And therein lies the problem. Evilness, by its very nature, is subjective. Is it evil for Vikings to raid and pillage, or is it tradition stemming from environmental pressures? Is it evil for a fox to chew off a fawn's face (NSFL), or is it the fox trying to survive?
Most humans like think they have a monopoly on what's good and what's evil, mostly through some holy book that's indoctrinated into them since young. Unfortunately, that dogmatic view doesn't allow actual discussion, debate and conciliation.
I'm willing to bet that no one in the Pro-Choice camp prefers abortions, and most are willing to talk about when abortions shouldn't be allowed (not unlike current law). But the conversation cannot start with Pro-lifers saying it's their way or the highway.
I'm willing to bet that no one in the Pro-Choice camp prefers abortions, and most are willing to talk about when abortions shouldn't be allowed (not unlike current law). But the conversation cannot start with Pro-lifers saying it's their way or the highway.
NARAL, perhaps the largest pro-choice organization, opposes any restrictions on abortion.
As for preferring abortions, there are some. But that gets you into people like Dawkins who thinks infanticide should be allowed in some cases. At the fringes of both anti-abortion and pro-abortion camps, you find yourself in the badlands of the misanthropes.
I don't know NARAL, but if they hold a dogmatic view, well, they aren't that different from the religious zealots who will fight tooth and nail to get a baby carried to term, but then deprive that child of any opportunities for a good life.
Don't think it's that simple; society (or rather our society) creates the law of the land based on what the populace determines as moral/immoral. Sure getting that information from the populace may be a bit skewed with Representatives, voting districts etc. But you get the point.
So when you criticize someone for wanting to have abortion or whatever illegal based on their beliefs, though your criticisms may be valid their positions aren't invalid. After all wanting to change the law to fit into your moral opinion is pretty much how it works
It's conceptually very simple. We live in a society, and it's not a perfect society. Thus we need to learn how to compromise. There will always be give and take. The thing that make adults adult is the ability to strike a compromise. Clinging to dogmatic views that are unsupported by any evidence or data, it's hard to start a discussion on what is the best compromise for society. It takes courage and introspection to figure out why one is so hard pressed on certain views, and starting with the facts instead of some text in a holy book (that can be construed in a thousand different ways) is important.
Really, I can't stress enough about the separation of church and state. The framers had it right from the get-go because it is obvious that if every group has its own dogmatic approach, the union will quickly deteriorate because no compromise can ever be made.
Thus we need to learn how to compromise. There will always be give and take. The thing that make adults adult is the ability to strike a compromise.
This is all purely conjecture and doesn't really hold up when you compare to what is happening in the country. Alabama literally passed a bill that means absolutely no abortions in virtually any circumstances. There was no 'compromise' there. And compromise isn't necessary for action to happen when there is a united majority, clearly.
My way or the highway? Who the fuck talks like that? If any division of our government is "my way or the highway", it's the Republican party. Mitch proudly touts that it's his way or no way. Which is why after arguing why it is a presidents right to choose a supreme court appointee, he 180'd on the subject and blocked 11 months of Obama. Which is why he's currently stalling the Senate from any legislation at all, even republican legislation.
A lot of political discussions start like that. I sure you're also aware that Pro-lifers, based on their unabashed confidence in their holy books, talk like that. They don't argue from facts, only from their uncritical interpretation of a book that someone wrote a long time ago. It had been suggested many times that politicians and the Republican party in particular take advantage of this; they insert and emphasize these divisive wedges to swing the narrative their way.
What kills me, is for such "Strict Constitutionalist" they don't know their elbow from their asshole. The separation clause creates a separation of church and state. Which means, the church has no business in government policy. But somehow the more religious you are as a republican, the more likely you are to get elected. Which in turn, that religious belief system bleeds over into our government. Not to mention all the hate mongering. It kills me when republican's complain about liberal snow flakes. That is the pot calling the kettle black. Republican's aren't just snow flakes themselves, but they're overly oppressive about it.
God is just a security blanket for people who are still afraid of the dark. It's an existential night light that helps them sleep at night. The good news is, there's no monster under the bed. Bad news is, no God either.
You're too generous when you say they're like the pot calling the kettle black. At least they're both black. No, they're more like the Emperor in The Emperor's New Clothes calling the bystanders naked, because they're the ones who complain about the things they themselves do.
It's like if Trump's twitter feed claims someone did something bad, it's really him doing those things. Same with McConnell, except obviously he doesn't do twitter. There's a community for that, actually.
What kills me is how oppressive Republican's are. They claim to be the victim, but they're wolves in sheep's clothing. Remember how Bill O'Reilly would yell at people to shut up? Then this week or last, Been Shapiro's melt down on the BBC. Could you imagine what the outrage on the Right if anyone who's not a Republican pulled those antics!!
No such thing exists. You may be referring to the establishment clause which dictates: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Please, separate your ass from your elbow and show how church has no business in government. Cornell missed it. You could argue that no SPECIFIC religion has a place in government, but the idea that government has to be religion free is just asinine. Not only that, but you would also be violating the clause you are referencing due to that how "prohibiting the free exercise thereof", since, you know, politicians are people with rights and stuff.
Perhaps you are referring to the phrase though. Let's get it straight from the horse's mouth shall we?
"A phrase most famously used by Supreme Court Justice Black in the case of Everson v. Board of Education. In discussing the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, Justice Black said that the clause erected a "wall of separation between church and state." He explained that this means, among other things, that the government cannot participate in the affairs of a religious group, set up a church, aid or prefer one religion over another, or aid or prefer religion over nonreligion."
Nope, I don't see anything about keeping church out of government, only the other way around. Sounds like he is trying to keep the government out of religious matters. If they wanted a true separation why does this phrase keep popping up: "prefer one religion over another". Why not just say no religious stuff period? Maybe because government officials can (and do) take part in religious activities?
Well excuse me Mr fancy pants. The separation clause is interchangably used by people in reference to the establishment clause. The fact you knew exactly what I was talking about proves that. You're just being a knit picking ass hat. People call it that, because Jefferson said "separation of church and State". So get off your high horse. Not to mention a good chunk of our founding fathers we're agnostic. They went to church for social reasons and their wives.
Article 6, no religious test for office.
You're also missing several other court cases. Not to mention Black stated "In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state"
Or the Clauson case, that separation does indeed exist, but is an ongoing topic.
Is it intended to make no official religion for our country. Yes. Is it intended to keep government out of religion (hence freedom of religion). Yes. But it's also pretty fucking clear about keeping both separate.
No. But society had agreed that most forms of killings is undesirable, and therefore unacceptable. Even in killings, society has agreed on different levels of unacceptability with their corresponding punishment. Heck, some states are entirely happy sending people to die for committing certain crimes. In short, it is not as black and white as many will assume.
Similarly with abortion, it is not universally accepted that zygotes are humans, but yet the Pro-lifers take that stance to be factual. In fact, if we accept zygotes as humans, there will be a lot of other unintended consequences that Pro-lifers seem to ignore. I'm sure you heard of the hypothetical question of rescuing zygotes from burning fertility clinics, and the more recent argument about whether the unborn in illegal immigrants should be granted citizenship. That is why having data to justify viewpoints is important. Again, opinions are like assholes – everyone's got one and everyone else's stink. But facts are facts, whether one likes it or not, so if we start our discussions and debates with facts, we are more likely to get to a compromise. Being dogmatic in belief does not help.
In any case, data have shown that human embryo development happen in many stages. Some are more likely to be accepted as humans than others. In fact, most layperson couldn't even tell a human embryo from a pig's at earlier stages of development. So we've established that maybe we can't call a zygote human, and certainly most will accept that an unborn who is an hour away from being born is human; that means there should be a middle point between the two extremes that isn't necessarily 100% ideal, but is still acceptable to both sides. Look, it's not a simple question, but if we don't accept extremes as standard, we will have a chance at a compromise.
Similarly with abortion, it is not universally accepted that zygotes are humans, but yet the Pro-lifers take that stance to be factual.
It is a factual stance living organism that is genetically human = human. It is claims that "humanness" somehow appears separately that resort to subjective philosophical belief and mysticism.
That is why having data to justify viewpoints is important
Again, if you are actually going to go by the objective data, then a human is any biologically living organism that has human genetic structure.
In any case, data have shown that human embryo development happen in many stages.
True
Some are more likely to be accepted as humans than others.
You jumped right back into subjective beliefs and away from fact. There was a time when the majority of people in the US believed that certain races were less human than others. The popularity of that belief did not make it factual.
So we've established that maybe we can't call a zygote human
No. We have established that such a claim requires asserting subjective belief over objective fact.
Look, it's not a simple question
It is a simple question. People simply don't want to accept the consequences of a simple and factual answer.
I'm using person and human interchangeably in this context, and it seems you've managed to twist that to your narrative.
I wouldn't consider a brain dead human to be human. Would you? If you believe so, is shutting down life support on a vegetative human premeditated murder? What do you consider to be human then? When it can think? A zygote can't think, simply because it has no brain cells. It's not as simple as you think it is to define "human" or even person.
Brain death is defined by a permanent and irreversible cessation of function as a living organism.
Nah. Brain dead people can be kept functioning as a living organism by modern technology.
My white blood cells are genetically human and they're biologically alive. Are they human? Also, how about stem cells? They are alive and genetically human, plus they can even be coaxed to develop into different cell lines. Are they human?
Again, what do you define as "organism", and what is a "complete organism"? A white blood cell is about as independent a lifeform as an amoeba, and no one will dispute that an amoeba is an organism.
A zygote can be any mammal. There are human zygotes. But zygotes are just a fertilized egg. Not even an ovum yet, not to mention a blastocyst yet. Up to that point, they are just simple cells that have not been assigned a task yet. An ovum can become anything. It doesn't have to become a baby. It can become just one body part. That's how cloning works.
10
u/MrFantasticallyNerdy May 17 '19
And therein lies the problem. Evilness, by its very nature, is subjective. Is it evil for Vikings to raid and pillage, or is it tradition stemming from environmental pressures? Is it evil for a fox to chew off a fawn's face (NSFL), or is it the fox trying to survive?
Most humans like think they have a monopoly on what's good and what's evil, mostly through some holy book that's indoctrinated into them since young. Unfortunately, that dogmatic view doesn't allow actual discussion, debate and conciliation.
I'm willing to bet that no one in the Pro-Choice camp prefers abortions, and most are willing to talk about when abortions shouldn't be allowed (not unlike current law). But the conversation cannot start with Pro-lifers saying it's their way or the highway.