Philosophy Now Forum

Maureen Dowd at the NYT

'WASHINGTON — During her Supreme Court confirmation hearings, Amy Coney Barrett tried to reassure Democrats who were leery of her role as a “handmaid” in a Christian group called “People of Praise.”

'The group has a male-dominated hierarchy and a rigid view of sexuality reflecting conservative gender norms and rejecting openly gay men and women. Men, the group’s decision makers, “headed” their wives.

'Justice Barrett said then that she would not impose her personal beliefs on the country. “Judges can’t just wake up one day and say ‘I have an agenda — I like guns, I hate guns, I like abortion, I hate abortion’ — and walk in like a royal queen and impose their will on the world,” she said amicably. “It’s not the law of Amy. It’s the law of the American people.”

'Yet that’s what seems to be coming. Like a royal queen, she will impose her will on the world. It will be the law of Amy. And Sam. And Clarence. And Neil. And Brett.

'It’s outrageous that five or six people in lifelong unaccountable jobs are about to impose their personal views on the rest of the country. While they will certainly provide the legal casuistry for their opinion, let’s not be played for fools: The Supreme Court’s impending repeal of Roe will be owed to more than judicial argumentation. There are prior worldviews at work in this upheaval.'

Of course, no doubt, back in the Sixties and Seventies, there were the conservative equivalents of Dowd making exactly the same point about the Supremes then. Only from the other end of the ideological spectrum.

Then this part:

'As a Catholic whose father lived through the Irish Catholics “need not apply” era, I’m happy to see Catholics do well in the world. There is an astonishing preponderance of Catholics on the Supreme Court — six out of the nine justices, and a seventh, Neil Gorsuch, was raised as a Catholic and went to the same Jesuit boys’ high school in a Maryland suburb that Brett Kavanaugh and my nephews did, Georgetown Prep.

'My father was furious that Catholic presidential candidates Al Smith and J.F.K. had to defend themselves against scurrilous charges that, if they got to the White House, they would take their orders from the pope.

'One must tread carefully here. A Catholic signed on to the Roe v. Wade decision and another was in the court majority that upheld it in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a Catholic, has expressed support for Roe, and Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative Catholic, may be working for a compromise decision that can uphold Roe.

'Still, this Catholic feels an intense disquiet that Catholic doctrine may be shaping (or misshaping) the freedom and the future of millions of women, and men. There is a corona of religious fervor around the court, a churchly ethos that threatens to turn our whole country upside down.'

The role that religion plays in all of this. And here the trickiest part revolves around the fact that the preponderance of Christians do believe in Judgment Day. So it's not just a matter of obeying the law but of committing a sin.

So, sure, if you are a Catholic and you follow the Vatican's script in regard to abortion, of course you are going to do everything in your power to please God here. Indeed, the fact that you are on the Supreme Court means that you have the capacity to impose your own religious dogmas on millions and millions who are not Catholics.

After all, that's how objectivism works when the objectivists themselves gain access to power.

You just have to pray they are your objectivists and not theirs.

Here's Immanuel Can's wank fantasy And his ideal

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri May 13, 2022 11:15 am

wouldn't it be fascinating if you and he were to commence an exchange regarding God and religion. For one thing, you could introduce him to Jesus Christ and Judgment Day.

Been there, done that: privately.

So, privately, he pointed out to you that the Christian God is the one true God and that unless you accept Jesus Christ as your personal Savior on Judgment Day you will burn in Hell for all of eternity?

Or did you more or less embrace my own frame of mind here? That, given the very different lives you both lived, he became predisposed existentially to believe in the Christian God while you became predisposed existentially to believe in the Deist God.

And that while neither one of you can actually demonstrate the existence of either God, you respect his leap of faith to Christianity and he respects your leap of faith to Deism.

Thus in regard to abortion, he's right from his side and you're right from your side.

And all the rest of us who do not think and feel exactly like you and he feel about abortion are wrong, dumb, diseased and big fat liars. "Morons, asswipes, pinheads, degenerates, idiots, deficients, nutjobs and loons" too. Oh, and monsters.

all the rest of us who do not think and feel exactly like you feel about abortion are wrong, dumb, diseased and big fat liars. "Morons, asswipes, pinheads, degenerates, idiots, deficients, nutjobs and loons" too. Oh, and monsters.

Well, some are morons, some are asswipes, some are pinheads, some are degenerates, some are idiots, some are deficients, some are nutjobs, some are loons, some are liars, and some, mebbe most, are just wrong-headed.

None -- not even you, biggy -- are all of those simultaneously.

Here is one of my view re Abortion;

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 1:00 am

A woman owns anything in her body, just as you own anything in yours.

A woman belongs to herself; the baby in her womb belongs to himself.
Neither, without just cause, has a claim on the other.

You are right in principle with the above but I would not agree with your views and 'approach' to abortion.

Morally, no woman [& man] ought to abort any 'potential' human, period!
At the moment of conception there emerge a 'potential' human [obvious biology] and no one should be permitted to 'kill' such a potential-human.
This a verified and justified moral fact within a credible moral FSK BUT it can only be used as a STANDARD & guide and NEVER to be imposed on any woman. [1]
If no such moral factual standard is raised, then [in theory] the human species will be exterminated in time.

Given the current psychological state of the majority driven by naturally driven sexual lusts [animal like] and lack of impulse control in such wide variety of circumstances, it is optimal that abortion of early-fetus can be permitted. [2]

But then, the existence of 1 and 2 will generate a moral gap which is only natural for any rational moral person to narrow the moral gap.
To reduce the moral gap, the most rational approach is to facilitate all humans or the majority for the start to develop self-control and modulate their animal-like sexual lusts plus the ability to practice efficient contraception.

The achievement of sexual self control will not happen at this present phase of human evolution, thus the banning of abortion is not an effective approach.
What humanity need is to cultivate is sexual self-control and this can only be improved gradually [if we start now] from the present till some future time [>50, 100, or more years].

In the meantime, abortion can be legalized and permitted but with the awareness we are way off the objective moral standard with a large moral gap. At the same time, humanity must take steps to develop sexual self-control and other impulse control to avoid unplanned conception. I am optimistic this can be done in the future [not now].

As such, with the above practical approach, abortion is also permitted in cases of rapes, and other cases where it is optimally warranted. However, humanity must track the root causes of these problems and solved them at the root level, e.g. in the future no one will have the drive /urge to rape anyone.

Fundamentally, re humans, the core trend is the 'good' will always prevails over 'evil'.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat May 14, 2022 8:50 pm Here's Immanuel Can's wank fantasyIC wanker.JPG

And his ideal

image_2022-05-14_205323892.png

That's too funny, because it's actually true.

It's actually quite shocking to find that evolution in the 21st century there are still pockets of human die hard believers who still think father christmas is their god. It's actually embarrassing to think that some of these people are flying commercial airlines, and operating on your body while you are under anesthesia. Just Scary!

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 7:42 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat May 14, 2022 8:50 pm Here's Immanuel Can's wank fantasyIC wanker.JPG

And his ideal

image_2022-05-14_205323892.png

That's too funny, because it's actually true.

It's actually quite shocking to find that evolution in the 21st century there are still pockets of human die hard believers who still think father christmas is their god. It's actually embarrassing to think that some of these people are flying commercial airlines, and operating on your body while you are under anesthesia. Just Scary!

Let's hope one of them does not think himself called to the great Rapture when he's fitting my heart bypass.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 11:33 am

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 7:42 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat May 14, 2022 8:50 pm Here's Immanuel Can's wank fantasyIC wanker.JPG

And his ideal

image_2022-05-14_205323892.png

That's too funny, because it's actually true.

It's actually quite shocking to find that evolution in the 21st century there are still pockets of human die hard believers who still think father christmas is their god. It's actually embarrassing to think that some of these people are flying commercial airlines, and operating on your body while you are under anesthesia. Just Scary!

Let's hope one of them does not think himself called to the great Rapture when he's fitting my heart bypass.

You are right in principle with the above but I would not agree with your views and 'approach' to abortion.

Morally, no woman [& man] ought to abort any 'potential' human, period!

As I say: the woman who aborts simply cuz junior is inconvenient is a murderess.

But a woman, already deeply violated by rape, cannot be expected to bear the child of her rapist, nor can a woman, whose life is endangered by the pregnancy, be expected to die giving birth.

The murderess is just wrong, but the other two ladies -- one forced into pregnancy, the other with her life on the line -- have a right to decide.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 5:41 pm

You are right in principle with the above but I would not agree with your views and 'approach' to abortion.

Morally, no woman [& man] ought to abort any 'potential' human, period!

As I say: the woman who aborts simply cuz junior is inconvenient is a murderess.

But a woman, already deeply violated by rape, cannot be expected to bear the child of her rapist, nor can a woman, whose life is endangered by the pregnancy, be expected to die giving birth.

The murderess is just wrong, but the other two ladies -- one forced into pregnancy, the other with her life on the line -- have a right to decide.

No, abortion is forbidden in all circumstances. The community can take care of babies if the mothers don't want them.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 5:41 pm

You are right in principle with the above but I would not agree with your views and 'approach' to abortion.

Morally, no woman [& man] ought to abort any 'potential' human, period!

As I say: the woman who aborts simply cuz junior is inconvenient is a murderess.

You are still wrong.
You might as well hand yourself in to the police for the last time you wanked into you sock.

But a woman, already deeply violated by rape, cannot be expected to bear the child of her rapist, nor can a woman, whose life is endangered by the pregnancy, be expected to die giving birth.

The problem with denying the woman above, whilst allowing the woman below is the burden of proof necessary to follow your plan.
It is simply more practical to allow all women their own choice, and mind your own business.
Since, with respect to the Foetus there is no difference between the two. SO if you are somehow considering the interests of the foetus you are asserting a double standard.

The murderess is just wrong, but the other two ladies -- one forced into pregnancy, the other with her life on the line -- have a right to decide.

The "murderess" will simply claim rape.
And given the problem of time and the paucity of the legal system to bring ANY man to justice (c. 1%) for rape would mean having to take her at her word so as to abort the foetus in a timely way - which we all want.

No, abortion is forbidden in all circumstances.

I can't agree. it's one thing to expect a woman to accept the natural consequences of her sexual behavior, it's quite another to expect a woman to accept the consequences of violation or death.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 8:23 pm

No, abortion is forbidden in all circumstances.

I can't agree. it's one thing to expect a woman to accept the natural consequences of her sexual behavior, it's quite another to expect a woman to accept the consequences of violation or death.

Abortion is allowed only if the life of the mother and baby is in danger.

all the rest of us who do not think and feel exactly like you feel about abortion are wrong, dumb, diseased and big fat liars. "Morons, asswipes, pinheads, degenerates, idiots, deficients, nutjobs and loons" too. Oh, and monsters.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat May 14, 2022 9:16 pmWell, some are morons, some are asswipes, some are pinheads, some are degenerates, some are idiots, some are deficients, some are nutjobs, some are loons, some are liars, and some, mebbe most, are just wrong-headed.

Okay, a woman has an abortion. How specifically would you the differentiate the reactions of the morons, the asswipes, the pinheads, the degenerates, the idiots, the deficients, the nutjobs, the loons, the liars and those who are just wrong-headed?

Which, in your view, are the dumbest and the most diseased?

Would you go so far as to recommend a "final solution" in dealing with them? What if you had a daughter or a sister and she married one?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat May 14, 2022 9:16 pmNone -- not even you, biggy -- are all of those simultaneously.

Okay, but wouldn't you say that I am certainly someone who comes closest to it? Please, be honest.

Also, suppose medical science reaches the point where it can identify all these ghastly types in the womb. Would you go along with aborting them?

"Also, suppose medical science reaches the point where it can identify all these ghastly types in the womb. Would you go along with aborting them?"

That is precisely why Henry's point that the freedom to posses weapons, is so important. If the fetus had a bazooka, it could defend itself from the abortionist.