever exist (you are "becoming") until you're dead (when you stop "becoming")and then you don't exist either. It's where the "person" excuse for killing people comes from. It's anti-life.
However, for hard-line existentialists of the Sartrian, and more recently the "Christian" type, the mere passive reception of experience does not confer true existence, A man only exists in a real sense by continuously making free and conscious acts of will.
Perhaps we can make sense of what is being said here by returning to the image of reality as an extended treacle or soup. The human will is pictured as an eddy of energy making a hole or space in the treacle or soup of Being. Man is this empty space created in the continuum of reality by the whirlpool of his free will. If he stops exercising his free will, the hole closes up and his existence is swallowed by the treacle. He is, essentially, a free will and nothing else.
These notions may seem to you abstruse and ridiculous, but they make it clear why people now "become" persons, rather than are persons. You become a person insofar as you are able to act consciously, make decisions, and realize your possibilities. If, through poverty, failure of bodily or mental faculties or their lack of development, you are wanting in any of these things, you cease to be a person and can be dealt with accordingly.
Abstruse notions have a way of producing far-reaching public consequences.
To a leftist existentialist "Dialogue is chiefly an exchange of experiences" since the only reality you have is your own private reality. I suspect that is why non-leftists get frustrated when talking to leftists. Non-leftists think leftists, like themselves, believe in an objective reality.
In this way, existentialist man breaks out of the lonely private world of his personal experience. The "other" is usually men, but in the case of Jaspers and his followers could be God, who, however is rarely called God; the preferred expressions are "Transcendence" or "Transcendent Being." Dialogue is chiefly an exchange of experiences. It can generate fellow feeling and lead to joint decisions in practical matters. But it is never a discussion of ideas undertaken in the hope of reaching agreement about truth of a serious kind since that would be impossible. As we have seen, the worlds of our personal experiences are not the same. Of its nature, existentialism is the enemy of human unity, because it rejects the preconditions for it: a common nature and a common understanding of things.
I'm a leftist and not an anti-life. None of my leftist friends are anti-life. What we are is anti-State surveillance of people's private lives. That's why, for example, we are in favor of gay marriage: one should not have to get approval of the State for one's future spouse. Individual freedom and determination of one's own life is what we want. The right HATES this idea if the life chosen is not one of a proper, moral, "Christian" life, and they seek State control of people's lives to stop them from choosing anything other than this.
South Carolina and a few other anti-privacy states are now trying to figure out how to keep women from crossing state lines. There's been talk of tracking people's phones, and women's cycles when they add them to period-tracking apps. Maybe they can implement a passport system and forced pregnancy tests for any woman who wants to cross state lines.
Soon there will be "fugitive abortion laws" and bounties when neighbors spy on their neighbors and round up women suspected of journeying out for abortions. Of course, none of this will apply to the politician who knocks up his mistress and sneaks her over the border. It will mostly affect minorities and the poor, part of the larger GOP war on the poor.
Catholic politicians like Jacky Eubanks in Michigan are open about how they next want to ban contraception, anal sex, porn, etc.
The vast majority of the country does not want to live under the Christofascist totalitarian dictatorship the right is implementing, which is exactly why Republican US senators are bragging on Twitter about how they packed the courts to implement this extremely unpopular system because it could not be won via legitimate democratic means.
"The right HATES..."
Good grief, talk about the irrational projection of the Left.
"could not be won via legitimate democratic means."
That's exactly what the court did, send the law back to the democratic process within each state.
Get a grip on your anti-hate imaginary world.
How is it "irrational" to watch the right's desire for a religious police state slowly come to fruition? Because surveillance and policing is the only way to resolve issues of fundamental rights that differ that wildly between states.
Another fundamental right was "back to the states" in the 19th Century. Along with the concomitant "fugitive" laws. I'm sure you are familiar with what happened next...
Dammit, Martin! There's no reason for me to post anything here when you've already said everything I would have, had you not beaten me to it.
I am, what people on the irrational Left, would be categorized a religious conservative living in California. Nothing in politics ever goes my way. Yet, I don't hate anyone. All real hate is on the Left.
The laws passed (seeming) weekly in California are not religious, but mostly regulatory. If you are in business, or own property, or have income, there will be some regulation you will miss and you can be arrested and jailed for.
It is the secular state that is the fascists police state. Not killing children seems pretty straight forward. Trying to figuring out the CFR so as not to be fined or arrested, is another matter.
I should add, the CFR is supplemented by the laws and regulations of California. If I applied the full law to you I think you would be a criminal in some way. Your criminal behavior would have nothing to do with religion.
I'm curious, does Martin and the crazy Star know all the laws that govern them? Do they know all the laws they should be obedient to and none of them are religious?
"does Martin and the crazy Star know all the laws that govern them?"
Of course not. There are libraries full of laws, and no one can possibly know them all.
I recall how, after living 3 years in England I learned that it was illegal to drink coffee while driving. I learned this by being pulled over for said offence. I avoided the fine by acting dumb American.
I'm being honest with you Martin and crazy Star, I'm not an attorney but I've spent enough time reading the regulations that if I had the power of the DOJ and combed through your life in detail, I could throw both your asses in jail and it would have nothing to do with religion.
My comment about how "the right hates freedom" is about 30% tongue-in-cheek, and 30% directed at bmiller's comment about how "the left is anti-life." I mean, if he can just assert some false and dehumanizing quality about his political opponents, why shouldn't I follow suit? Oh, you mean you don't like my generalizing about you conservatives? I'm partially just holding up a mirror. If he stops, I would too.
But also, I'm not talking about just any laws. Of course California has sometimes oppressive business regulations. But two things:
* most of these were democratically created, by people elected to office by the populace. For better or for worse, they are, in theory, "popular." The right, by contrast, is using unelected activist judges to implement laws that are EXTREMELY unpopular; something like 70% of the population wanted to keep Roe, and 80% wants common sense gun laws
* none of these laws deal with fundamental rights; businesses may not LIKE having to follow all these rules, but that's life in a civilized society. But the right not to be owned by another human is fundamental, as is the right not to have State surveillance into privacy, as the right is degrading and licking their chops at coming for more, such as contraception, anal sex, etc.
"Nothing gets conservatives more excited or frothing at the mouth quicker than what's going on in other folk’s bedrooms." - Ann Richards
"Nothing gets conservatives more excited or frothing at the mouth quicker than what's going on in other folk’s bedrooms." - Ann Richards"
One of my favorite things to laugh at is the superpower of Mind Reading on the Left. They occupy a funny imaginary world.
Let me try my superpower of mind reading: The one thing the Left cannot stop thinking about is whether I like growing citrus trees or roses. They're so dumb!
--Quote Limited Perspective
By the way, for the Leftist that can't stop thinking about it, I grow both. There are some cool trade-offs for living in California.
The key difference here being that stopping you from growing citrus or roses (presumably because of alleged environmental issues) is not the same thing as State surveillance of your private life, which is what the right wants. What the right wants is nothing less than totalitarianism, which is fundamentally different from silly, even obnoxious and useless, environmental laws coming from the left.
Other than a single lavender bush, I don't grow anything in my garden that I can't eat. I have two varieties of thyme, two of basil, two of mint, rosemary, sage, parsley, chives, oregano, lovage, hot peppers, and Swiss chard. Everything is in pots and all are doing well, thank you.
"State surveillance of your private life"
Do Leftist ever spend time reading the laws? Laws written and enforced now, instead of living in their imagination world?
Slightly less than crazy Star,
Most of my garden is for aesthetics and beauty. Although I do like the rich soil of central California to produce things that I can eat and season food with.
Do Leftist ever spend time reading the laws? Laws written and enforced now, instead of living in their imagination world?
Only the ones activists point their attention to.
The Constitution says nothing about abortion, contraception or anal sex but the leftists demand that the SCOTUS override anyone voting on these anti-life matters in any way what-so-ever. If they don't override people voting on these matters, then they are tyrants imposing their will on everyone. A precise inversion of reality.
If that weren't enough nuttiness, they claim their positions are so wildly popular that if left to voters (something they oppose) they would win overwhelmingly. Except they kept filing lawsuits to override the democratic process to start with. Sounds hysterical doesn't it (in two senses of the word).
Now I know I'm not dealing with people that want to resolve differences reasonably. What I'm hearing is some primal scream expressing emotional dissatisfaction with reality since reality is harshing their private mellow. Like an animal in pain.
I always appreciate your thoughts brother Miller.
Likewise. Especially with your descriptions of the layers of "law" that make anyone and everyone a criminal (depending on the personality of the person "enforcing said law).
Have you heard about the Romanian communists?
Saw an American flag today that really made me think. In a country so divided by its "red" and "blue" factions, this flag was entirely made up of varying shades of purple (and white, of course). I am assuming the owner meant it to express an ideal non-partisanship.
I want one of those!
Or he saw Jaws.
I like our flag the way it is, quit screwing with it. I can handle being red in a blue state. I can handle being Christian in a secular society. I have my wife and friends that mostly see my point of view and that's a comfort to me (although, Mrs. Perspective can be very opinionated when she disagrees). I go to a church that is 50/50 on my point of view. I love my church and her people. I have acquaintances that I debate with and they usually win in the broader policy of the country and my state. I suck it up while losing. I like our flag, I would prefer they don't put their graffiti on it.
Too late. My latest (in progress) watercolor is the American flag entirely in shades of purple. It actually looks good!
What have you got against bipartisanship, or even non-partisanship? I'm not saying that a purple flag should replace the official one, but seeing it could well serve as a spur toward overcoming our current insane divisiveness.
I like the impressions of Mrs. Perspective's oils and acrylics and I have great appreciation for those gifted with artistic expression. I envy you. Whenever Mrs. Perspective (Sonja) and I go on vacation she wants to visit the local art museums. Some museums have the Great Works in the large cities and some are small town local artist. I love to see the joy in her face as she views art in all its forms.
I'm a science and engineering museum guy.
I would like bipartisanship living in California. My views have no political influence. I miss the days when we would have a Republican governor for a term then a Democrat governor the next. Those days are gone where I live and it is all hate against Republicans from the Dem's.
I'm always interested in where ideas come from and like to share when I learn something new. I was curious when and how Christians started thinking abortion was OK so that's why I linked to the article explaining how "progressive" Christians adopted atheistic philosophy and so ended up with atheistic conclusions.
Ever wonder where "gender identity" came from? Take a look here.
I suspect a lot of "progressives" value hanging with "cool kids" more than critical thinking, avoiding evil and being faithful.
Abortion, like murder, is both a matter of critical thinking and an abomination to aesthetics. I do not think you can separate morality into aesthetics and critical thinking. For something to be abhorrent we need to both feel it and think it.
I agree.
Why are we here?
I only have theories.
I'm listening.
Thanks Miller for listening.
Theories are for full length books, not comments. On the topic of Biden (God help us) and his abortion critics I will tell a story as a forward to a theory.
Mrs. Perspective and I decided to talk to our kids at age 10 about sex. It was decided that I would talk to our sons, and she would talk to our daughter. I, going first, talked to the boys forthright about having a penis, going through puberty, a woman having a vagina, the desire for a woman, intercourse, reproduction, babies, morality, marriage, the whole thing. It was the most awkward conversation I’ve had. But, it made things easier talking about the topic as they got older.
Mrs. Perspective decided to talk in the same forthright language as I did. She also include in the reproduction part of sex the topic of abortion. Mrs. P. explained abortion as part of the knowledge of sex.
My wife said my daughter was appalled after learning where babies come from that they could be killed. Morality is both knowledge and aesthetic.
Being appalled is a natural reaction when you find out what's going on. Gotta choke that feeling down if you want to be accepted in the "progressive" club lest you be called "regressive". Nothing worse than that is there?
Guess once you choke that down, it gets much easier.
Miller,
When Victor can't admit what an absolute failure Biden is and crazy star think
People, I suspect, on both sides of the abortion issue, would like to deal with the most extreme people on the other side. Sure, the pro-abortionist hard core is out there. They think the fetus should receive no moral consideration until it's born, and be viewed as a blob of tissue. These people are out in the marches making outrageous statements. Then you have the people who want laws that will force a 10-year-old rape victim to carry her pregnancy to term. But it's time for people to stop treating abortion moderates as if they don't exist, and recognize that people who are pro-choice are not necessarily pro-abortion. People who don't want Draconian abortion laws can and do recognize that there is a deep question of conscience that women have to make who are considering abortion. How would you like it if liberals were to consistently assume that if you are a conservative, you were really just fine with storming the Capitol and overturning election results without proof? (Actually, a lot of liberals make that mistake). Some conservatives really believe in that, but plenty don't. It's the same with abortion. Some pro-choicers really women to consider abortion with no qualms whatsoever, and are afraid of "stigmatizing" anyone who gets an abortion. They're very loud. But they don't speak for everyone who is concerned about access restrictions to abortion. Now, these more moderate pro-choicers could be WRONG, and you can argue that they are, but they actually do exist. Biden, whatever his faults may be, is one of them. Planned Parenthood has not been too crazy about Biden through most of his career.
Now here's the problem. The Supreme Court didn't decide that fetuses were persons from conception, and they never challenged Roe's contention that the fetus's right to life is not guaranteed in the Constitution. They just argue that the woman's right to an abortion isn't rooted in the Constitution either, leaving it up to democratic choice whether to ban abortion or not. I have my doubts as to whether deciding this on a state basis is Constitutional either, it seems to fly in the face of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, which indicates to me that fetuses and pregnant women need to have the same rights across the country. (A house divided against itself cannot stand). Be that as it may, because of the nature of partisan politics, state legislatures have enacted abortion laws that majorities in their states do not want. In Republican states majorities in the Republican party want strict abortion laws, but if the state if 55 percent Republican and 80 percent of Republicans want strict abortion laws, then Republicans elect only strictly pro-life candidates in the primaries and constitute a majority in the legislatures, but actually only 44 percent of the people want strict abortion laws, if Democrats are all pro-choice. But if Republicans go for abortion laws that are stricter than what the people want, they are going to hurt themselves in future elections. If the process of determining abortion laws is truly democratic, you might get some restriction over and above what Roe permitted, but not the kind of strict abortion bans that pro-lifers want. And the actual practice of bringing abortion restrictions into the real world is likely to produce collateral damage that will make people think twice. For example, the drug methotrexate is a drug used for lupus. But because it can be used to produce and abortion, pro-lifers are inclined to ban it, keeping lupus patients from drugs they need. IUDs are sometimes used for medical purposes that have nothing to do with family planning. Do we ban those because they are thought to be abortifacient? It is yet to be seen whether reversing Roe will really activate the democratic process and produce the laws that people want, which is what the jurisprudence in Dobbs implies, or whether our democratic process is so broken by partisan politics that we won't be able to come to any kind of sensible solution.
Post a Comment