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

[Twangbanger]

Now that we've bulldozed all that out of the way, and gone on to the "least (potential) harm" doctrine, it must be asked:

Least harm to "whom?" Least harm to the "universe of interested parties?"

I'll put my belief out there. I believe that 2x > x*, and a zygote is a human life. But I believe that life is dependent on a host, and if that life was put there against the host's will, then that host still gets a vote/veto on whether that life continues. If I innocently accept counterfeit cash from someone or buy stolen property, and it gets found out, I get the shaft, despite the fact I'm innocent. It's "awful but lawful," and I'm ok with that, as a practical matter. This will invariably bring "gray areas" into view, and I'm fine with that. Let the people decide. Your mileage is allowed to vary. (But remember: some of the foregoing posters have established that "we cannot know" at what point rights attach; so if you're one of them, honor that in your response).

My practical consideration, is that abortion is not my #1 issue, it doesn't even make the top 5 for me, and I don't want "our side" getting made out to be "monsters" on this and being barred from political power for a generation, at a time when huge issues are up for grabs. I would rather the other side be made to defend the "monster position" they seem to be working on building.

If "Least Harm" is being advanced to 1) force raped women to carry to term, I don't find it convincing enough.

If it's being advanced to 2) outlaw a pill that prevents implantation of a zygote into a uterus, then sorta ditto, I don't think it's a strong enough argument to ride into the political wilderness.

* where x is a positive number

 

[KG1]

Now that we've bulldozed all that out of the way, and gone on to the "least (potential) harm" doctrine, it must be asked:

Least harm to "whom?" Least harm to the "universe of interested parties?"

I'll put my belief out there. I believe that 2x > x*, and a zygote is a human life. But I believe that life is dependent on a host, and if that life was put there against the host's will, then that host still gets a vote/veto on whether that life continues. If I innocently accept counterfeit cash from someone or buy stolen property, and it gets found out, I get the shaft, despite the fact I'm innocent. It's "awful but lawful," and I'm ok with that, as a practical matter. This will invariably bring "gray areas" into view, and I'm fine with that. Let the people decide. Your mileage is allowed to vary. (But remember: some of the foregoing posters have established that "we cannot know" at what point rights attach; so if you're one of them, honor that in your response).

My practical consideration, is that abortion is not my #1 issue, it doesn't even make the top 5 for me, and I don't want "our side" getting made out to be "monsters" on this and being barred from political power for a generation, at a time when huge issues are up for grabs. I would rather the other side be made to defend the "monster position" they seem to be working on building.

If "Least Harm" is being advanced to 1) force raped women to carry to term, I don't find it convincing enough.

If it's being advanced to 2) outlaw a pill that prevents implantation of a zygote into a uterus, then sorta ditto, I don't think it's a strong enough argument to ride into the political wilderness.

* where x is a positive number

I think the discussion in terms of "doing the least harm" was to give deference to the unborn because of the grey areas. "we cannot know"

You are also talking in terms of "doing the least harm" to the political cause.

 

[Twangbanger]

Sony acknowledges (gasp!) people can have multiple opinions on abortion:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...-it-is-predictable/ar-AAXexwU?ocid=uxbndlbing

It appears The Left thought this was going to be a repeat of "Black Lives Matter," and is disappointed to find out it's not.

Let the screeching begin.

 

[jamil]

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 stated the point that being alive and having DNA does not mean that this must be the point where rights begin. I have never denied that a zygote is living, and that it as human DNA. The point was that living+DNA -> rights is the link that you choose to draw, even if you acknowledge that rights is not an issue of science. Since I have no disagreement about the science of a zygote, it makes no sense to scold me about high school biology, unless you didn't understand the argument. Of course there are other reasons, but I'd rather choose the more charitable one.

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.

I've made the point many times. We have always been talking about the point in human development that the unborn is a "person" with rights. That IS the whole debate throughout society. Because that is the thing that has moral implications, and that is the thing that factions want to establish in the law. So the crux of the argument is about when and the moral implications.

So of course that's my argument. A zygote is different at its earliest stage to the latest stage. I'll refer you back to the two images I posted earlier. It's very clear that there is an obvious physical difference between a zygote, and a baby as the doctor cuts the umbilical cord. Those two images represent the extent of the universe of this discourse. It's my opinion that it's different enough, and not developed enough, for there to be the same moral implications ending a pregnancy at that earliest stage as the last. It looks to me that your contention, which IS indeed an opinion, and not fact, that it's the first stage where such rights exist.

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.

I don't see it as black and white. It's an opinion. Yours is an opinion, which you've admitted at least to some extent. So it's not black and white, and from my perspective you seem to be trying to make it more black and white than it is.

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

I don't disagree with the logical construct as you've stated it. I've never disagreed with that idea. It's among the points I've made in this thread. We don't know when rights apply. It's subjective. It's arbitrary even.

In terms of black and white, the conclusion that "we can be wrong", is logically reasoned, and I've never said that I have a problem with that. The problem I have is that you're essentially arguing that the logic is black and white, that the conclusion is not black and white. That's a tautology.

So the argument you seem to be forming from that bit of tautology, is essentially that since we don't know, we might as well play it safe and call a zygote human enough to say it has right. So then I think it's reasonable to say that's an attempt to make something black and white that isn't. That was 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 mean. I called it, didn't I?

"And before you shake your head, "I never said those exact words". It's hyperbole to make the point."

"Heretic" is hyperbole to represent the reaction of the "internet warrior" who attacks based on triggers, assumptions of an argument you assumed I was making, before understanding the argument I was making. Less hypberbolic would have been ", as if heretic".

Early on, I made the statement that I don't think a good argument can be made for "at conception" other than a religious one. I still hold that view. But then you attack as an "internet warrior" would, and then you later reveal that you did so because I'm using "Alinsky tactics". Even after I assured you I am not, and explained my interest in that part of the topic, you still insisted it was a tactic. Saying it's a tactic implies an intent not in good faith. It was never my intent to do what you insisted I did.

Another person in the debate said that yes, it's based on his religion. Did I pounce? "AH HA! See how unreasonable that person is for admitting it's religious?" No. I said something to the effect that it's reasonable. End of story. We ended that debate amicably. no wild accusations were necessary or warranted. If you saw that interchange, I think a reasonable person, even if he had thought I was using "Alinsky tactics" earlier, would have noted that my behavior would not be consistent with that. It's unreasonable to continue thinking it.

So really, I don't even seek an apology. I'd appreciate an admission that you were wrong about my motives, or that it had it had anything to do with Alinski, for **** sake. It seems to me that you may have been pattern matching, and my statement fit a pattern that triggered your unnecessary, but vigorous attack. Or maybe you've argued with other people who made a similar statement, and you just assumed I was going to the same place. But, you should have just sought clarity instead of assuming, which is how people argue in good faith.

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.

No. I'm just mocking your insistence that I'm an Alinsky acolyte. You claim ridiculous things about me, personally, that I know are untrue, so I think I get to mock that. And I'll keep mocking that until you start behaving in good faith.

I only brought religion into it in that first statement to someone else about the quality of the "at conception" argument. But in subsequent conversations, including but not limited to yours, people didn't like that, so I felt I needed to explain myself. And then that became a component of the discussion, and as I've said, one I'm actually more interested in, the reasons people believe what they do.

I'm still open to the idea that religious people are no more likely to make the argument you are making, than non-religious people. But I don't see any evidence of that. Does it matter? Well, no, not much, other than the other point that I was making, that people who make the "at conception" case tend to see it as black and white, when it is actually subjective. And the only cause for it to be black and white, is religion or ideology.

Do you believe ending a pregnancy at any point in the pregnancy is a sin? Do you believe that God created that life, even at conception, and that as such there is something sacred about about it, that God ordained it. I think that's a pretty good reason to believe life, with full rights, happens at conception. I have no problem with that. It's not wacky or whatever. It's a belief that is reasoned from one's worldview on a subjective topic. Why is my secular reasoning any less wacky than that when we are talking about something that is subjective? But if it is subjective, people are going to be all over the place in their opinions and have all kinds of causes that really don't amount to a lot more than whim. Even if they can make logical sounding arguments to make something black and white out of it.

I can make logically constructed statements too. And then try to say my worldview isn't the primary reason for all of it, that logic is. We all have reasons for what we believe. Everyone thinks that they have logical reasons for it.

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.

You did. You basically formed the logical statement something to the effect, humans have rights, a zygote is living, having dna that is distinct from the mother, therefore a zygote has rights. I'm saying that's not a sound argument. It's reductive. I suspect that it's your starting opinion and that you've developed that logical structure to justify it. In other words, it's not intentionally a flawed argument. But it is your 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).

The boundaries you've chosen are objective on their own. But there's no logical reason to attach them other than opinion. Many objective boundaries could be chosen. You choose these, again, I suspect because you already held the opinion. And that's okay. You're applying what you can say is objective, and then imposing that on a conclusion that you would have had otherwise.

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.

I mean, I don't have a problem with you setting boundaries as you think out your position. But I think the boundaries are arbitrary.

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.

I'm not uncomfortable with the boundaries you've chosen. "Uncomfortable" is not the right word. I just don't agree with your boundaries, and because they're arbitrary, I don't have to accept them. I don't agree with your boundaries because they don't give the mother any choice for those circumstances in which having a choice is morally reasonable.

 

[jamil]

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.

I may not have articulated the argument as you might have presented it, but the one I wished to have repeated was essentially what you have been arguing, at least in the way I've interpreted your argument.

I get the least harm approach. There is a faction in libertarianism that apply NAP to abortion, which, btw comprises social/religous conservatives. So that doesn't realy disprove the point.

BTW, neither here nor there, speaking of the non-agression principle reminds me. I know there are some Ayn Rand fans here. Go look up her views on abortion.

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.

I'm still waiting to hear a good argument for "at conception". Because I've identified what is wrong with yours. It's soemthing that if you don't have a secular worldview in the first place, you put that logic together to justify what you already believed. There is no secular reason to confer rights to a zygote.

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

If you think we haven't been addressing the actual arguments, I think that's because you haven't acknowledged, at least not initially, that yours is biased.

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.

It's a secular worldview. You CAN make some assumptions about it. Not a lot, because, like the meme someone posted where the "pro-life" view is unified and, you know, black and white, the secular view is all over the place. And something that is subjective, you should expect to be all over the place. Because it IS subjective. And as far as ascribing any arguments, you assumed I was using an "Alinsky tactic." That's not debating the arguments. It's not debating any argument I've made, even after clarifying what that point was about.

And it's all about beliefs and biases whether you choose to admit that or not. I still think, even though you pay some lip service to the subjective parts, you're still trying to make it objective.

 

[jamil]

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

Because one side thinks there is a reason to attach rights at the very beginning of the pregnancy, and the other side thinks it could be at various points after, but thinks there's no reason to say it's at the very beginning.

Edit: to me, I think it's the case that the controversy is an indicator that we should not adopt a one-size-fits-all law. I'm okay with handling that in a few different ways. The Federalist papers, though not specifically addressing this topic offered a good way to handle it. Let governments closet to the people handle it.

The other way would be if we just had to have a national law, that reasonable boundaries around a consensus would be acceptable to me. But those of you who have a more black and white view of it, will not accept that. So it's not all that workable. So the federalist way is probably most practical. You guys can ban abortion in red states. Moderates can look for the consensus boundaries. And the bat **** crazy people can allow it up to the kid is out of high school.

 

[KG1]

Because one side thinks there is a reason to attach rights at the very beginning of the pregnancy, and the other side thinks it could be at various points after, but thinks there's no reason to say it's at the very beginning.

Edit: to me, I think it's the case that the controversy is an indicator that we should not adopt a one-size-fits-all law. I'm okay with handling that in a few different ways. The Federalist papers, though not specifically addressing this topic offered a good way to handle it. Let governments closet to the people handle it.

The other way would be if we just had to have a national law, that reasonable boundaries around a consensus would be acceptable to me. But those of you who have a more black and white view of it, will not accept that. So it's not all that workable. So the federalist way is probably most practical. You guys can ban abortion in red states. Moderates can look for the consensus boundaries. And the bat **** crazy people can allow it up to the kid is out of high school.

I guess as a "you guy' as you put it responsible for causing all the turmoil in your estimation my compromise would be that of willing to let the States handle it and try to come to terms with the outcome if the other side of the issue is willing to do the same. It's really the only feasible and the proper way in my estimation and it always should have remained a States issue before SCOTUS shanghaied it and gave it Constitutional rights by way of judicial legislation.

I believe most "you guys" want it that way as well..

 

[jamil]

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.

I have. You didn't like it. That's not my problem. It's not a logical fallacy. I'm not trying to make a logical statement. I'm making an observation. I'm saying that the point of view you have highly correlates to a particular religious view. The importance of that to me is that it demonstrates that this viewpoint is subjective. Speaking of which, you keep saying your POV about when rights attach is logical, and then admit it's subjective, and then it's logical again.

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

Well, I think the latest time is in my last post somewhere. By the time you've read this you've probably read that?

See one of the above

See above.

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.

Your logic has been repeatedly stated. Humans have rights. A zygote is a living human. Therefore it has human rights. or something to that effect, if not worded exactly that way. I've never misunderstood that argument. I just don't think it's a good one.

I'll repeat points that I've made in other posts to you and others. Your argument is reductive because it does not address the complexity of why we're even debating this. Your argument requires us to accept that a zygote is all there is that is necessary to be "human" enough to say it has the same rights. I am not saying that you have said that. I am saying that your argument itself, though unintended by you, requires that. There is no logic that establishes when an unborn human is in such a state that logically rights should confer. But your statement asserts that it's a zygote. If you can't see that, I don't know what to tell you.

So the logic you're using is both a non-sequitur, because that premise is flawed, and it's unsound, because it's untestable that at that stage, it's "human" enough that we should give it rights. It requires you to assume it is. And that's what I've been saying all along. You can make all the logical statement you want, but you can't get around the meat of the argument without addressing the subjective part. You can't turn a logical conclusion on something subjective like that.

I'll help you though. I'll make the argument at least valid if not sound.

• Humans have rights.
• A zygote is a living human sufficient to have rights.
• Therefore it has human rights.

So then if the premises are all true, then I'm' satisfied that the conclusion must be true. But, it's not sound. It can never be sound. The second point in the syllogism is untestable so it can never be proven true. It would always be an opinion and not fact that it is sufficient.

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?

See above. You misunderstood what I was saying. I didn't say you said those words. I was talking about what your argument requires us to assume, because it's reductive. And I'm not saying you're making a reductive argument, in formal logic. I'm saying reductive to mean it's missing the proper complexity to make the logical statement you're making.

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.

I dunno. I guess you believe that. I'll give you the benefit of that doubt. I think your logic isn't as solid as you think it is. I've explained why in several posts, but in this post I've tried to pay particular attention to make it as unlikely that you could mistake what I'm saying. But I think that unless you can acknowledge that this isn't as black and white as you want it to be, I'm not sure what the point is of continuing. We seem to be saying the same things over and over. And getting no where from it.

 

[jamil]

I guess as a "you guy' as you put it responsible for causing all the turmoil in your estimation my compromise would be that of willing to let the States handle it and try to come to terms with the outcome if the other side of the issue is willing to do the same. It's really the only feasible and the proper way in my estimation and it always should have remained a States issue before SCOTUS shanghaied it and gave it Constitutional rights by way of judicial legislation.

I believe most "you guys" want it that way as well..

Well. Let's address the highlighted first. It takes two disparate parties to have turmoil. So which one is right? You have every right to your opinion. I don't expect you to take the moderate view on this. I think the point that TB made was relevant though. That, I guess, take the win in getting an unjustifiable decision overturned. But if you can't stop at that, then the federal approach is for those specific cases where there's national division. Just realize that there are going to be consequences to this law being overturned. The bat-**** crazies now have a cause around which to unite.

I don't know if that's going to happen. I've been listening carefully to what the "sane" left is saying, and they don't seem to be as enraged as the insane ones. So maybe there's hope and they won't all cause ground to be lost in the culture war.

 

[maxipum]

46 pages of mental gymnastics and masturbation. Who has been swayed?

 

[printcraft]

Guys, there is a letter shortage right now. Paragraph prices are up 35% over the last quarter.
It's really causing a problem to my bottom line, please conserve.
Think of the printers.

 

[KG1]

Well. Let's address the highlighted first. It takes two disparate parties to have turmoil. So which one is right? You have every right to your opinion. I don't expect you to take the moderate view on this. I think the point that TB made was relevant though. That, I guess, take the win in getting an unjustifiable decision overturned. But if you can't stop at that, then the federal approach is for those specific cases where there's national division. Just realize that there are going to be consequences to this law being overturned. The bat-**** crazies now have a cause around which to unite.

I don't know if that's going to happen. I've been listening carefully to what the "sane" left is saying, and they don't seem to be as enraged as the insane ones. So maybe there's hope and they won't all cause ground to be lost in the culture war.

Should we just stop then by taking the win? What should be the next step? Just rest on those laurels alone? Should we not continue on for pro-life advocacy? As far as the bat-**** crazies I would just have to have faith in the moderates that they will not allow them a majority to be able to pass States legislation and they will prevent them from doing so. If not then they aren't really moderates are they?

You seem to think that by advocating our position it will drive all the moderates bat-**** crazy. Given that it seems like you don't really have much faith in the moderates.

 

[BigRed]

 

[jamil]

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.

This again? Is there anyone in this thread who is asserting that slaves didn't have rights?

Yes. Slaves had a right at the time, before that time, and after that time, and forever, not to be held in slavery in against their will.

Since we're all welcome to hold other views, I'll share mine. My conclusion is the same as yours, that human rights are inherent and unalienable. However, I don't attribute that to a deity. It's my belief that rights come from morals, which evolved, and are necessary for propagating humanity in scaled societies. Specifically the moral foundation around the idea of fairness is probably where the notion of rights come from. I also think that fairness is an absolute moral idea. So then human rights are also absolute. They're not granted, they can only be recognized. If it is absolute, it's not subject to time or space. The slaves always had rights.

Incidentally, I don't remember who brought this up to service their point about bringing up slavery in opposition to the idea of rights coming from morals. This is probably not a good example to make that point, because, regardless of how universal human rights are and where they come from, and should slaves have had rights, the idea of such rights precedes the US slave trade by a lot. The writings found in early civilizations demonstrate they had an understanding about rights long ago.

So then the problem with the slave trade in the US, was not because people hadn't yet developed the morals to conceptualize rights. It's that people regarded black slaves as less than human. It's related to the discussion of abortion, because it's a question of personhood in terms of attaching rights. Except with slaves, it's not a question of when they attach, but to whom.

So, are black people sufficiently human that rights should attach? Yes. No question. Why didn't they recognize that then? If we want to be most charitable, we might say it's because they viewed them as primitive and inferior. For reasons? If we're not interested in being most charitable, I'd say that it was hard for many of them to reconcile their conscience with their actions, and saying they're not human kinda does that. But I think eventually morality matured to the point where reality was unavoidable.

 

[jamil]

Should we just stop then by taking the win? What should be the next step? Just rest on those laurels alone? Should we not continue for pro-life advocacy? As far as the bat-**** crazies I would just have to have faith in the moderates that they will not allow them a majority to be able to pass States legislation and they will prevent them from doing so. If not then they aren't really moderates are they?

You seem to think that by advocating our position it will drive all the moderates bat-**** crazy. Given that it seems like you don't really have much faith in the moderates.

I can't answer that for you. I have a different perspective. I would, but that's me.

That doesn't mean I condone abortion at all stages per se. I think I've said a time or two in this thread, I still consider myself pro life, but because it's unsettled, I think it's reasonable to let people make their own choice, at least up to the point where there is a consensus that it's immoral. But I don't expect people who have a more "black and white" sort of worldview to do that. But just realize, there are probably consequences. Though, like I said, there aren't a lot of signs that sane liberals who are helping in the culture war, will stop helping. So maybe the consequences aren't that dire.

 

[jamil]

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.


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.

Some do. Some don't. Research suggests that some morals are present in nearly every culture across time. I often give the example of murder because that's the most obvious. Even cannibals have/had the moral concept that unjustly killing people is wrong. Stealing is another.

 

[KG1]

I can't answer that for you. I have a different perspective. I would, but that's me.

That doesn't mean I condone abortion at all stages per se. I think I've said a time or two in this thread, I still consider myself pro life, but because it's unsettled, I think it's reasonable to let people make their own choice, at least up to the point where there is a consensus that it's immoral. But I don't expect people who have a more "black and white" sort of worldview to do that. But just realize, there are probably consequences. Though, like I said, there aren't a lot of signs that sane liberals who are helping in the culture war, will stop helping. So maybe the consequences aren't that dire.

Well like I said. If the moderates vote for unlimited bat_**** crazy proposed legislation then they aren't really moderates at all by defintion and in my estimation the moderates would cause more harm than any position in which some one of my beliefs advocates for. Would you not agree?

 

[1DOWN4UP]

 

[jamil]

Now that we've bulldozed all that out of the way, and gone on to the "least (potential) harm" doctrine, it must be asked:

Least harm to "whom?" Least harm to the "universe of interested parties?"

I'll put my belief out there. I believe that 2x > x*, and a zygote is a human life. But I believe that life is dependent on a host, and if that life was put there against the host's will, then that host still gets a vote/veto on whether that life continues. If I innocently accept counterfeit cash from someone or buy stolen property, and it gets found out, I get the shaft, despite the fact I'm innocent. It's "awful but lawful," and I'm ok with that, as a practical matter. This will invariably bring "gray areas" into view, and I'm fine with that. Let the people decide. Your mileage is allowed to vary. (But remember: some of the foregoing posters have established that "we cannot know" at what point rights attach; so if you're one of them, honor that in your response).

My practical consideration, is that abortion is not my #1 issue, it doesn't even make the top 5 for me, and I don't want "our side" getting made out to be "monsters" on this and being barred from political power for a generation, at a time when huge issues are up for grabs. I would rather the other side be made to defend the "monster position" they seem to be working on building.

If "Least Harm" is being advanced to 1) force raped women to carry to term, I don't find it convincing enough.

If it's being advanced to 2) outlaw a pill that prevents implantation of a zygote into a uterus, then sorta ditto, I don't think it's a strong enough argument to ride into the political wilderness.

* where x is a positive number

So this looks to be the mainstream libertarian argument against applying non-agression principle to unborn.

Ayn Rand said that from conception to birth NAP does not apply. Other prominent Rand acolytes actually made the parasite argument, which I think is not moral and doesn't acknowledge the woman's participation in the pregnancy if it is consensual. And while I think it's insensitive to call it a parasite for rape, I think there is a point in the pregnancy, before which, a woman certainly has a right to choose an abortion. And for responsibility's sake, she has plenty of time to make that decision.

 

[jamil]

I think the discussion in terms of "doing the least harm" was to give deference to the unborn because of the grey areas. "we cannot know"

You are also talking in terms of "doing the least harm" to the political cause.

Yes, but of course that's an opinion. Other people have opinions too. But to the point of "least harm" to whom, the "just in case" least harm argument does not take into account harm to the mother. I think within this view "responsibility" is assumed to be absolute, that any "unwanted pregnancy" (except for rape), always implies the mother is responsible for it. That's not always the case.