05-28-2022, 04:19 AM
As this thread amply demonstrates, we at least now have the opportunity to debate the issue in an adult manner and on a moral as well as practical basis. Whether or not any of us take advantage of that opportunity instead of name-calling, over-generalizations, straw men and bumper sticker slogans.
Somewhere up there, someone alluded to errors committed for the sake of convenience. The great and foundational such error was trying to settle the issue by pronunciamento in the same way Justice Taney did with slavery in Dred Scott v Sandford, thus avoiding messy politics and contrary opinions regarded as unsophisticated or biased. Another, seldom discussed, is the convenience of limiting consideration to "a woman's sole choice," "our bodies ourselves," etc., because it is inconvenient and messy to acknowledge the man's very real interest in his unborn child's future. Denying that interest is a big part of today's moral and ethical infantilization; it is the Original Cancellation.
Somewhere up there, someone alluded to errors committed for the sake of convenience. The great and foundational such error was trying to settle the issue by pronunciamento in the same way Justice Taney did with slavery in Dred Scott v Sandford, thus avoiding messy politics and contrary opinions regarded as unsophisticated or biased. Another, seldom discussed, is the convenience of limiting consideration to "a woman's sole choice," "our bodies ourselves," etc., because it is inconvenient and messy to acknowledge the man's very real interest in his unborn child's future. Denying that interest is a big part of today's moral and ethical infantilization; it is the Original Cancellation.
Non-practicing atheist