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

[jamil]

I'm not making an "at conception" argument in this thread.

I don't need to prove the basis of arguments being made by other people who are not me. My position and arguments in this thread are not dependent upon nor limited by the beliefs of secular or religious biologists.

So, thank you for making my point for me.

If you want to be done with the "Alinsky" talk, perhaps consider discussing the statements I'm actually making, instead of dismissing them based on your claims of their bias/basis.

I say "at conception" as a sort of description of what you've presented as your view. That you think that a new life at conception has the same right as at any point in development. Is that not your belief? Is that not contained in the statements of logic you've been making? If that's not your view then I guess we're done.

And about claims of biases, that accounts for most of my interest in this topic. Why do you believe what you do? I think you'd like to think it's based more on "the science". Possibly for you or another individual or two it could be that. Probably not. In other words, if you were an atheist or agnostic would you hold the same opinion as you do now? I doubt it. But also unless you've been of a secular worldview and have thought about it inside of that worldview, you probably can't imagine it.

And I just have not seen it in the wild. No one likes to admit that what they think is an unbiased opinion is actually a lot more biased than they want to admit. Humans just aren't that. We have the ability to reason, but usually that ability is spent in service of our biases to support our worldview, and rarely does information come along that we trust enough to modify our worldview.

I'll fully admit that my viewpoint on what abortion laws should be is biased by a secular worldview. Personally I am against abortion because I think people should think about the weight of creating a new human before engaging in sex and take appropriate steps. I also am against research on the unborn remains, because of various factors. But all that is definitely derived from the worldview I have. Everyone's is derived from theirs. Yours is. Mine is. We're not unbiased machines evaluating facts and calculating objective conclusions.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

No. It's not.

One of the few times I wished you had used more words. It's not what? Human? Alive? Better?

Would it have made you feel better if I said, "sin or whatever?". Because that's what I think about it.

Not really, but whatever.

I have consistently stated that I think the "at conception" comes from a religious worldview. Religious people, think murder is a sin, and many religious people think that ending a pregnancy even right after conception is murder. But my main point is that if there are non-religious people who hold the "at conception" point of view, it's very few. Correlation doesn't prove causation. But it's highly correlated. And that just to say, it's not as black and white as you want to imagine. That's the point. My point doesn't require you to think it's a sin or not. It's just one part of the religious argument. And you've missed the point.

But you are the only one arguing from a religious belief. But as for non-religious belief of life at conception.

Abortion - Secular Pro-Life

secularprolife.org

It's not a reverse of it. It's a confirmation of it.

I'll have to disagree. You stated "Human rights follow from morality. Where the morals are, so follow the rights." You also stated "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." One does not follow the other. If a right is timeless and I'm sure we can both agree that morals change over time. Then the right does not stem from morality.

I'm gonna do something different here. I'm gonna replace my usual 1000 words with a couple of images.

Most people can tell the difference between this:

View attachment 200194


And:

View attachment 200197

I do think that somewhere between the two it's obviously immoral to end a pregnancy. I think that point is closer to the first image. But where that point is, I think that it's where rights should attach. Maybe it's at the point where the fetus can feel pain. The consensus is closer to that than the first image. But we're not going to agree on that. And it seems pointless to keep going at this part of the argument. I'm more interested in how one's worldview drives their moral beliefs.

I'll answer with some images myself. There is obvious development between them, but it doesn't make the person more or less of a human with human rights. It's just different stages of development, same as with your images.

 

[jamil]

That statement is not subjective, is not religiously based/biased, and does not derive from any particular worldview. It is merely a logical conclusion.

I forgot to address this point. If this is merely a logical conclusion why is it pretty much religious people that make it? I'm not trying to box you in. It's not a tactic. If you were to say, yeah, I believe what I believe about abortion because of my worldview. My response would be okay. Welcome to reality. We all have worldviews. And they determine what we think about the world. No gotchas. No "ah HA" moments.

But more about the logic. You can make a logical sounding argument even to yourself that isn't as logical as you think it is. If you're using deductive reasoning you should be able to make a logical statement such that the conclusion follows from the premises. In other words, the truth value of the conclusion equals the truth value of the premises.

My problem with your logic is that it asserts that all that is necessary to be included in the set of all humans for the purpose of attaching rights, is that it technically fits your definition of a "human". And it's not part of your argument of why even a zygote must have rights. You just assert that it is. It's in the definition that is the crux of the whole abortion argument, here and really everywhere. So we've really made no further ground in that discussion. And we won't.

And so my interest in this topic remains primarily in discussing why people think what they do, and getting people to think that maybe their way isn't as black and white, objectively.

 

[jamil]

One of the few times I wished you had used more words. It's not what? Human? Alive? Better?


Not really, but whatever.

But you are the only one arguing from a religious belief. But as for non-religious belief of life at conception.

Abortion - Secular Pro-Life

secularprolife.org

That's interesting. I'd like to meet the three people who believe that. Well, no seriously, this is the same argument you guys have made but it has the same flaws. And I've addressed those with chip, and a few others.

I'll have to disagree. You stated "Human rights follow from morality. Where the morals are, so follow the rights."You also stated "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." One does not follow the other. If a right is timeless and I'm sure we can both agree that morals change over time. Then the right does not stem from morality.

And slaves weren't granted rights then, were they? But, as morals matured, people recognized those rights, and now we view that people then had rights. If we grant that some morals are absolute, which I have been consistently saying during my entire time on INGO, then those morals are not subject to space and time. So if some morals are absolute, then the rights that come from morals are absolute too, and timeless too.

The moral maturity was not such that people recognized them back then, and so I'm not going to judge people by morals they didn't recognize, but we could argue that they probably should have.

Anyway, I really don't see what the controversy is in the idea that rights follow from morals. I think that rights mostly follow from a sense of fairness, which Heidt identifies in his moral foundations. So then as applied to slavery, it's not fair to hold people in captivity and servitude, unjustly and against their will. We all should recognize that by now. So then they have a right not to.

I'll answer with some images myself. There is obvious development between them, but it doesn't make the person more or less of a human with human rights. It's just different stages of development, same as with your images.

Well. I think she got a little fatter. But obviously, uh, all a human female can possibly be?

I'm not gonna complain about the dodge. Honestly I enjoyed the diversion.

 

[KG1]

Well. I think she got a little fatter. But obviously, uh, all a human female can possibly be?

I'm not gonna complain about the dodge. Honestly I enjoyed the diversion.

The diversion was refreshing. Sort of like a palate cleanser.

 

[BigRed]

I thought I heard that getting pregnant is 100% preventable.

Yep. It's almost as if there is a choice to the matter.

 

[chipbennett]

Maybe you don't understand the point. Because a zygote has DNA doesn't mean that it must have rights. You're the one imposing that link. And that's your opinion. So don't accuse me of making arguments I'm not making. High school biology has nothing to do with it. No one is denying the biology.

Okay, can we re-establish a basic ground rule that both of us can articulate certain arguments or viewpoints without implying that we ourselves actually believe/hold those arguments/viewpoints? As with above, when I refute the argument, I am not claiming or implying that you hold that argument.

I think we probably can't have a reasonable discussion. You haven't addressed the point because I don't think you even see it.

Then make the point you're trying to make. I'm listening. I suspect that the point you were trying to make is something along the lines that a human at the two-celled zygote stage of development isn't "fully human", is "potentially human", or something similar. Or perhaps you are making an argument that a human at the two-celled zygote stage of development is a living human, but does not yet have claim to the right to life. Please, clarify. I don't want to misunderstand you or misconstrue your point.

That's a fair case to make. Of many cases that can be made. I think you're trying to make this as black and white as you have conceived in your mind.

Well, yes. As a logical construct, this statement is "black and white": [when right to life attaches to a developing human] is not provable scientifically. We can merely assume the point of development at which rights attach, but we cannot know. And since we cannot know, then by definition, we can be wrong.

Please, demonstrate how that logical construct is anything other than black and white.

I'm not going to take the time to go back and point out your first elmer fudd moment. But you were quite forceful in your insistence that "it's science! You heritic!". And before you shake your head, "I never said those exact words". It's hyperbole to make the point.

Your hyperbole is a non-sequitur. I have never called you a heretic. I do not think or believe you to be a heretic. I do not respond to your comments or refute your arguments on the basis that you are a heretic or that those arguments are heretical.

I can't help but infer that your continual railing against alleged heretic-crusaders is a bit of psychological projection, especially since it remains only you (and a couple other non-religious commenters) who keep insist on bringing religion into the discussion.

But no. You're stating facts of science to make an opinion about rights.

I have yet to argue an opinion about rights. I have stated my opinion in that regard, and have further stated that I am not arguing that opinion.

I have simply stated the objective boundaries based on a) the basic premise (humans have the right to life), and b) the basic science (a living human exists at least as early as the two-celled zygote stage of development). Those boundaries are that the right to life must attach to that living human being at some stage of its development, and that we cannot know, scientifically, when those rights attach. So, we can't know if those rights attach at the the two-celled zygote stage, at the heartbeat stage, at the can-feel-pain stage, or at any other stage. And because we can't know, any assumption that we make regarding when rights attach can be incorrect.

Perhaps you disagree with or are uncomfortable with those objective boundaries; I don't know. But instead of challenging those stated boundaries, you use ad hominem to attack my statement of those boundaries on the basis of my alleged religious basis/bias, or non-sequitur hyperbole.

If you are interested in having a sincere discussion, address those boundaries, as stated. Refute them, if you can. Or accept/agree with them. But I'm done talking about my perceived religious bias and hyperbole.

 

[chipbennett]

I say "at conception" as a sort of description of what you've presented as your view. That you think that a new life at conception has the same right as at any point in development. Is that not your belief? Is that not contained in the statements of logic you've been making? If that's not your view then I guess we're done.

Please, please, point out where I have argued for that point of view in this thread.

To be quite clear: that belief is absolutely not required to follow or accept the line of logic I have have presented. So, whether or not that is my personal belief is utterly irrelevant.

My line of logic is a "least harm" approach, not a religious approach. You might see that, if you ever actually read my line of logic, and consider it on its own merits.

And about claims of biases, that accounts for most of my interest in this topic. Why do you believe what you do? I think you'd like to think it's based more on "the science". Possibly for you or another individual or two it could be that. Probably not. In other words, if you were an atheist or agnostic would you hold the same opinion as you do now? I doubt it. But also unless you've been of a secular worldview and have thought about it inside of that worldview, you probably can't imagine it.

It may be of interest to you, but it is also a rather convenient Macguffin to use to avoid considering other logical conclusions that you don't want to consider/don't agree with/are potentially uncomfortable. I have presented a line of logic that is perfectly acceptable on a secular basis - again, not that a secular person must follow it, but rather that a secular person could follow it.

And I just have not seen it in the wild. No one likes to admit that what they think is an unbiased opinion is actually a lot more biased than they want to admit. Humans just aren't that. We have the ability to reason, but usually that ability is spent in service of our biases to support our worldview, and rarely does information come along that we trust enough to modify our worldview.

Yep; everyone has biases. At some point, though, productive discourse necessitates accepting biases and addressing the actual arguments being articulated.

I'll fully admit that my viewpoint on what abortion laws should be is biased by a secular worldview. Personally I am against abortion because I think people should think about the weight of creating a new human before engaging in sex and take appropriate steps. I also am against research on the unborn remains, because of various factors. But all that is definitely derived from the worldview I have. Everyone's is derived from theirs. Yours is. Mine is. We're not unbiased machines evaluating facts and calculating objective conclusions.

I'll reiterate that, in the course of this discussion, I have made no assumptions about your personal beliefs on abortion, nor have I ascribed any arguments you have made to your personal beliefs or worldview. I am debating the arguments, not your beliefs or biases.

 

[KG1]

How can abortion be acceptable while there are ongoing arguments on when a human right begins?

 

[chipbennett]

I forgot to address this point. If this is merely a logical conclusion why is it pretty much religious people that make it?

I couldn't care less who makes it or why they make it. At any point, whatsoever, are you going to address the logical conclusion? I'm done with the logical fallacy.

But more about the logic. You can make a logical sounding argument even to yourself that isn't as logical as you think it is. If you're using deductive reasoning you should be able to make a logical statement such that the conclusion follows from the premises. In other words, the truth value of the conclusion equals the truth value of the premises.

So, prove how my logical conclusion isn't logical.

My problem with your logic is that it asserts that all that is necessary to be included in the set of all humans for the purpose of attaching rights, is that it technically fits your definition of a "human". And it's not part of your argument of why even a zygote must have rights. You just assert that it is. It's in the definition that is the crux of the whole abortion argument, here and really everywhere. So we've really made no further ground in that discussion. And we won't.

You're obviously not actually reading my line of logic. I have never asserted any such thing. I have never argued that "a zygote must have rights." For once, in this 50-page thread, would you finally, read what I have actually written? You're debating an argument that I've never made. To say that I have asserted that it must be true that a zygote has rights is explicitly contrary to what I've actually said. You're not merely demolishing a straw man, you're refuting the exact opposite of what I have actually said.

I said that, scientifically, we cannot know the stage of development at which rights attach to humans. How on earth, then, are you perverting that statement to say that I'm asserting that a zygote must have rights?

And so my interest in this topic remains primarily in discussing why people think what they do, and getting people to think that maybe their way isn't as black and white, objectively.

Maybe that's why you still haven't been able to comprehend the actual logical argument I'm making, or the conclusion I'm drawing.

 

[chipbennett]

And slaves weren't granted rights then, were they? But, as morals matured, people recognized those rights, and now we view that people then had rights. If we grant that some morals are absolute, which I have been consistently saying during my entire time on INGO, then those morals are not subject to space and time. So if some morals are absolute, then the rights that come from morals are absolute too, and timeless too.

The question is: did the slaves actually have those rights at the time (and thus, slavery unjustly infringed upon those rights), or did the slaves not have those rights until societal mores changed to "grant" them?

If rights are inherent, unalienable, and an endowment from our Creator (as stated in the DoI), then I argue that the slaves had human rights all along, and that those rights were unjustly denied them.

Other people are welcome to hold other views, of course.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

And slaves weren't granted rights then, were they? But, as morals matured, people recognized those rights, and now we view that people then had rights. If we grant that some morals are absolute, which I have been consistently saying during my entire time on INGO, then those morals are not subject to space and time. So if some morals are absolute, then the rights that come from morals are absolute too, and timeless too.

The moral maturity was not such that people recognized them back then, and so I'm not going to judge people by morals they didn't recognize, but we could argue that they probably should have.

Anyway, I really don't see what the controversy is in the idea that rights follow from morals. I think that rights mostly follow from a sense of fairness, which Heidt identifies in his moral foundations. So then as applied to slavery, it's not fair to hold people in captivity and servitude, unjustly and against their will. We all should recognize that by now. So then they have a right not to.

I wouldn't say that morals are absolute. Morals do change and vary between groups of people. Slavery/murder were morally acceptable at various times and places in history. And even today.

Slaves rights weren't recognized, that is different than being granted. Very much so.

And I said I agreed with you on judging people from the past by the morals of today.

Well. I think she got a little fatter. But obviously, uh, all a human female can possibly be?

I'm not gonna complain about the dodge. Honestly I enjoyed the diversion.

I can agree with you on her, and you're more than welcome. But it wasn't a dodge, just a humorous rebuttal. You showed different stages of development, so did I.

 

[chipbennett]

How can abortion be acceptable while there are ongoing arguments on when a human right begins?

Bingo. This is a succinct way of stating my logical conclusion. We can't know when rights attach to developing human life, so taking that life at any stage risks being an unjust taking of that life in violation of its right to life.

 

[KG1]

Bingo. This is a succinct way of stating my logical conclusion. We can't know when rights attach to developing human life, so taking that life at any stage risks being an unjust taking of that life in violation of its right to life.

As long as there is a continuing disagreement all along the spectrum the whole abortion issue should favor the side of the developing human.

 

[chipbennett]

As long as there is a continuing disagreement all along the spectrum the whole abortion issue should lean on the side of the developing human.

I agree. This is the "least harm" principle.

 

[BigRed]

I agree. This is the "least harm" principle.

Maybe at least as much as sea turtle eggs.

 

[HoughMade]

 

[HoughMade]

I agree. This is the "least harm" principle.

Makes sense to me. A position favoring life need not be 100% coextensive with a religious belief. One can be an atheist secular humanist and believe that we should protect, y'know, humans.

...and this is just one more reason why decisions about this are appropriate for the political/legislative realm and not a matter to be decided upon the fiat, the mere opinion, of 5 of 9 failed lawyers. Oh, that and the fact that the Constitution contains nothing approaching such a right.

 

[KG1]

An unborn developing human in the womb should not lose its ability to further its development to subjectivity. It's unjust.

 

[ljk]

I hope y'all enjoy this as much as I do.