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

[jamil]

I apologize; it was unfair of me to say that.

No need to apologize. I wasn't offended. But a lot of people do get offended when, because of our worldview, we assume others must have the same understanding. And, btw, I think I forgot to clarify that point in another post. I think I said something to the effect that you "imposed" your worldview onto others. That's the wrong word. That makes it sound like I thought you were forcing your worldview on others and that's not what I was trying to convey. I regret that I didn't say that better.

Thank you. You've represented my position fairly well, the only small thing I would add is that I specifically believe that these reasons are the most valid ones because they are the only ones consistent, objective, and understandable enough to be used as a workable definition of when human life begins. That was all I've really been trying to argue, so I guess we've kind of reached the point where further explanation on my part isn't useful.

I do honestly wish I understood your position well enough to represent it as fairly as you have represented mine, but I think in order to do that I'd have to understand your definition of human life. But it sounds like based on what you're saying that it's a bit too complicated to convey in a format like this. Or maybe that is the of your position?

At any rate, I think I've used up enough of the word supply in this thread, and I doubt I'm going to make any more progress by using more, so I'm content to leave the discussion at that, for my part.

I think for a conversation about such a really controversial, emotional issue like this, for the most part, INGO has done okay. Thanks for an interesting conversation.

 

[Cameramonkey]

I Concur Jamil. I'm proud of everyone having a civil discussion with no name calling or petty hyperbole or arguing based on the feelz.

I dont think this discussion would have lasted this long if several former INGOers were still around. I think INGO is a better place today. (flippers not included)

 

[BigRed]

It is not a matter of authority for the general state.

Regardless of belief, science, etc., this is matter reserved to the States and the people of the States.

 

[ljk]

It is not a matter of authority for the general state.

Regardless of belief, science, etc., this is matter reserved to the States and the people of the States.

Hard to explain it to people nowadays. Abortion is just a vehicle, it can take you where you wanted to or into the ditch.

 

[BigRed]

Hard to explain it to people nowadays. Abortion is just a vehicle, it can take you where you wanted to or into the ditch.

Hard to explain to people nowadays the central state is a worthless piece of ****.

 

[ljk]

Abortion is the battle which conservatives wanted to win to feel good.

The state's constitutional rights is the war would be nice to win.

Left wants to make RvW an emotional issue to overwrite the constitution by packing the court and eliminate filibusterer.

If you want get rid of abortion, win the war first, then you can ban it out right. And nullify the NFA while you are at it.

 

[jamil]

I Concur Jamil. I'm proud of everyone having a civil discussion with no name calling or petty hyperbole or arguing based on the feelz.

I dont think this discussion would have lasted this long if several former INGOers were still around. I think INGO is a better place today. (flippers not included)

I mean. I was right there with you until you disparaged the flippers.



Why do you hate freedom?

 

[BigRed]

The States and the people of the States can decide what they will re abortion.

Dissolve the central state and the alphabet soup agencies of the central state go with it.

Some States may replicate them...some may not. Regardless, it is yet another matter of the States and the people of the States.

 

[jamil]

It is not a matter of authority for the general state.

Regardless of belief, science, etc., this is matter reserved to the States and the people of the States.

This. RvW was horrible jurisprudence. Judicial activists invented stuff to make a policy they wanted. Even if that were the right policy, that's not the role of the judicial branch. So the SCOTUS ruling coming down striking RvW is the correct one.

But, to TB's point, it's probably not without cost. This is going to escalate the culture war well beyond what it is now. I would rather this decision didn't come now. Would have been best for it to come in the 1990s. I don't think that was possible then. But that would have been a better time for it than now.

 

[jamil]

The States and the people of the States can decide what they will re abortion.

Dissolve the central state and the alphabet soup agencies of the central state go with it.

Some States may replicate them...some may not. Regardless, it is yet another matter of the States and the people of the States.

Okay. I'm intrigued. So without the central state, each state becomes its own country?

 

[BigRed]

This. RvW was horrible jurisprudence. Judicial activists invented stuff to make a policy they wanted. Even if that were the right policy, that's not the role of the judicial branch. So the SCOTUS ruling coming down striking RvW is the correct one.

But, to TB's point, it's probably not without cost. This is going to escalate the culture war well beyond what it is now. I would rather this decision didn't come now. Would have been best for it to come in the 1990s. I don't think that was possible then. But that would have been a better time for it than now.

Wish in one hand, **** in the other and see which one fills up first.

Exercise of the limitations placed upon the central state ARE LONG OVERDUE on this matter and numerous others.

 

[jamil]

I'll lay it out one more time:

I appreciate you laying it out here. But I recall that we've had maybe 4, give or take, exchanges. Where was all this laid out? I think I missed some of it.

1. "Humans have the right to life" is an accepted, absolute principle

Call it right to pursue life and I can buy that as an absolute principle, but it's not universally held as an absolute principle. But, in Western thinking, it's close enough. But you do need to say it more precisely, that you have a right to pursue life. You don't have a right to my help if you need it. But because I'm a compassionate man, I feel like it's a moral duty as a fellow human being to help you however I am able when you need it.

2. Science determines that a human life exists at the two-celled zygote stage of development

I am not a scientist. I would like to ask biologists from both a religious worldview and a secular worldview, to see if they both agree that a two-celled zygote is considered equal to a fully developed human, which is what you seem to keep asserting. So then I can imagine how that conversation would go. "Equal in what way?" Uh, equal in terms of human rights. "That's not a question for biology to answer. That's a question for philosophy." Oh.

3. Science does not and cannot address the concept of "rights", including "right to life", and cannot determine when such rights attach to a human life

This is my position from the start.

4. The assumed, absolute, human right to life must attach at some stage of human life.

Agreed, but with the aforementioned caution about using absolute with right to life. I'll add another acceptable alternative. You can say right not to be killed. Or right to pursue life. Or both.

5. It may be true that unalienable rights attach to human lives at some point subsequent to the two-celled zygote stage.

Okay.

6. Assuming unalienable rights, including the right to life, attaches universally to all human life - which includes human life at the two-celled zygote state of development - poses the least risk of unjustly taking the life of a human to which that right attached.

That's a case you could make. But I would like some balance with the rights of the mother when we're talking about just a fertilized egg. I understand that to you this is as much a person at the very beginning of its life as someone near the very end of his, and all points between. But this is what I've asked you to do. Draw the dots between fertilized egg and "unjust". You've listed 7 statements. None of them lead from embryo to "unjust".

7. Assuming unalienable rights, including the right to life, attaches at some subsequent point must, by definition, increase the risk of unjustly taking the life of a human to which that right attached.

And there's really not much we can say about this point. It doesn't move us any closer to a logical path from the science, a life equal to any other. If I don't have a belief in the same moral attachment you've given it, how can I logically agree with "unjustly taking the life of a human?"

And again, I think the moral attachment you have is because of what, as a Christian, you believe about the human soul. And there's nothing wrong with that.

 

[jamil]

Wish in one hand, **** in the other and see which one fills up first.

Exercise of the limitations placed upon the central state ARE LONG OVERDUE on this matter and numerous others.

Of course. I can wish all I want. Doesn't mean I shouldn't.

I'll agree with you that the central government needs to be nerfed. Emergency powers need to be nerfed Well, I'm not gonna list it all since words are so expensive these days. Just say top to bottom.

 

[jamil]

Thank you for your reply.

Yes. I think so. She still has the right to choose the least dangerous path forward for herself. I don‘t think she is obligated to defer to the needs of an unwanted pregnancy just because her poor choices led her to that point.

How far in the pregnancy does this right to choose override the unborn's right to not be killed?

 

[jamil]

Thank you for your reply. I shortened it to the part most relevant to my reply, but I am not ignoring the rest. You write very well, and I’ll do my best to respond at your level.

I am referring to the mother, and to the harms and risks she faces.

No pregnancy is completely safe, there is a reasonable chance of permanent disability or death in every pregnancy.

I want to suggest that only the mother has the ability to assess and consent to the risks inherent in pregnancy and birth. I further want to suggest that a woman‘s assessment of her risks may change even after learning of her pregnancy. Finally, I want to suggest that a woman has the right to remove consent to pregnancy based solely upon her understanding of the risks involved and of her level of tolerance to those risks.

When it comes to what level of risk and what amount of harm is acceptable for an individual pregnant woman to endure, it must be for that individual alone to decide, not the governemnt.

Thank you again for your reply.

What about the father? It's the mother who is carrying the child so I get that she would have the most say. Is the father just completely out of the loop? He participated in creating it.

 

[Tombs]

I am not a scientist. I would like to ask biologists from both a religious worldview and a secular worldview, to see if they both agree that a two-celled zygote is considered equal to a fully developed human, which is what you seem to keep asserting. So then I can imagine how that conversation would go. "Equal in what way?" Uh, equal in terms of human rights. "That's not a question for biology to answer. That's a question for philosophy." Oh.

I would like to ask you why it matters?

 

[LeftyGunner]

How far in the pregnancy does this right to choose override the unborn's right to not be killed?

I think that strikes at the very heart of the question:

Does an unborn human have a right to live birth and, if so, how absolute it that right?

There seems to be strong agreement, even here, that a woman should not be forced to carry a pregnancy to term if the delivery will kill her.

The problem, as I see it, comes in attempting to draw the line at exactly how much harm a woman should be forced to endure in order to ensure a live birth for her unborn. Killing her is too far, clearly, but what about leaving her wheelchair-bound for the rest of her natural life? Should a woman be legally forced to endure this amount of harm on behalf of her unborn?

Should she be legally forced to endure *any* amount of harm, even that normally associated with a healthy pregnancy and delivery?

I think there is sound reasoning behind the First Breath doctrine, personally.

Individual rights begin when our lives as individuals begin. Until birth the rights of the unborn are inexorably tied to the rights of the pregnant, and it makes the most sense to me to defer to position of the mother when conflicts arise.

Thank you for your response.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Ultrasound clip at link.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Another day with this thread between the ditches. The staff doesn't see everything but we see a lot.

 

[Shadow01]

Thank you for your reply.

Yes. I think so. She still has the right to choose the least dangerous path forward for herself. I don‘t think she is obligated to defer to the needs of an unwanted pregnancy just because her poor choices led her to that point.

And she shouldn’t be allowed to extinguish a life just because she made a bad choice and doesn’t want to carry the baby. Maybe the compromise is to let her abort with a charge of murder…