US Supreme court have overturned Roe V Wade
Discussion
gregs656 said:
Getting into the weeds on abortion distracts, I think, from the paradigm shift in the Supreme Court and what it means going forward.
Talk of women being intercepted and arrested when crossing state lines and mobile phone data being used as evidence against them.Also pharmacies refusing to supply some legitimate medications in case they're used for abortions.
It seems that Americans only love certain kinds of freedom
garyhun said:
ATG said:
garyhun said:
ATG said:
smn159 said:
garyhun said:
Old people who had their religious prejudices forced onto them when young and now want to return the favour. Idiots.
It's judgemental, authoritarian hate, dressed up and rebranded.I have no time for them and their ridiculous views. They should be pitied but they are too dangerous for that.
Welcome to the stupidity of the culture wars.
Anywhoo, off to enjoy the evening sun.
Another good podcast by Bari Weiss who brings together a pro-life and pro-choice supporter along with a Constitution law expert for a round table discussion.
Worth a listen if you can spare the time.
Worth a listen if you can spare the time.
ATG said:
And you weren't equally strongly influenced by your parents, teachers, the culture and media you were exposed to as a kid? You sure about that?
There's quite a difference between being taught to critically evaluate evidence and reach a conclusion and being taught to unquestioningly take nonsense at face value.smn159 said:
gregs656 said:
Getting into the weeds on abortion distracts, I think, from the paradigm shift in the Supreme Court and what it means going forward.
Talk of women being intercepted and arrested when crossing state lines and mobile phone data being used as evidence against them.Also pharmacies refusing to supply some legitimate medications in case they're used for abortions.
It seems that Americans only love certain kinds of freedom
About 40 of the 52 states have abortion laws which allow termination at or beyond 22 weeks (UK is 24 weeks, I think?)
ATG said:
smn159 said:
gregs656 said:
Getting into the weeds on abortion distracts, I think, from the paradigm shift in the Supreme Court and what it means going forward.
Talk of women being intercepted and arrested when crossing state lines and mobile phone data being used as evidence against them.Also pharmacies refusing to supply some legitimate medications in case they're used for abortions.
It seems that Americans only love certain kinds of freedom
About 40 of the 52 states have abortion laws which allow termination at or beyond 22 weeks (UK is 24 weeks, I think?)
smn159 said:
Well yes, they're clearly not all nuts - although collectively they voted Trump in and this is pretty much a direct consequence.
The sad part is, collectively, they didn't, at least in terms of raw votes.Just as the majority of Americans support the right to abortion.
The mechanics of their system of government have been taken over and weaponised against what the population actually want.
deckster said:
ATG said:
But that's not bad faith. They're just trying to push the line of compromise as far as possible in their direction.
I'd agree entirely that detectable heartbeats and all other attempts to draw a line between "alive" and "not alive", or having rights and not having rights, are 99% codswallop. But if both sides try to discuss the subject in those terms, and they do, then obviously that's the kind of bidding war you get into. If someone has a world view in which life has intrinsic value you inevitably end up horse-trading about when life starts, when sufficient value has accumulated or has the reasonable likelihood of accruing in the future, etc, etc. And there are never going to be any clear cut boundaries that can be deduced. It all comes down to people's own individual moral instincts.
It's bad faith because they aren't interested in compromise. The anti-abortionists aren't actually interested in heartbeats or viability, they just throw those in to muddy the waters and change the conversation so that it starts from the point that abortions aren't always allowed. They make conversation 100% about the foetus, and not at all about the mother or the wider impact on society. They want to control the conversation so that the only logical conclusion is to not allow abortions at all.I'd agree entirely that detectable heartbeats and all other attempts to draw a line between "alive" and "not alive", or having rights and not having rights, are 99% codswallop. But if both sides try to discuss the subject in those terms, and they do, then obviously that's the kind of bidding war you get into. If someone has a world view in which life has intrinsic value you inevitably end up horse-trading about when life starts, when sufficient value has accumulated or has the reasonable likelihood of accruing in the future, etc, etc. And there are never going to be any clear cut boundaries that can be deduced. It all comes down to people's own individual moral instincts.
Whereas if you start from the point that women are entitled to control over what happens to their body, the conversation is completely different. But that isn't a discussion that the anti-abortionists can win, so they do everything they can to stop it from happening.
Come on man, you can offer more insight than that platitude!
Ntv said:
deckster said:
ATG said:
But that's not bad faith. They're just trying to push the line of compromise as far as possible in their direction.
I'd agree entirely that detectable heartbeats and all other attempts to draw a line between "alive" and "not alive", or having rights and not having rights, are 99% codswallop. But if both sides try to discuss the subject in those terms, and they do, then obviously that's the kind of bidding war you get into. If someone has a world view in which life has intrinsic value you inevitably end up horse-trading about when life starts, when sufficient value has accumulated or has the reasonable likelihood of accruing in the future, etc, etc. And there are never going to be any clear cut boundaries that can be deduced. It all comes down to people's own individual moral instincts.
It's bad faith because they aren't interested in compromise. The anti-abortionists aren't actually interested in heartbeats or viability, they just throw those in to muddy the waters and change the conversation so that it starts from the point that abortions aren't always allowed. They make conversation 100% about the foetus, and not at all about the mother or the wider impact on society. They want to control the conversation so that the only logical conclusion is to not allow abortions at all.I'd agree entirely that detectable heartbeats and all other attempts to draw a line between "alive" and "not alive", or having rights and not having rights, are 99% codswallop. But if both sides try to discuss the subject in those terms, and they do, then obviously that's the kind of bidding war you get into. If someone has a world view in which life has intrinsic value you inevitably end up horse-trading about when life starts, when sufficient value has accumulated or has the reasonable likelihood of accruing in the future, etc, etc. And there are never going to be any clear cut boundaries that can be deduced. It all comes down to people's own individual moral instincts.
Whereas if you start from the point that women are entitled to control over what happens to their body, the conversation is completely different. But that isn't a discussion that the anti-abortionists can win, so they do everything they can to stop it from happening.
Come on man, you can offer more insight than that platitude!
smn159 said:
ATG said:
And you weren't equally strongly influenced by your parents, teachers, the culture and media you were exposed to as a kid? You sure about that?
There's quite a difference between being taught to critically evaluate evidence and reach a conclusion and being taught to unquestioningly take nonsense at face value.Insofar as you can boil it down to a few ideas, it's just that our instinctive basic world views differ. By observation I'm happy to conclude that the world is fundamentally about particles bouncing off each other, totally deterministic, no free will at all, etc, etc. Plenty of atheists by observation think that dismissing free will is implausible. People with religious convictions often start from observation that relationships, love, purpose etc are real and as fundamental a part of existence as physical stuff. Science is about modelling observations and effectively answering "what is this thing like?", while religions ask fundamentally different kinds of questions about meaning, value, purpose and are entirely comfortable with loads of stuff being unknown and unknowable.
InitialDave said:
smn159 said:
Well yes, they're clearly not all nuts - although collectively they voted Trump in and this is pretty much a direct consequence.
The sad part is, collectively, they didn't, at least in terms of raw votes.Just as the majority of Americans support the right to abortion.
The mechanics of their system of government have been taken over and weaponised against what the population actually want.
ATG said:
I haven't noticed any difference between the critical thinking skills of religionists and atheists. Loads of people don't think much about stuff and are happy to believe whatever they believe and disbelieve whatever they disbelieve without giving it a great deal of thought, and that's fine. Others are exceedingly self-reflective, questioning and thoughtful. Some of the very finest scientific minds I've met also had strong religious faith, to the point that some of them got ordained. The supposed conflict between religious faith and the scientific flavour of critical thinking is often just a category error in which people treat science as a pseudo-religion which they then think is better than other religions. There are other people with rather naïve religious perspectives who treat their religion as a pseudo-science, and they're probably the dumbest of the lot. "The world is 4000 years old becoz Genesis". No, it really isn't, and you don't win prizes for believing more blatant tosh than other people of your own faith, nor wearing the silliest hat
Insofar as you can boil it down to a few ideas, it's just that our instinctive basic world views differ. By observation I'm happy to conclude that the world is fundamentally about particles bouncing off each other, totally deterministic, no free will at all, etc, etc. Plenty of atheists by observation think that dismissing free will is implausible. People with religious convictions often start from observation that relationships, love, purpose etc are real and as fundamental a part of existence as physical stuff. Science is about modelling observations and effectively answering "what is this thing like?", while religions ask fundamentally different kinds of questions about meaning, value, purpose and are entirely comfortable with loads of stuff being unknown and unknowable.
I was a bit sneery about religion when I was younger, but I sorta get it a bit more now - obvious criticisms of organised religion historically and actually are one thing but 'spirituality within a framework' I can understand a little better. Sorta half of our brain is used for the explicit and narrow, half for the implicit and holistic - and it's in that second part that the notion of spirituality resides I think. Humans have different coping mechanisms and that's how I sort of see it. Zooming out from the individual to the collective, I think the organised religion aspect is susceptible, inevitably, to human manipulation for better and worse - but we spent a long time within a fairly useful shared frame of reference for everyone, nowadays what binds us in terms of common belief, values, morality, meaning? [thnx Nietzsche]. I'm not at all religious nor spiritual particularly and share your view on will and determinism etc, but I 'get' people that derive their compass/staff/guidance within those more humanistic notions. In a nutshell, it's not real, but useful on different levels perhaps.Insofar as you can boil it down to a few ideas, it's just that our instinctive basic world views differ. By observation I'm happy to conclude that the world is fundamentally about particles bouncing off each other, totally deterministic, no free will at all, etc, etc. Plenty of atheists by observation think that dismissing free will is implausible. People with religious convictions often start from observation that relationships, love, purpose etc are real and as fundamental a part of existence as physical stuff. Science is about modelling observations and effectively answering "what is this thing like?", while religions ask fundamentally different kinds of questions about meaning, value, purpose and are entirely comfortable with loads of stuff being unknown and unknowable.
andy_s said:
ATG said:
I haven't noticed any difference between the critical thinking skills of religionists and atheists. Loads of people don't think much about stuff and are happy to believe whatever they believe and disbelieve whatever they disbelieve without giving it a great deal of thought, and that's fine. Others are exceedingly self-reflective, questioning and thoughtful. Some of the very finest scientific minds I've met also had strong religious faith, to the point that some of them got ordained. The supposed conflict between religious faith and the scientific flavour of critical thinking is often just a category error in which people treat science as a pseudo-religion which they then think is better than other religions. There are other people with rather naïve religious perspectives who treat their religion as a pseudo-science, and they're probably the dumbest of the lot. "The world is 4000 years old becoz Genesis". No, it really isn't, and you don't win prizes for believing more blatant tosh than other people of your own faith, nor wearing the silliest hat
Insofar as you can boil it down to a few ideas, it's just that our instinctive basic world views differ. By observation I'm happy to conclude that the world is fundamentally about particles bouncing off each other, totally deterministic, no free will at all, etc, etc. Plenty of atheists by observation think that dismissing free will is implausible. People with religious convictions often start from observation that relationships, love, purpose etc are real and as fundamental a part of existence as physical stuff. Science is about modelling observations and effectively answering "what is this thing like?", while religions ask fundamentally different kinds of questions about meaning, value, purpose and are entirely comfortable with loads of stuff being unknown and unknowable.
I was a bit sneery about religion when I was younger, but I sorta get it a bit more now - obvious criticisms of organised religion historically and actually are one thing but 'spirituality within a framework' I can understand a little better. Sorta half of our brain is used for the explicit and narrow, half for the implicit and holistic - and it's in that second part that the notion of spirituality resides I think. Humans have different coping mechanisms and that's how I sort of see it. Zooming out from the individual to the collective, I think the organised religion aspect is susceptible, inevitably, to human manipulation for better and worse - but we spent a long time within a fairly useful shared frame of reference for everyone, nowadays what binds us in terms of common belief, values, morality, meaning? [thnx Nietzsche]. I'm not at all religious nor spiritual particularly and share your view on will and determinism etc, but I 'get' people that derive their compass/staff/guidance within those more humanistic notions. In a nutshell, it's not real, but useful on different levels perhaps.Insofar as you can boil it down to a few ideas, it's just that our instinctive basic world views differ. By observation I'm happy to conclude that the world is fundamentally about particles bouncing off each other, totally deterministic, no free will at all, etc, etc. Plenty of atheists by observation think that dismissing free will is implausible. People with religious convictions often start from observation that relationships, love, purpose etc are real and as fundamental a part of existence as physical stuff. Science is about modelling observations and effectively answering "what is this thing like?", while religions ask fundamentally different kinds of questions about meaning, value, purpose and are entirely comfortable with loads of stuff being unknown and unknowable.
Apes and monkeys groom each other for social cohesion; humans do singing, dancing and feasting. How do you create a reason to sing, dance and feast? You invent a religion.
We've never really stopped worshipping the sun, we've just made it more complex.
TTwiggy said:
Religion is all about social cohesion. Anthropologists believe that if you put 30 or more people together (who had no knowledge of the world beyond their immediate experience) they would invent a religion.
Apes and monkeys groom each other for social cohesion; humans do singing, dancing and feasting. How do you create a reason to sing, dance and feast? You invent a religion.
We've never really stopped worshipping the sun, we've just made it more complex.
It's likely developed as consequence of the need to explain stuff. "I don't know" = "God did it". It's been used for social cohesion, but only as a set of customs and rituals - no need for the magical stuffApes and monkeys groom each other for social cohesion; humans do singing, dancing and feasting. How do you create a reason to sing, dance and feast? You invent a religion.
We've never really stopped worshipping the sun, we've just made it more complex.
Children taking on the religions of their parents is likely a misfiring of the evolved advantage in believing what authority figures tell you at a young age without a requirement for evidence (don't stick your hand in the fire, etc)
InitialDave said:
kowalski655 said:
You’ve got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know… morons.
A true classic!Revend.
More claims that women are being denied medical treatment for autoimmune conditions because the drugs can also be used for abortions.
https://www.bmj.com/content/378/bmj.o1677
https://time.com/6194179/abortion-restrictions-met...
Read several reports of women who cannot have children (in some cases having had hysterectomies) being denied prescribed drugs by pharmacists.
https://www.bmj.com/content/378/bmj.o1677
https://time.com/6194179/abortion-restrictions-met...
Read several reports of women who cannot have children (in some cases having had hysterectomies) being denied prescribed drugs by pharmacists.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff