In Susan Collins speech which for me as a still very novice lover of US Law came as a nice surprise
“Mr President, the Constitution does not provide guidance on how we are supposed to evaluate these competing claims; it leaves that decision up to each Senator.” youtu.be/FRpSJed5xsA?t=1823
The law is a fluid thing. That is why it provides stability.
Static (European) law is brittle, US law is resilient, flux like, Heraclitean; yes to principles, no to forms. Due process even in the formulation of justice. Nothing is given except by time. Earth and water, the heavy elements. Not idealism, but faith in ones fellow citizens, past as well as present.
Right, like the manner in which each Senator reacts to Brett Kavenaugh has nothing at all to do with the way in which I situate the components of my own moral philosophy – dasein and conflicting goods – in the discussion and debate.
Like the law and the Constitition grappled with by the Supremes has nothing at all to do with the manner in which Karl Marx and others situated the components of their own political philosophy in the organic, hstorical evolution of political economy.
The fact is that with Kavanaugh on the court it is much more likely that here in America, abortion legislation will either be sent back to the states, or abortion itself will simply be prohibited from coast to coast.
Now, let’s explore Susan Collins rendition of the law here.
You tell me: How fluid ought the law be here in order to be in sync with that which philosophers can provide in the way of a moral obligation for all rational and virtuous human beings?
A “resilient” law is one that is more rather than less in sync with “moderation, negotiation and compromise”. And that is basically what is encompassed in the political parameters of Roe V. Wade.
It is in fact the objectivists on the right who want to chisel the law here into something akin to the Ten Commandments.
Every mother has the right to want to be a hands on parent, and has the right to not trust anyone else raising what she is pregnant with. If she doesn’t feel the capacity to raise that child the way that she deems fit, for many reasons, it is her prerogative to make that choice.
Either that or this one: Is what the majority of Americans want more or less in sync with the manner in which I construe the components of my own moral philosophy as of fundamental importance in grappling with the question of how “fluid” the law should be with respect to an issue like abortion.
But the answer that I would give is no less an existential contraption rooted in this…
1] I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. My family/community were very conservative. Abortion was a sin.
2] I was drafted into the Army and while on my “tour of duty” in Vietnam I happened upon politically radical folks who reconfigured my thinking about abortion. And God and lots of other things.
3] after I left the Army, I enrolled in college and became further involved in left wing politics. It was all the rage back then. I became a feminist. I married a feminist. I wholeheartedly embraced a woman’s right to choose.
4] then came the calamity with Mary and John. I loved them both but their engagement was foundering on the rocks that was Mary’s choice to abort their unborn baby.
5] back and forth we all went. I supported Mary but I could understand the points that John was making. I could understand the arguments being made on both sides. John was right from his side and Mary was right from hers.
6] I read William Barrett’s Irrational Man and came upon his conjectures regarding “rival goods”.
7] Then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.
In what I presume to be a No God world.
They’re answered, sure. But how do the answers then transcend the components of my own moral philosophy? How are they not the embodiment of them?
And, sure, no doubt, folks in Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia could have been polled about the policies of their own government.
Founders said democracy wouldn’t work without an informed electorate …
What’s more, representative democracy with states - the states are Petrie dishes for the working ideas we have, when proofs are found, they become national law.
Union through difference… the difference between the sexes is nexus of of all the other beautiful making differences of the fabric… why so serious?
“Whoever would like to have been aborted is for abortion and whoever exists with gratitude is against it.” ?
It has a core of fairnes.
I think the mother is influential enough on the child without the right to kill it.
Abortion rights always give te mother the right to say “I could have aborted you”.
The Constitution does not provide guidance on how we are supposed to evaluate these competing claims; it leaves that decision up to each US Supreme Justice.
Not that I’m surprised that you won’t or can’t describe for us your own rendition of this:
1] I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. My family/community were very conservative. Abortion was a sin.
2] I was drafted into the Army and while on my “tour of duty” in Vietnam I happened upon politically radical folks who reconfigured my thinking about abortion. And God and lots of other things.
3] after I left the Army, I enrolled in college and became further involved in left wing politics. It was all the rage back then. I became a feminist. I married a feminist. I wholeheartedly embraced a woman’s right to choose.
4] then came the calamity with Mary and John. I loved them both but their engagement was foundering on the rocks that was Mary’s choice to abort their unborn baby.
5] back and forth we all went. I supported Mary but I could understand the points that John was making. I could understand the arguments being made on both sides. John was right from his side and Mary was right from hers.
6] I read William Barrett’s Irrational Man and came upon his conjectures regarding “rival goods”.
7] Then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.
In what I presume that you presume to be world in sync with the will of however you construe God here yourself.
Sure, if you are able to convince yourself that, when lawmakers choose particular sets of behaviors to either reward or punish, this has nothing to do with the manner in which I have come to understand the existential implications of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.
Sure, if you are able to convince yourself that the meaning ascribed here has nothing to do with the manner in which I have come to understand the existential implications of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.
From my perspective, value judgments [and answers] relating to any set of behaviors revolving around conflicting goods are embedded existentially in the components of my own moral philosophy: nihilism.
Sure, if you are able to convince yourself that, when any particular Supreme Court Justice makes a decision that will either reward or punish particular sets of behaviors, this has nothing to do with the manner in which I have come to understand the existential implications of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.