The only demographic in America that reliably opposes abortion access is older men

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

I’d disagree. Many, most, or even all laws are based on morality.

Sheesh, let's not go down that rabbit hole. Just google law versus morality.

If you can make up your mind - is it "many" or "most" or "all"? - then maybe you can just draw the Venn diagram.

[Jacuzzme]

My point is that many laws (I’ll go with that term) are based on morality, murder for example.

[1blackman1]

Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

I’d disagree. Many, most, or even all laws are based on morality.

Not true in the least. Most if not all law are designed to stabilize and reduce conflict amongst people living together. Hamarabi’s law (the oldest written laws we can track back to, werent built on any moral code. It was designed to cut down conflict and set rules everyone was aware of.

The 10 commandments if you believe the Bible literally had nothing at all to do with morality. It once again was designed to keep people in line as they traveled to the promised land from Israel since the Israelites had began to head into anarchy.

Laws are always about structure not morality.

Prohibitions against murder have nothing to do with morals. But it would destabilizing if you allowed people to just kill one another.

A simple example, sans any biblical thinking.

In early society fucking your neighbors wife likely wasn’t all that immoral. Why would it be? She’s an adult, attractive and of child bearing age. Reproduction is necessary for the continuance of the tribe village whatever. So why would fucking her be a problem. It’s not morals. It’s unstable. Whose child is produced from that? What do you do about jealousy? What’s to prevent either man from killing one another or the woman. There is no morality involved, it’s a need for a stable situation for the growth of society.

Every law stemmed from that rather than morals.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Not true in the least. Most if not all law are designed to stabilize and reduce conflict amongst people living together. Hamarabi’s law (the oldest written laws we can track back to, werent built on any moral code. It was designed to cut down conflict and set rules everyone was aware of.

The 10 commandments if you believe the Bible literally had nothing at all to do with morality. It once again was designed to keep people in line as they traveled to the promised land from Israel since the Israelites had began to head into anarchy.

Laws are always about structure not morality.

Prohibitions against murder have nothing to do with morals. But it would destabilizing if you allowed people to just kill one another.

A simple example, sans any biblical thinking.

In early society fucking your neighbors wife likely wasn’t all that immoral. Why would it be? She’s an adult, attractive and of child bearing age. Reproduction is necessary for the continuance of the tribe village whatever. So why would fucking her be a problem. It’s not morals. It’s unstable. Whose child is produced from that? What do you do about jealousy? What’s to prevent either man from killing one another or the woman. There is no morality involved, it’s a need for a stable situation for the growth of society.

Every law stemmed from that rather than morals.

I agree with a lot of what you said and governments involvement in "morality" should be very limited but if laws are designed to reduce conflict and afford stability, then all these "proposed" laws demanding we change our language to suit a tiny minority, is causing conflict and will continue to split this country into waring tribes.


Imagine having a law like in Norway where the government can punish you for tweeting that a man can not be a lesbian and put an avowed "radical feminist" in jail for 3 years for doing so. All that will do is cause more conflict and that's the path this Democrat party is taking the country down.

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Is it "maximalist moralizers" or "moralizing maximalists" lol? I guess either term works equally well! LOL

I largely agree, except I don't share your alarm about nutty ideas such as prohibiting travel across state lines for an abortion or screening the mail for abortifacients. Both appear totally unenforceable, and likely unconstitutional, to me.

But yeah, I wish our lawmakers would shy away from "feelgood" or "virtue-signaling" legislation. As well as posturing for some kind of perceived moral high ground by sensationalizing the most extreme ideas put forth by the other side.

Although I certainly agree that such draconian measures are probably unworkable and should be deemed unconstitutional, the Texas House and Texas Senate contain some real nutcases who like to go so far as to babble about severe restrictions on birth control. Apparently the feeling in some quarters is that you should only be fucking if the goal is procreation!

A spermatozoon is a lifeform, is it not? If you block its opportunity to fertilize an ovum, maybe you should be judged to have committed an immoral and possibly illegal act. (In the minds of some of the maximalists, anyway!)

Not sure what sorts of "conservatives" you have in the Keystone State, but down here in the "bible belt" parts of the Lone Star State, we have some real loons!

.

[Yssup Rider]

Agreed. I like to call them A Flock of Douchebags.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by Texas Contrarian

Although I certainly agree that such draconian measures are probably unworkable and should be deemed unconstitutional, the Texas House and Texas Senate contain some real nutcases who like to go so far as to babble about severe restrictions on birth control. Apparently the feeling in some quarters is that you should only be fucking if the goal is procreation!

A spermatozoon is a lifeform, is it not? If you block its opportunity to fertilize an ovum, maybe you should be judged to have committed an immoral and possibly illegal act. (In the minds of some of the maximalists, anyway!)

Not sure what sorts of "conservatives" you have in the Keystone State, but down here in the "bible belt" parts of the Lone Star State, we have some real loons!

.

Yes, it could be called a "life form" but it can not be called life and human being IMHO. That according to the experts can only happen when that sperm fertilizes the egg but first we have to admit that life begins at fertilization and then go from there and I have no problem saying "so what" if that is what science says, I have my own opinion. That's democracy.


I have no doubt that a couple of these states will try to ban all contraceptives. Good luck, you won't have enough U-hauls for all the people leaving that state but again, that's democracy, one person one vote. You don't like the result, leave. Just an opinion.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Yes, it could be called a "life form" but it can not be called life and human being IMHO. That according to the experts can only happen when that sperm fertilizes the egg but first we have to admit that life begins at fertilization and then go from there and I have no problem saying "so what" if that is what science says, I have my own opinion. That's democracy.

I have no doubt that a couple of these states will try to ban all contraceptives. Good luck, you won't have enough U-hauls for all the people leaving that state but again, that's democracy, one person one vote. You don't like the result, leave. Just an opinion.

sperms are just another form of "cells". they're alive yet not alive.

its just a different cellular life form performing a key function of procreation.

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Yes, it could be called a "life form" but it can not be called life and human being IMHO. That according to the experts can only happen when that sperm fertilizes the egg but first we have to admit that life begins at fertilization and then go from there and I have no problem saying "so what" if that is what science says, I have my own opinion. That's democracy.


I have no doubt that a couple of these states will try to ban all contraceptives. Good luck, you won't have enough U-hauls for all the people leaving that state but again, that's democracy, one person one vote. You don't like the result, leave. Just an opinion.

My previous post (as is often the case with stuff I write) might contain a bit of facetiousness or sarcasm. (Take your pick!)

Related to:

Reductio ad absurdum

https://www.thoughtco.com/reductio-a...gument-1691903

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/...io-ad-Absurdum

Although there does seem to be some concern that right-wing social "reformers" in some states might seek to restrict some forms of birth control, and/or reduce funding for low-income Medicare recipients' access to easily affordable options. The obvious result could then be an increase in unplanned pregnancies.

.