If the social values you want to engineer don't include a notion that "communities should be able to live according to their own moral codes," you might want to reconsider that.
I personally want abortion, legalized, but find the reaction to the repeal of roe v. wade ruling symptomatic of why America needs serious change. Abortion is obviously an incredibly thorny issue, and pretending that there's only one solution right for everyone in the entire world, and that the _only_ response here is anger, is ignoring both the thorny question of when exactly a fetus becomes a human and gains rights, and what, exactly, the constitution should mean, if anything.
Pretending that this incredibly complex topic is simple and that all right-thinking people will reach the same conclusion is just asking for trouble.
Your closing point speaks to exactly why I think the state has no business regulating this practice: well thinking people will indeed reach different conclusions.
This, along with bodily autonomy, is (to undereducated me) the foundation of a pro-choice standpoint.
Communities should indeed have the freedom to live to their own moral codes; yet an entity the size of e.g. Texas, is far too big to consider a community. Made up of millions of people, practicing likely hundreds of flavors of religion, rooted in cultures from all over the world, etc etc.
We cannot have freedom to religion (moral community), without separation from it. The independent state should accept bodily autonomy, and yes- leave such thorny issues up to their individuals and communities (no law in the US, to my knowledge, has ever _required_ abortions).
Interested to hear your thoughts. Does community really correlate to state? Should state be a Moral Authority (no need to separate religion then it seems)?
I love your framing here, because it raises questions that often go un-raised. Is an entity the size of texas really a community? I agree with your conclusion: no, it isn't. How about, though, the city of Lebanon, Ohio? Can a small enough entity decide that they don't want a specific kind of business to operate within their borders? If I were a member of texas, i'd vote against a statewide abortion ban. But i'm not a member of the state of texas. Should I respect the political 'bodily autonomy' of texans to make their own choices regarding their political body?
If the most powerful state says "no legal apparatus anywhere can can abortion," I think this is still an imposition of a moral judgement on that issue. I don't live in Texas. Why should I feel the right to impose my beliefs on people who do? I certainly don't want them mandating their beliefs on me; doesn't this obligate respect to their own rights to self autonomy? If we can't tolerate different legal regimes about abortion within the united states, why are we ok with other countries have different legal regimes? Why should i feel outraged that texas will ban abortion, when there are other countries that already have tighter restrictions?
The way i see this situation, all states are violent buereaucracies. This is true at the level of city council all the way up to nation level. I want each successively large entity to be _less_ opinionated and be _less likely_ to take a stand on something as complex and nuanced as abortion.
Insisting on the "bodily autonomy" framework is a engaging act of epistemic smuggling, by totally sidestepping the question of fetal personhood. Saying "people can reach different opinions here" doesn't rule out the fact that to a lot of people, it's still murder. If PETA managed to control a few city councils, why should I oppose them for banning the consumption of meat within their borders?
As for your question of 'should the state be a moral authority' - what is the difference between being a moral authority and being a legal authority? What does the distinction between 'state' and 'religion' mean? I would interpret "separation of church and state" to mean that 'states should not compel beliefs' - but what does this mean to you?
And putting in a different comment as it is a different thread of thought; A large bit of “the fuss”, as well, is over this as an indication of where the court might go.
The argument that an extremist sect of republicans seek to wrest control of our democracy into their hands to directly impose their conservative-Christian values on the public under a myth of Americanism (behavior called fascism), and that the court means to enable them, seems alarmingly plausible considering news of the courts cases:: I’m unable to paste here, but see the NYT article on “independent legislature theory”; the court will hear a case on it that could bassssically dismantle our federal democracy as we know it.
> Why is democracy even a good idea if so many people have beliefs that you find so odious?
Liberalism (freedom, rights) is a good idea *specifically because* I find the beliefs of others odious. I'm fine with people supporting pro-fetal-life. Just don't tell me what to believe. Don't tread on me. Let me be free. The pro-choice stance is not the one telling others how to act.
> If enough voters vote for what you are calling fascism, isn’t that just the will of the people?
Voting in a party that then creates Authoritarian rule for itself (as the Nazis did, iirc), while perhaps the will of the people at the time, is a democracy terminating itself.
This country is premised on a social contract between the people and the government; we give control of our lives to it under the terms of a contract (the constitution). The contract specifies a liberal democracy. If a party or its appointees seek to rig the democratic process, they seek to betray the contract.
A vote to end democracy is a vote to end the American project as it is, and people should be clear about this. That's why I've gone so far as to use the 'F' word; (really I try to tack quite moderate!).
Suffice to say, if fascism is the will of the people, I still oppose it. I believe in rights for the people, as first laid out in the french and american revolutions.
> What makes democracy a good idea?
I can't say I can answer that for you; though I have appreciated the sentiment "its a terrible system; if only there was any better".
Let me end to say; it seems nearly pointless to analyze specifics of a court decision, if you aren't on board w the liberal democratic project that court is supposed on.
But really, if that's the case, it explains why debate on such topics can be so exhausting! If someone doesn't support democracy, but you haven't established that, conversation would really be a mess (as it so often is).
(( note I use liberal in the classical way here, as in, liberties. ))
> The pro-choice stance is not the one telling others how to act.
This is where the disagreement lies, though. To pro life people, a Supreme Court ruling that says “states cannot ban abortion” _is_ telling others how to act. It says, specially, you can’t ban abortion. I get that this seems like splitting hairs but it feeds into your second point:
> we give control of our lives to it under the terms of a contract (the constitution).
The terms of this contract, as written, don’t specify anything about abortion. If justices can read into those terms whatever they want, and they can’t be wrong, then striking down roe is just as valid as the roe ruling itself.
I asked the things about democracy and why it’s valid or good not because I disagree, if anything just to understand where we have common ground.
So maybe you can help me better understand here. What does it mean to respect the constitution, if the constitution doesn’t say anything about abortion as a right?
Do you think the quality of the roe decision matters? Or am in wrong in my understanding that basically everyone agrees roe was unsound reasoning, but lots of people like the way it went?
Let me also add that the courts lack of provision for a starting point of fetal personhood, allows for laws based on the moment of fertilization which are _extremely_ problematic for the health and safety of pregnant women, even those attempting to have a child.
For example, there is already a case in Houston where, knowing a fetus was non viable and would be a miscarriage, the doctor still felt compelled by the law to wait until there was no fetal heartbeat to terminate the pregnancy; leaving the woman in sepsis and hours away from dying.
Girls aged 11 with a pregnancy their body cannot bear, will be forced to the edge of death before a doctor can maybe intervene.
Women in Texas, even those wanting a child, will die as a direct result.
The law is horribly factored if you are pro-life, and should not be permissed.
I very much agree about each level having less and less say, (federalism, all the way down), and am glad you are in agreement that the U.S. State is too large an entity to be regulating such topics.
I feel less alarm w the proposition that Lebanon OH might choose such an ordinance where Lebanon IN might not. While my instinct says even a city should not be regulating such, yes it is closer to a true community decision - and, the damage (from view of it being wrong) would be at least somewhat mitigated, w nearer available “sanctuaries” / lower friction to move for residents than needing to go out of state.
I think your line around “and then why not concern ourselves w rights in other countries?” is what-about-ism. Our nation state is premised in its founding on a grant of power originating from the people; while international morality is certainly a question it is out of scope here I think. Let’s assume we’re focused on building this here country.
I don’t find bodily autonomy to sidestep of fetal personhood; I think it is built to be a directly opposed concept.
I think one way to frame this issue is: is bodily autonomy a belief, or a right? Is fetal personhood a belief, or a right?
Unfortunately, I feel I am sorely I’ll-equipped to give bodily autonomy a good defense. I believe the discourse can, but I am not familiar enough. On gut instinct, maybe it has something to do with the state’s aptly-mentioned monopoly of violence. Violence is enacted on physical bodies. Thus it may be specifically important for the citizen to secure a right to their bodily autonomy from the state, (in lieu of imprisonment or death sentence. Death sentence is debated, and even in imprisonment restriction of the body’s movement is created but any direct physical incursion is cruel and unusual). Child bearing then, perhaps, is a uniquely problematic practice for the state to regulate compared to other activities (the slaughter of animals, as their bodies are not involved in the contract of violence with the state).
…… All that is just a guess and as I said, I’m I’ll equipped on this one.
I’d like to explore there more, and yes- your final question is quite interesting too. I’m also inclined to generalize state religion to “compelling of beliefs”;; but we must now cut between beliefs and rights. What properties of this whole business of liberal government (as constructed in our constitution or otherwise- but liberal as one in where people retain rights) can help us make that cut?
If the social values you want to engineer don't include a notion that "communities should be able to live according to their own moral codes," you might want to reconsider that.
I personally want abortion, legalized, but find the reaction to the repeal of roe v. wade ruling symptomatic of why America needs serious change. Abortion is obviously an incredibly thorny issue, and pretending that there's only one solution right for everyone in the entire world, and that the _only_ response here is anger, is ignoring both the thorny question of when exactly a fetus becomes a human and gains rights, and what, exactly, the constitution should mean, if anything.
Pretending that this incredibly complex topic is simple and that all right-thinking people will reach the same conclusion is just asking for trouble.
Your closing point speaks to exactly why I think the state has no business regulating this practice: well thinking people will indeed reach different conclusions.
This, along with bodily autonomy, is (to undereducated me) the foundation of a pro-choice standpoint.
Communities should indeed have the freedom to live to their own moral codes; yet an entity the size of e.g. Texas, is far too big to consider a community. Made up of millions of people, practicing likely hundreds of flavors of religion, rooted in cultures from all over the world, etc etc.
We cannot have freedom to religion (moral community), without separation from it. The independent state should accept bodily autonomy, and yes- leave such thorny issues up to their individuals and communities (no law in the US, to my knowledge, has ever _required_ abortions).
Interested to hear your thoughts. Does community really correlate to state? Should state be a Moral Authority (no need to separate religion then it seems)?
I love your framing here, because it raises questions that often go un-raised. Is an entity the size of texas really a community? I agree with your conclusion: no, it isn't. How about, though, the city of Lebanon, Ohio? Can a small enough entity decide that they don't want a specific kind of business to operate within their borders? If I were a member of texas, i'd vote against a statewide abortion ban. But i'm not a member of the state of texas. Should I respect the political 'bodily autonomy' of texans to make their own choices regarding their political body?
If the most powerful state says "no legal apparatus anywhere can can abortion," I think this is still an imposition of a moral judgement on that issue. I don't live in Texas. Why should I feel the right to impose my beliefs on people who do? I certainly don't want them mandating their beliefs on me; doesn't this obligate respect to their own rights to self autonomy? If we can't tolerate different legal regimes about abortion within the united states, why are we ok with other countries have different legal regimes? Why should i feel outraged that texas will ban abortion, when there are other countries that already have tighter restrictions?
The way i see this situation, all states are violent buereaucracies. This is true at the level of city council all the way up to nation level. I want each successively large entity to be _less_ opinionated and be _less likely_ to take a stand on something as complex and nuanced as abortion.
Insisting on the "bodily autonomy" framework is a engaging act of epistemic smuggling, by totally sidestepping the question of fetal personhood. Saying "people can reach different opinions here" doesn't rule out the fact that to a lot of people, it's still murder. If PETA managed to control a few city councils, why should I oppose them for banning the consumption of meat within their borders?
As for your question of 'should the state be a moral authority' - what is the difference between being a moral authority and being a legal authority? What does the distinction between 'state' and 'religion' mean? I would interpret "separation of church and state" to mean that 'states should not compel beliefs' - but what does this mean to you?
And putting in a different comment as it is a different thread of thought; A large bit of “the fuss”, as well, is over this as an indication of where the court might go.
The argument that an extremist sect of republicans seek to wrest control of our democracy into their hands to directly impose their conservative-Christian values on the public under a myth of Americanism (behavior called fascism), and that the court means to enable them, seems alarmingly plausible considering news of the courts cases:: I’m unable to paste here, but see the NYT article on “independent legislature theory”; the court will hear a case on it that could bassssically dismantle our federal democracy as we know it.
Why is democracy even a good idea if so many people have beliefs that you find so odious?
If enough voters vote for what you are calling fascism, isn’t that just the will of the people? What makes democracy a good idea?
> Why is democracy even a good idea if so many people have beliefs that you find so odious?
Liberalism (freedom, rights) is a good idea *specifically because* I find the beliefs of others odious. I'm fine with people supporting pro-fetal-life. Just don't tell me what to believe. Don't tread on me. Let me be free. The pro-choice stance is not the one telling others how to act.
> If enough voters vote for what you are calling fascism, isn’t that just the will of the people?
Voting in a party that then creates Authoritarian rule for itself (as the Nazis did, iirc), while perhaps the will of the people at the time, is a democracy terminating itself.
This country is premised on a social contract between the people and the government; we give control of our lives to it under the terms of a contract (the constitution). The contract specifies a liberal democracy. If a party or its appointees seek to rig the democratic process, they seek to betray the contract.
A vote to end democracy is a vote to end the American project as it is, and people should be clear about this. That's why I've gone so far as to use the 'F' word; (really I try to tack quite moderate!).
Suffice to say, if fascism is the will of the people, I still oppose it. I believe in rights for the people, as first laid out in the french and american revolutions.
> What makes democracy a good idea?
I can't say I can answer that for you; though I have appreciated the sentiment "its a terrible system; if only there was any better".
Let me end to say; it seems nearly pointless to analyze specifics of a court decision, if you aren't on board w the liberal democratic project that court is supposed on.
But really, if that's the case, it explains why debate on such topics can be so exhausting! If someone doesn't support democracy, but you haven't established that, conversation would really be a mess (as it so often is).
(( note I use liberal in the classical way here, as in, liberties. ))
> The pro-choice stance is not the one telling others how to act.
This is where the disagreement lies, though. To pro life people, a Supreme Court ruling that says “states cannot ban abortion” _is_ telling others how to act. It says, specially, you can’t ban abortion. I get that this seems like splitting hairs but it feeds into your second point:
> we give control of our lives to it under the terms of a contract (the constitution).
The terms of this contract, as written, don’t specify anything about abortion. If justices can read into those terms whatever they want, and they can’t be wrong, then striking down roe is just as valid as the roe ruling itself.
I asked the things about democracy and why it’s valid or good not because I disagree, if anything just to understand where we have common ground.
So maybe you can help me better understand here. What does it mean to respect the constitution, if the constitution doesn’t say anything about abortion as a right?
Do you think the quality of the roe decision matters? Or am in wrong in my understanding that basically everyone agrees roe was unsound reasoning, but lots of people like the way it went?
Let me also add that the courts lack of provision for a starting point of fetal personhood, allows for laws based on the moment of fertilization which are _extremely_ problematic for the health and safety of pregnant women, even those attempting to have a child.
For example, there is already a case in Houston where, knowing a fetus was non viable and would be a miscarriage, the doctor still felt compelled by the law to wait until there was no fetal heartbeat to terminate the pregnancy; leaving the woman in sepsis and hours away from dying.
Girls aged 11 with a pregnancy their body cannot bear, will be forced to the edge of death before a doctor can maybe intervene.
Women in Texas, even those wanting a child, will die as a direct result.
The law is horribly factored if you are pro-life, and should not be permissed.
I very much agree about each level having less and less say, (federalism, all the way down), and am glad you are in agreement that the U.S. State is too large an entity to be regulating such topics.
I feel less alarm w the proposition that Lebanon OH might choose such an ordinance where Lebanon IN might not. While my instinct says even a city should not be regulating such, yes it is closer to a true community decision - and, the damage (from view of it being wrong) would be at least somewhat mitigated, w nearer available “sanctuaries” / lower friction to move for residents than needing to go out of state.
I think your line around “and then why not concern ourselves w rights in other countries?” is what-about-ism. Our nation state is premised in its founding on a grant of power originating from the people; while international morality is certainly a question it is out of scope here I think. Let’s assume we’re focused on building this here country.
I don’t find bodily autonomy to sidestep of fetal personhood; I think it is built to be a directly opposed concept.
I think one way to frame this issue is: is bodily autonomy a belief, or a right? Is fetal personhood a belief, or a right?
Unfortunately, I feel I am sorely I’ll-equipped to give bodily autonomy a good defense. I believe the discourse can, but I am not familiar enough. On gut instinct, maybe it has something to do with the state’s aptly-mentioned monopoly of violence. Violence is enacted on physical bodies. Thus it may be specifically important for the citizen to secure a right to their bodily autonomy from the state, (in lieu of imprisonment or death sentence. Death sentence is debated, and even in imprisonment restriction of the body’s movement is created but any direct physical incursion is cruel and unusual). Child bearing then, perhaps, is a uniquely problematic practice for the state to regulate compared to other activities (the slaughter of animals, as their bodies are not involved in the contract of violence with the state).
…… All that is just a guess and as I said, I’m I’ll equipped on this one.
I’d like to explore there more, and yes- your final question is quite interesting too. I’m also inclined to generalize state religion to “compelling of beliefs”;; but we must now cut between beliefs and rights. What properties of this whole business of liberal government (as constructed in our constitution or otherwise- but liberal as one in where people retain rights) can help us make that cut?
(edited for grammar)
Since 1973, there have been 60 million abortions in the US... a number equivalent to the current population of the nation of Italy.