Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Oh rats!! You spilled the beans before I even asked my question to him. But not to worry, he still may not understand this.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
And Roe v. Wade hits the dirt.
- Thread starter Evangelicalhumanist
- Start date
Alien826
No religious beliefs
My understanding is that it means the subject is unable to weigh the effects of their actions on others and so will as readily hurt people as not.
(I fiddled with the wording of that sentence several times, and I'm still not totally happy with it. Hopefully you get what I mean.)
I agree.
Interesting. Almost a contradiction. He behaves in a psychopathic way. Yet he recognizes that and decides it's wrong, which he is not supposed to be able to do if he is truly psychopathic. Why would he want to change, if he doesn't care about those he hurts? As you say, shades of grey. One thing sociopaths are reportedly good at is recognizing patterns of social behavior that "normal" people exhibit, and mimicking them very successfully. Doesn't seem to be the case here though.
I'm not sure what this means. It suggests a truism, that things are rarely totally anything, but what is the alternative mechanism?
It matters what the person does and the mental processes behind his decisions are secondary, but not irrelevant.
I mean no offense, and don't know you at all other than what I read here. This is probably not a good subject for public discussion.
Harm can be known objectively.
Values relating to harming or not seem independent
of empathy, ie, some of those with it enjoy the harm
they cause.
Ultimately it boils down to choices one makes.
Not the psychological state that underlies those choices.
I blame popular culture for creating the image of all
sociopaths & psychopaths as Hannibal Lector or
Norman Bates. I've actually known at least one of
that type. (He's securely locked away now.)
But I also know many "abnormal" people who pose
no problem at all...at least by my values.
It means that one needn't be neurotypical to
peacefully live in their world. Socialization can
come more naturally for some, & more analytically
for others. Is one superior to the other?
I see that both fit in the melange of people.
I'll agree.
Relevance arises if problems do.
I take no offense whatsoever.
Such conversation is interesting & useful.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
That seems to have just changed. Legally.
A person killing a pregnant woman can be charged with a double homicide, BTW.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
So, since we here in the States supposedly believe in and have a "representative democracy", then how is it that this SCOTUS decision is going against what we are supposedly based on? Doesn't the will of the people count anymore?
I am pro-life, but I do not feel at all comfortable with the idea of forcing my religious beliefs on others.
I am pro-life, but I do not feel at all comfortable with the idea of forcing my religious beliefs on others.
Donald Jr blames dad's humiliation by President Obama's for the end of RvW
Donald Trump Jr suggests overturning Roe is direct result of Obama humiliating his father at 2011 dinner (msn.com)
Donald Trump Jr suggests overturning Roe is direct result of Obama humiliating his father at 2011 dinner (msn.com)
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Got any more stereotypes to share with us?
Elections have consequences and those staging the conservative coup have not been voted out of office.
This has been building for a LONG time: at least since Reagan's time in office. By losing track of the Supreme Court, the liberals have comforted themselves into thinking this could never happen.
If you voted for any of the presidents that nominated the conservative majority on the SC, then you have part of the responsibility for this ruling. And if you voted for McConnell, you have even more responsibility for this. He stole a justice from the liberals.
Alien826
No religious beliefs
One has to wonder. Years ago, I was having a discussion on the subject of pre-marital sex with someone on a Christian forum. She had listed all the bad things that can happen, like unwanted pregnancy and disease. I asked a simple question. If all STDs were non-existent or easily cured and contraception was 100% effective and totally safe would pre-marital sex still be wrong? The answer, "yes".
Nothing intended to apply to anyone here. I don't know you.
Alien826
No religious beliefs
OK, I get it. My only point is that at least some degree of empathy is required to trigger the desire to "socialize". With no empathy, the only motivator would be fear of punishment, no? So I would say that (up to a point) more empathy is superior to less, but only because it is more likely to produce the desired result, that is a natural inclination versus one logically produced. Agreed, once again, though that if people do fit in that's good enough for me.
Good. Enjoyed it.
Empathy is like religion...people with either
believe it essential to being a decent human
because they know no other way (IMO).
Sand Dancer
Crazy Cat Lady
But why is it wrong when marriage is a societal construct? Our bodily functions came way before any societies decided what was right and wrong. And societies have different ideas of what is right and wrong.
Alien826
No religious beliefs
Indeed. I think she would have said something like "God says so".
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Np, the burden of proof is still upon you. A fetus is still not a person according to the law. One can be prosecuted if an event that goes against the pregnant women's wishes occurs. But no one is proposing either charging pregnant women or doctors with murder. Intent makes a big difference.
Being literal to be annoying actually.
I learnt that habit from my uncles, who have a dry and “annoying” sense of humour lol
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
As if they actually need any help giving us the impression their skin has negative thickness.
This entire issue is a disgusting act of manipulation by the democratic party.
They currently hold power over the house Senate and white house. Biden even stated during the 2020 eletion that he would seek enshrine abortion rights in federal law.
They have done nothing simply because they hope that this issue will galvanise the public to vote for them in the mid terms.
Now you see AOC out in the streets screaming- if I was an American women I would be more disgusted with this clear act of manipulation by the democratic party then by the supreme court over turning roe v wade.
Interesting also that the supreme court has helped this Democrat agenda by doing this now.
The Democrats do not care about this issue and are simply seeking to play the population into voting for them- it's a disgustingly cynical action. Which the Democrats should be punished not supported for.
They currently hold power over the house Senate and white house. Biden even stated during the 2020 eletion that he would seek enshrine abortion rights in federal law.
They have done nothing simply because they hope that this issue will galvanise the public to vote for them in the mid terms.
Now you see AOC out in the streets screaming- if I was an American women I would be more disgusted with this clear act of manipulation by the democratic party then by the supreme court over turning roe v wade.
Interesting also that the supreme court has helped this Democrat agenda by doing this now.
The Democrats do not care about this issue and are simply seeking to play the population into voting for them- it's a disgustingly cynical action. Which the Democrats should be punished not supported for.
Sand Dancer
Crazy Cat Lady
That's pretty much the political way of both sides. It's sad that it's not actually about the best ideas anymore.
In the end this issue now returns to let states make their laws, as the members of that state desire.
There are people that would like a federal ban just as there are people that want a federal right.
Giving the choice back to the people of each state, is really the best opinion- certianly more democratic then one side imposing a federal law over everyone.
The position is that no embryo has the right to be born without its mother's consent. And that is the law as well wherever abortion is permitted.
Have you never noticed that that opinion tends to cluster in people that go to church? That tells you that it is a manufactured opinion disseminated by indoctrination, without which, people end up like the various humanists that don't feel like you. Look at all of the people disagreeing with you here. It is clear that they are all decent and thoughtful people, yet, none of them holds the opinion that you and so many other Christians hold.
Another clue that this is a political and not a moral issue is the complete lack of interest in these fetuses once they become children.
I'd say that he's implying that choosing to end an unwanted pregnancy is done for convenience, like one-stop shopping is more convenient that visiting several stores, or like a resealable package is convenient - things that make life a little easier. He's implying that avoiding the discomfort and risk of a pregnancy, avoiding possibly having to drop out of high school and waitress rather than attend college, and the cost and effort of raising children are merely an inconvenience rather than a prolonged and significant hardship. Avoiding hardship might be understandable, she's lazy and selfish for wanting to avoid this minor "inconvenience." It's all in the linguistic framing to demonize the would-be mother for making such a choice.
You're probably familiar with the topic. Maybe you've read linguist George Lakoff on the topic: "Framing is about getting language that fits your worldview. It is not just language. The ideas are primary and the language carries those ideas, evokes those ideas."
I don't know that that's the thinking, but why would you consider that inappropriate if it were?
Yes, they did. They just handed the right's most powerful wedge issue to the left. Once, it could be used to mobilize one-issue conservative Christians to vote. Now, it will be used to bring out anybody supporting abortion rights. I suspect that it will be damaging not just to the Republican party, but also to the church. The two are now seen by many as being in cahoots to remove rights from many currently protected classes. Justice Thomas enumerated some of them. He says he wants to revisit legal same sex marriage, homosexuality not being a crime, and legal access to birth control. That can't have been helpful to the right. Now, it's not just fertile women and those that care about them that will be activated, but also those who feel that they may be the next victims of the right and those that care about them.