Jump to content

OGHoosier

Members
  • Posts

    848
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by OGHoosier

  1. I have a question. How does psilocybin heal one from emotional trauma?
  2. "Vast majority" understates it. Per the Guttmacher Institute (abortion advocacy institution), .001% of abortions are attributed to incest, .065% due to the women's life being endangered, .085% due to the women being raped, and .288% due to women's physical health being threatened. Let's throw in the .294% where the women's psychological health was threatened, though I'm nervous about this one due to diagnostic concerns. Finally, let us (generously and certainly falsely) assume that none of these overlap. That leaves...99.267% which are not attributed to any of these causes. Even if we throw in a 10% false-reporting cushion (meaning that the true incidence of these "exception-class" abortions is over 10x what has been reported), that majority is not merely vast but overwhelming.
  3. Ah, it's accelerationism then? Actually I do like limiting the pardon power of the President, but if it doesn't work then we've opened a colossal can of worms.
  4. "Alright, so our new plan is to just flagrantly break the law and have our President issue pardons for it so we can do it with impunity." Physician, punch thyself. Edit: Also don't even think of bringing up "civil disobedience", the whole point of civil disobedience is accepting the punishment of the law anyways as a protest at its injustice.
  5. This is untrue. A description of the law as "precedent" is not a guarantee not to overturn it, thank heavens. In their confirmation hearings the three justices in question described Roe v. Wade as precedent, which it was. Ironically enough, there is a longstanding precedent in Supreme Court nomination hearings that justices do not state their positions on specific cases in order to maintain their ability to judge the merits of individual cases. It's called the Ginsburg Rule and I have mentioned it before on this thread. It seems I must do so again. Enough slander. Funny, after reading the opinion I was left with the distinct impression that it is now up to the state legislatures to decide what is legal and acceptable. That is, after all, the legal impact of this decision. The platform of the national Republican Party is that rape and incest exceptions are appropriate and legitimate. "Prison for life" is not on the table. 3 Nephi is not indicative of anything regarding the ensoulment of the child. The well-established precedent of divine investiture (members of the Godhead speaking for each other) means that it need not be Jesus Christ Himself speaking, nor does "come into the world" imply that He's not already alive. Do you seriously mean to imply that the infant is consenting to its own death? Or that, failing any way of verifying that, we should assume it? States could be better at that, but it's a non-sequitur when it comes to the morality of abortion unless you wish to make the value of an infant's life transactional. Everything was worse for the whole world 100 years ago than it now is in one of these states, and yet nobody says that we should have committed species suicide way back in the day. The implications of this hedonistic and nihilistic worldview are utterly staggering. I dislike having to disagree with you so ardently. You are a thinker whom I deeply admire, but I cannot admire this.
  6. I've read Nagel's original "What's It Like To Be A Bat" and found it very insightful. I have to say that I'm not very persuaded by integrated information theory.
  7. Because that's the basic question @MikeFoxtrot is asking. He's asking "do Neanderthals need temple ordinances" but the real question is "were they human?" It's made uncomfortable by the idea that "humans" would at one point have been born from and immediately associate with non human creatures which were only minutely different from them, if at all. All that I'm saying is that evolutionary theories have to grapple with that too, especially given the human exceptionalism which, in my view, is not only empirically observable but is a critical element of any functioning society. At one point the "human-nonhuman" line was very thin, but it necessarily had to exist, and that's generally uncomfortable.
  8. That doesn't answer the question. If humans diverged from their predecessors, when did it happen? If you believe in incremental changes, then you accept that each passing generation was basically the same as the one right before it with only minute differences. And yet, somewhere along the line, humans came into being when they previously were not. When did that happen? Which generation became "human" when their parents were not? It had to happen somewhere in there. I'm not even trying to dispute evolution. I'm just saying that the question @MikeFoxtrot poses does not present a unique challenge to the Latter-day Saints. Anybody who believes in human evolution will have to come up with an answer for it.
  9. I believe that, as living souls are a fusion of spirit and body, the way we define what we are must include spirit. One of the essential conditions of "human" is that the body is host to a spirit child of God who took part in the Great Council and chose to come to planet Earth. If this definition is held, then any member of the Church who believes old-Earth and human evolution (or who believes that at any point humans interbred with those who were not) must believe that humans lived and reproduced alongside creatures of similar capacities which were not, nevertheless, human. Our reflexive cultural reaction against racism makes this sort of belief uncomfortable for many, but I believe this discomfort to be misplaced and deeply anachronistic. The old racists were morally wrong because they unjustly denied human status to those who truly possessed it, and paired such denial with cruelty based on that distinction. Their false anthropology was a critical part of their moral malpractice. I don't think they would be so guilty had their anthropology been correct AND had they refrained from cruelty. I do not believe that belief in a distinction between people is cruelty if it is in fact true. Belief in truth is self-justifying. So, in other words, if Neanderthals had spirits from the Great Council, they were human. If they did not, they were not, regardless of their respective capacities. I do not know the answer to this question and thus take an agnostic stance. I will note in passing that this is not a question unique to members of the Church. Anybody who believes in human evolution has to deal with it. If we maintain that the categories of "human" and "non-human" exist (and they obviously do) then the evolutionist must believe that, at the point where humans diverged from their predecessor species, the species were very similar in capacities and yet different in a way that triggers the reflexive racism antibodies. Physician, heal thyself. Additional postscript: this sort of lawyering-about-the-edges in pursuit of clear and rigid categories in all things is a fruitless effort characteristic of left-brain overcomputation. Many categories, if not all, have blurred edges. "Ambiguity exists and we'll let God sort it out" is a perfectly good reaction from a properly holistic mindset.
  10. What does "judicial activism" even mean in a world where it is a justice's expected duty to rule on what constitutes rights in the first place? One of the Court's roles and duties is to rule on the extent of enumerated rights. The First and Second Amendments are not held to be absolute, so it falls to the Court to rule on the extent of their protections. This is before you even get into the litany of rights encompassed in the "substantive due process" category. It is unavoidable that the Supreme Court will dictate terms not specifically enumerated in the Constitution based on principles which belong to traditions outside the Constitution itself. How is this not judicial activism?
  11. I'm aware of the mingled fruit of substantive due process. However, given the fact that the Supreme Court found that abortion is not contained as a constitutional right without signing on to Thomas' solo concurrence, I'm confident that I can state that abortion is not included in the Constitution's litany of rights without signing on to the destruction of substantive due process. Substantive due process is the creation of the Court, it is true, but the Court has been its own creation since the executive accepted judicial review. Much of what we now view as "constitutional" owes its existence to the Court's decisions, so I don't see much of a difference between "court fiat" and "constitutional" honestly. The Court giveth and the Court taketh away, blessed be the name of the Court.
  12. Nah, Carson v. Makin doesn't contradict the First Amendment at all. Back in 2002 the Court decided Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, which ruled that vouchers do not "establish a religion" if the citizens to whom they are granted put those vouchers towards religious schools as an act of free choice. It's the citizens doing the establishing, not the government, and restricting them from doing so is blatantly discriminatory. The Court reaffirmed this holding in Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn (2011), Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (2020), and just the other day in Carson v. Makin. The "wall of separation between church and state" isn't in the Constitution, it's a Thomas Jefferson idiosyncrasy with no juridical significance. The Court has been nothing but consistent on this. Just went back and read the 14th Amendment. I don't see a right to privacy in there, which is an invention of the Supreme Court in ages past (questioning the Court's legitimacy is a bad tactical move, perhaps) and I certainly don't see abortion being part of any such right in the constitutional text. Roe v. Wade was pure judicial activism and poor legal reasoning. What the Supreme Court giveth, the Supreme Court taketh away. The correction is long overdue.
  13. Looks very interesting, thank you for bringing it up. Weirds me out that Joseph's last surviving sibling died in 1900. Feels too recent.
  14. Independence Day has plenty of appetizers already. I probably eat more on the 4th than on Thanksgiving.
  15. I would hope that you provide these statements as evidence. As a precondition, it does not count if those justices described Roe v. Wade as "precedent" or "settled precedent." Of course they are precedent, they have been decided as such by prior courts, but that doesn't make them invulnerable. The Court has reversed itself an estimated 145 times, per the Washington Post. In the meantime, during their confirmation hearings justices refrain from making statements about the validity of particular cases due to a formalism called the Ginsburg Rule, first promulgated by RBG herself: It's standard procedures for prospective justices, when asked about particular cases, to simply describe them as precedent and refuse to offer projections.
  16. Given that "system" is a unitary noun, it must needs describe a singular entity, albeit one composed of other entities. If you simply meant "individual lives," there are other words which would have sufficed. If this "system" is worth defending to this extent, we will need more clarity as to what we are actually being accused of destroying here. I was under the impression that we were looking after the least of these. 60 million of them have slipped through the cracks by now. The irony of using Christ's words to defend such a moral abscess is absolutely revolting. I agree with all of this, but for obvious reasons I think these observations are not terribly germane.
  17. Funny how Loudmouth didn't actually say anything like that, but it serves your rhetorical purposes to put words in his mouth.
  18. It is not for you to prescribe what the righteous may or may not take comfort in. I take comfort in the fact that this issue is once again returned to democratic process. That way we will at least deserve what we get. It is up to the people whether that "system" lives or dies. So be it.
  19. Have you considered that maybe...the Constitution doesn't actually confer any of these rights and they were properly the domain of the elected legislature all along?
  20. All of us agreeing with each other is not the problem, nor the goal. People disagreeing is normal in society: we have different perspectives on what's important, different views on what the most likely cause of something is, and even different views about what is even good. Those sorts of disagreements are normal throughout history. They are not the problem here. In 99.98% of cases, a person's sex is physically unambiguous and externally verifiable to everybody with sufficient access to observe. Those are the classic benchmarks for defining what is true, what is real about the world. To declare that the person is in fact of the opposite sex is a direct frontal charge into the pricks of those two conditions. The question then bifurcates. Are we going to ignore truth entirely, or are we going to redefine a set of fundamental human categories around which our society is indispensably constructed? These are not routine disagreements. The answers to these questions are existential. To pursue compassion and love does and must always walk hand-in-hand with a desire to act according to the truth. This is made all the more true when there are real societal and material ramifications down the line, as @smac97 notes.
  21. I'm open to the idea that their spirits might be intersex as well. At least, I'm not aware of a precedent which would decisively rule it out.
×
×
  • Create New...