Leaked/breaking:Roe v. Wade expected to be overturned

[churchmouse]

In my time on Ingo I have never seen so many lengthy yet well stated posts/positions on any subject. Mostly good reads. Agree with the opinions/positions or disagree.
Even a new member coming in.

Well done so far gentleman.

 

[KLB]

In my time on Ingo I have never seen so many lengthy yet well stated posts/positions on any subject. Mostly good reads. Agree with the opinions/positions or disagree.
Even a new member coming in.

Well done so far gentleman.

BULLY!

 

[Mgderf]

Heard on the radio last night that SCOTUS is set to release a decision today.
May or may not be on the Roe vs Wade case.
Also speculation that the decision from the New York rifle and pistol club could be released today as well, but nothing definitive.

 

[wagyu52]

My head hurts.
Observation.
My B-in-L life long ambition is WWII aircraft, he has owned and restored numerous and is likely working on his last, a P40 Warhawk.
I had dinner with him and his good friend from Idaho who restores aircraft for a living, anyone who understands mechanical things would be in awe of this guy I could have listened to his stories for days.

Of the many things I asked him one that stands out that I remember is, how much of a plane do you need for restoration, at what point is it no longer an air frame.

We need it’s identity, the tags. We have rebuilt airframes from shoe boxes.

Plenty of car guys on here can relate and everyone on here knows or should what part make a gun a gun.

At some point life gains identity and it happens inside another life. This is universally excepted in the entire animal kingdom until we get humans then it’s murky.

Oh yeah, the plane.

 

[jamil]

BULLY!

word/

 

[jamil]

Pavlich explains why there isn't much interest in finding Supreme Court leaker

Fox News contributor Katie Pavlich discusses speculation over who leaked the Supreme Court draft opinion.

www.foxnews.com

Democrats have to ignore the significance that it was leaked because they have an election to win and it benefits them more not to focus less on the leak and more on what was leaked. But what was leaked isn't actually of any greater importance than it would be had we heard it a couple months later. Their reluctance to find the leaker makes me think they may know who it was and that for that to get out would be more damaging to them.

If they doubted it came from a progressive I think they'd be quite eager to expose a conservative who leaked it. Especially at the behest of a SCOTUS justice, and all the pining they would get to do about the hypocrisy of the right side of the court. But NPR came out with a nonsense piece of crappy journalism making the claim without actual hard evidence. The only legitimate reason to read/listen to NPR is to expose their bias and mock them.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

The only legitimate reason to read/listen to NPR is to expose their bias and mock them.

I’m glad there are people out there doing this dirty job, so I don’t have to.

 

[jamil]

I’m glad there are people out there doing this dirty job, so I don’t have to.

There are people on this forum who actually consume NPR "news" as if it's serious.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

There are people on this forum who actually consume NPR "news" as if it's serious.

They (NPR) certainly take themselves seriously.

 

[KG1]

Eh. With God anything is possible?

No, seriously, think of it this way. A rapist rapes a woman. God doesn't desire this, but allows it to happen because people have free will. As was said earlier, this is essentially the question, "why does God let bad things happen?"

Okay so the rape happens, and perhaps God wants something good to come of it. Or perhaps, since the child was raped, God has plans for that child, or the mother, that through the experience, they are better prepared to serve his will later. So she conceives. That's not saying that it's God's will that she was raped. But that even though she was raped, God used that for his purpose.

Obviously from a secular point of view there are problems with that. But I think that's reasonable within an evangelical Christian worldview.

I mentioned in my last post that I would probably bow out of the discussion but I feel compelled by my faith to testify further on this point.

After reading my last post someone reached out to me privately and said to me that my mother sounded like she was a remarkable woman. I thanked them for the kind words and I told them that my mother's faith was the foundation that made her remarkable and that she was able to persevere in such a dark moment in her life guided by the shining light of her faith.

Now as to your take I do believe that what happened to my mother wasn't God's will but was a matter of free will in each of us to determine our own path that God allows.

Now my belief in what happened after that is that as a woman of faith God intervened and gave her the strength to persevere through her faith and it was God's hand that blessed her and us with such a wonderful person like my sister born out of such a bad situation.

My sister was not an evil person as a result of how she came to be. As a matter of fact she was a child of God and my mother nurtured her in the same faith that was instilled upon her that my sister carried with her until she was re-united with God.

My mother passed in Nov 2020 and now they are both re-united together with God as a reward for their faith in him as it began determined by their free will as God allows to chose to be a believer.

So yes as an evangelical Christian I believe God had a hand in the outcome that allowed us all to persevere through our faith.

Now as a evangelical Christian I also believe that the person that did this will have to sit in judgement before God for what they chose to do out of their own free will.

 

[chipbennett]

Alright. I think this isn't working unless we get some things figured out. You think I'm misstating your arguments. I think you've misstated my arguments. You think you haven't made some arguments that I'm pretty sure you've made. Something has to give here.

Okay so about your claim that I said something that I don't think I said. Something to the effect that a zygote isn't living or isn't human. I looked back at my earlier posts and I don't see anywhere that I claimed that. I see plenty of places where I agreed that it is human and rebutted by saying it's arbitrary or subjective to attach rights at that point. I think in a reply to another poster I used the term "life" in quotes to represent the idea of when rights should attach to that life. I made some points to the effect that at the zygote stage it isn't human enough. That's the closest I can find to your claim, and it isn't claiming what you said I claimed. If you have the post number, I'll go back and look at it. But I've gone back through many pages and I'm not seeing it.

Post #863. In response to Timjoebillybob saying "Humans have rights. A two cell zygote is human and alive ergo it has rights. Better?" You said, "No. It's not."

Now, reading that, the "it" is not particularly specific. It understood "it" to be "a two cell zygote is human and alive", but re-reading it, "it" could be "Better?" So, if I misunderstood you, that's where/how.

Now. About the arguments you say you're not making. I think there are two. One is that you say you haven't made the argument to the effect that a human has rights, a zygote is a human, therefore it has rights. The other you insist haven't argued is the "at conception".

On the first, do you recall reciting a section of the Declaration of Independence? You argued something to the effect that "the science" says that a zygote is a living human, and because the constitution says humans have inherent rights, the zygote has inherent human rights. Did you not make that argument? I think you kinda insisted that's your secular argument. But is that not the same argument you have been claiming over the last several posts that you haven't made? Because, if you syllogize that, it pretty much is the argument I said you made that you deny making.

I recall that you made a similar point maybe 3 or four times, insisting that's the non-religious argument, it's "the science". My rebuttal to those were pretty much it's arbitrary/subjective. You insisted, no it's "science", that attaching elsewhere is arbitrary/subjective. And I said it's ALL arbitrary/subjective. Until you kinda dropped that and started making other arguments. Do you still deny that you made that argument? I don't care to go back dozens of pages to look up the post numbers. I'm sure you at least remember your Declaration of Independence post.

I have consistently said that I am making an argument on the basis of science rather than on the basis of religious belief. And the science does say that a two-celled zygote is living and is human. The disconnect is where you keep insisting that the argument I'm making is that human rights must attach at the two-cell zygote stage of human development. I can link to perhaps a dozen posts where I have directly refuted that I'm making that very argument, and instead am making the argument that we cannot know, scientifically, at the stage of human development that rights attach.

The other argument you claim you're not making and haven't made in this thread is the "at conception" argument. So I have to ask, why are we discussing this at all then? I think it was R45 that asked me something like what was the secular argument for a right to life "at conception"? I said I didn't think there was a good one. You insisted there was. And off we went. So if you're not arguing the point you contested, are you planning to start arguing it anytime soon? If you are going to fulfill your claim that there is a secular argument for “at conception” you need to actually make that argument. So are you going to make this secular argument for "at conception"? Or have you already argued the "at conception" point while claiming you’re not making that point? I think it's the latter. But you tell me. Either way. We can then proceed from there.

It's neither.

I can similarly link to the same dozen or so posts where I have explicitly stated that I'm not making an "at conception" argument. We're only still discussing it, because you keep ascribing that argument to me, when I keep explicitly stating that I'm not making an "at conception" argument.

So, here I am, telling you again: I'm not making an "at conception" argument.

Do with this information what you will.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I'm not sure about that. For example, the idea of responsibility. That's a moral absolute. It's not really involved in the idea of rights, other than the idea that rights come with responsibility. There's no reason the rights would have had to come first.

Like I said before, I think the moral from which rights come is the idea of "fairness". I suppose the idea of fairness could have come from the concept of rights, but that doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Dang, I'm going to have to ask you to be more wordy. . Could you explain a bit by what you mean by responsibility? Responsibility for one's own actions, responsibility for taking care of oneself, responsibility towards others? And those can intermingle as well.

Also the same with fairness. What kind of fairness?

 

[Timjoebillybob]

In my time on Ingo I have never seen so many lengthy yet well stated posts/positions on any subject. Mostly good reads. Agree with the opinions/positions or disagree.
Even a new member coming in.

Well done so far gentleman.

Not sure I can say I haven't seen it on any subject here, but not this one. Even just a few years ago this would have degraded into a **** show pretty quickly. For a thread even tangentially related to abortion to go this long...

 

[jamil]

Post #863. In response to Timjoebillybob saying "Humans have rights. A two cell zygote is human and alive ergo it has rights. Better?" You said, "No. It's not."

Now, reading that, the "it" is not particularly specific. It understood "it" to be "a two cell zygote is human and alive", but re-reading it, "it" could be "Better?" So, if I misunderstood you, that's where/how.

“It” is obviously ambiguous. So the ambiguity is on me. And I think I did say at some point that no one is arguing about the biology of a zigote, but the arbitrary/subjective reasoning for attaching rights at that stage. But even after I had made that statement more than a time or two, which should have clarified "it' could not mean zygote, you ignored that and kept bringing up your as hominem of high school biology. But regardless, if even after that if you still weren’t clear what “it” meant, if you’re arguing in good faith, why would you not seek clarity instead of assuming the least charitable interpretation?

I have consistently said that I am making an argument on the basis of science

Wup! There you go again. No you’re not. We all seem to agree now that no one is denying the science. We disagree on whether rights should attach at that point. That is not a scientific position. It is a position based on how you choose to apply the science we all agree on.

rather than on the basis of religious belief. And the science does say that a two-celled zygote is living and is human. The disconnect is where you keep insisting that the argument I'm making is that human rights must attach at the two-cell zygote stage of human development. I can link to perhaps a dozen posts where I have directly refuted that I'm making that very argument, and instead am making the argument that we cannot know, scientifically, at the stage of human development that rights attach.

Then you are not making a scientific argument. So stop saying you are. We both believe the same science. We both have different beliefs about when rights attach.

You keep saying you’re not making the argument you sound like you’re making. I just went back and reread your "Declaration of Independence" post. Claiming that you haven't made the argument, are we a quibbling over semantics? When I repeat the argument it sounds to me like you're making, is it the word “must” the hangup? Or, do you not like the enquoted “at conception”? Is there some meaning you derive from it a technicality that allows you to say you're not making it?

It's neither.

I can similarly link to the same dozen or so posts where I have explicitly stated that I'm not making an "at conception" argument. We're only still discussing it, because you keep ascribing that argument to me, when I keep explicitly stating that I'm not making an "at conception" argument.

So, here I am, telling you again: I'm not making an "at conception" argument.

Do with this information what you will.

We got into this discussion because you disagreed with my statement that there’s not a good secular argument for “at conception” so then for you to refute me, you have to actually argue one. So do it, or don’t it.

We’re just arguing with each other at this point, and I’d rather talk about ideas. I'd be happy to discuss ideas with you. But leave the ad hominem, Alinsky **** out of the discussion. Leave the least charitable interpretations of ambiguous statements out of the discussion, in favor of seeking clarity. Stop claiming you did not make arguments that your prior posts seem to make, and if you're really not making those arguments, explain why they're not the arguments they sound like.

Quote your declaration of independence post and walk me through how that exchange does not simplify to, "humans have rights, a zygote is human, therefore zygote has rights". And if you make a logical case for why it's not, fine. And, I'll tell you what. In good faith, either way, I'll stop mocking you about that silly Alinsky moment. That's not arguing the points either. So I'm sorry for my part in that.

It's up to you. But if you still claim that there IS a good secular "at conception" argument, you do kinda have to make one.

 

[jamil]

Dang, I'm going to have to ask you to be more wordy. . Could you explain a bit by what you mean by responsibility? Responsibility for one's own actions, responsibility for taking care of oneself, responsibility towards others? And those can intermingle as well.

Also the same with fairness. What kind of fairness?

I think I've explained it elsewhere in this thread already. So I'll get down to how I think a moral like responsibility would be discovered. First as shorthand for what we mean by "responsibility" I'll call it "due diligence". It's a short definition that kinda packs the essence of it.

Okay, so along the evolution path for humans, they notice that when you pay due diligence to something, that something tends to turn out better than if you don't. So then the concept of "responsibility" gets refined into something more foundational, a moral truth. It becomes "moral" to be responsible and immoral to be irresponsible. Not storing food for winter is bad. Don't be bad. Store up food for winter.

The part that is absolute, is that it was always the case that paying due diligence to something tends to result in better outcomes. It preexisted the discovery. So that makes it timeless in a way, at least the time constrained to the human history. Or probably before current humans. I haven't seen literature on whether ancestors of humans had the concept of responsibility.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I think I've explained it elsewhere in this thread already. So I'll get down to how I think a moral like responsibility would be discovered. First as shorthand for what we mean by "responsibility" I'll call it "due diligence". It's a short definition that kinda packs the essence of it.

Okay, so along the evolution path for humans, they notice that when you pay due diligence to something, that something tends to turn out better than if you don't. So then the concept of "responsibility" gets refined into something more foundational, a moral truth. It becomes "moral" to be responsible and immoral to be irresponsible. Not storing food for winter is bad. Don't be bad. Store up food for winter.

The part that is absolute, is that it was always the case that paying due diligence to something tends to result in better outcomes. It preexisted the discovery. So that makes it timeless in a way, at least the time constrained to the human history. Or probably before current humans. I haven't seen literature on whether ancestors of humans had the concept of responsibility.

Okay, I think I understand what you mean by responsibility. But that is easily explained how it could stem from rights. A person has the right to life, but they have the responsibility to ensure they have the means to do so. So storing up food for winter stems from the right to life. But I don't think that example fits into "morals". Morals IMO at least refer to our interactions with others at least for the most part. There are a few exceptions perhaps such as suicide and masturbation, both of which some consider immoral. And suicide is arguable in that it effects others as well.

Another reason why I don't necessarily agree with your example of it stemming from morals, squirrels. Do squirrels have morals? IMO no, but they do store food for winter along with a host of other animals in one way or another. Is it immoral for the squirrel to steal the feed you put out for birds?

 

[chipbennett]

“It” is obviously ambiguous. So the ambiguity is on me. And I think I did say at some point that no one is arguing about the biology of a zigote, but the arbitrary/subjective reasoning for attaching rights at that stage. But even after I had made that statement more than a time or two, which should have clarified "it' could not mean zygote, you ignored that and kept bringing up your as hominem of high school biology. But regardless, if even after that if you still weren’t clear what “it” meant, if you’re arguing in good faith, why would you not seek clarity instead of assuming the least charitable interpretation?



Wup! There you go again. No you’re not. We all seem to agree now that no one is denying the science. We disagree on whether rights should attach at that point. That is not a scientific position. It is a position based on how you choose to apply the science we all agree on.


Then you are not making a scientific argument. So stop saying you are. We both believe the same science. We both have different beliefs about when rights attach.

You keep saying you’re not making the argument you sound like you’re making. I just went back and reread your "Declaration of Independence" post. Claiming that you haven't made the argument, are we a quibbling over semantics? When I repeat the argument it sounds to me like you're making, is it the word “must” the hangup? Or, do you not like the enquoted “at conception”? Is there some meaning you derive from it a technicality that allows you to say you're not making it?


We got into this discussion because you disagreed with my statement that there’s not a good secular argument for “at conception” so then for you to refute me, you have to actually argue one. So do it, or don’t it.

We’re just arguing with each other at this point, and I’d rather talk about ideas. I'd be happy to discuss ideas with you. But leave the ad hominem, Alinsky **** out of the discussion. Leave the least charitable interpretations of ambiguous statements out of the discussion, in favor of seeking clarity. Stop claiming you did not make arguments that your prior posts seem to make, and if you're really not making those arguments, explain why they're not the arguments they sound like.

Quote your declaration of independence post and walk me through how that exchange does not simplify to, "humans have rights, a zygote is human, therefore zygote has rights". And if you make a logical case for why it's not, fine. And, I'll tell you what. In good faith, either way, I'll stop mocking you about that silly Alinsky moment. That's not arguing the points either. So I'm sorry for my part in that.

It's up to you. But if you still claim that there IS a good secular "at conception" argument, you do kinda have to make one.

I've "walked through" my argument enough. Either you're going to accept that what I say is my argument, is actually my argument, or you aren't.

 

[jamil]

Okay, I think I understand what you mean by responsibility. But that is easily explained how it could stem from rights. A person has the right to life, but they have the responsibility to ensure they have the means to do so. So storing up food for winter stems from the right to life. But I don't think that example fits into "morals". Morals IMO at least refer to our interactions with others at least for the most part. There are a few exceptions perhaps such as suicide and masturbation, both of which some consider immoral. And suicide is arguable in that it effects others as well.

No, I think responsibility fits in well with societal stability. Look at all the freak progressives who whined about conservatives not wearing masks, not being vaccinated. It was a moral responsibility claim. When people don't behave responsibly we judge them by our morals.

I'm not saying it can't be the case that rights come first, and then morals. It's that it looks to me like the anthropology supports morals developing earlier. I mean before humans. Some animals display shame, which implies a conscience, which is necessary for the development of moral thinking. I'm not sure that the concept of rights is necessary for moral reasoning. But if you prefer that I'm not gonna judge you.

Another reason why I don't necessarily agree with your example of it stemming from morals, squirrels. Do squirrels have morals? IMO no, but they do store food for winter along with a host of other animals in one way or another. Is it immoral for the squirrel to steal the feed you put out for birds?

Squirrels have instincts that drive them to do what they do. But the don't seem to have the capacity to judge each other for not doing it. So it seems to me the evolutionary advantage for them is the instinct.

Here's another point. And this will probably only make sense if you at least believe the idea of evolution. Creationists will probably roll their eyes.

There's instinct and there are morals, both can drive behavior that gives individuals and groups a selective advantage. I think part of what separates humans from lower animals is the ability to override our instincts. But that can be to our destruction. So then if we can choose not to follow instincts that give us a selective advantage, maybe sitting around all day painting graffiti on their home cave walls, instead of going out with Dad hunting and gathering, then those traits should be selected out. Laziness should be selected out. But it's not, and I think that has to do with the development of conscience and later morals along side the ability to override them. Morals would give a selective advantage to tribes that discourage destructive behavior.

 

[Leadeye]

Pavlich explains why there isn't much interest in finding Supreme Court leaker

Fox News contributor Katie Pavlich discusses speculation over who leaked the Supreme Court draft opinion.

www.foxnews.com

I don't think the dems are interested in pursuing the leak source as they already know who, they probably bought the info for it's political value. Some investigate journalist should.... follow the money... to see where it went.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

No, I think responsibility fits in well with societal stability. Look at all the freak progressives who whined about conservatives not wearing masks, not being vaccinated. It was a moral responsibility claim. When people don't behave responsibly we judge them by our morals.

I'm not saying it can't be the case that rights come first, and then morals. It's that it looks to me like the anthropology supports morals developing earlier. I mean before humans. Some animals display shame, which implies a conscience, which is necessary for the development of moral thinking. I'm not sure that the concept of rights is necessary for moral reasoning. But if you prefer that I'm not gonna judge you.

Morals developed before the rights, or before the recognition/concept of rights? IMO there is a distinct difference. I can agree with you that morals developed before the recognition of rights, but I can't agree that morals drove the existence of rights.

Squirrels have instincts that drive them to do what they do. But the don't seem to have the capacity to judge each other for not doing it. So it seems to me the evolutionary advantage for them is the instinct.

I could argue that squirrels have the right to life and that their instincts are to protect that right. And yep to enjoy a batch of fried squirrel I'll have to deny that squirrels right to life. My morals will allow for that, for others maybe not.

Here's another point. And this will probably only make sense if you at least believe the idea of evolution. Creationists will probably roll their eyes.

There's instinct and there are morals, both can drive behavior that gives individuals and groups a selective advantage. I think part of what separates humans from lower animals is the ability to override our instincts. But that can be to our destruction. So then if we can choose not to follow instincts that give us a selective advantage, maybe sitting around all day painting graffiti on their home cave walls, instead of going out with Dad hunting and gathering, then those traits should be selected out. Laziness should be selected out. But it's not, and I think that has to do with the development of conscience and later morals along side the ability to override them. Morals would give a selective advantage to tribes that discourage destructive behavior.

I can agree with this.