Can you really be friends if your political beliefs are much different?

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

You disregard any argument about it at all because the person has opinions that were shaped by religion.

You are missing about 80% of my regard/disregard.

1. It is shaped by *one specific* religion.
2. People of other religions, or no religion don't support it, despite this having been a potboiler political issue for 40 years. i.e. they have more likely than not considered and rejected it.
3. Like criminal law, it inhibits some people's (about 50%) autonomy over their body.

4. Most of the more vociferous champions of "it" are not in the 50% who are ever likely to be impacted, even less are in their childbearing age likely to get pregnant. i.g. the victims of "it" are a tiny minority who will not be able to push back effectively.

#1, #2, #3 are ALL necessary pillars in my argument. Take any one away, and my objection is no longer absolute, but much more conditional and negotiable.
#4 strengthens it.

You somehow pick half of #1 and construct your entire response.

Why?

I didn't miss 80% of your arguments. I've addressed them several times now by saying that I'm not arguing the issue of abortion. 2-4 are all specific arguments tied to abortion. I'm not bothered by your opinion on how you think abortion is no problem. I'm a little bothered at your extremely low opinion of anyone on the other side of the issue, because if you truly have done as much digging into people's perspectives on the issue as I have and have that low of an opinion of anyone on the other side, I would say it shows your lack of ability to empathize with people who have a different view than yours. I'm not focusing on them, in short because they're not what I have the biggest issue with.

I'm focusing on 1 because your argument # 1 alone meets the definition of bigotry regardless of any of the rest. You are looking down and disregarding people's opinions because they are informed by a religion, beyond the merits of the argument that may or may not have anything to do with religion. If it's an opinion like I mentioned above that you happen to agree with it, you "graciously" give it a pass, so I guess it's not a hard and fast rule you hold to. Still, you looking down on people that want to do something simply because their perspective is informed by religion regardless of their holistic perspective is really looking down on them as people. It's kind of saying I don't care what you think because your thoughts have the stain of religion on them. It's a really crappy thing to do to people. It's also frustrating that you don't see it as a problem.

#1 does not stand in isolation. Please show me once where I have mentioned it in isolation.


1. Rules sometimes apply in conjunction. #1 and #2 and #3 is one atomic, complete argument. Take any one of them apart and it becomes a logically inconsistent statement.
2. Context is important. I was arguing in the context where the issue of abortion is being discussed. I have a low opinion of people taking a specific side in this debate for the *same* reason I have a low opinion of the Islamic State.
3. For the record, I do not look down on religious people. I have multiple people in my family who are *very* religious. After I grew up, I realized how absolutely fortunate I am that EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM is extremely liberal in their worldview and are people I look up to. The couple of people in my extended family (and I have a BIG one) who espouse bigoted views and wants to shove their views down other people's throats are not religious. I suspect that most of the proponents of "abortion ban" would neatly fit in the second category.

I stand by my statement. If you have a low opinion of people and have clearly looked into the reason people are against abortions are against them (not politicians that can be hypocrites, but genuine every day people who think it's wrong), then you are not being very empathetic.

Your first argument has no place in being an argument whatsoever. It shouldn't matter regardless of the context. That's the problem. Whether or not someone thinks that something is wrong because of a chain of logic that has some ties to religion should not matter. I don't know how to spell it out any clearer.  You keep throwing out the term of "shoving religion down people's throats." The only one involved in the abortion discussion that's shoving anything down anyone's throat is you, and what you're forcing is your own narrative about religion. That's the problem. You make assumptions again and again, like in this one, where you assume that a majority of people who want to ban abortions also want to shove other views down people's throats. Maybe you're right or maybe you're wrong, but even if you're right, it's immaterial. Call people out when all there logic is flawed. You can say you don't look down on people for religion, and yet you keep trying to make an overall argument that something having any ties to a religion is a basis for not listening to them about the issue. That's using religion as a punching bag.

[Bloop Bloop]

A viable fetus being at risk of abortion deserves protection via the state in the same way that an at-risk potential COVID contractor deserves protection via the state.

Nobody argued otherwise. If the state creates artificial wombs, then I think you'll find many liberals in favor of increasing taxes to support the fetuses who don't have any willing owner of Fallopian tubes to connect to.
 
Conservatives, however, are arguing that the unwilling mother should be forced to give up the choice as to what she should do with her body as mandated by a certain religious belief..

<edited to add> Ah! I missed the "viable" part. No - nobody other than conservative gun-nuts are allowed to murder a baby who can survive on his/her own (with medical assistance if required).

From the University of Calgary--for every 1% drop in employment, 16 people die from suicide in my province:
https://www.ucalgary.ca/news/sixteen-more-albertans-die-suicide-every-one-cent-increase-unemployment

Conservatives are not solely concerned with economics, they are also concerned with second-order economic consequences, among other considerations.

There are FAAAAR more well established studies showing life expectancy increased during depression. Its easy to google them out if you want to.
If conservatives were concerned about second order consequences, then they would welcome economic depressions.

In reality, they would have taken the same stance as liberals *if* they were not practicing billionaire-wing politics.

As for billionaires, there are many neo-liberal policies that are beneficial to billionaires.  It's another area where a simple bifurcation of conservative/liberal is not sufficient.

There is a crop of billionaires who profit from inflaming racial politics. Murdoch, Koch, Mercers etc and most other "old economy" billionaires are in this category.
Yes, there is a set of "new economy" billionaires, mostly younger, who don't seem to engage in this. That may be because they see no profit in it, or maybe they are just not sufficiently callous and evil - I can't tell!!

It's not a stretch to say that the conservative politics is controlled by these old economy liberals. Heck, just Murdoch (Fox), Koch (various super-PACs), Mercer (Breitbart) and the intentionally obscure controllers of Sinclair Broadcast Group control 99% of conservative political messaging in the US.

You say:
Conservatives, however, are arguing that the unwilling mother should be forced to give up the choice as to what she should do with her body as mandated by a certain religious belief..

That's true of many conservatives, but not all, and it's not true of all people who are against abortion.

Hell, I'm pro-abortion (pro-killing babies) yet I still struggle with the ethical implications of it, because a late-term foetus is arguably sentient (if it's not, then there's nothing compelling us to ban infanticide - in my moral worldview, it's only sentient things that have the right not to be killed/consumed), and the rights of a sentient being need to be weighed against the right to bodily autonomy. And there will be different ethical calculi for each situation. And I don't accept that it is only the woman's wishes that are paramount in each situation.

You might disagree with me. But you ought to understand that it's not just religious belief which compels people to feel queasy about abortions, either in the general or the specific case.

And as I've said so many times - I'm being a devil's advocate here. For the most part I do believe in the right to bodily autonomy.

I just don't understand why some liberal voices in this thread can write so condescendingly and pigeonhole opposing views.

And I think if I - as a libertarian who's not afraid of debate - find that atmosphere stifling, then many others - who are more wary of being talked down to, and who might have more conservative roots - would become resentful of it. And that's how people like Trump get into power.

[ctuser1]

I stand by my statement. If you have a low opinion of people and have clearly looked into the reason people are against abortions are against them (not politicians that can be hypocrites, but genuine every day people who think it's wrong), then you are not being very empathetic.

1. I lack empathy for people in positions of privilege (in this case middle-aged white male being some of the most ardent proponents) that want to legislate away the rights of more vulnerable group of people. Upper middle class and upwards women won't be impacted if they wanted to get an abortion. But someone like this will get charged with feticide for getting shot in the stomach: https://www.thecut.com/2019/06/alabama-woman-shot-in-stomach-charged-with-manslaughter.html
2. Politicians are generally a good reflection of the population - despite whatever politically correct bs you may have been fed. For good or bad, for an example that I can personally vouch, AOC is a very typical New Yorker of her age group including her points of view.
3. But don't you worry, I have similarly low opinion on ISIS foot soldiers and various other tools of mass subjugation devised by the priviledged.

Your first argument has no place in being an argument whatsoever. It shouldn't matter regardless of the context. That's the problem. Whether or not someone thinks that something is wrong because of a chain of logic that has some ties to religion should not matter. I don't know how to spell it out any clearer.

You clearly have a big problem with the US Constitution.

You keep throwing out the term of "shoving religion down people's throats." The only one involved in the abortion discussion that's shoving anything down anyone's throat is you, and what you're forcing is your own narrative about religion. That's the problem.

Got it. Who cares about a couple of stupid uppity black women jailed like Ms Jones in the news story above. The religious ordained abortion is sin, so she needs to pay for being shot in her tummy regardless of whether she agrees with that POV or not!!

Your's is the only true path after all. How dare I question it being shoved down anybody's throat?

You can say you don't look down on people for religion, and yet you keep trying to make an overall argument that something having any ties to a religion is a basis for not listening to them about the issue. That's using religion as a punching bag.

"US Constitution"
"Separation of church of state"
(Yes, they come into play when you are talking about legislating based on a "religious view")

And, the religious do a much better job of showing religion in a bad light. I don't have to make any effort on that front. How many younger people was repulsed from Christianity - you'd think - based on the Christian Right's embrace of everything vulgar about the orange one? I don't think I, or any other non-religious idiot could have been anywhere near as effective in using religion as a punching bag.

[ctuser1]

You might disagree with me. But you ought to understand that it's not just religious belief which compels people to feel queasy about abortions, either in the general or the specific case.

How do you explain the strong correlation with religion in this study:
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/01/22/american-religious-groups-vary-widely-in-their-views-of-abortion/

Are you arguing that the Atheist, Agnostic, Jewish, Buddhist, members of Episcopal Church and United Church of Christ, Hindu's are particularly prone to immoral views?
Are they just not informed enough (after 30-40 years of this being a wedge issue)?

And why the hell do you need to have a moral/scientific/legal/martial/whatever position on it? Why not leave it up to the mother until and up to the moment it is a question of her body?

[Travis]

This is just one example, of many. The editor at the NYT who recently lost his job for approving an op-ed by US Senator Tom Cotton, expressing an opinion (that the US military should be used to get riots under control) that, arguably, a majority of Americans agreed with. Also, the Philadelphia Enquirer editor who lost his job, because he approved an, admittedly tone deaf, headline for an article that said, "Building matter too," which, again, is a position supported by a majority of Americans, including blacks. The whole virtuous spiral phenomenon just seems like too much. People should be able to express unpopular opinions, without it costing them their livelihoods.

Within the context of the national situation, Tom Cotton was advocating for using the military to aid the cops in beating, maiming and gassing people expressing their first amendment rights. For an institution that lives or dies by the first amendment, I think platforming that was a pretty egregious error. People can express whatever opinions they want, but the Times doesn't have to platform every shitty opinion that comes along.

Tom Cotton almost gleefully advocated for the 101st to swoop in on New York City guns a-blazing.  The editor of the Times admitted to pretty much rubber stamping the OpEd without reading it while NYT employees were being beaten by the police.

[mathlete]

Tom Cotton almost gleefully advocated for the 101st to swoop in on New York City guns a-blazing.  The editor of the Times admitted to pretty much rubber stamping the OpEd without reading it while NYT employees were being beaten by the police.

Exactly. It is disingenuous to characterize the episode as people not being able to handle a difference in opinions. As much as I have hated Trump from the beginning, I had always balked at the allusions to fascism. I don't balk anymore. Tom Cotton is a fascist and he advocated for further decent into a police state. He can do that if he wants, but no self-respecting paper should just hand him a platform to do so.

The piece was published just days after the President or his AG ordered police to gas and beat protesters and members of the press to clear the way for a propaganda video to be shot.

There is no flashing neon sign that says when fascism is happening. A full 40% of this country would have rolled over for the Nazis and I think that really sucks.

[Bloop Bloop]

You might disagree with me. But you ought to understand that it's not just religious belief which compels people to feel queasy about abortions, either in the general or the specific case.

How do you explain the strong correlation with religion in this study:
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/01/22/american-religious-groups-vary-widely-in-their-views-of-abortion/

Are you arguing that the Atheist, Agnostic, Jewish, Buddhist, members of Episcopal Church and United Church of Christ, Hindu's are particularly prone to immoral views?
Are they just not informed enough (after 30-40 years of this being a wedge issue)?

And why the hell do you need to have a moral/scientific/legal/martial/whatever position on it? Why not leave it up to the mother until and up to the moment it is a question of her body?

You are blind to your own axiomatic view that the mother is the one and only arbiter of anything that happens to her own body.

You can't even acknowledge the lack of logical/scientific basis to say that one minute before delivery, the mother knows best 100% of the time, but one minute after delivery, suddenly you have a living breathing sentient being that has the equivalent moral weight of any other human.

Keep in mind, I mainly agree with your position. Even if there are shades of grey, it can be useful to draw a dividing line somewhere, and delivery is the easiest and clearest such line. There are many reasons why self-autonomy is a policy that should be followed where possible. Etc, etc, etc. As a supporter of killing foetuses where the mother wants it done for her own reasons, I have no difficulty aligning myself with your position and endorsing it.

I'm trying to get you to see that contrary views do have a coherent basis, and aren't simply based on a disregard for female autonomy. Yet you won't even budge an inch. You won't acknowledge that anyone who doesn't share your exact view might have any worth to his or her argument whatsoever. To me, that displays a lack of empathy and intellectual rigour.

To use a different example, I think the death penalty is wrong, but I can list at least 4 or 5 good reasons why someone might believe in, and support, the death penalty. I don't agree with those reasons on balance, but they're valid reasons.

I think it's a good thing to be able to see both sides of most debates.

There's no point arguing with you. You come across as extremely fixed and condescending.

[ctuser1]

You might disagree with me. But you ought to understand that it's not just religious belief which compels people to feel queasy about abortions, either in the general or the specific case.

How do you explain the strong correlation with religion in this study:
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/01/22/american-religious-groups-vary-widely-in-their-views-of-abortion/

Are you arguing that the Atheist, Agnostic, Jewish, Buddhist, members of Episcopal Church and United Church of Christ, Hindu's are particularly prone to immoral views?
Are they just not informed enough (after 30-40 years of this being a wedge issue)?

And why the hell do you need to have a moral/scientific/legal/martial/whatever position on it? Why not leave it up to the mother until and up to the moment it is a question of her body?

You are blind to your own axiomatic view that the mother is the one and only arbiter of anything that happens to her own body.

You can't even acknowledge the lack of logical/scientific basis to say that one minute before delivery, the mother knows best 100% of the time, but one minute after delivery, suddenly you have a living breathing sentient being that has the equivalent moral weight of any other human.

Keep in mind, I mainly agree with your position. Even if there are shades of grey, it can be useful to draw a dividing line somewhere, and delivery is the easiest and clearest such line. There are many reasons why self-autonomy is a policy that should be followed where possible. Etc, etc, etc. As a supporter of killing foetuses where the mother wants it done for her own reasons, I have no difficulty aligning myself with your position and endorsing it.

I'm trying to get you to see that contrary views do have a coherent basis, and aren't simply based on a disregard for female autonomy. Yet you won't even budge an inch. You won't acknowledge that anyone who doesn't share your exact view might have any worth to his or her argument whatsoever. To me, that displays a lack of empathy and intellectual rigour.

To use a different example, I think the death penalty is wrong, but I can list at least 4 or 5 good reasons why someone might believe in, and support, the death penalty. I don't agree with those reasons on balance, but they're valid reasons.

I think it's a good thing to be able to see both sides of most debates.

There's no point arguing with you. You come across as extremely fixed and condescending.

I can be too direct on many topics where I see a combination of:
1. massive degree of social harm
2. the privileged blithely legislating away the right of the under-privileged
3. religion

I can intellectually see the other point of view, and yes I can acknowledge the logical problem with treating the fetus differently from one minute to the next.
I just don't see the utility of discussing nuances of fetal development where the bigger, deciding issue is one level above that topic, and that topic will likely only muddle the waters and may cause negative social utility.

Perhaps the other disconnect is that I don't believe it is possible, ever, to change a religious point of view, irrespective of the human and social cost caused by that view. My response to such views is hence colored by the assumption that the discussion is only for the benefit of the onlookers. The communication style change when that is the case.

[Bloop Bloop]

My own view is that we as a society would be better off if abortion was free, readily available and heavily encouraged. Heck, I'd love for the government to pay people to have an abortion (to cover the cost of seeking leave from work, and pre- and post-counselling) to give an extra incentive. Though politically that would be a tough sell, I have no doubt that incentivising and facilitating abortion is in the best interests of society overall.

But to get to that sort of society we have to firstly engage with opposing views as equals.

You'll never get through to the hellfire-and-brimstone crowd, but there are plenty of anti-abortion folks who aren't arguing solely from religious dogma.

[Buffaloski Boris]

I just don't understand why some liberal voices in this thread can write so condescendingly and pigeonhole opposing views.

And I think if I - as a libertarian who's not afraid of debate - find that atmosphere stifling, then many others - who are more wary of being talked down to, and who might have more conservative roots - would become resentful of it. And that's how people like Trump get into power.

I’m happy to explain it. What we’re talking about isn’t so much political views but the secular version of cherished religious beliefs. Politics has become a substitute for faith in a lot of people’s lives. It’s not just a “liberal” thing, either. “Conservatives” do the same thing as well.

So what the believers in the faith of politics are looking for is not debate, but a sort of mutual validation of various tenets of their respective faith.

[Bloop Bloop]

That's why I so dislike online echo chambers of any persuasion. As you say, people don't go there to challenge their views or even expound them in good faith. They go there for validation, just like sheeple in an evangelical church.

It's quite sad to see that it happens here, too. There is a lot of strange and petty discourse on MMM about face punches and clown cars and all that stuff.

The in-group/out-group thing can be really divisive.

Does it really matter if someone else buys an SUV? Yes it does, if it's hurting his or her finances, but otherwise, give it a fucking break already.

[ctuser1]

That's why I so dislike online echo chambers of any persuasion. As you say, people don't go there to challenge their views or even expound them in good faith. They go there for validation, just like sheeple in an evangelical church.

It's quite sad to see that it happens here, too. There is a lot of strange and petty discourse on MMM about face punches and clown cars and all that stuff.

The in-group/out-group thing can be really divisive.

Does it really matter if someone else buys an SUV? Yes it does, if it's hurting his or her finances, but otherwise, give it a fucking break already.

Did you buy an SUV?

[Bloop Bloop]

That's why I so dislike online echo chambers of any persuasion. As you say, people don't go there to challenge their views or even expound them in good faith. They go there for validation, just like sheeple in an evangelical church.

It's quite sad to see that it happens here, too. There is a lot of strange and petty discourse on MMM about face punches and clown cars and all that stuff.

The in-group/out-group thing can be really divisive.

Does it really matter if someone else buys an SUV? Yes it does, if it's hurting his or her finances, but otherwise, give it a fucking break already.

Did you buy an SUV?

Heck no. I hate SUVs. But I can totally understand why someone else might like them!

[Buffaloski Boris]

That's why I so dislike online echo chambers of any persuasion. As you say, people don't go there to challenge their views or even expound them in good faith. They go there for validation, just like sheeple in an evangelical church.

It's quite sad to see that it happens here, too. There is a lot of strange and petty discourse on MMM about face punches and clown cars and all that stuff.

The in-group/out-group thing can be really divisive.

Does it really matter if someone else buys an SUV? Yes it does, if it's hurting his or her finances, but otherwise, give it a fucking break already.

That the two factions were as polite as an evangelical church! The irony is that the “salvation” to be had here is that their preferred gang of kakistocrats wins political office over the other gang of kakistocrats.

 I do like the community here. There are a few twits, which you’ll find anywhere. I would prefer that politics and religious discussions were banned as they are over at bogleheads. I do think it coarsens a lot of the interactions. But I’m just a guest here so of course it’s not my call. I appreciate the access to the forum.

As for SUVs, I drive an ancient one. And if it dies, I may well get another ancient one. It’s environmentally friendly and budget friendly.

[HBFIRE]

Did you buy an SUV?

guilty  Full overlander build

[Kyle Schuant]

It's useful to occasionally look at things from a different perspective.

https://www.thaienquirer.com/13861/foreign-affairs-unrest-continues-for-a-seventh-day-in-former-british-colony/

[mathlete]

I just don't understand why some liberal voices in this thread can write so condescendingly and pigeonhole opposing views.

And I think if I - as a libertarian who's not afraid of debate - find that atmosphere stifling, then many others - who are more wary of being talked down to, and who might have more conservative roots - would become resentful of it. And that's how people like Trump get into power.

If I can offer some commentary as a pretty darn liberal American.

I'm very pro-choice. In fact, just a few weeks ago I gave $100 to planned parenthood, basically out of spite after a conversation with someone. But I accept and understand the concept of a fetus being human life as a strong motivating factor for folks against abortion. I don't like guns, but I accept that for some people, ~30K deaths a year in exchange for freedom to own guns is worth it. I'm pro-regulation and pro-taxation, but I enjoy debate on  these topics with those who disagree with me.

But I've also been a liberal on the Internet for about half my life now. And I've seen conservative people in my country move more and more towards anti-intellectualism, and aggressive racism and sexism. These topics suck up a majority of the air in political discussions and I consider them pretty non-negotiable.

I definitely recognize that I'm one of the condescending posters that you're talking about. I used to have more patience, but I'm older now. Just the other week, I replied to a poster on the BLM stuff and simply told him to "eat shit". This probably looks from the outside, like bad discourse, but in my experience, engaging and entertaining that person would have been the worst of discourse. Because the poster was appealing to, "But what about black on black violence in Chicago??" meme. And I've had this discussion discussion countless times over the past decade with people who are 100 times less well read on these topics than I am. Engaging in civil discussion on those pretenses puts history and research on the same footing with shot-form-the-hip, talk radio talking points.

It also happened in the "how to fix racism" thread. I have a really solid knowledge of the history of black oppression in the United States, so I started by giving a rough outline on it. But even I, who am growing very salty, got duped into a long back-and-forth about, "Well you know that gangster rap sure is a bad influence on black men".

The US President is a racist, a sexist and a habitual liar. I do not know how to engage in good faith debate on these issues when 90% of US conservatives support him. I am truly at a loss.

[mathlete]

P.S., it's been 3.5 years now and I'm still not sold on the idea that Trump could have been avoided if only we had coddled conservatives a little bit more. Most of Trump's victory is explained by people wanting tax breaks and conservative justices.

[Shane]

This is just one example, of many. The editor at the NYT who recently lost his job for approving an op-ed by US Senator Tom Cotton, expressing an opinion (that the US military should be used to get riots under control) that, arguably, a majority of Americans agreed with. Also, the Philadelphia Enquirer editor who lost his job, because he approved an, admittedly tone deaf, headline for an article that said, "Building matter too," which, again, is a position supported by a majority of Americans, including blacks. The whole virtuous spiral phenomenon just seems like too much. People should be able to express unpopular opinions, without it costing them their livelihoods.

Within the context of the national situation, Tom Cotton was advocating for using the military to aid the cops in beating, maiming and gassing people expressing their first amendment rights. For an institution that lives or dies by the first amendment, I think platforming that was a pretty egregious error. People can express whatever opinions they want, but the Times doesn't have to platform every shitty opinion that comes along.

James Bennet's decision was pretty horrendous. But I'm willing to accept that he may have survived it had we been in less contentious times. So it's maybe 90/10. 90% a dumb decision to platform a fascist crackdown on free speech when you're an editor for a newspaper. 10% unfairness.

There are 10,000 vectors of unfairness that I could come up with on any given day. I don't typically think cancel culture is the one is worth getting hung up on.

While I completely disagreed with Tom Cotton's op-ed, as a sitting US Senator, expressing an opinion held by tens, if not hundreds, of millions of Americans, I felt like the NYT had an obligation to print it. The proper response should have been to also publish other opinion pieces that made better arguments for not bringing in the military, not firing the editor who agreed to publish Cotton's piece. I read the NYT every day, and even when I disagree, I want them to publish opinions held by people from very different backgrounds, with different perspectives. I don't want to only read messages from people with whom I agree.

[HBFIRE]

P.S., it's been 3.5 years now and I'm still not sold on the idea that Trump could have been avoided if only we had coddled conservatives a little bit more. Most of Trump's victory is explained by people wanting tax breaks and conservative justices.

You're right.  There is a pretty sizable portion of the population that just wants lower taxes and voted for Trump just for that reason.  That said, Trump is not a conservative.  He's a big spending nationalist.  Even people who lean libertarian such as myself are growing tired of the massive spending.  Then of course, for low taxes you have to be willing to put up with the "Trump package" -- you have all of his major issues.  I think there is a pretty sizable % of the conservative population that has grown very tired of him.  In my ideal world it shouldn't matter who is president and he/she shouldn't have enough power for it to matter.  Maybe both sides can agree Trump has been a disaster -- so let's make sure the system doesn't allow a dangerous president to have too much power in the future even if they get elected.  It's been a bit scary to see our checks and balances system not always operate as it should.  My view is that most Americans really fall somewhere in the middle -- but you wouldn't know it because the politicians push extremes as it's better for getting votes.  The media perpetuates this as well as it's better for clicks.  I've always felt there should be a political uprising of the moderate position to appeal to the majority but it seems the way our system is set up that it doesn't really encourage it.  Division is rewarded in the political and media world and that's the major issue.

[ctuser1]

I just don't understand why some liberal voices in this thread can write so condescendingly and pigeonhole opposing views.

And I think if I - as a libertarian who's not afraid of debate - find that atmosphere stifling, then many others - who are more wary of being talked down to, and who might have more conservative roots - would become resentful of it. And that's how people like Trump get into power.

If I can offer some commentary as a pretty darn liberal American.

I'm very pro-choice. In fact, just a few weeks ago I gave $100 to planned parenthood, basically out of spite after a conversation with someone. But I accept and understand the concept of a fetus being human life as a strong motivating factor for folks against abortion. I don't like guns, but I accept that for some people, ~30K deaths a year in exchange for freedom to own guns is worth it. I'm pro-regulation and pro-taxation, but I enjoy debate on  these topics with those who disagree with me.

But I've also been a liberal on the Internet for about half my life now. And I've seen conservative people in my country move more and more towards anti-intellectualism, and aggressive racism and sexism. These topics suck up a majority of the air in political discussions and I consider them pretty non-negotiable.

I definitely recognize that I'm one of the condescending posters that you're talking about. I used to have more patience, but I'm older now. Just the other week, I replied to a poster on the BLM stuff and simply told him to "eat shit". This probably looks from the outside, like bad discourse, but in my experience, engaging and entertaining that person would have been the worst of discourse. Because the poster was appealing to, "But what about black on black violence in Chicago??" meme. And I've had this discussion discussion countless times over the past decade with people who are 100 times less well read on these topics than I am. Engaging in civil discussion on those pretenses puts history and research on the same footing with shot-form-the-hip, talk radio talking points.

It also happened in the "how to fix racism" thread. I have a really solid knowledge of the history of black oppression in the United States, so I started by giving a rough outline on it. But even I, who am growing very salty, got duped into a long back-and-forth about, "Well you know that gangster rap sure is a bad influence on black men".

The US President is a racist, a sexist and a habitual liar. I do not know how to engage in good faith debate on these issues when 90% of US conservatives support him. I am truly at a loss.

I am probably more guilty than you for being condescending. So maybe a cooler "explanation" might be in order.

It's part personal....
I've never displayed the virtue of patience in my life, even for causes that are close to my heart. While going through her MS in CS program, DW was working with underprivileged kids and adults by tutoring them math as part of a state sponsored program. Well, I wholeheartedly champion the cause. But I lasted a whole of 30 minutes when she tried to rope me in.

So that lack of patience shows up in discussions. I fit in nicely in the aggressive work-culture of NYC. I think I will feel very stifled in any other kind of culture (except perhaps the aggressive SV culture).

But then, along with that negative, comes a positive. When interacting with people like us, you won't have to guess what we're thinking. WYSWYG - What you see is what you get. You can rest assured someone like me won't back-stab anyone, anywhere, in any context.

And it is also a part environment...
Like mathlete explained above. I feel more and more despondent every day that I see the vulgarity of the 45th, fully supported by the "conservatives". On a tiny bit of digging, I discover this is just a symptom of a much broader disease that has been extant at least since Nixon.

In this context the fuse tends to be even shorter than usual.

[js82]

I just don't understand why some liberal voices in this thread can write so condescendingly and pigeonhole opposing views.

And I think if I - as a libertarian who's not afraid of debate - find that atmosphere stifling, then many others - who are more wary of being talked down to, and who might have more conservative roots - would become resentful of it. And that's how people like Trump get into power.

I’m happy to explain it. What we’re talking about isn’t so much political views but the secular version of cherished religious beliefs. Politics has become a substitute for faith in a lot of people’s lives. It’s not just a “liberal” thing, either. “Conservatives” do the same thing as well.

So what the believers in the faith of politics are looking for is not debate, but a sort of mutual validation of various tenets of their respective faith.

I'm not sure it's strictly a substitute for "faith" - I think there's another aspect of organized religion that politics are replacing.  In the past(and still in the present, in many areas), churches tended to be the center of communities.  And while faith is nominally the reason religious institutions exist, churches performed the critical role of helping their members meet a very important human need - the need for community, belonging, etc. - the social part of being human, being part of something bigger than oneself.

With fewer people attending churches, people are looking elsewhere for a sense of belonging/being part of a group.  For some people, being part of Team Red or Team Blue helps satisfy that need.

Would that other organizations stepped in and helped fill people's need for belonging, community, etc.  While that's technically not the reason for churches' existence, it's an major part of their role in communities that other organizations have not yet fully filled in some communities.

[Buffaloski Boris]

I just don't understand why some liberal voices in this thread can write so condescendingly and pigeonhole opposing views.

And I think if I - as a libertarian who's not afraid of debate - find that atmosphere stifling, then many others - who are more wary of being talked down to, and who might have more conservative roots - would become resentful of it. And that's how people like Trump get into power.

I’m happy to explain it. What we’re talking about isn’t so much political views but the secular version of cherished religious beliefs. Politics has become a substitute for faith in a lot of people’s lives. It’s not just a “liberal” thing, either. “Conservatives” do the same thing as well.

So what the believers in the faith of politics are looking for is not debate, but a sort of mutual validation of various tenets of their respective faith.

I'm not sure it's strictly a substitute for "faith" - I think there's another aspect of organized religion that politics are replacing.  In the past(and still in the present, in many areas, churches tended to be the center of communities.  And while faith is nominally the reason religious institutions exist, churches performed the critical role of helping their members meet a very important human need - the need for community, belonging, etc. - the social part of being human, being part of something bigger than oneself.

With fewer people attending churches, people are looking elsewhere for a sense of belonging/being part of a group.  For some people, being part of Team Red or Team Blue helps satisfy that need.

Would that other organizations stepped in and helped fill people's need for belonging, community, etc.  While that's technically not the reason for churches' existence, it's an major part of their role in communities that other organizations have not yet fully filled in some communities.

Politics is a piss-poor substitute for religion. I think you're right: people are getting their community "fix" through the red team or the blue team.  It's a shame that other sorts of fraternal or charitable organizations haven't focused on the loneliness epidemic to the mutual benefit of their organizations and the lonely.  There is an army of people out there who could move mountains for the cost of some kind words and intentional community. 

Maybe it's something I should focus on in retirement; building apolitical community.  Sounds like great fun: we'll all get together and not vote. :-P     

[Buffaloski Boris]

It's useful to occasionally look at things from a different perspective.

https://www.thaienquirer.com/13861/foreign-affairs-unrest-continues-for-a-seventh-day-in-former-british-colony/

That was a really cool article, Kyle.  Thanks for posting it.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

I stand by my statement. If you have a low opinion of people and have clearly looked into the reason people are against abortions are against them (not politicians that can be hypocrites, but genuine every day people who think it's wrong), then you are not being very empathetic.

1. I lack empathy for people in positions of privilege (in this case middle-aged white male being some of the most ardent proponents) that want to legislate away the rights of more vulnerable group of people. Upper middle class and upwards women won't be impacted if they wanted to get an abortion. But someone like this will get charged with feticide for getting shot in the stomach: https://www.thecut.com/2019/06/alabama-woman-shot-in-stomach-charged-with-manslaughter.html
2. Politicians are generally a good reflection of the population - despite whatever politically correct bs you may have been fed. For good or bad, for an example that I can personally vouch, AOC is a very typical New Yorker of her age group including her points of view.
3. But don't you worry, I have similarly low opinion on ISIS foot soldiers and various other tools of mass subjugation devised by the priviledged.

Your first argument has no place in being an argument whatsoever. It shouldn't matter regardless of the context. That's the problem. Whether or not someone thinks that something is wrong because of a chain of logic that has some ties to religion should not matter. I don't know how to spell it out any clearer.

You clearly have a big problem with the US Constitution.

You keep throwing out the term of "shoving religion down people's throats." The only one involved in the abortion discussion that's shoving anything down anyone's throat is you, and what you're forcing is your own narrative about religion. That's the problem.

Got it. Who cares about a couple of stupid uppity black women jailed like Ms Jones in the news story above. The religious ordained abortion is sin, so she needs to pay for being shot in her tummy regardless of whether she agrees with that POV or not!!

Your's is the only true path after all. How dare I question it being shoved down anybody's throat?

You can say you don't look down on people for religion, and yet you keep trying to make an overall argument that something having any ties to a religion is a basis for not listening to them about the issue. That's using religion as a punching bag.

"US Constitution"
"Separation of church of state"
(Yes, they come into play when you are talking about legislating based on a "religious view")

And, the religious do a much better job of showing religion in a bad light. I don't have to make any effort on that front. How many younger people was repulsed from Christianity - you'd think - based on the Christian Right's embrace of everything vulgar about the orange one? I don't think I, or any other non-religious idiot could have been anywhere near as effective in using religion as a punching bag.

I get it, you're clearly upset. And you're all over the place. At this point, no further progress will be made, so this time, there really truly is no point in continuing the conversation. I will, however, leave you with this.

You are extremely biased against religion. I'm not wanting to argue about this, because there is nothing to argue. I'm just pointing out an observation that I'm pretty sure anyone reading this can see.

It's like as soon as the word religion came up, you were like a train heading for one destination, regardless of anything else that would be brought up henceforth. How do I know this? Because your bias against religion has lead you to make assumptions throughout this argument. Assumptions that have been wrong.

You assumed I was a Catholic. You were wrong.
You assumed you knew more about Christianity than I knew. I have a masters degree in the topic. It's extremely unlikely that you know more about it than I do. You were wrong.
You assume you know more about the Constitution, how it was founded, what the amendments were intended to do in regards to religion, etc. I am not as confident in this as I don't have as much study as I do in the former, but from the way you're posting on it, I doubt this as well.
You assume you know exactly what I want to happen in regards to abortion from the perspective of the government. Given the general accusations you've made (you kind of lump me/politicians/general Christians/etc. together, so I'm going to do the same here), you're wrong.

Are you noticing a theme here? You are "fill in the blank whatever negative mindset you have" biased against religion.  You have a person opening a dialogue with you, and your mindset is leading you to numerous assumptions about that person.......that are wrong. Ergo, no real dialogue can take place.

You can blame it on a short fuse/lack of patience/that you're just a stereotypical New Yorker that doesn't put up with BS or whatever it is that you want to use to excuse your poor behavior. It doesn't really matter. I mean, shoot, you've even pulled the "I have some people I really respect that are religious" card right in line with the "I have a black friend; I'm not racist" card, lol (caveat before I'm accused of something, no these are not comparable because I'm not being oppressed, it's just that the line of logic is the same). If it wasn't so sad, it would be funny.

You can go through your whole life looking down on people who come from a religious background or thinking their opinions are suspect or disregarding what people think about things because they don't look at them the same way you do. And I'll be clear here; I'm under no impression that this will make any difference to you whatsoever. I will only say that I was very much like you on the other end of things. I looked down on liberals/athiests/etc. I didn't really give their perspectives attention or decreased the merit of their thoughts because of where they were coming from. When they disagreed with me, the one fact that they were coming from a liberal perspective, for example, was all I needed to demean, at least in my mind, their beliefs and not even pay it a bit of attention. I didn't care because I knew - I just knew that they were liberals, so their ideas were this or that or the other and all they wanted to do was this or that, and I already knew that all of that was wrong. Why did I even need to listen? If they happened to agree with me perfectly enough to satisfy my strong opinions, then great, see that was proof I was open minded....except it wasn't because I wasn't. I wasn't listening to learn from them because I knew they were wrong. If I listened at all, it was to confirm opinions I already have (this all being kind of the point of topic of this whole thread). Fortunately I've grown out of that at least a little. I hope that one day, you can do the same. Have a good one.

[Bloop Bloop]

Being angry at others for having misplaced or misguided beliefs leads to hate, and hate leads to suffering.

We must all try to be more equable.

[ctuser1]

You assume you know exactly what I want to happen in regards to abortion from the perspective of the government. Given the general accusations you've made (you kind of lump me/politicians/general Christians/etc. together, so I'm going to do the same here), you're wrong.

This is the crux!

Are you, or are you not looking to legislate to take away other people's rights irrespective of whether they have the same moral stance or not in this topic?

This "you" is a generic anti-pro-choice person.

[Wrenchturner]

You assume you know exactly what I want to happen in regards to abortion from the perspective of the government. Given the general accusations you've made (you kind of lump me/politicians/general Christians/etc. together, so I'm going to do the same here), you're wrong.

This is the crux!

Are you, or are you not looking to legislate to take away other people's rights irrespective of whether they have the same moral stance or not in this topic?

This "you" is a generic anti-pro-choice person.

The crux of the abortion debate is whether an unborn person has rights, and how those rights are balanced with the rights of the host mother.  A moral stance is necessary.  If you choose to beat a dog in your backyard, society will have a problem with that, even though it's not their yard and it's not their dog.

[ctuser1]

You assume you know exactly what I want to happen in regards to abortion from the perspective of the government. Given the general accusations you've made (you kind of lump me/politicians/general Christians/etc. together, so I'm going to do the same here), you're wrong.

This is the crux!

Are you, or are you not looking to legislate to take away other people's rights irrespective of whether they have the same moral stance or not in this topic?

This "you" is a generic anti-pro-choice person.

The crux of the abortion debate is whether an unborn person has rights, and how those rights are balanced with the rights of the host mother.  A moral stance is necessary.  If you choose to beat a dog in your backyard, society will have a problem with that, even though it's not their yard and it's not their dog.

Great. So you have arrived at some conclusion/answer to this question, and some other person has come to the opposite conclusion. How do we try to determine which one is right?

Zooming out, we see that one religion (Christianity) has arrived at a certain conclusion, and several others have arrived at the opposite. Reference : pew poll I have linked above in this thread.

Are we SO SURE that the Christian position is the right one that we want to legislate to take the unbeliever’s bodily autonomy away?

Note: autonomy over one’s own body is a fundamental human right. So you better be pretty damn sure here!!

Are you sure you want to live in a society that does that?? Or one that leave people alone without imposing the belief system of the ‘true faith’?

[LWYRUP]

I just don't understand why some liberal voices in this thread can write so condescendingly and pigeonhole opposing views.

And I think if I - as a libertarian who's not afraid of debate - find that atmosphere stifling, then many others - who are more wary of being talked down to, and who might have more conservative roots - would become resentful of it. And that's how people like Trump get into power.

I’m happy to explain it. What we’re talking about isn’t so much political views but the secular version of cherished religious beliefs. Politics has become a substitute for faith in a lot of people’s lives. It’s not just a “liberal” thing, either. “Conservatives” do the same thing as well.

So what the believers in the faith of politics are looking for is not debate, but a sort of mutual validation of various tenets of their respective faith.

I'm not sure it's strictly a substitute for "faith" - I think there's another aspect of organized religion that politics are replacing.  In the past(and still in the present, in many areas, churches tended to be the center of communities.  And while faith is nominally the reason religious institutions exist, churches performed the critical role of helping their members meet a very important human need - the need for community, belonging, etc. - the social part of being human, being part of something bigger than oneself.

With fewer people attending churches, people are looking elsewhere for a sense of belonging/being part of a group.  For some people, being part of Team Red or Team Blue helps satisfy that need.

Would that other organizations stepped in and helped fill people's need for belonging, community, etc.  While that's technically not the reason for churches' existence, it's an major part of their role in communities that other organizations have not yet fully filled in some communities.

Politics is a piss-poor substitute for religion. I think you're right: people are getting their community "fix" through the red team or the blue team.  It's a shame that other sorts of fraternal or charitable organizations haven't focused on the loneliness epidemic to the mutual benefit of their organizations and the lonely.  There is an army of people out there who could move mountains for the cost of some kind words and intentional community. 

Maybe it's something I should focus on in retirement; building apolitical community.  Sounds like great fun: we'll all get together and not vote. :-P     

I wrote a lengthy reply to this but then decided to delete it, because I didn't want to deal with lots of arguments.  So I did want to chime in to say I agree with virtually everything written above.

The only exception is that I think respectful debates about real political philosophies between people who are actually open minded can be great fun.  And I do vote, though I always recognize it is for the lesser of two evils. 

I frequently describe myself to my friends as "apolitical" but that's not actually true.  It's something I take seriously and have well informed opinions about.  I just find the tone of political arguments to be very unpleasant and declaring myself apolitical is a way of trying to block the negativity out of my life.  I also tend to be very adverse to extremism, but because it shuts down debate and because so frequently in the past when taken too far it has lead to piles of dead bodies.  So, usually, the more I hear from the ardent advocates of a particular political philosophy, the LESS I want to vote for the politicians they are backing.   

My dad's family fled the USSR and my dad still has a limp from poor medical treatment he got as a child in a refugee camp, so this is very personal for me. 

[Wrenchturner]

Great. So you have arrived at some conclusion/answer to this question, and some other person has come to the opposite conclusion. How do we try to determine which one is right?

There isn't going to be a right answer with regard to abortion as far as I can tell.  We use democracy to dictate policy.

Zooming out, we see that one religion (Christianity) has arrived at a certain conclusion, and several others have arrived at the opposite. Reference : pew poll I have linked above in this thread.

Are we SO SURE that the Christian position is the right one that we want to legislate to take the unbeliever’s bodily autonomy away?

Note: autonomy over one’s own body is a fundamental human right. So you better be pretty damn sure here!!

I'm not making an argument from a religious basis so I won't speak to that.  But again, bodily autonomy is not so clear when a body contains another human within it.

Are you sure you want to live in a society that does that?? Or one that leave people alone without imposing the belief system of the ‘true faith’?

Again, sometimes impositions are unavoidable.

Personally I believe pro-lifers have the moral absolutist high ground, since after conception there is no hard line that can be drawn to distinguish a conceived egg from a sovereign individual.  So as a pro-choicer you have to--at some point during the development of a baby--make a 180 degree turn and say that now this clump of cells is a person.  Whether that change occurs in utero or post utero.

However, the pro-life argument fails on pragmatic and functional grounds--it's not fair to subject all women to carry a baby to term under all circumstances. 

So if the Christian argument leads to the first position--the moralist pro-life position--then your debate should center around the pragmatic and utilitarian rebuttal, not a moral rebuttal. 

I think Bloop Bloop said it best a few pages back:

I think if a fully fledged adult human has a moral weight of 1.0, a first trimester foetus has about a 0.1, a third trimester maybe 0.6 and an infant maybe 0.8? And a zygote 0.01. Not trying to be exact here, but you get the picture.

Luckily, we have democracy to help navigate compromises, which I like to highlight frequently, since most contentious political issues revolve around relative problems and situations that require compromise.

I wouldn't dwell on trying to change the mind of a moral absolutist, your energy would be better spent elsewhere.  If I have misconstrued the Christian perspective here then someone advocating that can correct me.  I don't believe the pro-life argument comes from Christianity persay, rather it comes from the moral absolutist position I outlined above.

[John Galt incarnate!]

My own view is that we as a society would be better off if abortion was free, readily available and heavily encouraged. Heck, I'd love for the government to pay people to have an abortion (to cover the cost of seeking leave from work, and pre- and post-counselling) to give an extra incentive. Though politically that would be a tough sell, I have no doubt that incentivising and facilitating abortion is in the best interests of society overall.

But to get to that sort of society we have to firstly engage with opposing views as equals.

You'll never get through to the hellfire-and-brimstone crowd, but there are plenty of anti-abortion folks who aren't arguing solely from religious dogma.

I   resolutely concur for the reasons below set forth in Roe.


The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying [her the choice to legally terminate her pregnancy] is apparent.

 Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future.

Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it.

In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved.

 All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation.


To the reasons above I add that  overpopulation continues.

[LWYRUP]

I think Bloop Bloop said it best a few pages back:

I think if a fully fledged adult human has a moral weight of 1.0, a first trimester foetus has about a 0.1, a third trimester maybe 0.6 and an infant maybe 0.8? And a zygote 0.01. Not trying to be exact here, but you get the picture.

I don't think it is wise to declare an infant life as less than an adult life (or what that says about, say, the disabled, those with lower IQ, etc.).  I think it would be reasonable to have a sliding scale from conception through viability from 0.01% to 100% etc.  I always find it surprising when people advocate for absolute discretion for abortion from viability through the moment of birth.  It is a basically moral absolutist argument that says "a human life is worth zero until it is outside of the womb."  And I agree that pro-lifers actually have the better argument from the moral absolutist standpoint, and the advantage of a reasonable pro-choice policy is that from a practical standpoint it's the most effective way to deal with unpleasant and ethically difficult issues. 

[Wrenchturner]

I think Bloop Bloop said it best a few pages back:

I think if a fully fledged adult human has a moral weight of 1.0, a first trimester foetus has about a 0.1, a third trimester maybe 0.6 and an infant maybe 0.8? And a zygote 0.01. Not trying to be exact here, but you get the picture.

I don't think it is wise to declare an infant life as less than an adult life (or what that says about, say, the disabled, those with lower IQ, etc.).  I think it would be reasonable to have a sliding scale from conception through viability from 0.01% to 100% etc.  I always find it surprising when people advocate for absolute discretion for abortion from viability through the moment of birth.  It is a basically moral absolutist argument that says "a human life is worth zero until it is outside of the womb."  And I agree that pro-lifers actually have the better argument from the moral absolutist standpoint, and the advantage of a reasonable pro-choice policy is that from a practical standpoint it's the most effective way to deal with unpleasant and ethically difficult issues.

Certainly, and I don't mean to suggest that those numbers should be written in stone.  The viability is a good place to start. 

We have a similar issue with forced sterilizations in Canada.  The argument plays out similarly.  A woman has a right to her own bodily autonomy vs. how many FASD children should a woman produce before her autonomy is outweighed by the tragedy of those children?  Should IQ be a factor, etc.

[John Galt incarnate!]

The crux of the abortion debate is whether an unborn person has rights, and how those rights are balanced with the rights of the host mother.  A moral stance is necessary.  If you choose to beat a dog in your backyard, society will have a problem with that, even though it's not their yard and it's not their dog.

Under Roe, a fetus is not a person; thus, the  rights that appertain to a person do not appertain to a fetus.

Roe v. Wade (1973)

The Constitution does not define 'person' in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to 'person.' The first, in defining 'citizens,' speaks of 'persons born or naturalized in the United States.'

The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause.

 'Person' is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators,...in the Apportionment Clause,...in the Migration and Importation provision,...in the Emoulument Clause,...in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, ...in the Extradition provisions,...[in]the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause, and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in §§ 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally.

None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible prenatal application.

[John Galt incarnate!]

Note: autonomy over one’s own body is a fundamental human right.

Autonomy is inseparable from personal privacy, a  fundamental right established and reaffirmed by the  Supreme Court that forms the underpinning of the Court's rationale in Roe.

Roe v. Wade (1973)

The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy.

In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as [1891] the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution.

In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment,...in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments,...in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights,...in the Ninth Amendment,...or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment.

 These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed 'fundamental' or 'implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,' are included in this guarantee of personal privacy.

They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage,...procreation,...contraception,...family relationships,...and child rearing and education.

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.

[LWYRUP]

@John Galt incarnate! if you agree with the Supreme Court that is great, but you are writing as if the opinion of a handful of judges are a dispositive response to a complex philosophical question.

Interestingly, the Roe decision set up the trimester system, which more or less is getting to what many of us have proposed -- a sliding scale of protections as the fetus grows.  My main problem with the trimester system is that it is only loosely scientific.  Replacing "trimesters" with "pre-viability vs. post-viability" would be an improvement, IMO. 

[John Galt incarnate!]

@John Galt incarnate! if you agree with the Supreme Court that is great, but you are writing as if the opinion of a handful of judges are a dispositive response to a complex philosophical question.

Doubtless,  Roe does not and must not extinguish  the philosophical debate among physicians, philosophers, theologians, and the body politic.

Interestingly, the Roe decision set up the trimester system, which more or less is getting to what many of us have proposed -- a sliding scale of protections as the fetus grows.  My main problem with the trimester system is that it is only loosely scientific.

 Replacing "trimesters" with "pre-viability vs. post-viability" would be an improvement, IMO.

I agree.



 

[ctuser1]

There isn't going to be a right answer with regard to abortion as far as I can tell.

This is a massive step. Once we are here - reasonable discussion can start.

We use democracy to dictate policy.

Do you use democracy to impose the majorities moral standard on the minority to the point where someone may effectively get a death sentence?
That is what happened here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar !!
(Thankfully, the Irish were sufficiently horrified about this such that they passed a constitutional amendment to fix this).

I'm pretty certain you probably wouldn't want the kind of democracy that legislates away the fundamental rights with zero regard for the moral standards held by the minority.

But again, bodily autonomy is not so clear when a body contains another human within it.

How do you know? Have you scientifically determined when human life begins?

Just a minute ago - you expressed that there is going to be no right answer. What changed in half a minute that you are again falling back into the Christian absolutist position?

What if I am a Buddhist who believes that the concept of "self" itself is an illusion https://historyofphilosophy.net/buddhism-gethin? Or perhaps an ardent believer in Richard Dawkin's theories that the genes are the real beings and human body is just a vessel? Are these any less valid than your moral axioms?

Again, sometimes impositions are unavoidable.

Sure... But based on what? I am sure you must have a very high bar for any such involuntary imposition.

Personally I believe.....

What??? You mean to say imposition is unavoidable based on your personal belief??

It's not just a fast gotcha that I am pulling. Think about it.

You express the ambiguity of the situation in the first sentence. You are generally sincere. What happened after that to lead you to absolutist positions like "imposition is unavoidable" - especially in the context where autonomy of a almost disenfranchised minority is being discussed. Are you able to spot the inconsistency and fallacy in what you are implying in your post (more so than saying)?

[ctuser1]

I get it, you're clearly upset. And you're all over the place. At this point, no further progress will be made, so this time, there really truly is no point in continuing the conversation. I will, however, leave you with this.

You are extremely biased against religion. I'm not wanting to argue about this, because there is nothing to argue. I'm just pointing out an observation that I'm pretty sure anyone reading this can see.

It's like as soon as the word religion came up, you were like a train heading for one destination, regardless of anything else that would be brought up henceforth. How do I know this? Because your bias against religion has lead you to make assumptions throughout this argument. Assumptions that have been wrong.

You assumed I was a Catholic. You were wrong.
You assumed you knew more about Christianity than I knew. I have a masters degree in the topic. It's extremely unlikely that you know more about it than I do. You were wrong.
You assume you know more about the Constitution, how it was founded, what the amendments were intended to do in regards to religion, etc. I am not as confident in this as I don't have as much study as I do in the former, but from the way you're posting on it, I doubt this as well.
You assume you know exactly what I want to happen in regards to abortion from the perspective of the government. Given the general accusations you've made (you kind of lump me/politicians/general Christians/etc. together, so I'm going to do the same here), you're wrong.

Are you noticing a theme here? You are "fill in the blank whatever negative mindset you have" biased against religion.  You have a person opening a dialogue with you, and your mindset is leading you to numerous assumptions about that person.......that are wrong. Ergo, no real dialogue can take place.

You can blame it on a short fuse/lack of patience/that you're just a stereotypical New Yorker that doesn't put up with BS or whatever it is that you want to use to excuse your poor behavior. It doesn't really matter. I mean, shoot, you've even pulled the "I have some people I really respect that are religious" card right in line with the "I have a black friend; I'm not racist" card, lol (caveat before I'm accused of something, no these are not comparable because I'm not being oppressed, it's just that the line of logic is the same). If it wasn't so sad, it would be funny.

You can go through your whole life looking down on people who come from a religious background or thinking their opinions are suspect or disregarding what people think about things because they don't look at them the same way you do. And I'll be clear here; I'm under no impression that this will make any difference to you whatsoever. I will only say that I was very much like you on the other end of things. I looked down on liberals/athiests/etc. I didn't really give their perspectives attention or decreased the merit of their thoughts because of where they were coming from. When they disagreed with me, the one fact that they were coming from a liberal perspective, for example, was all I needed to demean, at least in my mind, their beliefs and not even pay it a bit of attention. I didn't care because I knew - I just knew that they were liberals, so their ideas were this or that or the other and all they wanted to do was this or that, and I already knew that all of that was wrong. Why did I even need to listen? If they happened to agree with me perfectly enough to satisfy my strong opinions, then great, see that was proof I was open minded....except it wasn't because I wasn't. I wasn't listening to learn from them because I knew they were wrong. If I listened at all, it was to confirm opinions I already have (this all being kind of the point of topic of this whole thread). Fortunately I've grown out of that at least a little. I hope that one day, you can do the same. Have a good one.

Ok, now you are gas-lighting. Most probably from a position of sincerity - but still!!
Yes, I am very much aware of many foibles that I possess. I appreciate your constructive feedback, it'll keep my "daily time for reflection" occupied for some time.

Are you aware of the "philosophical arrogance" (possibly from a position of ignorance) that you are displaying here?

I can understand that you have grown up in a moral world-view where "my god is the only true god and everyone else are sinners" background persisted. This informs your worldview so that you think your moral positions are what should be imposed on everybody with the force of law. Why else would you want to restrict other people's personal freedom (i.e. the most fundamental kind of freedom that can exist) based on your faith? You obviously can't know when life begins by any other means other than your faith. Why should that be the arbiter of truth for the unbeliever?

I blame this on the renaissance-era bifurcation of European philosophy caused by the secular philosophers. Christian Theology bifurcated and failed to benefit from the new thought processes and spirituality that the secular philosophers were bringing into play.

This dude makes a fantastic podcast about the history of philosophy of the entire world:
https://historyofphilosophy.net/

(He is missing China. I don't have a good reference for that. Maybe someone else would know.)

I'm just sampling through this from the vast number of episodes that he has posted there.

Since you seem to come from a position of sincerity, I am quite hopeful that your position of imposing your faith on others will go away if you are able to go through some other philosophical traditions with an open mind.

Theology -> spirituality is a fantastic journey, and it strips you of moral arrogance.

[Wrenchturner]

Do you use democracy to impose the majorities moral standard on the minority to the point where someone may effectively get a death sentence?
That is what happened here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar !!
(Thankfully, the Irish were sufficiently horrified about this such that they passed a constitutional amendment to fix this).

I'm pretty certain you probably wouldn't want the kind of democracy that legislates away the fundamental rights with zero regard for the moral standards held by the minority.

Liability is a serious problem in medicine and there is no easy solution.  The doctors in that case--from what I have read--were in a liable situation where they could not legally perform an abortion.
From the wiki,
"Peter Boylan, of the Irish Institute of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said: "The current situation is like a sword of Damocles hanging over us. If we do something with a good intention, but it turns out to be illegal, the consequences are extremely serious for medical practitioners."

I do agree that this was a failure of clear policy that lead to this woman's unnecessary death and suffering.
It should also be noted, however, that(again) the rights of the unborn are nonzero, and I would say that good-faith legislation led to this outcome.  There are questions about the involvement of Catholic influence in that case, as well as more general failures of monitoring of the patient.  I don't believe it was a simple case.  Nothing surrounding the conception and carriage of new life will be simple.  Perhaps this comes across as cold, but laws around this issue will be written, and they will likely be complied with, and I don't think we can simply discard that process simply because we are looking backward from a horrific outcome in a specific case.  There is moral hazard on both sides.

But again, bodily autonomy is not so clear when a body contains another human within it.

How do you know? Have you scientifically determined when human life begins?

Just a minute ago - you expressed that there is going to be no right answer. What changed in half a minute that you are again falling back into the Christian absolutist position?

I don't know when human life begins, but scientifically it would appear this occurs at conception, otherwise you open the door to relativistic arguments that are weak(if the unborn are not people because they don't have a heartbeat, then people will pacemakers can be aborted, same with iron-lungs, etc).

What if I am a Buddhist who believes that the concept of "self" itself is an illusion https://historyofphilosophy.net/buddhism-gethin? Or perhaps an ardent believer in Richard Dawkin's theories that the genes are the real beings and human body is just a vessel? Are these any less valid than your moral axioms?

I think they are not practical since humans do not behave as if the human body is solely a vessel.  We have a large collection of laws that acknowledge the sovereignty of individuals and human life, and it is not convincing to apply a morally relativistic argument solely when it suits your interests.  I have a question for you: should a man be required by law to financially support a child he does not want after birth?  If the human body is simply a vessel, this should be an easy "no".  More generally, if a man is required to support a child/parent due to paternity, but a woman can acquire a pre-birth abortion in any case, then I would say this argument is not particularly functional because it lacks consistency.  Again, we're back to Roe v. Wade.

Again, sometimes impositions are unavoidable.

Sure... But based on what? I am sure you must have a very high bar for any such involuntary imposition.

Personally I believe.....

What??? You mean to say imposition is unavoidable based on your personal belief??

It's not just a fast gotcha that I am pulling. Think about it.

You express the ambiguity of the situation in the first sentence. You are generally sincere. What happened after that to lead you to absolutist positions like "imposition is unavoidable" - especially in the context where autonomy of a almost disenfranchised minority is being discussed. Are you able to spot the inconsistency and fallacy in what you are implying in your post (more so than saying)?

Perhaps you are misunderstanding me.  Imposition is unavoidable not because of the requirement of an absolutist position, but rather because a pragmatic solution needs to be instated which will never satisfy both parties in all cases.  There is no winning/losing or win-win, there is only a lose-lose in this debate since:
1.the sovereignty of a woman and her body is paramount, and
2. the sovereignty of the unborn is paramount, and
3. abortion lands on the conflict between these two, and has to be addressed by general laws yet the application of the law occurs in the most intimate and specific sense. 

So we have to write laws surrounding abortion, and that means hard lines will be drawn, and there will be exceptions on either side of that hard line that will not be ideal.  I don't see how this can be resolved.

[ctuser1]

Perhaps this comes across as cold, but laws around this issue will be written, and they will likely be complied with, and I don't think we can simply discard that process simply because we are looking backward from a horrific outcome in a specific case.  There is moral hazard on both sides.

No, there isn't!!

When life begins is a matter of faith. No scientific evidence/deadline(s) exist.
Ownership of one's own body is NOT a matter of faith.

When you equate the two, you use your faith to override someone else's liberty. That is not a done thing anywhere outside theological states!! I definitely don't want to live in such a society.

I don't know when human life begins, but scientifically it would appear this occurs at conception, otherwise you open the door to relativistic arguments that are weak(if the unborn are not people because they don't have a heartbeat, then people will pacemakers can be aborted, same with iron-lungs, etc).

Again, this strengthens my point. You can not use your "faith" (i.e. something that is uncertain, that you have to say "it would appear") to override someone else's definite human right!!
A mother can, on the other hand, user *her* faith, to inform on what rights she would like to voluntarily choose to exercise.

1. The sovereignty of a woman and her body is paramount -> True.
2. The sovereignty of the unborn is paramount -> Not true. This is subservient to #1 since it can't be practically determined and is a matter of faith. Nobody gave you the *moral* right to legislate away the life of Savita Halappanavar based on *your* faith. I don't like living in a theocracy.
 

So we have to write laws surrounding abortion, and that means hard lines will be drawn, and there will be exceptions on either side of that hard line that will not be ideal.  I don't see how this can be resolved.

The legal answer should be simple. Stop asking for a theocracy and don't legislate on someone else's rights based on your "faith" (= something other than scientifically proven truth).

I have a question for you: should a man be required by law to financially support a child he does not want after birth?  If the human body is simply a vessel, this should be an easy "no".  More generally, if a man is required to support a child/parent due to paternity, but a woman can acquire a pre-birth abortion in any case, then I would say this argument is not particularly functional because it lacks consistency.

Absolutely and resoundingly yes!!

Let's see - the only rights being "taken" from the man is those of his possession, his money. Who cares about "rights" concerning money when we are dealing with autonomy over one's own body? Money are just tokens of faith issued by some government. Benefits of child support are also extremely real and not a matter of uncertain "faith". I and everyone else I know support re-distributive policies every day, i.e. forcibly taking money away from one group for the benefit of the other. The conservatives in US do the same, just they want the flow in the other direction.

Why would you ever think these two situations are even comparable? Dude, you are equating someone's autonomy over her own body with that of some money in bank!! I find this extremely perplexing. Completely different standard's do and should apply. It's like equating the standards of legal proof required for a murder trial vs. a landlord-tenant dispute.

but a woman can acquire a pre-birth abortion in any case, then I would say this argument is not particularly functional because it lacks consistency.  Again, we're back to Roe v. Wade.

You probably did not intend it so, but it reads like a strawman. I have never heard anyone argue for a pre-birth abortion. As soon as the fetus *can* survive with medical assistance - it should.


I am intentionally staying off responding to your comment on relativistic philosophy since that will open another can of worms.

[ysette9]

To jump into a difficult conversation out of nowhere, i have thought for a long time that we humans would be better off in some ways if we laid eggs instead of got pregnant. For one thing it would make it abundantly clear that offspring develop to the point of independence solely on the whim and continued consent of the mother (or parents, since both could roost). This is the case now with pregnancy, only it is a bigger logistical challenge to stop being pregnant than it is to stop sitting on an egg. But in each case the developing new life form is in essence a parasite in the sense that it cannot exist on its own (ok, imperfect analogy for an egg, I recognize). So any time you say that the egg/fetus has rights to continue developing then you are necessarily saying that those rights Supersede those of the would-be mother.

To run another analogy. You need an extra kidney. I could give you one. Without a donated kidney you would die. I would not die if I gave one but would undergo some period of pain and discomfort, recovery, and the risks associated with surgery. (very much like my c-sections.....) It doesn’t matter how badly you need that kidney or how dead you would be without it, you cannot force me to do anything to keep alive. You cannot even take organs from cadavers without consent even if it would improve your life/save you/whatever.

So again, if a fetus had rights and those rights end up superseding the bodily autonomy right of its host, then you are arguing that a woman has fewer rights than even a cadaver.

Back to the chicken thing, I’d love for anyone who wants to force a woman to continue a pregnancy to be told “ok, you think this is valuable? Then you sit on the egg/carry the pregnancy to term”.

[Wrenchturner]

I've been as clear as I can be @ctuser1.  Sounds like we can't reach common ground.

[Bloop Bloop]

Abortion is just a very touchy subject I guess. It touches on women's rights, the rights of the disabled (because you're "comparing" moral weights of different life forms), etc etc

Few people can see it unemotionally.

I am almost certain there would be utilitarian net gain if we mainly saw abortion as a positive thing, something to be encouraged any time a woman has any reluctance about carrying her child to term. If we encouraged it and paid mothers to have abortions we'd have better societal outcomes.

At the same time I also see abortion, or at least some of the later abortions, as killing a life form that is quickly approaching sentience.

I don't have any problem at all dealing with the conflict in the above - sometimes you just have to make tough calls. But it's impossible to state either of the above propositions in today's political discourse. Which I think is sad, and ridiculous.

Just pay women to get abortions and leave it at that. No mother is ever going to voluntarily get pregnant just to abort her child. But the financial support will be an incentive for some mothers who otherwise would be too scared to make the call.

[ysette9]

I think the debate get unnecessarily hung up on late term abortions when they are vanishingly rare. Women who don’t want to be pregnant and can get an abortion don’t hang around forever to get one if they have a choice. Pregnancy sucks, after all. The instances where there are late abortions are when there are grave medical issues that come up that mean that either survival isn’t likely or the quality of life would be so bad that the choice is made that the better thing to do is terminate.

[Shane]

Until a couple of years ago, I always thought of myself as being pro-abortion. After some recent conversations with an adamantly anti-abortion friend, I thought about it and realized that, like my friend, I am also against killing babies. I mean, aside from Bloop Bloop, and I'm pretty sure he's not being totally serious, do any of us really think the world would be a better place if only we could get more women to have abortions? Of course not, right? My pro-life friend and I agreed on just about everything: that minimizing the number of abortions would be a good thing; that providing people with free birth control and education on how to use it would be a good way to help minimize the number of babies killed; the only thing we didn't agree on was whether or not it made sense to criminalize abortion for healthcare providers and/or patients. I argued that the criminalization of abortion would only penalize poor people and probably wouldn't really cut down the number of abortions much, if at all. My friend voted for Trump in 2016 and is planning on voting for him again in 2020, pretty much only because she's hoping he'll appoint enough anti-abortion judges to the SCOTUS, so that they can overturn Roe v Wade. Rather than endless philosophical debates over abortion, which don't really seem to accomplish much, why not just agree to disagree about some things and, then, work together to accomplish the things we can agree on to try to cut down the number of abortions? If those of us who consider ourselves to be pro-choice could bring ourselves to humbly approach pro-life friends and relatives and share with them the fact that, "You know what? I'm with you. Killing babies is a horrible thing. Let's work together to try to cut down the number of abortions in our city or county or state or country." Many of the anti-abortion people who are holding their noses and voting for Trump probably wouldn't do so if they didn't feel like he was their only chance to "save the babies."

[bacchi]

Isn't there a strong overlap between evangelicals and the "birth control is bad" brigade? Hobby Lobby got an exception carved out for them by the Supreme Court, after all.* They also tend to be against sex education because premarital sex is a sin.

There are obviously some strong pro-life people out there that support birth control, like your friend, but they're never the ones to show up at school district meetings.


* Hobby Lobby was not only against Plan B but also against IUDs.

[Shane]

Yes, for sure there are some anti-abortion people who are also anti birth control and anti sex education but, as far as I'm concerned, people like that a lost cause. Some anti-abortion people, though, are more reasonable, like my friend. If Democrats worked harder to help those rational, reasonable anti-abortion people feel like there was an alternative to holding their noses and voting for Trump, some of them might agree to work with us. A highly educated, Left-leaning friend told me recently that, "Anti-abortion people are terrorists. They blow up abortion clinics." It's attitudes like her's that drive otherwise reasonable people into the arms of Trump.

[yakamashii]

Until a couple of years ago, I always thought of myself as being pro-abortion. After some recent conversations with an adamantly anti-abortion friend, I thought about it and realized that, like my friend, I am also against killing babies. I mean, aside from Bloop Bloop, and I'm pretty sure he's not being totally serious, do any of us really think the world would be a better place if only we could get more women to have abortions? Of course not, right? My pro-life friend and I agreed on just about everything: that minimizing the number of abortions would be a good thing; that providing people with free birth control and education on how to use it would be a good way to help minimize the number of babies killed; the only thing we didn't agree on was whether or not it made sense to criminalize abortion for healthcare providers and/or patients. I argued that the criminalization of abortion would only penalize poor people and probably wouldn't really cut down the number of abortions much, if at all. My friend voted for Trump in 2016 and is planning on voting for him again in 2020, pretty much only because she's hoping he'll appoint enough anti-abortion judges to the SCOTUS, so that they can overturn Roe v Wade. Rather than endless philosophical debates over abortion, which don't really seem to accomplish much, why not just agree to disagree about some things and, then, work together to accomplish the things we can agree on to try to cut down the number of abortions? If those of us who consider ourselves to be pro-choice could bring ourselves to humbly approach pro-life friends and relatives and share with them the fact that, "You know what? I'm with you. Killing babies is a horrible thing. Let's work together to try to cut down the number of abortions in our city or county or state or country." Many of the anti-abortion people who are holding their noses and voting for Trump probably wouldn't do so if they didn't feel like he was their only chance to "save the babies."

Bloop Bloop's proposal would virtually eliminate unwanted children (which is often what unwanted pregnancies turn into). We could even give pregnant girls and women a stipend to use on an abortion or keep to help pay for their maternal and/or child care. Seems like a net benefit for society.