US Politics Megathread

[princeofcarthage]

*Not my personal view. Just based on what others argued

I guess, "we should not kill another life" isn't a meritorious enough argument. I mean how do you even say that killing another person is a criminal offense without any shred of emotion? Without emotions our laws or society has no meaning. A purely intellectual discussion would be akin to a mathematical or logical expression 2+2=4. Devoid of any emotions there is nothing in universe to merit that murdering someone should be criminal/wrong. Even goodspeeds arguments, annoyance, and his apparently pro-choice stance is based on emotions.

[Sensei]

I can't think of a reasonable reason to force people to have children they don't want. Having a child is expensive and a huge time investment. Often the same people that are pro-life stop caring what happens once the baby is born. They don't support welfare and healthcare systems that would make it possible for people to raise a child in a good environment.

[duckzilla]

Laws didn't originate based on emotions. Actually, emotions don't play an important role at all for (many) laws. Look at how slavery has been legal for a lot of time and it is obviously accompanied by a substantial amount of negative emotions.

Laws are nice because laws are simple: they are the outcome of an evolutionary process. A society that doesn't rule out murder at some point is very unlikely to progress substantially. It will, at some point, be overtaken by a neighboring society that outlawed murder and, in consequence, allowed its individuals to cooperate more efficiently. A nice example is the ten commandments, which are simple early examples of law codes. Every single of the ten commandments enables a society to work together more efficiently and stabilizes it. Be it due to religious/cultural conformism, the protection of private property or the protection from murder.

Abortion laws are a fringe case. Preventing the abortion of a fetus doesn't really have an evolutionary advantage for society. On the contrary, it's likely that the permission of abortion has a stabilizing effect, because the mother-to-be obviously doesn't want the child and is less likely to (be able to) care for it sufficiently. Given that many women still try to abort illegally, there's even substantial health concerns with outlawing abortions.

[Goodspeed]

So what do you all think about the chances of Roe actually being fully overturned?

I'm giving it a solid 60%

[RefluxSemantic]

I would personally tackle this entire bit from a different perspective. I wouldn't make it about whether abortion is about killing 'potential human life', but I'd rather consider whether people suffer from this act of killing. That is to say, I think there is a viewpoint from which taking another human life is only bad because a. that human itself didn't want its life to end, and/or b. other people will be sad about the loss of life. For abortion, none of these specific criteria are actually met. From this viewpoint one can create a consistent view on when killing is bad and when it is not that mostly matches what a big part of society thinks.

EDIT: to justify this approach, think about why you think killing is necessarily bad. That might seem like a weird question to ask (obviously killing is bad, right?), but I believe that historically the moral justification as to why killing is bad is that it's because god said so. Once you reject religion, which you definitely should, you need to reconsider the reasoning behind some of your values.

[princeofcarthage]

I would personally tackle this entire bit from a different perspective. I wouldn't make it about whether abortion is about killing 'potential human life', but I'd rather consider whether people suffer from this act of killing. That is to say, I think there is a viewpoint from which taking another human life is only bad because a. that human itself didn't want its life to end, and/or b. other people will be sad about the loss of life. For abortion, none of these specific criteria are actually met. From this viewpoint one can create a consistent view on when killing is bad and when it is not that mostly matches what a big part of society thinks.

Have you given an all round thought to this view point? To be consistent with this view point you would also to have agree to legal suicides/helped killing where a person doesn't want to live and maybe also have no one around. Also what about the father who doesn't want to give up child?

[RefluxSemantic]

I would personally tackle this entire bit from a different perspective. I wouldn't make it about whether abortion is about killing 'potential human life', but I'd rather consider whether people suffer from this act of killing. That is to say, I think there is a viewpoint from which taking another human life is only bad because a. that human itself didn't want its life to end, and/or b. other people will be sad about the loss of life. For abortion, none of these specific criteria are actually met. From this viewpoint one can create a consistent view on when killing is bad and when it is not that mostly matches what a big part of society thinks.

Have you given an all round thought to this view point? To be consistent with this view point you would also to have agree to legal suicides/helped killing where a person doesn't want to live and maybe also have no one around. Also what about the father who doesn't want to give up child?

I'm not necessarily against legal suicides if those meet these criteria. The difficult bit is that a depressed person is unable to assess whether it truly wants to end its life. Legally speaking, such a person could actually be considered (and maybe is considered) legally incompetent (I think this is the proper English term).

And actually legal suicides are something that some political parties in the Netherlands are campaigning for. It's not really such an outrageous viewpoint as you might consider it to be. It also already happens in certain cases.

EDIT: Thinking a bit more about it, I think the matter you raise generally supports my approach to these matters. Many societies believe that in some circumstances euthanasia should be legal, thus implying that reasoning that killing life is always wrong does not really match with the beliefs of (western) society.

[princeofcarthage]

I would personally tackle this entire bit from a different perspective. I wouldn't make it about whether abortion is about killing 'potential human life', but I'd rather consider whether people suffer from this act of killing. That is to say, I think there is a viewpoint from which taking another human life is only bad because a. that human itself didn't want its life to end, and/or b. other people will be sad about the loss of life. For abortion, none of these specific criteria are actually met. From this viewpoint one can create a consistent view on when killing is bad and when it is not that mostly matches what a big part of society thinks.

Have you given an all round thought to this view point? To be consistent with this view point you would also to have agree to legal suicides/helped killing where a person doesn't want to live and maybe also have no one around. Also what about the father who doesn't want to give up child?

I'm not necessarily against legal suicides if those meet these criteria. The difficult bit is that a depressed person is unable to assess whether it truly wants to end its life. Legally speaking, such a person could actually be considered (and maybe is considered) legally incompetent (I think this is the proper English term).

And actually legal suicides are something that some political parties in the Netherlands are campaigning for. It's not really such an outrageous viewpoint as you might consider it to be. It also already happens in certain cases.

I was just raising a question, I don't consider it outrageous.

EDIT: Thinking a bit more about it, I think the matter you raise generally supports my approach to these matters. Many societies believe that in some circumstances euthanasia should be legal, thus implying that reasoning that killing life is always wrong does not really match with the beliefs of (western) society.

Also what about the father who doesn't want to give up the child? In that case your criteria's are not met.

[gibson]

In the US it’s already standard that a persons life does not supersede someone else’s right to their own body. See organ donation, and those people are dead. It’s irrelevant to me whether or not it’s killing a baby or not. That being said, I personally consider many types of abortion to be morally wrong and think that we should strive to minimize how many times it happens via better sex education and easy access to contraception.

[Dolan]

The refugee lifestyle is trending





I bet this will come with an app, a subscription plan and will be supported by a team of data engineers with Ivy League diplomas and H1B visas.
Also AI and angel investors.

[Dolan]

I can't wait for my country to get nuked so I can get on this new living pods trend.
They're probably not gonna be this kind of deluxe Silicon Valley pods, though.
We're gonna get some commieblock version of them, made out of rough wood boards covered with linoleum.

[Goodspeed]

I would personally tackle this entire bit from a different perspective. I wouldn't make it about whether abortion is about killing 'potential human life', but I'd rather consider whether people suffer from this act of killing. That is to say, I think there is a viewpoint from which taking another human life is only bad because a. that human itself didn't want its life to end, and/or b. other people will be sad about the loss of life. For abortion, none of these specific criteria are actually met. From this viewpoint one can create a consistent view on when killing is bad and when it is not that mostly matches what a big part of society thinks.

EDIT: to justify this approach, think about why you think killing is necessarily bad. That might seem like a weird question to ask (obviously killing is bad, right?), but I believe that historically the moral justification as to why killing is bad is that it's because god said so. Once you reject religion, which you definitely should, you need to reconsider the reasoning behind some of your values.

Religious people suffer from strangers having abortions because it makes them not feel in control of other people's lives.
Checkmate, atheists

[Goodspeed]

https://twitter.com/akapczynski/status/ ... 982XAF7ocA

[Sensei]

I wonder how it's going to work when abortion = homicide in Louisiana but people travel to another state where abortion is legal. Seems pretty silly. I can't think of another act/crime that is life in prison in one state but completely legal in another.

[Misha]

I wonder how it's going to work when abortion = homicide in Louisiana but people travel to another state where abortion is legal. Seems pretty silly. I can't think of another act/crime that is life in prison in one state but completely legal in another.

There are many examples, e.g. what is self-defense in a stand-your-ground state may be homicide in another. Differences in state laws is just federalism, it's not in itself an argument against abortion restrictions.

[princeofcarthage]

I would personally tackle this entire bit from a different perspective. I wouldn't make it about whether abortion is about killing 'potential human life', but I'd rather consider whether people suffer from this act of killing. That is to say, I think there is a viewpoint from which taking another human life is only bad because a. that human itself didn't want its life to end, and/or b. other people will be sad about the loss of life. For abortion, none of these specific criteria are actually met. From this viewpoint one can create a consistent view on when killing is bad and when it is not that mostly matches what a big part of society thinks.

EDIT: to justify this approach, think about why you think killing is necessarily bad. That might seem like a weird question to ask (obviously killing is bad, right?), but I believe that historically the moral justification as to why killing is bad is that it's because god said so. Once you reject religion, which you definitely should, you need to reconsider the reasoning behind some of your values.

It is not actually consistent on second thought. In your second case, one of the reason you mention why killing is bad is because the person killed didn't want his life to end. At the same point you are presuming that the child wants his life to end or you are not giving him any say.

Also till when you allow the abortion to take place? By your case potentially a 8 month baby can also be aborted *if medically possible.

As to your point case 2 point 2, what if people surrounding the woman want her to have the child and that they would be extremely sad by the loss of life?

You also haven't answered whether father gets any say or not

[Sensei]

I wonder how it's going to work when abortion = homicide in Louisiana but people travel to another state where abortion is legal. Seems pretty silly. I can't think of another act/crime that is life in prison in one state but completely legal in another.

There are many examples, e.g. what is self-defense in a stand-your-ground state may be homicide in another. Differences in state laws is just federalism, it's not in itself an argument against abortion restrictions.

That's an ok example but its not like you go to a state with better self defense laws to kill someone then come back to your state where that is illegal

[princeofcarthage]

I wonder how it's going to work when abortion = homicide in Louisiana but people travel to another state where abortion is legal. Seems pretty silly. I can't think of another act/crime that is life in prison in one state but completely legal in another.

There are many examples, e.g. what is self-defense in a stand-your-ground state may be homicide in another. Differences in state laws is just federalism, it's not in itself an argument against abortion restrictions.

That's an ok example but its not like you go to a state with better self defense laws to kill someone then come back to your state where that is illegal

If I go to US and do drugs which are illegal here my government is going to do nothing to me. Laws are based on land not people. So laws is state x apply till border of state x. Here we have some states where legal drinking age is 18 others 21, some 25 and couple even 30 while couple have them banned. I lived in a state with 21, I could easily go across the border to a state with 18, get wasted. The only precaution was that I had to come back sober or face a long process of proving that I didn't drink in the state.

It is going to be similar. You go to another state if you want abortion. And once done comeback.

[fightinfrenchman]

People just come on here and say shit

[Dolan]

Shit

[gibson]

I wonder how it's going to work when abortion = homicide in Louisiana but people travel to another state where abortion is legal. Seems pretty silly. I can't think of another act/crime that is life in prison in one state but completely legal in another.

There are many examples, e.g. what is self-defense in a stand-your-ground state may be homicide in another. Differences in state laws is just federalism, it's not in itself an argument against abortion restrictions.

Its a bit different though, cause people don't go to different states so that they can stand their ground. People will go to different states to get abortions, meaning any state restrictions are only going to end restricting the poor and lower middle class. Obviously that's irrelevant from a legal standpoint.

[Cometk]

did y'all know a guy immolated himself in front of the supreme court like two weeks ago

[callentournies]

yes

[lejend]

Why would anyone want to see baby gore? If you can't make your point without appealing to emotions like that, maybe just shut up

Pathos is a legitimate form of persuasion and one used extensively by the pro-abortion side.

But why would you describe it as 'baby gore' if you don't think of the unborn as babies?

I don't care what we describe it as or who uses appeals to emotion. It has no place in intellectual discussion. Did you have a point you can make without resorting to it?

But there's no rule against using pathos in this thread. It's a perfectly legitimate form of persuasion. No one is claiming a picture is an argument, but an argument isn't the only method of persuasion.

Abortion is the slavery debate of the 21st century, and slavery wasn't ended through arguments alone. It's one thing to read that slavery is bad and quite another to read a vivid account of it or to see a photo of what slavery actually looks like.

[fightinfrenchman]

Abortion is the slavery debate of the 21st century,

Source?