Leaked/breaking:Roe v. Wade expected to be overturned

[BugI02]

Where are the Jan 6 style hearings?

Tucker was pointing out that the lede from pretty much all MSM was that 'A fire broke out ...' in that office

I guess at the most obtuse, abstract level you'll have that when somebody firebombs your office

 

[jamil]

Just cannot wrap your head around the science…

Again, "at conception" does not follow from the science. But, if we want to look at the statistics, the people who believe in "at conception" have a very high correlation with being religious. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I just don't know why people are so reluctant to say it. Rights are not a scientific discipline.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Uh. LOL. I think you found them.


Well the dog piling is understandable. I'm the heretic (and a few others) that challenged the orthodox and people have to stomp that out.

I think I should have made it more clear. No, you've really been understanding of the distinction I've made between the science and when rights should apply. But I'm including Chip in the conversation, who did not or does not seem to make that distinction. It looks to me like he believes that science backs his opinion of where rights should apply. And when he reads this I have little doubt that he'll rebut it again. Gotta stamp out the heresy.

So I've been clear on what I think your position is in that regard, the mistake was mine for not establishing the scope. I don't think there's a disagreement between us in the paragraph I quoted.

I don't see this as dog piling, you just have the minority opinion. And I wouldn't say that you're a heretic or that your opinion needs stomped out.

You keep asking about science and when rights should apply. Per the science, it is human and alive. Simple as that.

I think "at conception" is arbitrary. In fact, I think most of those points along a pregnancy are arbitrary. Some of them, are down right immoral. And some of them aren't as morally compelling to the wider public. I have been of the mind that as far as a law based on morals is concerned, you're right, it should be something that is measurable and consistent. But also it should reflect the will of the people. "At conception" is not the will of the people. It's only the will of a subset.

No more arbitrary than at birth.

Some of those points have justifications. Some not. Certainly just before the cord is cut has no justification. But at the point where an egg is fertilized, I don't see a more compelling moral story outside of belief in a soul.

See above. Human? Check. Alive? Check.

It's as good a place as any? Why at conception?


He has a right to live in the sense that he has a right not to be killed. I certainly would not advocate for killing people unjustly. But, he doesn't have a right to be saved. It's that in our society, well most societies, we think it's immoral not to save him. Probably most people feel that it's a duty. In the case of an embryo, people just don't. Maybe because they don't identify with that.

Why doesn't the fetus have the same right not to be killed?

You asked me "What gives that fertilized egg rights? Is it just the DNA encoding? I think claiming it is, is just as subjective as any claim. It does not follow."

My answer is above, but I'll repeat it. It's a living human.

My question to you was. "What gives you rights? What gives a newborn rights?"

Why do you have rights? I'm pretty sure you would agree that the govt doesn't grant rights, is that correct? So where do your rights come from?

 

[Twangbanger]

The same fear and navel-gazing is why it took so long to eradicate chattel slavery.

Lincoln described the slavery issue as akin to "having a tiger by the tail, which we can neither hold onto, nor safely let go." Was he a "navel gazer?" History proves he was precisely correct.

Chattel slavery (which still isn't eradicated) didn't take so long to change because there was a critical shortage of Pointy-Headed Moral Uplifters to point out to others how wrong they were. It took so long, because economies depended upon it (and still do).

We struggled for a century after slavery was abolished, and ended up enacting statutory provisions with no expiration dates in the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, to fix what the Moral Uplifters thought could simply be fixed with the 13th Amendment in 1865. Those statutes are now laying waste to what remains of the Constitution. Lincoln was right. The Moral Uplifters of Abolition colossally underestimated the task they were undertaking.

Fear isn't preventing Abortion from being outlawed. The Supreme Court is. But that's about to change. "Your side" is about to get your 1865 moment. What some of us are interested in, is avoiding 20, 50, or 100 years of freedom-destroying shake-out afterward.

And that doesn't make you a "navel-gazer."

 

[jamil]

Tucker was pointing out that the lede from pretty much all MSM was that 'A fire broke out ...' in that office

I guess at the most obtuse, abstract level you'll have that when somebody firebombs your office

It's not a Capitol building. So not the same. So that would normally be a good reason not to have a commission and hearings and whatever. It's against a political group. But. That's not the reason why there isn't. It's because the Jan 6th commission was convened to marginalize political opponents.

 

[BugI02]

I have said I think you've been very confident in your belief, so there's no worry that I have thought you were insecure. But I was commenting on the reluctance I see for people to admit that it is based on a religious belief. I don't think it's an issue that religion forms the basis of your belief. You have a right to your beliefs for whatever reason and you get to vote accordingly. If that means a total ban on Abortion, then that's what you want. But other people do get to push back on that.

I'm not sure that you are arguing a gestating fertilized egg is not life. I would expect that you would agree from the time a planted seed shows its first shoot that that plant is alive, so too with the first cellular division of the zygote

Which leaves me wondering if you are arguing when life is significant enough that it 'deserves' to be preserved. We can have a disagreement about the time line without the necessity to invoke religion although I can't quite qualify for that debate because my beliefs affect where to draw the line, but we should not be arguing whether an abortion takes a life because it most certainly does - all the rest is hyperbole

 

[BugI02]

Funny you should mention Einstein. Pretty smart, that guy...

“The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.” - Albert Einstein

Funny you should mention Einstein:

“I was barked at by numerous dogs who are earning their food guarding ignorance and superstition for the benefit of those who profit from it. Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the same source. They are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against the traditional "opium of the people"—cannot bear the music of the spheres. The Wonder of nature does not become smaller because one cannot measure it by the standards of human morals and human aims.”

― Also Albert Einstein

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Uh. LOL. I think you found them.

Haha, yeah. I started typing, thinking, "this time I'm going to be more concise." Didn't happen.

Anyway, what that last part sounds like to me is, "my views are based on my religion, but I have to find a secular reason for them too, so that the law I want doesn't sound like it's just based just on my views."

Well, that's pretty close to correct, though I wouldn't phrase it that way. Is that a bad thing? From my perspective, if I am to advocate in favor of a law, I must give a justification for it that doesn't rely on religion. If that's not the case, don't we just end up with what amounts, to all practical purposes, to theocracy?

I think "at conception" is arbitrary. In fact, I think most of those points along a pregnancy are arbitrary.

"At conception" is fundamentally different than any of the hypothetical criteria you mentioned. Before conception vs after conception, a fundamental change occurs in the nature of what we're talking about: before there was NOT a human organism, now there IS. Any other criterion mentioned would be inconsistent with how we treat human organisms outside of the womb.

You don't have to convince me about objective morality. I think what is objectively moral is very narrow. Most of it is subjective. But there are some core morals that are objective across cultures and time.

So it sounds to me like you're saying that some morals are objective (like, "murder is wrong") but other things are not objective, like, "what is a person?"

But doesn't that whole line of thinking just collapse on itself? If murder means the unjust taking of a person's life, but "person" is a subjective term, subject to change, how can murder be objectively wrong? If you can only give subjective definitions for objective morals, how is that any different from having no objective morals?

 

[BugI02]

I've got a few problems with this. First scientifically speaking life begins at conception, that single cell is life by scientific definition. Another is "potential human", it is human. It can be nothing else, it's not going to turn into a puppy or a kitten. It is human.

Regarding sentience, there have been multiple studies that show sentience doesn't develop until several months after birth. Now the possibility of sentience does develop much earlier in the womb, but actual sentience no. It also doesn't cover those with severe mental defects who will never become sentient, so where do you draw the line? Okay to kill after birth but before they develop actual sentience, severe mental defects anytime after birth?

sen·tient (CED)
adjective
able to experience feelings

I don't think sentient means what you think it does, and a mental defect would have to be severe indeed to preclude sentience. The organism so inflicted would likely not survive

 

[LeftyGunner]

Hello.

I created an account specifically to post in this thread, I hope that’s allowed here.

Mr Bennet makes some good points about when a human life begins, and I think I understand his points about a two-cell zygote and human rights.

However, he fails to address the conflict that occurs between the rights of the unborn and the rights of the pregnant, as well as the moral issue of forced birth.

Doesn’t the mother have the same rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness as Mr Bennet wants to extend to the unborn? There is undeniable overlap between the rights of two people when they both occupy the same body. Does the right to life of the unborn have supremacy over the right to life of the pregnant?

If so, based in what? The foundational element of our legal system (and government) is consent. Without consent there is no liberty.

From my perspective, forcing a person to engage in an activity that may reasonably kill them is the exact opposite of liberty, and absolutely morally abhorrent.

Is there a side to this view I am missing? When Mr Bennet asserts that an unborn human has a right to life, does that right override the existing rights of the mother, including the right to choose to avoid reasonable forms of harm?

Doesn’t a mother’s right to life include the right to choose the least harmful path forward for her own life, or should the life of her unborn child legally negate her own?

Thank you for reading my post. I await the forum’s responses.

 

[BugI02]

I wonder what the correlation is on INGO between those who are "pro-life" and those who have posted that we should "glass" the Middle East. I suppose some human life is more equal than others.

 

[Tombs]

Hello.

I created an account specifically to post in this thread, I hope that’s allowed here.

Mr Bennet makes some good points about when a human life begins, and I think I understand his points about a two-cell zygote and human rights.

However, he fails to address the conflict that occurs between the rights of the unborn and the rights of the pregnant, as well as the moral issue of forced birth.

Doesn’t the mother have the same rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness as Mr Bennet wants to extend to the unborn? There is undeniable overlap between the rights of two people when they both occupy the same body. Does the right to life of the unborn have supremacy over the right to life of the pregnant?

If so, based in what? The foundational element of our legal system (and government) is consent. Without consent there is no liberty.

From my perspective, forcing a person to engage in an activity that may reasonably kill them is the exact opposite of liberty, and absolutely morally abhorrent.

Is there a side to this view I am missing? When Mr Bennet asserts that an unborn human has a right to life, does that right override the existing rights of the mother, including the right to choose to avoid reasonable forms of harm?

Doesn’t a mother’s right to life include the right to choose the least harmful path forward for her own life, or should the life of her unborn child legally negate her own?

Thank you for reading my post. I await the forum’s responses.

Least harm is usually a route taken when 2 individual's rights are conflicting. Afterall, the concept of law is 'supposed to' be in the interest of protecting the rights of the individual against someone else infringing on them.

If there is a material threat to the mother's life, I don't think many people are arguing that an abortion is a problem. What people are arguing is the case of aborting a child when there's no material threat, once again using the concept of what a reasonable person would consider a serious threat, is wrong.

 

[chipbennett]

I think I should have made it more clear. No, you've really been understanding of the distinction I've made between the science and when rights should apply. But I'm including Chip in the conversation, who did not or does not seem to make that distinction. It looks to me like he believes that science backs his opinion of where rights should apply. And when he reads this I have little doubt that he'll rebut it again. Gotta stamp out the heresy.

Granted, misstating my position does make for easier refutation of the erected straw man. If you wouldn't keep misstating me, I probably wouldn't have to keep rebutting.

I have said, repeatedly, that science does not and in fact cannot determine when rights should apply - that science can only state when life begins, and what is and is not human life. I have stated, repeatedly, that determination of at what point in the developmental process a living human that rights should attach to that human life is scientifically arbitrary, and is not a matter of science but rather a matter of philosophy.

Nothing in those statements expresses any particular religious belief - yet for some reason, you keep maligning my position as being the "religious" one.

So I've been clear on what I think your position is in that regard, the mistake was mine for not establishing the scope. I don't think there's a disagreement between us in the paragraph I quoted.

I have said I think you've been very confident in your belief, so there's no worry that I have thought you were insecure. But I was commenting on the reluctance I see for people to admit that it is based on a religious belief. I don't think it's an issue that religion forms the basis of your belief. You have a right to your beliefs for whatever reason and you get to vote accordingly. If that means a total ban on Abortion, then that's what you want. But other people do get to push back on that.

Case in point. My position isn't founded on my religious beliefs. It is founded on the scientific understanding of what constitutes human life, the foundational assertion of our country that all humans have the unalienable right to life, and the inability of science to determine if there is a particular point of human development at which that unalienable right attaches.

For some reason, you have a need to ascribe a religious-belief foundation to that position.

Anyway, what that last part sounds like to me is, "my views are based on my religion, but I have to find a secular reason for them too, so that the law I want doesn't sound like it's just based just on my views."

I think "at conception" is arbitrary. In fact, I think most of those points along a pregnancy are arbitrary. Some of them, are down right immoral. And some of them aren't as morally compelling to the wider public. I have been of the mind that as far as a law based on morals is concerned, you're right, it should be something that is measurable and consistent. But also it should reflect the will of the people. "At conception" is not the will of the people. It's only the will of a subset.

Speaking with respect to science: of course "at conception" is arbitrary - because science is wholly incapable of determining when rights attach to a developing human life. The stated principle is that all humans have the unalienable right to life. Scientifically, "human life" applies from the two-cell zygote until death. Science says no more and no less than that. In fact, science doesn't even speak to the matter of rights.

Some of those points have justifications. Some not. Certainly just before the cord is cut has no justification. But at the point where an egg is fertilized, I don't see a more compelling moral story outside of belief in a soul.

It's as good a place as any? Why at conception?

Because - again - that is the point that guarantees the minimum amount of unjust taking of life from living humans that have the right to life. Any point after that (and, again, I'm fine with "two-celled zygote" in this argument) unarguably increases the risk that the taking of life from the living human does so unjustly. Scientifically, we cannot state a point beyond "two-celled zygote" that the risk of unjust taking of human life is/remains zero. Thus, from a "do no harm" perspective, we err on the side that minimizes the unjust taking of human life.

(Again: this is not a religious argument - unless you want to argue that "right to life" is a religious belief only.)

An example of this would be murder. Pretty much all societies since civilization have developed a sense that the unjust intentional killing of a another person is morally wrong, even societies that eat people. It's all in how they define "unjust" and "person".

Yes. And how many slaves were legally - though immorally/unjustly - killed, due to the prevailing definition of "person"? (Note: IMHO, "just" and "unjust" have objective definitions. Something being legal doesn't make it just.)

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Hello.

I created an account specifically to post in this thread, I hope that’s allowed here.

Mr Bennet makes some good points about when a human life begins, and I think I understand his points about a two-cell zygote and human rights.

However, he fails to address the conflict that occurs between the rights of the unborn and the rights of the pregnant, as well as the moral issue of forced birth.

Doesn’t the mother have the same rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness as Mr Bennet wants to extend to the unborn? There is undeniable overlap between the rights of two people when they both occupy the same body. Does the right to life of the unborn have supremacy over the right to life of the pregnant?

If so, based in what? The foundational element of our legal system (and government) is consent. Without consent there is no liberty.

From my perspective, forcing a person to engage in an activity that may reasonably kill them is the exact opposite of liberty, and absolutely morally abhorrent.

Is there a side to this view I am missing? When Mr Bennet asserts that an unborn human has a right to life, does that right override the existing rights of the mother, including the right to choose to avoid reasonable forms of harm?

Doesn’t a mother’s right to life include the right to choose the least harmful path forward for her own life, or should the life of her unborn child legally negate her own?

Thank you for reading my post. I await the forum’s responses.

This argument only holds water if the choice is between killing the child and killing the mother. The right to liberty can never include being free to take the life of an innocent person. Ever. No matter how annoying/aggravating/inconvenient that person may be to us.

 

[chipbennett]

Well that long part of the discussion was because I answered a question daring to suggest that there isn't a good secular argument for "at conception". You need the concept of a soul or something like that. Then people feel they must stamp out the heretics. And then long posts ensue.

The suggestion is incorrect, which is why it invites refutation. The only way your suggestion would be correct would be if you were to assert that "right to life" is purely a religious concept/belief.

If that's what you're asserting, then I readily admit that I've been discussing in vain. I don't think that's what you're asserting, though - and I don't think that's what you really want to assert, because there be dragons.

 

[chipbennett]

Emotional?

Inalienable rights apply to people. Where's the emotion?

Unalienable rights apply to humans.

Define "people".

 

[jamil]

I don't see this as dog piling, you just have the minority opinion. And I wouldn't say that you're a heretic or that your opinion needs stomped out.

You keep asking about science and when rights should apply. Per the science, it is human and alive. Simple as that.

That's a reductive argument, and an opinion that rights should apply at that point.

No more arbitrary than at birth.

I did say all of them are arbitrary. Except, with an abortion at birth, you're going to have a much larger agreement that it is immoral than shortly after conception.

See above. Human? Check. Alive? Check.

Reductive: Check.

Why doesn't the fetus have the same right not to be killed?

At some point I think it does. Right at conception? That's not as morally certain.

You asked me "What gives that fertilized egg rights? Is it just the DNA encoding? I think claiming it is, is just as subjective as any claim. It does not follow."

If you've followed the conversation, that's been my point all along, that it's all a lot more subjective than people think. Which is, I think, because it's based on the surety of a religious belief in a soul that gives a even a zygote a moral status that most people don't give it.

My answer is above, but I'll repeat it. It's a living human.

Noted.

My question to you was. "What gives you rights? What gives a newborn rights?"

Why do you have rights? I'm pretty sure you would agree that the govt doesn't grant rights, is that correct? So where do your rights come from?

I've tried to be more brief. I hope that doesn't make you feel left out, lol. This is less brief. Human rights follow from morality. Where the morals are, so follow the rights. So that's where I'm at on natural rights. Of course I have natural rights.

Where you're going with this is essentially what you've said all along, the same reductive fertilized egg == human == human with rights. Is there something other than "potential" that morally attaches the rights of a fertilized egg, equally with any more developed human? At conception, it doesn't think, breathe, feel, have dreams or aspirations. It is difficult to have sympathy or to empathize with it. I know that sounds insensitive to you guys. I'm trying to say it in a sensitive way. But can I have a moral reaction to make me believe it has rights at conception? Not without believing it has a soul.

My opinion on that is unpopular here, but it is much closer to the mainstream opinion. Like I said, I'm trying to say all this in a sensitive way, because obviously that opinion is gonna evoke some negative emotions, as it has already. But trying to be honest without offending people is not always easy. I don't know another way to say it. Without having something more than just a fertilized egg, without the concept of a soul, it's hard to conceive of it not being an "it" at that stage, and I find it an arbitrary requirement to say it has the same rights of a more developed human. And that's probably gonna trigger some people too. It's the nature of discussing controversial topics where people have strong opinions about it.

I'm not pro-abortion. But because it all is so subjective, my opinion on it is that our laws should reflect the will of the people. We're too old for it to affect us. I hope my son whenever he marries is responsible and does not cause an unwanted pregnancy, because I think abortions shouldn't happen. I'd rather people make smarter choices. that's pretty much it.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

 

[Twangbanger]

I've thought about making that point, but I'm not sure people actually care about that because their moral beliefs require them to have another priority. But it would be good to get people to see that their confidence is not evidence of objective rightness. That it's not as clear cut for everyone else as it is for them. That moral laws need to be built on consensus or there will be great disagreement and conflict.

Personally, I wish SCOTUS had not taken this case now. We're already in the middle of a fierce culture war. If the "normal" people win, and the bat **** crazy stuff is tossed out of existence, maybe that's the time to have this conversation. But that's not why those 3 justices were appointed. They were put on the bench for this purpose. And it's unlikely to have been helpful.

Your first paragraph is the idea that makes people's heads explode. Some think the geeky simplicity of being able to say, "One moment there were [X] chromosomes, then afterward, there were [2-times-X] chromosomes...so therefore, since there's a sort of geeky mathematical simplicity to it which always leads to the same answer - the one I happen to like - it's therefore the only right way to reason this debate."

On the other hand, if things were to be decided in a manner which lacks that "2x > x" simplicity, they feel the bottom of the lake disappearing from under their feet, and don't possess the confidence they can "use their words" and reason to win the argument anymore. Their ultimate root of moral reason is something delivered to them in a book, not something they baked in the kitchen of their own reason. And that makes all the difference. Because (I'm putting on my Jordan Peterson hat here) they feel like they're being entered in a cook-off with surprise ingredients where they won't be able to use their grandma's recipe anymore, and feel like they won't be able to win. (By "win," in this case I mean: reach an end-point in the debate which agrees with their already-existing concept of what is right).

On your second point, I'm not sure there's ever a bad time to strike down bad, activist legal reasoning. But if there's anybody I blame for the timing of this, it's Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Decades after The Left had converted SC appointments into asymmetrical partisan warfare, those doofuses were still trying to play the game symmetrically. By appointing people like Anthony Kennedy and (for chrissakes!) David Souter, they delayed the timing of this latest decision by at least 20 years. Now that we're dropping a precedent with half a century under its belt, I despair of any possibility of saving the Heller 2A decision from the leftist horde. I know they were eventually going to make a run at it, anyway. But RvW being overturned makes the job a lot harder, because now they're going to just have an aching hard-on for some kind of right-wing precedent they can overturn.

 

[jamil]

The suggestion is incorrect, which is why it invites refutation. The only way your suggestion would be correct would be if you were to assert that "right to life" is purely a religious concept/belief.

If that's what you're asserting, then I readily admit that I've been discussing in vain. I don't think that's what you're asserting, though - and I don't think that's what you really want to assert, because there be dragons.

But you haven't refuted it. You've defined a point backed by science that begins the scope of pregnancy that no one disputes. And then you attached rights to it. I can do the same with any other point in a pregnancy documented by science. But that would be as arbitrary as yours.

Also, a right to live is not purely a religious concept or belief. There be no dragons there, though you've probably read the same theologians who insist otherwise.