Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 6:00 pm... "murder" is immoral killing.

It's a crime against mankind, and a crime against God. It's the willful, deliberate ending of another person's life...like abortion.

Abortion, according to christianity, is a souls best bet. Since we are all born in sin, it is actually better not to be born to spend whatever time we have on Earth praying to be forgiven for something we bare no responsibility for. In Mr Can's world, almost everyone fails because among those who pray, most are praying to the wrong god. Even those who pray to the right god don't do so in a way that Mr Can's god will reward. The penalty for not doing it Mr Can's way is eternal torture and the god who metes out this punishment is the most perfect thing that could possibly exist. How stupid, how narcissistic must one be, not to think of a better god?

phyllo wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 10:52 pm

'Ending the forced sexual and reproductive servitude of Black girls and women was a critical part of the passage of the 13th and 14th Amendments. The overturning of Roe v. Wade reveals the Supreme Court’s neglectful reading of the amendments that abolished slavery and guaranteed all people equal protection under the law. It means the erasure of Black women from the Constitution.

'Mandated, forced or compulsory pregnancy contravenes enumerated rights in the Constitution, namely the 13th Amendment’s prohibition against involuntary servitude and protection of bodily autonomy, as well as the 14th Amendment’s defense of privacy and freedom.

'This Supreme Court demonstrates a selective and opportunistic interpretation of the Constitution and legal history, which ignores the intent of the 13th and 14th Amendments, especially as related to Black women’s bodily autonomy, liberty and privacy which extended beyond freeing them from labor in cotton fields to shielding them from rape and forced reproduction. The horrors inflicted on Black women during slavery, especially sexual violations and forced pregnancies, have been all but wiped from cultural and legal memory. Ultimately, this failure disserves all women.'

I can see how the SC would consider that to be bullshit.

Others can see how it is not. Of course the author here is a woman. And, unlike you, she might one day be eyeball to eyeball with an unwanted pregnancy herself. So how the government interprets her rights -- federal, state or local -- might actually be impacted by that. The "rooted existentially and subjectively in dasein" part.

I mean, come on, if the Constitution is all about granting all citizens equal protection under the law, how can it not take into account the fact that only women can become pregnant?

phyllo wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 10:52 pmEqual protection means access to abortion?

That's ridiculous.

To you. But not to others.

Just as in regard to how the Second Amendment is open to interpretation. Some placing emphasis on "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.", while others placing emphasis on "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Same with the coach preaching the Gospel to his "guys" at the football game. Some want the focus to be on freedom of speech while others insist it should be on the separation of church and state.

Now, those like me are no less "fractured and fragmented" in regard to all three issues. But it is the hardcore objectivists on both ends of the political spectrum that want to use the court to sustain their own political prejudices.

Aka political dogmas.

With those like IC, a Christian theocracy would no doubt suffice when it comes down to, among other things, passing and then enforcing such legislation.

Although with you, it's all still a big mystery to me. You believe in objective morality and in something more or less in the general vicinity of God and religion but I'm not sure how, if you were in a position of power, you'd go about rewarding and punishing any particular sets of behavior relating to issues like these.

So, would you be closer to "right makes might" or to "moderation, negotiation and compromise"?

Others can see how it is not. Of course the author here is a woman. And, unlike you, she might one day be eyeball to eyeball with an unwanted pregnancy herself. So how the government interprets her rights -- federal, state or local -- might actually be impacted by that. The "rooted existentially and subjectively in dasein" part.

She trivializes the real suffering of black slaves by equating carelessness and failure of contraception with rape and forced reproduction.

phyllo wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 4:52 pm
Equal protection means access to abortion?

That's ridiculous.

To you. But not to others.

If equal protection means access to abortion then it can mean anything and everything at any time. There are then no bounds or limits.

The political economy of abortion...

Tressie McMillan Cottom at the NYT

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/28/opin ... -more.html

'In one lifetime, Roe had pushed women so fully into the paid labor market that it was normal for high school seniors to be asked to answer a genderless prompt about their economic aspirations. Flipping through that book today feels like reading a fairy tale, the old Grimms’ ones and not the new Disney ones.

'I grew up choosing where and how I work because Roe v. Wade gave me many of the same basic rights of personhood as men, for example. Millions of women have, to different degrees, been able to do the same.

'With Roe v. Wade toppled, we do not have the same rights in all labor markets. In a global market, an empowered worker is one who can migrate. With Dobbs, women cannot assume that we can safely work in Idaho the same way that we can in Oregon or Washington. I cannot negotiate wages or time off with an employer with the same risk profile as those who cannot become pregnant. An employer who offers lower pay in a state with abortion care indirectly benefits from women’s inability to take our labor on the open market across the nation. Thanks to a rogue court, women’s lives are now more determined by the accidents of our birth than they were a week ago.'

It's arguments like this that basically persuade me to take my own "existential, rooted in dasein" leap to abortion rights for women.

It's true that arguments like this don't take away the points raised by those on the other side. But subjectively their points aren't as persuasive to me as the pro-choice side.

This and the fact that, as a man, I could never have become pregnant myself.

There is simply no way that women can be the equal of men [Constitutionally or otherwise] if they are forced to give birth.

phyllo wrote: ↑Tue Jun 28, 2022 2:10 am

Others can see how it is not. Of course the author here is a woman. And, unlike you, she might one day be eyeball to eyeball with an unwanted pregnancy herself. So how the government interprets her rights -- federal, state or local -- might actually be impacted by that. The "rooted existentially and subjectively in dasein" part.

She trivializes the real suffering of black slaves by equating carelessness and failure of contraception with rape and forced reproduction.

So you say. I suspect she would not find her points to be trivial at all. But then what would you know about confronting the ordeal of an unwanted pregnancy? Being a slave to your body even though you had never intended to become pregnant.

And then those who argue that if the pregnancy did result from a defective contraception...or even from rape or rape as a result of incest, the woman will still be forced to give birth. For others, even if being forced to give birth will cause grievous mental and emotional trauma, or greatly impair the woman's physical health, tough, she either gives birth or is, what, charged with first degree premeditated murder?

phyllo wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 4:52 pm
Equal protection means access to abortion?

That's ridiculous.

To you. But not to others.

phyllo wrote: ↑Tue Jun 28, 2022 2:10 amIf equal protection means access to abortion then it can mean anything and everything at any time. There are then no bounds or limits.

Here of course some might argue that you are trivializing women who do find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy. Let each state do what they choose in regard to rewarding or punishing her.

And, as Clarence Thomas suggest, why stop there. Why not allow each state to pass laws relating to homosexuality and contraceptives.

Hell, let's amend the Constitution so that each state can pass laws prohibiting, say, miscegenation.

Don't make it retroactive though. Clarence and Ginni would be safe.

On the other hand...

'In the aftermath of the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, Whoopi Goldberg warned Justice Clarence Thomas about his marriage to his wife Ginni, suggesting that conservatives could soon come for his interracial marriage by overturning Loving v. Virginia.'

Newsweek magazine.

So you say. I suspect she would not find her points to be trivial at all. But then what would you know about confronting the ordeal of an unwanted pregnancy? Being a slave to your body even though you had never intended to become pregnant.

Could an unwanted pregnancy be as bad as slavery? Really?

We live in an age of hyperbole.

Here of course some might argue that you are trivializing women who do find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy.

I'm saying that the 14th amendment, where that phrase "equal protection" comes from, is about protection within the legal system. It does seem to apply to abortion at all.

Let each state do what they choose in regard to rewarding or punishing her.

These states have democratically elected legislatures and the rule of law.
It's not the case of some fascist dictator imposing his will on everyone.

If the population of the state wants access to abortion, then they vote in lawmakers who pass those laws.

And, as Clarence Thomas suggest, why stop there. Why not allow each state to pass laws relating to homosexuality and contraceptives.

Okay, why not?
Each state is a democracy in its own right.

You just would not have the same laws across all the "United States".

Is this the most horrifying scenario possible?

phyllo wrote: ↑Tue Jun 28, 2022 7:09 pm

So you say. I suspect she would not find her points to be trivial at all. But then what would you know about confronting the ordeal of an unwanted pregnancy? Being a slave to your body even though you had never intended to become pregnant.

Could an unwanted pregnancy be as bad as slavery? Really?

How is becoming pregnant unintentionally not becoming a slave to your body when the alternative to being forced to give birth is being charged with first degree murder? Though, sure, I can imagine any number of men might find that hyperbolic.

phyllo wrote: ↑Tue Jun 28, 2022 7:09 pmWe live in an age of hyperbole.

Right. Though when those who are "one of us" make a claim it is never hyperbolic. Only those who are "one of them" can be guilty of that.

Here of course some might argue that you are trivializing women who do find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy.

phyllo wrote: ↑Tue Jun 28, 2022 7:09 pmI'm saying that the 14th amendment, where that phrase "equal protection" comes from, is about protection within the legal system. It does seem to apply to abortion at all.

And others argue that if the legal system results in women being charged with first degree murder for having an abortion there will be a way found to bring the Constitution itself into it. Like the points raised by the author above. Of course, she is "one of them", isn't she, Mr. Objectivist? Indeed, for all I know she is an objectivist herself.

But that was the whole point of Roe v. Wade...to keep the objectivists from both ends of the political spectrum at bay. To give both sides something but no one side everything.

Now the Catholic majority on the Supreme Court will twist the Constitution into but another chapter of the Bible. Their Bible of course.

Let each state do what they choose in regard to rewarding or punishing her.

phyllo wrote: ↑Tue Jun 28, 2022 7:09 pmThese states have democratically elected legislatures and the rule of law.
It's not the case of some fascist dictator imposing his will on everyone.
If the population of the state wants access to abortion, then they vote in lawmakers who pass those laws.

That's how it works alright. Except there are conflicting interpretations of the Constitution regarding when state laws are in violation of the Constitution itself.

Right?

After all, if the Supremes had placed more emphasis on the "A well regulated Militia" part of the Second Amendment, how could states be violating it in passing gun control legislation?

And, as Clarence Thomas suggest, why stop there. Why not allow each state to pass laws relating to homosexuality and contraceptives.

Hell, let's amend the Constitution so that each state can pass laws prohibiting, say, miscegenation.

Don't make it retroactive though. Clarence and Ginni would be safe.

On the other hand...

'In the aftermath of the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, Whoopi Goldberg warned Justice Clarence Thomas about his marriage to his wife Ginni, suggesting that conservatives could soon come for his interracial marriage by overturning Loving v. Virginia.' Newsweek magazine.

phyllo wrote: ↑Tue Jun 28, 2022 7:09 pmOkay, why not?
Each state is a democracy in its own right.

You just would not have the same laws across all the "United States".

Is this the most horrifying scenario possible?

Right. And no hypocrisy, of course. If the state passes laws that reflect your own political prejudices, more power to them. But if they pass laws that you detest then invoke the Constitution to stop them.

Something like that?

How is becoming pregnant unintentionally not becoming a slave to your body when the alternative to being forced to give birth is being charged with first degree murder? Though, sure, I can imagine any number of men might find that hyperbolic.

"slave to your body"??

You realize that men age, men get diseases, men die.

Do I call that being a slave to my body? No.

Do I equate it with actual slavery? No.

But that was the whole point of Roe v. Wade...to keep the objectivists from both ends of the political spectrum at bay.

The original Roe v Wade wasn't an objectivist decision? Didn't it impose the values of a handful of judges on the entire country? Really?

Letting the states decide seems much more democratic.

Right. And no hypocrisy, of course. If the state passes laws that reflect your own political prejudices, more power to them. But if they pass laws that you detest then invoke the Constitution to stop them.

Something like that?

That seems to be what you are doing.

You're all for moderation, compromise, democracy and rule of law. Or so you say.

But now that the SC bumps the decision on abortion to the states, you seem to want a federally imposed decision allowing abortion. On the other hand, you're terrified that there might be a federally imposed ban on abortion.

As long as you get what you want. You don't really need democracy. Right?

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opin ... ellowstone

-Imp

phyllo wrote: ↑Tue Jun 28, 2022 8:43 pm

How is becoming pregnant unintentionally not becoming a slave to your body when the alternative to being forced to give birth is being charged with first degree murder? Though, sure, I can imagine any number of men might find that hyperbolic.

"slave to your body"??

You realize that men age, men get diseases, men die.

Yes, and when they do, they are permitted to seek out doctors for help. Imagine if there was a law that forbade them from doing this? Becoming pregnant can devastate a woman's life. Her mental health, her physical heath, her job, her education. But in the red states the option to seek out the medical community is now off the table. Or they can choose the back-alley option. And, if they survive that, they might find themselves arrested and charged with first degree murder.

Let's just say that you and I have very different takes on how many women view this ruling. If they become pregnant unintentionally, many will almost certainty feel enslaved by their biology. That it is a different kind of slavery isn't likely to console them.

But that was the whole point of Roe v. Wade...to keep the objectivists from both ends of the political spectrum at bay. To give both sides something but no one side everything.

Now the Catholic majority on the Supreme Court will twist the Constitution into but another chapter of the Bible. Their Bible of course..

phyllo wrote: ↑Tue Jun 28, 2022 8:43 pm The original Roe v Wade wasn't an objectivist decision? Didn't it impose the values of a handful of judges on the entire country? Really?

Look, I'm not arguing that there aren't objectivists on both sides of the political spectrum. But in regard to something as traumatic for women [and only women] as confronting an unwanted pregnancy, should the laws favor the extremist views [no abortions whatsoever vs. abortion on demand] or strive for something in the middle.

Then the conflicting arguments above regarding abortion and the Constitution.

phyllo wrote: ↑Tue Jun 28, 2022 8:43 pmLetting the states decide seems much more democratic.

Right. And no hypocrisy, of course. If the state passes laws that reflect your own political prejudices, more power to them. But if they pass laws that you detest then invoke the Constitution to stop them.

Something like that?

phyllo wrote: ↑Tue Jun 28, 2022 8:43 pmThat seems to be what you are doing.

You're all for moderation, compromise, democracy and rule of law. Or so you say.

But now that the SC bumps the decision on abortion to the states, you seem to want a federally imposed decision allowing abortion. On the other hand, you're terrified that there might be a federally imposed ban on abortion.

How preposterous is this!!

The red states aren't interested in laws that are aimed in the general direction of moderation, negotiation and compromise. They want draconian laws that allow only the right-wing extremists to prevail.

Only they want those right-wing extremists to prevail in all fifty states!

phyllo wrote: ↑Tue Jun 28, 2022 8:43 pmAs long as you get what you want. You don't really need democracy. Right?

Again, with Roe, both sides got something. With this Supreme Court, their side gets everything.

They merely insist it has nothing to do with their religious and political prejudices. It's all about what Washington and Jefferson and the rest of the Founding Fathers meant to convey in the Constitution about explosive issues like abortion.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Jun 28, 2022 1:39 am With those like IC, a Christian theocracy would no doubt suffice...

I always have to marvel at the cluelessness of people who say things like this. So people who come up with this sort of nonsense really have no idea what a "Christian" is, but they talk, and talk, and talk...

The truth is simple: Christians know that belief is the salvific dynamic. It's "faith," not force. Politics is useless, in that regard, because one cannot mandate what a person believes. If you try, all you get it somebody who goes along superficially, but does not actually believe. (John Locke pointed this all out long ago, and the shapers of the Constitution knew the Lock argument and actually reproduced parts of him in their text.)

So no, actual Christians have zero interest in "theocracy." It would be a totally counterproductive thing, totally incapable of yielding the basic aim of Christianity.

But this canard keeps reappearing: "Oh, you want theocracy!"

No, no, we decidedly would not.

Who's in favour of big government? Leftists.

Who's in favour of small and limited governments? Conservatives, Libertarians, Classical liberals...and Christians.

Whose aim is to "engineer" society? Leftists.

Whose aim is personal conversion? Christians.

Thus, the whole allegation is nothing but petty projection. It's Leftists imagining that their own ideas must be the same as somebody else's. It bears no resemblance to reality. Leftist autocrats only ever think of using big government to force large groups of people to do things, whether they want to or not; so Leftists cannot imagine that anybody has any other idea, any other thought of how things could work, or any way liberty could be preferable to authoritarianism.

So, rather than respond to the points I noted in my last post above, he decides to tackle a point I made to phyllo regarding fulminating fanatic Christians like him.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 2:57 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Jun 28, 2022 1:39 am With those like IC, a Christian theocracy would no doubt suffice when it comes down to, among other things, passing and then enforcing such legislation.

I always have to marvel at the cluelessness of people who say things like this. So people who come up with this sort of nonsense really have no idea what a "Christian" is, but they talk, and talk, and talk...

Note to others:

Trust me. Only IC's take on what a true Christian is counts here. If you don't share his own take here precisely then you are not a true Christian at all.

Go ahead, ask him.

And, unlike most Christians, his take on the Christian God is not just a Kierkegaardian leap of faith to Him...no, he has his own YouTube "standard of evidence" that "proves" the Christian God resides in Heaven. And this God in Heaven...His take on abortion at Judgment Day? Trust IC's "standard of evidence" to pin that down too.

In fact, it wouldn't surprise me at all that, if there is a Christian God and a Judgment Day, God Himself will be citing arguments from IC to justify sending souls up or down.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 2:57 pmThe truth is simple: Christians know that belief is the salvific dynamic. It's "faith," not force. Politics is useless, in that regard, because one cannot mandate what a person believes. If you try, all you get it somebody who goes along superficially, but does not actually believe. (John Locke pointed this all out long ago, and the shapers of the Constitution knew the Lock argument and actually reproduced parts of him in their text.)

Okay, so how does this intellectual/spiritual contraption work when you yourself are being judged at the Pearly Gates? When useless politics down here gives way to God's Judgment in regard to those who performed and had abortions. Any aggravating or mitigating circumstances to be considered by Him?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 2:57 pmSo no, actual Christians have zero interest in "theocracy." It would be a totally counterproductive thing, totally incapable of yielding the basic aim of Christianity.

On the contrary, down through history there have been any number of Christians who would render nothing unto Caesar if it was in any way, shape or form opposition to God's will.

Only, they were not true Christians of course.

So, in regard to abortion or gun laws or the separation of church and state, what is IC willing to concede the government can pursue and not feel the wrath of God?

What must all true Christians think and feel about these things?

Thus...

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 2:57 pmWho's in favour of big government? Leftists.

Okay, leftists who favor big government. What is the true Christian line on their fate at Judgment Day?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 2:57 pmWho's in favour of small and limited governments? Conservatives, Libertarians, Classical liberals...and Christians.

Right, tell that to, among others, the Evangelical flocks here in America, who, by the millions, in regard to issues like abortion, want something very, very, very close to a theocratic authority.

Oh, but they are not true Christians?

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Jun 29, 2022 6:20 pm Note to others:

Trust me. Only IC's take on what a true Christian is counts here. If you don't share his own take here precisely then you are not a true Christian at all.

Go ahead, ask him.

Naw, you're not paying attention...again.

All I've every said, and all I will say now, is this: it's Jesus Christ who has exclusive right to define what a Christian is. If anyone -- myself included -- has a different definition, then that person is simply wrong.

That's it.

...what is IC willing to concede the government can pursue and not feel the wrath of God?

Ah, you've changed your tune.

First you said I was wrong for being a "theocrat," which requires the biggest kind of government, and now you say my problem is that I believe in liberty and small government?

You're going to have to make up your mind which way you want to launch your latest error, because you're contradicting yourself again.

If reproductive control really is the issue on the table (and not, for example, sacrifices to Moloch, or the denigration of personhood, or just plain old eugenics) then why aren't folks talkin' about tubal ligation and vasectomy?

Both are safe, effective, single event procedures. Both are reversible. Neither is particularly controversial today. Most importantly: if reproductive control is really the issue, both allow women and men to exercise it without, for some, killin' a baby or, for others, havin' a pesky parasite removed.

Cause there is no guarantee of a successful reversal.

Success rates for vasectomy reversal

Whether or not a vasectomy reversal is successful may depend on what type of vasectomy you had and how long ago it took place.

For example, the more time that's passed since your vasectomy, the more scar tissue will have developed in the tubes that carry sperm to your penis.

It's estimated that the success rate of a vasectomy reversal is:

75% if you have your vasectomy reversed within 3 years
up to 55% after 3 to 8 years
between 40% and 45% after 9 to 14 years
30% after 15 to 19 years
less than 10% after 20 years

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/contracep ... ersal-nhs/

A range from 30% to 50% up to 70% to 80% of women may become pregnant. Whether a woman becomes pregnant after this surgery may depend on:
Her age
The presence of scar tissue in the pelvis
The method used when tubal ligation was done
The length of the fallopian tube that is rejoined
The skill of the surgeon

https://www.mountsinai.org/health-libra ... n-reversal