Multicolored Lemur

Well-known member
Atheist / Agnostic
Nov 23, 2021
740
270



PF_05.06.22_abortion.views_0_0.png


8% said abortion should be “illegal in all cases, no exceptions.”

19% said abortion should be “legal in all cases, no exceptions.”

The entire rest of the 73% can be considered to have non-absolutist positions. This includes the 2% who gave no answer, for they can be considered to be not all that passionate about the issue, at least not on this occasion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AgnosticBoy
The entire rest of the 73% can be considered to have non-absolutist positions. This includes the 2% who gave no answer, for they can be considered to be not all that passionate about the issue, at least not on this occasion.
Thank you for bringing up this stat, Lemur. It is important to keep in mind given the fact that the US Supreme Court recently voted to end the constitutional protections for abortion. It is no longer federally protected but now it's up to the State to regulate it. Some states will push to ban all abortions or make it very hard to get while other states will allow it up to a point. I await to see any states that would allow abortions without any restrictions.

Interestingly, Justice Alito talked about abortion being a dividing issue in his initial draft opinion on abortion (on pg. 5), but based on the stats, the majority of Americans actually are for abortion with some restrictions..
 
  • Like
Reactions: Multicolored Lemur
Interestingly, Justice Alito talked about abortion being a dividing issue in his initial draft opinion on abortion (on pg. 5), but based on the stats, the majority of Americans actually are for abortion with some restrictions..
Which I don’t understand why he was the 5th vote ? ? ? :p

I mean, the overturn was not a “respect the traditions and previous decisions of the Court” type of decision.
 
Which I don’t understand why he was the 5th vote ? ? ? :p

I mean, the overturn was not a “respect the traditions and previous decisions of the Court” type of decision.
I'm trying to understand Alito's legal argument regarding abortion not being a privacy issue, and so that basis for making it constitutional protection was bad. That position is eloquently explained in this CNN opinion piece here. But then I wonder why didn't the liberal Justices also agree with that.

One take on MSNBC was that the conservative justices already had personal views against abortion that stem from religion. So they're basically pushing their religion. I'm all for religious views becoming law, but that should not be pushed, but instead it should be argued for on a rational basis. Ideally, all laws, whether they be based on secular or religion should go be based on as much logic and evidence as we can gather.
 
I'm all for religious views becoming law, but that should not be pushed, but instead it should be argued for on a rational basis.
One of my favorite college classes was ethics taught by the philosophy department. In a sense, the whole textbook was a debate between

Immanuel Kant [human rights]

and John Stuart Mill [human welfare]

Realistically, in most life situations, the two overlap. Meaning, that if a course of action is good at promoting human rights, it’s most likely also good at promoting human welfare.

But for purposes of the textbook, the editor really emphasized the cases in which rights and welfare were in conflict.

And curiously, even though the professor was a good speaker, the class itself had surprisingly few debates either between different students, or between a professor and a student.

Anyway, it got me thinking that the real life goal is to break dilemmas and find another way.

Find a better alternate.

In real life, we’re almost always trying to achieve multiple goals at the same time. Find a way to do so.

==================

And no, I don’t think religion has any kind of privileged position.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AgnosticBoy