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

[BigRed]

If a loved one is vegetative, it's perfectly legal to pull life support.

Has Joe been made aware of this?

 

[actaeon277]

Well, since only women can decide about a baby, and the man has NO choice, then ELIMINATE ALL child support.
A couple gets married, then the man has made a choice.
Not married, and the woman exercises "her choice", then she gets the financial decision also.


And then, VP Harris asks if there are any laws that affect men.
You mean like being drafted?
You mean like no decision in a child's birth?
You mean like child support?

 

[jamil]

I thought it might be helpful to make sure it was all in one place, given the many voices in this thread.


A distinction without a difference, I think, but fair enough. I don't think "right to life" of one individual implies any compulsion on the free will of anyone else, in general. (There is obvious implication here to the gestation period in utero, but I've addressed that already: the gestating human life is present in utero through choice and action of its parents, not through its own choice and actions.)

It's not really. I'm looking for an acknowledgment that "right to life" really means right not to be killed. This works.

Science doesn't address the question of "equality" of life. A two-celled zygote meets the definition of life, and that life is genetically human. That is all that science can tell us. As you say (and with which I agree): anything you add to that scientific understanding of "human life" becomes a matter of philosophy.

Wasn't it you that scolded me for bringing philosophy into it? Maybe it was someone else. I thought it was you. If not, fine. We're in agreement on that. If it was you, fine. I'm glad we're now in agreement on that.

I think this is, again, a distinction without a difference, but fair enough. The right to life can be forfeited through one's actions, following due process. (And, I would not have a great problem with eliminating capital punishment for even the most evil among us - though that still leaves justifiable forfeiture of life through an act of self-defense against a mortal threat.)

None of that applies to a gestating human life, though.

Again, it was looking for acknowledgement of the former point.

The point is that we have no empirical (i.e. scientific) means to determine at what point in development rights attach to a developing human. That point could be "conception", "two-celled zygote", or some other developmental point beyond those. The principle is that, once those rights have attached, taking that life becomes unjust. If we assume that rights attach at the two-celled zygote point of development, our assumption leaves zero "gray area" for unjustly taking a human life. If we assume any developmental point beyond that one, then by definition we increase the risk of unjustly taking a human life, because our assumption creates "gray area" where we may have made an incorrect assumption. (I think this point is clear? If not, I can give examples.)

Well, fine, but this is an opinion. And it does not address one of the issues I had with the earlier point, that it does not balance the mother's rights. You jumped into my **** initially when I made a statement in response to someone else, that I didn't think there was a good secular argument for "at conception". And that a religious argument is probably the best you have. Or something to that effect. So now we're talking about "grey areas" and a sentiment of "just in case we're wrong". Well, if you're going to try to make a deductive argument, which you were at first, then there is no "just in case", no "grey areas", etcetera. And if we now agree that this is your opinion, and not "the science", we have no further disagreements to resolve. What we have left is two people who agree to disagree on some opinions we have in difference.

The reason that I keep hammering you for this is because it reeks of an Alinsky tactic; specifically Rule #4: "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules."

I do not kowtow to Alinsky tactics. I have very intentionally kept my own, personal religious beliefs out of my argumentation, and you seem hell-bent on forcing me to apply my religious beliefs. In doing so, it appears that you are attempting to weaken a non-religious argument by forcing it to be founded upon my religious beliefs. I have said nothing whatsoever about the soul. The above, point-by-point rationalization I provided stands on its own, without introducing the concept of a soul or any other religious beliefs. The only potential "moral" attachment involves the first point - that humans have an inherent right to life - which is why we established, up front, that the principle is universal and accepted, regardless of religious belief.

You've confirmed my suspicions then. You assumed, I suspect because of mental pattern matching, that I'm one of those, because it matches the pattern you're conditioned to react that way to.

I was not using a tactic. I don't care about that nonsense. This is all stuff I've thought about a lot, and it's my conclusions. And it's not just a whim. For **** sake Chip, we've both been on this board arguing the same points on occasion and opposing points on occasion, for the last 8 or so years. Is your memory that short? All of a sudden, you really think I'm going full on Alinsky on you? C'mon man. Gimme a break. Maybe you haven't read a recent post I made, that should explain why I'm a non-religious person who's not adversarial towards religion. I'm fond of religion, especially Christian religion. I just don't believe in it. But it seems to me you're smart enough that you should be able to rub a couple of empirical and intuitively obvious facts together to draw a better conclusion than "He's Alynski!".

I'll say it again in case, amidst the many words I tend to lay down, you might have missed it. I think it's reasonable to say that 1) the "at conception" argument is primarily from a religious worldview. I didn't say you couldn't use a secular argument to make your point. But your point is indeed deriving from your religious worldview. 2) My reason for making that point is so that you guys who are so cocksure that it's absolutely, objectively, even "scientifically", at conception, you might be able to see that it's actually just one of many perspectives. And that yours is also subjective, and dependent on your worldview.

Unless you can demonstrate where particular religious belief is required for any subsequent point, then I will continue to assert that the position I articulated is wholly appropriate as a secular justification for assuming that the right to life for humans attaches to human life from the point of development of a two-celled zygote. (Note: that is not to say that it is the only possible secular position; rather, that it is a legitimately secular position.)

A religious person can seek secular reasons for holding a position. But. Secular people don't hold that position. Why? They have a different world view, most of them, that doesn't tend to produce that opinion. But. If you can find reliable data that show religious people are no more likely to make the "at conception" argument than non-religious people, I'd be happy to change my thinking on that.

Just because you can assemble secular reasons doesn't mean that your underlying worldview isn't what's actually driving your belief, and that because of that, it's actually an subjective viewpoint. In other words, we all got opinions. So let's not beat each other up over opinions, unless you're of the opinion that a baby can be killed right up to its first breath, because mommy lives matter. You can beat those people up (not physically).

Okay. So are you over this Alynski **** now?

 

[jamil]

Yes I know what a reductive argument is, I disagree that I'm using one. Logically it's both human and alive.

Well then you've made a fallacious deductive argument. You haven't finished it. The conclusion needs to follow from the premises. It doesn't.

I don't want abortions banned because I think it's a sin. Once again you are the one bringing religion into this. Perhaps it is primarily religious people who proclaim it, that doesn't mean that religion is the reason for their point of view. I believe lots of things are a sin, that doesn't mean I want them to be illegal and/or banned.

C'mon man. We've been through this. This isn't the argument I've made. Go read my last post to Chip. Especially the last sections where I'm literally Alynski.

I notice you didn't answer the question. Although I do agree that there are subjective and objective morals. Not that long ago it was morally acceptable for a grown person to marry a early teen. Not the case anymore.

But again. Did slaves have rights that were being denied, or did they not have rights due to the morals of the time? IMO a pretty simple question.

I thought you were asking a general question about morals. And I answered that one. Your question seemed rhetorical to me. But if you want me to answer. Okay. Yes. Slaves had rights then. It is obvious to me, with the morals that have evolved into what they are, that everyone has human rights. That means people have a right not to be taken against their will into slavery. All humans. It's a moral that wasn't universally accepted then as it is now, at least in the West. So that's timeless and not dependent on what the morals were then. I don't know if that answers your question. But I'm answering the question I think you're asking.

But, it's worth making the point that we can't hold people in judgement by applying today's morals on yesterday's people. They're responsible to the extent that they should have known better, and that's about it.

A persons opinion of abortion maybe subjective, same as anything else. A person's world view may have them believe it's perfectly acceptable to fly a passenger jet into a large building. Objectively speaking, a two cell zygote is as human as a newborn, is as human as a two year old, is as human as a 18 yr old, is as human as a... That is not subjective, it is an objective scientific fact.

For politicians/ideologues/etc you are probably correct. For others not IMO.

You're not the only one to have made this point, and I've been arguing so many points with you guys that I just didn't think it was worth it. But I'm gonna. Because why the **** not.

That's wrong. A zygote contains all the genetic code to form everything that a human will become. It's not yet what a human will become. Therefore it's not everything that a human is. It doesn't have a dick to think with yet.

 

[Twangbanger]

...That's wrong. A zygote contains all the genetic code to form everything that a human will become. It's not yet what a human will become. Therefore it's not everything that a human is. It doesn't have a dick to think with yet.

Assigning rights to a zygote is necessary, to provide a logical-sounding rationale for forcing raped women to carry to term.

As I alluded to before, some cannot take their 98% and get off the field. They want the other 2%. It may be motivated by religious beliefs. It may be motivated by the cynical belief that rape-claims will skyrocket, as a way of "getting around" the new regime. Or a combination of both. But I think that's mostly what this is about; rationalizing the quest for that remaining 2%.

 

[Tombs]

Assigning rights to a zygote is necessary, to force raped women to carry to term.

As I alluded to before, some cannot take their 98% and get off the field. They want the other 2%. It may be motivated by religious beliefs. It may be motivated by the cynical belief that rape-claims will skyrocket, as a way of "getting around" the new regime. Or a combination of both. But I think that's mostly what this is about; rationalizing the quest for that remaining 2%.

The problem is making this into a legal test, not the moral/ethical aspect.

 

[jamil]

I agree with you that the turning away of increasing numbers from religion is a contributing factor in the societal degradation we are currently experiencing as a Nation. It appears that relying on the theory of a simple evolutionary sense of morality sans a religious contribution left to it's own accord is not enough in today's society.

The way I look at it, I think that the religious contribution has basically evolved over maybe up to a 100K years or so. It's helped stabilize societies and I think is part of what has made civilization possible.

So it's not clear to me that it's a good idea to flush all those morals developed through the various religions, tested over maybe 100 millennia, in favor of a set of moral standards that brings us to the point of "birthing persons".

So, relying on a what you say is a simple evolutionary sense of morality, actually includes religion. I think for the Atheist zealots, they don't accept that and they want to discard the traditions they think were built on religion. I think it doesn't matter if an idea is religiously derived. It's part of why I've been arguing that I don't care if your abortion arguments actually come from religion. Maybe the religious idea about banning abortion from conception has some truth we don't know about that could save humanity. Kinda doubt it. I'd trust it more if it were an older idea.

Moral truths can be complicated to an extent that it's not always obvious what caused societies to be better off with the belief than without it. Some are really obvious, but zealots who think they know better regject it anyway because of its origin. Religious truths around responsibility, for example, seem pretty obvious to most of us who are older than 50. But to some of these Millennials and Zoomers, "responsibility" is a Boomer thing and we should just override that instinct.

They're overriding it to their own destruction. Plenty of Bible verses reveal that wisdom of time. Pretty much all the religions have some concept of responsibility, because you're way more likely to survive with it, than without it. But it's old and people are foolish. So let the Boomers and X'ers and all the other responsible people bail out their student loans.

 

[jamil]

The problem is making this into a legal test, not the moral/ethical aspect.

Fair enough. But would you accept a legal test of 20 weeks pregnant being the cutoff, like pretty much the rest of the world does?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Fair enough. But would you accept a legal test of 20 weeks pregnant being the cutoff, like pretty much the rest of the world does?

 

[jamil]

Assigning rights to a zygote is necessary, to provide a logical-sounding rationale for forcing raped women to carry to term.

As I alluded to before, some cannot take their 98% and get off the field. They want the other 2%. It may be motivated by religious beliefs. It may be motivated by the cynical belief that rape-claims will skyrocket, as a way of "getting around" the new regime. Or a combination of both. But I think that's mostly what this is about; rationalizing the quest for that remaining 2%.

Idunno. For many, many decades they've wanted 100%, where anything less than that is unacceptable. And it's not because of "Science". But, I'd just settle for an acknowledgement that things aren't as black and white as they think it is. I don't ask them not to have a religiously based opinion. I'm fine with that. But at least stepping off the unearned cocksure ledge a bit. Accepting a consensus would be great though.

 

[jamil]

Eh, that tweaks at my feels. Okay. 15? I think at conception is not realistic.

 

[Tombs]

Fair enough. But would you accept a legal test of 20 weeks pregnant being the cutoff, like pretty much the rest of the world does?

I don't personally like it, but it's a better standard than nothing.

A lot of ideals regarding standards kind of give me the creeps because of how I can think to exploit them to commit atrocities. Such as trying to create a definition to differentiate a fetus from a human being.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Eh, that tweaks at my feels. Okay. 15? I think at conception is not realistic.

See, the truth is the only point where we can definitively say a person is not a person is when it’s not a person—when egg and sperm have not met yet, so to speak. Everything else is subjective, shades of grey.

 

[Creedmoor]

Well, since only women can decide about a baby, and the man has NO choice, then ELIMINATE ALL child support.
A couple gets married, then the man has made a choice.
Not married, and the woman exercises "her choice", then she gets the financial decision also.


And then, VP Harris asks if there are any laws that affect men.
You mean like being drafted?
You mean like no decision in a child's birth?
You mean like child support?

My ex had to pay me child support.

 

[Tombs]

See, the truth is the only point where we can definitively say a person is not a person is when it’s not a person—when egg and sperm have not met yet, so to speak. Everything else is subjective, shades of grey.

That's my take as well.

I see it as a human life, full stop.
It should be done only in circumstances the public thinks is acceptable for taking a human life.

I don't think a blanket ban on it is fair or respecting of the public's wishes. But extreme circumstances are a thing, and society is usually not too bad at arriving at the right answer when the right information and context is present.

 

[actaeon277]

My ex had to pay me child support.

And what percentage of cases would that occur

 

[KG1]

So, relying on a what you say is a simple evolutionary sense of morality, actually includes religion. I think for the Atheist zealots, they don't accept that and they want to discard the traditions they think were built on religion

This is pretty much what I was saying when I used the phrase "relying on a simple evolutionary sense of morality sans religion" Which means that non-believers don't believe in religion as a necessary equation.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

That's my take as well.

I see it as a human life, full stop.
It should be done only in circumstances the public thinks is acceptable for taking a human life.

I don't think a blanket ban on it is fair or respecting of the public's wishes. But extreme circumstances are a thing, and society is usually not too bad at arriving at the right answer when the right information and context is present.

I think technology is changing peoples’ minds on abortion. As we see these 3D images of that “blob of cells” living and growing in the womb, we more clearly see the baby’s humanity. If you look at that clip I shared above and still say “abort it anyway”, I’m not sure we can share a country together.

ETA:
It’s a FB video and some of it is animation but the baby begins to appear more than a blob of cells much earlier than the pro-abortion people would have us all believe.

Watch

Original shows and popular videos in different categories from producers and creators you love

fb.watch

 

[Tombs]

I think technology is changing peoples’ minds on abortion. As we see these 3D images of that “blob of cells” living and growing in the womb, we more clearly see the baby’s humanity. If you look at that clip I shared above and still say “abort it anyway”, I’m not sure we can share a country together.

Like I said, I think things are organically going to move to limiting it to a circumstance most people will find tolerable. We've lived under the most extreme and radical pro-abortion laws since 1973, and most people in this country don't agree with all the conditions it permits.

When and if Roe v Wade is overturned, I think we'll end up with a vastly more moderate policy on abortion in most of the country. And as time goes on, and education improves, it will likely reign its self in due to public wishes alone.

I don't think most people would watch that clip and say that isn't a human being.

 

[Creedmoor]

And what percentage of cases would that occur

I know a few, but I have no idea.
Personally I see the greater number of divorced fathers shun the thought of being a full custody parent.