Thom, your rhetorical appeal directly points to the fallacy of fear. More egregious perhaps is that you’ve done exactly what you’ve accused opponents of doing forever. Your argument simply relies on threats and make your enemies to be both treacherous and deadly. The Hill’s Jeffrey McCall best explains your approach. “Civilized societies…
Thom, your rhetorical appeal directly points to the fallacy of fear. More egregious perhaps is that you’ve done exactly what you’ve accused opponents of doing forever. Your argument simply relies on threats and make your enemies to be both treacherous and deadly. The Hill’s Jeffrey McCall best explains your approach. “Civilized societies disintegrate under fearful conditions. Fear and paranoia are tools of manipulation, as Mussolini and Stalin well knew, generating compliance and leading to polarization as people look for bogeymen. Americans now too often fear fellow citizens, demonizing people who don’t vote like they do or have the same mask-wearing practices. It is hard to generate identification with fellow citizens when they are viewed as awful and crazy.”
With McCall's thoughts in mind, your argument certainly ignores an alternative understanding of the recent court decision. Looking back to the 1970s, it can be rightfully said that several white men socially constructed an interpretation of the law. Given this experiment in social construction our current justices judged that abortion laws are out of their constitutional purview. They decided that the previous decision of Roe can be better adjudicated within a different context (i.e. the legislature.)
These statements come without any misogynist or religious undertones. The court made the judgement that this moral issue should be made by elected representatives and not by the court. You’ve made your opinions clear and seem to demand that the justices’ duty is to make the moral judgment and to impose that judgement onto the country. But such a conclusion concerning Roe can be seen as a complete and utter faith-based assertion.
Certainly the law comes with many moral judgements. However, to have our representatives decide how this life and death matter should be legislated is in fact the most democratic thing we can do. Had this approach been taken some 50 years ago we would've avoided all this moral imposition and subsequent polemical partisan divides.
Until both sides realize that the right to an abortion is a social construct, we will undoubtedly be subject to the use of “fear and paranoia as tools of manipulation." But perhaps by placing this issue into the hands that it originally should have been placed, the states referenda might usher in the most democratic solution to this very contentious problem.
Thom, your rhetorical appeal directly points to the fallacy of fear. More egregious perhaps is that you’ve done exactly what you’ve accused opponents of doing forever. Your argument simply relies on threats and make your enemies to be both treacherous and deadly. The Hill’s Jeffrey McCall best explains your approach. “Civilized societies disintegrate under fearful conditions. Fear and paranoia are tools of manipulation, as Mussolini and Stalin well knew, generating compliance and leading to polarization as people look for bogeymen. Americans now too often fear fellow citizens, demonizing people who don’t vote like they do or have the same mask-wearing practices. It is hard to generate identification with fellow citizens when they are viewed as awful and crazy.”
With McCall's thoughts in mind, your argument certainly ignores an alternative understanding of the recent court decision. Looking back to the 1970s, it can be rightfully said that several white men socially constructed an interpretation of the law. Given this experiment in social construction our current justices judged that abortion laws are out of their constitutional purview. They decided that the previous decision of Roe can be better adjudicated within a different context (i.e. the legislature.)
These statements come without any misogynist or religious undertones. The court made the judgement that this moral issue should be made by elected representatives and not by the court. You’ve made your opinions clear and seem to demand that the justices’ duty is to make the moral judgment and to impose that judgement onto the country. But such a conclusion concerning Roe can be seen as a complete and utter faith-based assertion.
Certainly the law comes with many moral judgements. However, to have our representatives decide how this life and death matter should be legislated is in fact the most democratic thing we can do. Had this approach been taken some 50 years ago we would've avoided all this moral imposition and subsequent polemical partisan divides.
Until both sides realize that the right to an abortion is a social construct, we will undoubtedly be subject to the use of “fear and paranoia as tools of manipulation." But perhaps by placing this issue into the hands that it originally should have been placed, the states referenda might usher in the most democratic solution to this very contentious problem.