I happen to think that the 14th is morally correct in regards to the right to bodily autonomy should be above the right to life for another person. This is just on a rights basis. I think it would be morally good to use one’s body to help another live, but I think it is morally wrong to force other’s to use their bodies to help another live.
I think there is a difference in the morality of one choosing to use ones body to help someone, and forcing others to do the same.
Technically speaking a baby infringes on another person’s body for its care for damn near everything to live. If there’s no breast feeding, a person has to use his or her body to feed the child, and house and bathe it. The baby cannot walk or manipulate objects.
Considering you’ve been going by legal terminology Usually what would your opinion be of a mother who does not breast feed but has no access to formula? That is, what do you think of a person who would allow starvation of a baby, which is neglect.
Yes. They interpreted it the same way that one could claim to interpret a 55 MPH speed limit sign as meaning no speed limit exists after that point. So long as we both know that an Amendment ensuring that freed slaves received citizenship did not say anything like what you claimed it did, I am not concerned.
Disagree. It comes down to interpretation of rights of privacy. I think they got it right, you don’t have to agree. Precedent now says that is what the 14th means. Something can mean different things to different people. It may not mean that to you, but neither you or I are on SCOTUS. The people on the court who are to decide what it means, decided it means what I think, not what you think.
You don’t have to believe it changes daily to accept it does require interpretation. Precedent is used to keep it from changing daily. Roe set a precedent on what the 14th means.
Maybe. But thats not what I/we were talking about.
The issue wasn’t people not using contraception because of increased accessed to medical terminations.
It was ethics of it. And I mentioned how I don’t think people take it as seriously.
Yeah well what did zecarlo say to me. You don’t have the capacity so you would never know. Thats just an assumption. But actually I agree with you.
I think average person would still have hard time. But as it becomes normalised people are less fussed about it.
William Shatner aka Captain Kirk was involved in the first interracial kiss on TV. Caused a huge commotion. But now its been done time and time again and no one cares. They’re not the same thing, interracial kissing and abortion and one should definitely be acceptable. But you get my point.
I never said that.
I think Brickhead has alluded to that. But to be honest. These days I might be open to entertaining the concept hypothetically.
If you say something like this. And I disagree with it.
You are going to have to show me.
#1 there was hysteria. #2 It was rooted in fear of change
You do see the flaw in your logic here right?
You are essentially saying you are right because you are saying that conservatives regarding video game violence said “the sky would fall”
I take that to mean something super extreme like the creation of massive waves of super violent criminals. But which conservative outlets actually made such extreme hyperbolic claims? I am sure some but was that the general consensus or in general were they worried that their might be some impact of some sort that might not necessarily be positive?
Conservatives felt that way because of fear of change.
Fear of change? Sure not all change is good.
Since the “sky didn’t fall” conservatives were wrong. And this overstated fear of change is wrong. And therefore maybe conservatism is wrong.
Honestly I don’t want to even get into that. That is video game violence. I just wanted to point out how I think your thinking is flawed or at least not fair.
Tyranny not good. Change to tyranny bad.
How do you know people like to be enveloped in right structures?
Yeah so many people rejected smart phones when they came along.
Also, I am sure I can find a dozen articles that say there is a negative association.
In fact the articles you linked do show there is some negative impact.
But I don’t want to get into that sort of exchange on here.
I am suspicious of authors publishing research through the social sciences these days. But that seems like a cheap out. So I won’t get into that.
Even if the articles shows there is negligible effects on psychological well being doesn’t not mean there isn’t a negative impact felt societally.
A butterfly effect.
I know it isn’t. I was hoping he would elaborate further. But he didn’t. Surprised there right?
Of course assumptions keep us from harm.
That is why I don’t get this whole movement to get rid of “implicit bias”
Thats so trendy today.
But people don’t actually understanding the evolutionary role behind the ability to develop implicit bias in the thinking brain.
8000 years ago. You are walking in the tundra. Out the corner of your eye you see a shadow. Now your implicit bias tells you that shadow means danger because you’ve associated shadows like that with danger because usually shadows like that precede an attack by a saber tooth tiger.
It is the brain that just reacts instinctually based on patterns it has seen in the past.
