Texas v abortion

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
7,162
969
118
Country
USA
Nihilism and existentialism, just to take a couple off the top of my head.
Pretty sure nihilism and free will don't mix particularly well. I'm not sure how one would hold that existence itself is arbitrary and meaningless while simultaneously believing their own actions to be non-arbitrary.

Existentialism is neither an explicitly atheist philosophy, nor does it necessarily reject the existence of the supernatural.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,476
7,051
118
Country
United States
Pretty sure nihilism and free will don't mix particularly well. I'm not sure how one would hold that existence itself is arbitrary and meaningless while simultaneously believing their own actions to be non-arbitrary.
Just because actions are arbitrary doesn't mean that there's no free will. Personal whim is still a choice.
Existentialism is neither an explicitly atheist philosophy, nor does it necessarily reject the existence of the supernatural.
"Supernatural" just means we don't understand it yet. Supernatural beings can certainly exist with being meaning-imparting gods. A jet engine in the 3rd century would be supernatural
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
7,162
969
118
Country
USA
"Supernatural" just means we don't understand it yet. Supernatural beings can certainly exist with being meaning-imparting gods. A jet engine in the 3rd century would be supernatural
That's not what that word means at all. Supernatural is, very literally, beyond nature. There is no "yet" in the definition of supernatural. The ability to explain something outside of nature wouldn't suddenly make it natural.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,476
7,051
118
Country
United States
That's not what that word means at all. Supernatural is, very literally, beyond nature. There is no "yet" in the definition of supernatural. The ability to explain something outside of nature wouldn't suddenly make it natural.
If ghosts exist, can be proven to exist, and the mechanism by which they become ghosts is discovered, they stop being supernatural.

Like, definitionally. Your presumption is that we "know" the natural order of things. That wasn't true of the past, there's no reason to believe it's true now.

EDIt: And also would be irrelevant to an existentialist, as a supernatural being of great power no more proves the existence of the intrinsic meaning of life than my cat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bluegate and Kwak

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,085
6,372
118
Country
United Kingdom
I'm not saying that. Are you acting dense on purpose? I'm wondering how you would take a pro-choice or a pro-life stance: at what point is a fetus comparable to an animal you wouldn't kill? Some scientific findings must have given a guideline or two.
No need to be an ass, it was a misunderstanding. I thought you were just asking me whether I'd be happy for scientists to determine this on a societal level or not. I didn't realise you were asking me what my personal stance is.

Anyway: I'm not really well enough versed in the research on prenatal development to give a timeframe. But I also think there are several other aspects at play in abortion, namely the mother's right to control her own body, the cruelty involved in forcing someone to bring a child to term, and the danger of a child going without a home that can adequately care for it.

Whereas with an animal, for most of us here in the Western world, it is a minor inconvenience at most to not eat an animal (with additional environmental benefits, even). Certainly nothing comparable to those factors above. Though I do also recognise that that's not the case for everybody, and that some places currently rely on meat to the point where it would cause malnutrition to transition too quickly away from it.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,085
6,372
118
Country
United Kingdom
Would you care to explain one of those?
Well, I can explain how free will exists in my worldview, without any supernatural elements.

As you say, the natural world operates by causality (though there are quantum phenomena that do not necessarily fit comfortably within causality as we understand it, such as possibly truly random particle characteristics, and quantum superpositioning).

With a human making a decision, the most direct cause would be a series of chemical/neuro-electrical processes in the brain (1). One step back: the cause behind that would be the thoughts, sensory feedback and emotions triggered by external stimuli (2). Another step back: the cause behind those would be the external stimuli themselves (3).

Even if (3) is the same, the response (2) will be wildly different from person to person... though this will primarily be down to other environmental causes (their personal circumstances, past experiences, minute differences in physiology).

In my view, (2) does not inevitably lead to a specific (1). It influences it greatly, yet evidence would suggest that it's not the final word, because responses to such stimuli are so wildly divergent and we are able, at any point, to make a decision and then act against our instinct.

And this seems to me to be a characteristic that can emerge naturally. And why not; it's a highly adaptive, evolutionarily beneficial trait; the ability to reject slavish reaction to instinct and to form rational plans.

1) I'm guessing that you aren't reading anyone else's posts, I was not referring to you specifically about trying to disprove God.
You guess wrong, particularly since my biggest presence in this thread has been arguing with someone who isn't you.
 

McElroy

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 3, 2013
4,608
387
88
Finland
Anyway: I'm not really well enough versed in the research on prenatal development to give a timeframe. But I also think there are several other aspects at play in abortion, namely the mother's right to control her own body, the cruelty involved in forcing someone to bring a child to term, and the danger of a child going without a home that can adequately care for it.

Whereas with an animal, for most of us here in the Western world, it is a minor inconvenience at most to not eat an animal (with additional environmental benefits, even). Certainly nothing comparable to those factors above.
Fair enough. I also agree that it would be a bigger inconvenience to go pro-life against the wishes of the pregnant woman than giving up meat. The impact is bigger - many more things involved in a person's life than mere dietary habits when that food is bought from a supermarket. Environmental reasons are pretty good reasons and convenience plays a big part there too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Silvanus

The Rogue Wolf

Stealthy Carnivore
Legacy
Nov 25, 2007
16,866
9,548
118
Stalking the Digital Tundra
Gender
✅

Living in 'Murca.
Oh, I'm just waiting for someone to criminally charge the mother for having an unviable fetus.

Think I'm being hyperbolic? In 2018, Alabama charged a woman for manslaughter when she got into an argument and the other person shot her in the stomach, killing her unborn child. The person who did the shooting had all charges dropped.

 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Feb 18, 2010
3,923
1,791
118
Country
United Kingdom
That's not what that word means at all. Supernatural is, very literally, beyond nature. There is no "yet" in the definition of supernatural. The ability to explain something outside of nature wouldn't suddenly make it natural.
The problem is that "nature" encompasses all of reality. All that exists. If there were another universe which we couldn't see or interact with, and which had no interaction with our own universe, then that universe would still exist within the "nature" of the greater multiverse. If your definition of supernatural requires something to be completely outside of nature, then that thing cannot exist at all.

Supernatural might be better defined as "beyond (any present understanding of) natural law". It's a category that is often very temporary. Eventually, natural law tends to catch up. The only exception would be something that by its existence entirely invalidated the concept of natural law, like an omnipotent God. But that's not a particularly satisfying outcome, because a universe governed by an omnipotent God would be arbitrary, meaningless and completely unknowable. Truth, value and reality itself would not be governed by law, but exist only as contingent, specific examples subject to the whim of an omnipotent being. In short, it would be a nihilistic universe (in the actual meaning of the term; a state in which no value can ever be known and thus no knowledge of reality can exist).

That's why modern Christianity tends to position God as entirely removed from the world, with the universe essentially running itself like a big machine in God's absence. The existence of natural law (and consequentially, of the possibility of the supernatural) just makes reality easier to deal with.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
7,162
969
118
Country
USA
If your definition of supernatural requires something to be completely outside of nature, then that thing cannot exist at all.
Yes it can, it just can't be a physical, material thing. If you're not a materialist, things can be outside of nature and exist.
 

XsjadoBlayde

~it ends here~
Apr 29, 2020
3,371
3,499
118

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — A federal judge ordered Texas to suspend the most restrictive abortion law in the U.S., calling it an “offensive deprivation” of a constitutional right by banning most abortions in the nation’s second-most populous state since September.

The order Wednesday by U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman is the first legal blow to the Texas law known as Senate Bill 8, which until now had withstood a wave of early challenges. In the weeks since the restrictions took effect, Texas abortion providers say the impact has been “exactly what we feared.”

In a 113-page opinion, Pitman took Texas to task over the law, saying Republican lawmakers had “contrived an unprecedented and transparent statutory scheme” by leaving enforcement solely in the hands of private citizens, who are entitled to collect $10,000 in damages if they bring successful lawsuits against abortion providers who violate the restrictions.

The law, signed by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott in May, prohibits abortions once cardiac activity is detected, which is usually around six weeks, before some women even know they are pregnant.

“From the moment S.B. 8 went into effect, women have been unlawfully prevented from exercising control over their lives in ways that are protected by the Constitution,” wrote Pitman, who was appointed to the bench by former President Barack Obama.


“That other courts may find a way to avoid this conclusion is theirs to decide; this Court will not sanction one more day of this offensive deprivation of such an important right.”

But even with the law on hold, abortion services in Texas may not instantly resume because doctors still fear that they could be sued without a more permanent legal decision. Planned Parenthood said it was hopeful the order would allow clinics to resume abortion services as soon as possible.

Texas officials swiftly told the court of their intention to seek a reversal from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which previously allowed the restrictions to take effect.

The lawsuit was brought by the Biden administration, which has said the restrictions were enacted in defiance of the U.S. Constitution. Attorney General Merrick Garland called the order “a victory for women in Texas and for the rule of law.”

The law had been in effect since Sept. 1.

“For more than a month now, Texans have been deprived of abortion access because of an unconstitutional law that never should have gone into effect. The relief granted by the court today is overdue, and we are grateful that the Department of Justice moved quickly to seek it,” said Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Texas Right to Life, the state’s largest anti-abortion group, said the order was not unexpected.

“This is ultimately the legacy of Roe v. Wade, that you have activist judges bending over backwards, bending precedent, bending the law, in order to cater to the abortion industry,” said Kimberlyn Schwartz, a spokeswoman for the group. “These activist judges will create their conclusion first: that abortion is a so-called constitutional right and then work backwards from there.”


Abortion providers say their fears have become reality in the short time the law has been in effect. Planned Parenthood says the number of patients from Texas at its clinics in the state decreased by nearly 80% in the two weeks after the law took effect.

Some providers have said that Texas clinics are now in danger of closing while neighboring states struggle to keep up with a surge of patients who must drive hundreds of miles. Other women, they say, are being forced to carry pregnancies to term.

Other states, mostly in the South, have passed similar laws that ban abortion within the early weeks of pregnancy, all of which judges have blocked. A 1992 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court prevented states from banning abortion before viability, the point at which a fetus can survive outside the womb, around 24 weeks of pregnancy.

But Texas’ version had so far outmaneuvered the courts because it leaves enforcement to private citizens to file suits, not prosecutors, which critics say amounts to a bounty.

“This is not some kind of vigilante scheme,” said Will Thompson, counsel for the Texas Attorney General’s Office, while defending the law to Pitman last week. “This is a scheme that uses the normal, lawful process of justice in Texas.”

The Texas law is just one that has set up the biggest test of abortion rights in the U.S. in decades, and it is part of a broader push by Republicans nationwide to impose new restrictions on abortion.

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court began a new term, which in December will include arguments in Mississippi’s bid to overturn 1973’s landmark Roe v. Wade decision guaranteeing a woman’s right to an abortion.

Last month, the court did not rule on the constitutionality of the Texas law in allowing it to remain in place. But abortion providers took that 5-4 vote as an ominous sign about where the court might be heading on abortion after its conservative majority was fortified with three appointees of former President Donald Trump.

Ahead of the new Supreme Court term, Planned Parenthood on Friday released a report saying that if Roe v. Wade were overturned, 26 states are primed to ban abortion. This year alone, nearly 600 abortion restrictions have been introduced in statehouses nationwide, with more than 90 becoming law, according to Planned Parenthood.

Texas officials argued in court filings that even if the law were put on hold temporarily, providers could still face the threat of litigation over violations that might occur in the time between a permanent ruling.

At least one Texas abortion provider has admitted to violating the law and been sued — but not by abortion opponents. Former attorneys in Illinois and Arkansas say they sued a San Antonio doctor in hopes of getting a judge who would invalidate the law.
 

thebobmaster

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
2,561
2,470
118
Country
United States
“This is ultimately the legacy of Roe v. Wade, that you have activist judges bending over backwards, bending precedent, bending the law, in order to cater to the abortion industry,” said Kimberlyn Schwartz, a spokeswoman for the group. “These activist judges will create their conclusion first: that abortion is a so-called constitutional right and then work backwards from there.”


Pot, meet kettle much?
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Feb 18, 2010
3,923
1,791
118
Country
United Kingdom
Yes it can, it just can't be a physical, material thing. If you're not a materialist, things can be outside of nature and exist.
If non-physical things existed, then nature by definition would not be restricted to physical things. Those things would also exist in nature. The materialist view of nature would not survive the existence of non-physical things, but it would simply be replaced by a new model of nature that accounted for the existence of non-physical things. Materialism is not the only game in town, even in secular philosophy. You could argue, for example, that reality as we are capable of experiencing it is an entirely non-physical thing.
 
Last edited:

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
7,162
969
118
Country
USA
If non-physical things existed, then nature by definition would not be restricted to physical things.
That's not the definition of nature. Nature is a word used explicitly to describe physical realities. The laws of nature are the laws of physical reality.
 

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 21, 2009
5,771
3,511
118
Country
United States of America
That's not the definition of nature. Nature is a word used explicitly to describe physical realities. The laws of nature are the laws of physical reality.
Physicists are coming up with new particles all the time. What makes them physical as opposed to not physical?
 

Agema

Do everything and feel nothing
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
9,209
6,481
118
That's not the definition of nature. Nature is a word used explicitly to describe physical realities. The laws of nature are the laws of physical reality.
Yes, but if something can interact with what is "real" then that something must also be every bit as real, and therefore part of nature.

If it is completely separate from what is "real", then it may exist but is functionally irrelevant to us, because it has no effect on us whatsoever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheMysteriousGX

AnxietyProne

Elite Member
Jul 13, 2021
510
374
68
Country
United States
What, and take all the fun out of the Rapture (something that doesn't actually exist in the Bible), where Jesus takes all the "good Christians" up to Heaven and lets them point and laugh at all us sinners roasting in Hell?
As worthy of a goal as that is, evangelicals are kung fu masters at moving goal posts about such matters. I found that out when I pointed out that even as a kid in the early 80's, I was listening to Christian talking heads say "The Tribulation is any day now!"

Think I'm being hyperbolic? In 2018, Alabama charged a woman for manslaughter when she got into an argument and the other person shot her in the stomach, killing her unborn child. The person who did the shooting had all charges dropped.
I hoped to forget about that one....
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
9,042
3,035
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
That's not the definition of nature. Nature is a word used explicitly to describe physical realities. The laws of nature are the laws of physical reality.
You know what's crazy about gravity? It's.... created might not be the right term... exists? Maybe... anyway. It exist due to time dilation.

I only bring this up as our understanding of nature/ physical reality has significant holes in it, or, as shown by the example above, whag we see with our eyes doesn't match with reality and we've been teaching ourselves incorrect assumptions of nature.

Neutrinos would be a good example of not being able to locating them but reality seems to require it.

Now, I dont know about supernatural stuff. But I do know that we KNOW things exists we can't experience in the universe. Black hole is literally stuff removed from our universe. There could be other dimensions. (Imagine if heaven or nirvana was just another dimension.) But i dont know if that is a reality