We already have, at long last, a national compromise on abortion: let states decide. States already regulate acts that are similar for either True Believer camp.
For pro-lifers, acts that shock the conscience, like prostitution or physician-assisted suicide, vary in legality from “legal” to “felony punishable by 10+ years in prison.”
For pro-choicers, acts that pit the principle of personal bodily autonomy against community norms, like sexual relations between cousins, vary similarly: “legal” to “felony/10+ years.”
There’s not a compelling argument for why this needs a federal solution. The states are fit to govern themselves.
Of course there is. The argument is that the world works best when local people get to decide how to run their own affairs. The only argument otherwise is the dangerous Christian / Enlightenment doctrine of universalism.
You've just obscured matters by using language that people feel that they understand but haven't actually thought through.
What does "works best" mean and how does it relate to morality?
Are you saying that morality is local and not universal? I think you'll get some push back on that and, if not, it undermines the case for having any federal laws at all.
“Works best” means broadly “conducive to the wellbeing and survival of the group”. You can try to be pedantic and pretend you don't know what the words mean ("What does ‘the’ mean?” 🤔), but you do know what it means.
I'm saying that what works for one group of people won't work for another. Certainly there is no such thing as a universal morality. The very concept is incoherent. What would it mean for a shrimp to have the same morality as a human? The supposed equality of humanity is the greatest and most evil lie ever told. There is no one-size-fits-all solution.
Beyond that, everyone used to know the term “laboratories of democracy”. Let localities experiment with different policies. If one really is disastrous or excellent, it will soon become clear to everyone else.
On the federalism question, the key concept to understand is subsidiarity. Some matters are best handled at the personal level; some at the family level; the neighbourhood level; the city level; the regional level; the national level; and the supranational level. The universalist's great sin is to demand that all matters are decided at the highest level possible. No, very few matters should be decided there. Let each matter be decided as close to the people as it can be.
“conducive to the wellbeing and survival of the group” is not a moral statement and hence cannot be part of a rational moral argument.
If you want to talk about something other than morality please create your own comment rather than reply to my comment that stated clearly that it was about rational moral argument? You are just wasting everyones time.
Being conducive to the wellbeing and survival of the group is the only thing that morality is. There is literally nothing else. Anyway, I'll continue to post and you can too and any readers can make up their own minds. Have a nice day, friend.
This is just more 90s liberalism and it always fails. Not only is it at best a “truce”but it leads to the same problems we have with family formation/red pill and leads to mass migration. There can be no compromise between truth and falsehood if society is to continue
I don't think that's clear in the case of abortion. I think there's a case to be made that the Lindy position is to leave all pregnancy matters to a parallel organisational structure of women centred around the woman's mother and the local midwife.
The Lindy position is also very definitely that killing people is sometimes good and necessary for society. Only in medical modernity could the dogma that every life is sacred be so radically adhered to.
“If you are a True Believer reading this essay, I am not asking you to trade eventual victory for compromise. I am asking you to trade stalemate for compromise.”
It takes two to compromise, all I’ve heard is one side. You are naive to think otherwise. In this State, a compromise *was* made. This was not good enough for the “other side”. Through thoroughly disgusting lies and public appeals to emotion, a referendum was placed on the ballot and the “post Roe vs Wade” legislative “compromise” then in effect was overturned. We now have abortion on demand with *no* limitation before birth—enshrined within our State Constitution! This means basically a 2/3 majority to repeal or alter as it is in the State Constitution.
Don’t talk about “compromise” to me. There is no compromise with fanatics. They simply must be dealt with. Leftism is a religion. In the church of Divine Narcissism, abortion is their sacrament.
“Viability” reflects the state of medical science at the time. It seems like a more arbitrary dividing line than conception.
(I realize that this is not the majority position in America and anti-abortion ppl—I prefer to describe myself as anti-abortion—need to work harder to communicate clearly and bring about a cultural change rather than just depending on RW legislators who act like the dog who caught the car. It is difficult to take many of them seriously when guys like them are the reason women feel like they have to get abortions.)
To add to my previous comment, I compare abortion with same sex marriage. Roe v. Wade short-circuited the political process, whereas same-sex marriage was worked settled in many states before Obergefell v. Hodges. Thus, same-sex marriage is no longer the perpetual issue that abortion is.
You seem to ignore that Roe vs Wade was decided by the SCOTUS and so was “same sex marriage”! There is no difference here wrt to “short circuiting”. Indeed, in the opinion rendered, SCOTUS said that since so many States had approved same sex marriage that SSM was now the “law of the land”. SCOTUS simply pronounce such as a fundamental right under the 14th Amendment.
Worse, SCOTUS has now, in essence, outlined a plan of attack for future moral decline via law. If enough States approve some future debatchury, then the rest of the States will not be able to hold out against such. So much for States’ Rights.
We already have, at long last, a national compromise on abortion: let states decide. States already regulate acts that are similar for either True Believer camp.
For pro-lifers, acts that shock the conscience, like prostitution or physician-assisted suicide, vary in legality from “legal” to “felony punishable by 10+ years in prison.”
For pro-choicers, acts that pit the principle of personal bodily autonomy against community norms, like sexual relations between cousins, vary similarly: “legal” to “felony/10+ years.”
There’s not a compelling argument for why this needs a federal solution. The states are fit to govern themselves.
I think this case shows the Pro-Life True Believers went too far in Texas.
I think Congress can make such a law given the current interpretation of the interstate commerce clause.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zurawski_v._State_of_Texas#Case_history
There is no rational moral argument for letting the states decide whatever your personal moral position is.
Of course there is. The argument is that the world works best when local people get to decide how to run their own affairs. The only argument otherwise is the dangerous Christian / Enlightenment doctrine of universalism.
You've just obscured matters by using language that people feel that they understand but haven't actually thought through.
What does "works best" mean and how does it relate to morality?
Are you saying that morality is local and not universal? I think you'll get some push back on that and, if not, it undermines the case for having any federal laws at all.
“Works best” means broadly “conducive to the wellbeing and survival of the group”. You can try to be pedantic and pretend you don't know what the words mean ("What does ‘the’ mean?” 🤔), but you do know what it means.
I'm saying that what works for one group of people won't work for another. Certainly there is no such thing as a universal morality. The very concept is incoherent. What would it mean for a shrimp to have the same morality as a human? The supposed equality of humanity is the greatest and most evil lie ever told. There is no one-size-fits-all solution.
Beyond that, everyone used to know the term “laboratories of democracy”. Let localities experiment with different policies. If one really is disastrous or excellent, it will soon become clear to everyone else.
On the federalism question, the key concept to understand is subsidiarity. Some matters are best handled at the personal level; some at the family level; the neighbourhood level; the city level; the regional level; the national level; and the supranational level. The universalist's great sin is to demand that all matters are decided at the highest level possible. No, very few matters should be decided there. Let each matter be decided as close to the people as it can be.
“conducive to the wellbeing and survival of the group” is not a moral statement and hence cannot be part of a rational moral argument.
If you want to talk about something other than morality please create your own comment rather than reply to my comment that stated clearly that it was about rational moral argument? You are just wasting everyones time.
Being conducive to the wellbeing and survival of the group is the only thing that morality is. There is literally nothing else. Anyway, I'll continue to post and you can too and any readers can make up their own minds. Have a nice day, friend.
Best wishes,
θas.
>looking for a grand compromise on abortion
> ask the Substacker if his compromise is federalism or 90s liberalism
> he doesn't understand
> pull out illustrated diagram explaining what is federalism and what is 90s liberalism
> he laughs and says "it's a good compromise sir"
> read plan
> its bill clinton
We still miss him
This is just more 90s liberalism and it always fails. Not only is it at best a “truce”but it leads to the same problems we have with family formation/red pill and leads to mass migration. There can be no compromise between truth and falsehood if society is to continue
Abortion is either murder (which should be banned) or it is not (and it should be legal until viability/birth.
This wishy-washy middle either needlessly restricts women's bodily autonomy or sentences millions of children to death.
Awful take.
Or maybe murder shouldn't always be banned.
The Lindy position is that both abortion and infanticide are murder but that's between you and God
I don't think that's clear in the case of abortion. I think there's a case to be made that the Lindy position is to leave all pregnancy matters to a parallel organisational structure of women centred around the woman's mother and the local midwife.
The Lindy position is also very definitely that killing people is sometimes good and necessary for society. Only in medical modernity could the dogma that every life is sacred be so radically adhered to.
“If you are a True Believer reading this essay, I am not asking you to trade eventual victory for compromise. I am asking you to trade stalemate for compromise.”
It takes two to compromise, all I’ve heard is one side. You are naive to think otherwise. In this State, a compromise *was* made. This was not good enough for the “other side”. Through thoroughly disgusting lies and public appeals to emotion, a referendum was placed on the ballot and the “post Roe vs Wade” legislative “compromise” then in effect was overturned. We now have abortion on demand with *no* limitation before birth—enshrined within our State Constitution! This means basically a 2/3 majority to repeal or alter as it is in the State Constitution.
Don’t talk about “compromise” to me. There is no compromise with fanatics. They simply must be dealt with. Leftism is a religion. In the church of Divine Narcissism, abortion is their sacrament.
Good idea, but it will never happen. Let the states decide, preferably by referendums.
A, moraly indefensible, cop-out.
Essentially just copy French or German law on abortion.
Respectfully, I hope future guest posts will be better quality than this centrist dad utopianism.
"Why can't we all get along?!” is not a plan.
Centrist dad utoptianism has its place
Yes, in Mitt Romney's election campaigns.
“Viability” reflects the state of medical science at the time. It seems like a more arbitrary dividing line than conception.
(I realize that this is not the majority position in America and anti-abortion ppl—I prefer to describe myself as anti-abortion—need to work harder to communicate clearly and bring about a cultural change rather than just depending on RW legislators who act like the dog who caught the car. It is difficult to take many of them seriously when guys like them are the reason women feel like they have to get abortions.)
I feel like this deal gives much more to the pro-choice side than it does to the pro-life side, but I guess it’s difficult to make a good compromise.
You can not compromise with fanatics—and that’s ignoring any aspect of morality in the compromise.
To add to my previous comment, I compare abortion with same sex marriage. Roe v. Wade short-circuited the political process, whereas same-sex marriage was worked settled in many states before Obergefell v. Hodges. Thus, same-sex marriage is no longer the perpetual issue that abortion is.
You seem to ignore that Roe vs Wade was decided by the SCOTUS and so was “same sex marriage”! There is no difference here wrt to “short circuiting”. Indeed, in the opinion rendered, SCOTUS said that since so many States had approved same sex marriage that SSM was now the “law of the land”. SCOTUS simply pronounce such as a fundamental right under the 14th Amendment.
Worse, SCOTUS has now, in essence, outlined a plan of attack for future moral decline via law. If enough States approve some future debatchury, then the rest of the States will not be able to hold out against such. So much for States’ Rights.