6 ms·

Not only is it insightful, but one that can be actively watched play out in the US with the 50-ish years morality war turning to a war for state voting control

Not only is it insightful, but one that can be actively watched play out in the US with the 50-ish years morality war turning to a war for state voting control and supreme court power to overturn Roe. Watch as states try to out do each other within their purity spiral. What was once thought to be too extreme (no exceptions clauses, even to save the life of the living breathing human in front of them or criminal charges if you save the persons life anyway) is now a required hard line to prove their "moral purity".

TimTheTinker 4y ago
I think there's a subtle distinction between morality wars on the left and the right, at least one that I can see from my own perspective. On the right, there's a coherent, objective moral value statement that voters want upheld, namely "babies are people too, beginning at conception, and must be treated as such by the law." It's pretty straightforward whether this value is being upheld, and there's no risk of a "purity spiral" where people propose increasingly crazy ideas to signal their loyalty to the cause. Just don't kill babies... that is all. On the left, unless I'm mistaken, there aren't coherent, objective moral value statements at the heart of CRT, identity politics, or pro-choice arguments ("my body, my choice" isn't a well-defined philosophical statement) which does lead to a purity spiral. For example, there have been serious proposals to allow "after birth abortion" -- i.e. it's OK to kill babies after they're born - for a recent example see [0], but there are many other examples as well. TA mentions other purity spirals that occur on the left. But regardless, yes, there are absolutely politicians on both sides of the aisle who use people's moral values as a means to power (I'm especially thinking of a recent US president, but there are many others). "You want to get rid of abortion? Vote for me!" -- but disingenuously. They don't appear to care personally about whatever it is, they posture to get power while not understanding the nuances of how to wisely implement laws that reflect the peoples' values, or even what those values are exactly in the first place. --- [0] CA AB-2223, in its original text (now amended), read "Notwithstanding any other law, a person shall not be subject to civil or criminal liability or penalty, or otherwise deprived of their rights, based on their actions or omissions with respect to their pregnancy or actual, potential, or alleged pregnancy outcome, including miscarriage, stillbirth, or abortion, or perinatal death" (emphasis mine). Note "perinatal death" means death within the first 7 days after birth (thus legalizing infanticide). This has thankfully been edited to perinatal death due to a pregnancy-related cause -- but that could still encompass scenarios like "intentional injury to the child moments before or during birth".
- escapedmoose 4y ago
  “It’s wrong to force people into childbirth against their will” holds up well as a coherent, objective moral value statement. I’m a bit baffled that you supposedly can’t see the morality argument for respecting bodily autonomy. On the other side, many of the politicians currently running for office as Republicans in my state have been dragged so deep into the anti-abortion purity spiral that they’re publicly insisting women should die rather than terminate a non-viable and life-threatening pregnancy.
  - User23 4y ago
    > “It’s wrong to force people into childbirth against their will” holds up well as a coherent, objective moral value statement. Right. This is why rape is illegal.
    - escapedmoose 4y ago
      And yet it still happens, and it continues to be one of many reasons why someone might need an abortion. Notably, the politicians I mentioned in my original reply all have professed their intent to force women to give birth in cases of rape.
      - User23 4y ago
        It's wrong to put an innocent human being to death. One or both of that innocent person's parents being a criminal is morally irrelevant. Civilized societies don't hold children guilty for parental acts. Put in simple terms: two wrongs don't make a right. Nobody needs to intentionally kill an innocent human being, ever. Full stop. Bear in mind that unintentionally killing an innocent human being can be morally acceptable, such as in the case of a medical intervention to save the mother's life. The intent is to save the mother, and if the necessary treatment unfortunately ends the innocent baby's life that is a tragedy, but not immoral. One might say the outcome is the same, but in ethics intent is very important.
        4y ago

TimTheTinker 4y ago

I think there's a subtle distinction between morality wars on the left and the right, at least one that I can see from my own perspective. On the right, there's a coherent, objective moral value statement that voters want upheld, namely "babies are people too, beginning at conception, and must be treated as such by the law." It's pretty straightforward whether this value is being upheld, and there's no risk of a "purity spiral" where people propose increasingly crazy ideas to signal their loyalty to the cause. Just don't kill babies... that is all. On the left, unless I'm mistaken, there aren't coherent, objective moral value statements at the heart of CRT, identity politics, or pro-choice arguments ("my body, my choice" isn't a well-defined philosophical statement) which does lead to a purity spiral. For example, there have been serious proposals to allow "after birth abortion" -- i.e. it's OK to kill babies after they're born - for a recent example see [0], but there are many other examples as well. TA mentions other purity spirals that occur on the left. But regardless, yes, there are absolutely politicians on both sides of the aisle who use people's moral values as a means to power (I'm especially thinking of a recent US president, but there are many others). "You want to get rid of abortion? Vote for me!" -- but disingenuously. They don't appear to care personally about whatever it is, they posture to get power while not understanding the nuances of how to wisely implement laws that reflect the peoples' values, or even what those values are exactly in the first place. --- [0] CA AB-2223, in its original text (now amended), read "Notwithstanding any other law, a person shall not be subject to civil or criminal liability or penalty, or otherwise deprived of their rights, based on their actions or omissions with respect to their pregnancy or actual, potential, or alleged pregnancy outcome, including miscarriage, stillbirth, or abortion, or perinatal death" (emphasis mine). Note "perinatal death" means death within the first 7 days after birth (thus legalizing infanticide). This has thankfully been edited to perinatal death due to a pregnancy-related cause -- but that could still encompass scenarios like "intentional injury to the child moments before or during birth".

escapedmoose 4y ago
“It’s wrong to force people into childbirth against their will” holds up well as a coherent, objective moral value statement. I’m a bit baffled that you supposedly can’t see the morality argument for respecting bodily autonomy. On the other side, many of the politicians currently running for office as Republicans in my state have been dragged so deep into the anti-abortion purity spiral that they’re publicly insisting women should die rather than terminate a non-viable and life-threatening pregnancy.
- User23 4y ago
  > “It’s wrong to force people into childbirth against their will” holds up well as a coherent, objective moral value statement. Right. This is why rape is illegal.
  - escapedmoose 4y ago
    And yet it still happens, and it continues to be one of many reasons why someone might need an abortion. Notably, the politicians I mentioned in my original reply all have professed their intent to force women to give birth in cases of rape.
    - User23 4y ago
      It's wrong to put an innocent human being to death. One or both of that innocent person's parents being a criminal is morally irrelevant. Civilized societies don't hold children guilty for parental acts. Put in simple terms: two wrongs don't make a right. Nobody needs to intentionally kill an innocent human being, ever. Full stop. Bear in mind that unintentionally killing an innocent human being can be morally acceptable, such as in the case of a medical intervention to save the mother's life. The intent is to save the mother, and if the necessary treatment unfortunately ends the innocent baby's life that is a tragedy, but not immoral. One might say the outcome is the same, but in ethics intent is very important.
      - 4y ago