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

[jamil]

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?

Mostly. I am concerned that for a lot of liberals, they are one-issue voters like many of us are one-issue voters on gun rights. When I voted for Trump the first time, I voted for a candidate that I'd never have voted for if it weren't the issue of the 2A. It seemed obvious to me that the 2A was safer with Trump as President that it would have been with Hillary in 2016. And then seeing that Trump wasn't as bad as I thought he'd be, I did feel more comfortable voting for him in 2020. But we'll see if the sane liberals will hold their noses and vote for crazy in support of their one issue.

And like I said, I'm relieved that's not really happening.

 

[jamil]

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.

I bought some diesel the other day. I have it stored. I'm gonna make a fortune. I can afford the letters.

 

[jamil]

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.

Hell, even I have to agree with that.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

 

[Twangbanger]

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...

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'm not going to answer for Jamil, only for myself, but I don't think advocating the "human rights at fertilization" position will drive the moderates bat**** crazy. It's going to convince them that _you're*_ bat**** crazy, and they will conclude we can't let people that scary have the keys to the car, and we need to prevent them from having a majority, or for very long.

In the public eye, it correlates to wanting to ban "Plan B" pills, or force raped women to carry to term because women getting raped is one of those inscrutable ways that God works his mysterious will in the world and we're powerless to question that, or some similar set of beliefs.

Now: "you" may not even hold those beliefs. But it won't matter. Many Christian Conservatives do, and once you start sounding the "Rights at Fertilization" policy, you (and more importantly, all Republicans) are going to get lumped in with that, whether they believe in it or not.

I actually have a lot of faith in the moderate voters, and their ability to plot a reasonable line through this cloud of moral data points, and come up with the right policy that balances the interests of all without driving society into a ditch over one issue.

What I don't have faith in, is the "God Created That Life" crowd. I don't think they'll be able to "rest on laurels" as you put it, and will keep looking for the "next step" in their "advocacy" (again, your terms). They're going to keep searching endlessly for that "trump-card" C.S. Lewis style syllogism which they believe is logically unassailable, and forces the world to adopt a policy which (not coincidentally) aligns perfectly with their pre-existing "God Created That Life" view of the issue.

People can sense when someone is using ultramarathon logic in service of a pre-existing religious or ideological position. Chip's "Least Harm" principle, or what I'll re-dub the "Abundance of Caution" approach, is basically to Abortion, what Pascal's Wager tries to do with belief in God. Paraphrasing something which nobody has actually came out and said, it poses thus: "We can't know for sure, so therefore, this approach is the path of least risk / harm (at least, according to my logical premises)...so therefore, it's the logically-unassailable conclusion and must be adopted."

People can see around that s**t. The public knows exactly where that is heading. It's banning Plan B pills, the Richard Mourdock answer on Rape, etc., etc.

Right now, The Left is making themselves look like screeching unreasonable a**holes over this RvW draft leak. We should let them continue doing that, keep our powder dry, and position ourselves to come out looking like the voice of reason.

* meaning people identifying with that position, not "you."

 

[KG1]

Mostly. I am concerned that for a lot of liberals, they are one-issue voters like many of us are one-issue voters on gun rights. When I voted for Trump the first time, I voted for a candidate that I'd never have voted for if it weren't the issue of the 2A. It seemed obvious to me that the 2A was safer with Trump as President that it would have been with Hillary in 2016. And then seeing that Trump wasn't as bad as I thought he'd be, I did feel more comfortable voting for him in 2020. But we'll see if the sane liberals will hold their noses and vote for crazy in support of their one issue.

And like I said, I'm relieved that's not really happening.

Well, if they do hold their nose and vote for bat-**** crazy on the issue then I would consider it to be more abhorrent than any position I have. Anyway, that was my point, and I will continue to advocate for my position on the issue at the State level when hopefully the judicial overstep ruling in favor of Roe v Wade thus granting a Constitutional right by usurping legislative authority has been overturned and rightfully remanded back to the legislative process where at least it has a chance.

 

[KG1]

Hell, even I have to agree with that.

I concur. That's been my position all along. See we found some common ground.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

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.

Very iffy on the murder. Throughout time a lot depended on social class, a higher class could pretty much kill a lower class at will. Nobility/peasants, slave owner/slave as an example. Heck killing a slave not your own was only immoral in that it deprived their owner of the slave's labor. Also what is an "unjust killing" depends greatly. Heck there are large majorities of some countries that believe intentionally targeting civilians by suicide bombing or other violence is perfectly acceptable to achieve their goals.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

because women getting raped is one of those inscrutable ways that God works his mysterious will in the world and we're powerless to question that, or some similar set of beliefs.

People can see around that s**t. The public knows exactly where that is heading. It's banning Plan B pills, the Richard Mourdock answer on Rape, etc., etc.

What was Mourdock's answer on rape? I'm going to guess that you think it's what I bolded of your post.

 

[KG1]

What was Mourdock's answer on rape? I'm going to guess that you think it's what I bolded of your post.

Those words are his interpretation the way he intended to frame what Mourdock said. Same thing happens with the media. I guess he thinks he's got it covered though by adding "or some similar set of beliefs"

 

[jamil]

Very iffy on the murder. Throughout time a lot depended on social class, a higher class could pretty much kill a lower class at will. Nobility/peasants, slave owner/slave as an example. Heck killing a slave not your own was only immoral in that it deprived their owner of the slave's labor. Also what is an "unjust killing" depends greatly. Heck there are large majorities of some countries that believe intentionally targeting civilians by suicide bombing or other violence is perfectly acceptable to achieve their goals.

Murder, generally, is the unjustified killing of a person. Like I said, cannibals even had societal rules against that. They couldn’t go around killing just anyone.

 

[KG1]

Murder, generally, is the unjustified killing of a person. Like I said, cannibals even had societal rules against that. They couldn’t go around killing just anyone.

Not even for an all you can eat buffet?

 

[jamil]

Hey. People justify all kinds of things.

 

[KLB]

Well, if they do hold their nose and vote for bat-**** crazy on the issue then I would consider it to be more abhorrent than any position I have. Anyway, that was my point, and I will continue to advocate for my position on the issue at the State level when hopefully the judicial overstep ruling in favor of Roe v Wade thus granting a Constitutional right by usurping legislative authority has been overturned and rightfully remanded back to the legislative process where at least it has a chance.

You seem to have only two choices for these moderates to choose from, your view or bat **** crazy. There is a lot of room to a lot of people between those two choices. Twang is right. A lot of moderates will see your view just as crazy as a lot of the stuff on the left. That could very well drive them to vote against a candidate that espouses basically banning all abortions.

 

[KG1]

You seem to have only two choices for these moderates to choose from, your view or bat **** crazy. There is a lot of room to a lot of people between those two choices. Twang is right. A lot of moderates will see your view just as crazy as a lot of the stuff on the left. That could very well drive them to vote against a candidate that espouses basically banning all abortions.

Pro-life means Pro-life to me. As a Pro-life candidate I would tell them so. If I am to be consistent in my Pro-life position then I have to stay true to my belief that a child developing in the womb has a right to life. I don’t see that as a radical position. Maybe you do.

 

[jamil]

What was Mourdock's answer on rape? I'm going to guess that you think it's what I bolded of your post.

You seem to have only two choices for these moderates to choose from, your view or bat **** crazy. There is a lot of room to a lot of people between those two choices. Twang is right. A lot of moderates will see your view just as crazy as a lot of the stuff on the left. That could very well drive them to vote against a candidate that espouses basically banning all abortions.

Mourdock said something to the effect that if a woman gets pregnant as a result of rape, that God intended it to happen. Of course what he meant was God intended that life to happen, and the press made it sound like he was saying that God intended the rape to happen. But even the former sounds bad to most people. The press could have reported it honestly and he’d still have lost.

So that’s the kind of consequences we’re talking about.

 

[KG1]

Mourdock said something to the effect that if a woman gets pregnant as a result of rape, that God intended it to happen. Of course what he meant was God intended that life to happen, and the press made it sound like he was saying that God intended the rape to happen. But even the former sounds bad to most people. The press could have reported it honestly and he’d still have lost.

So that’s the kind of consequences we’re talking about.

I agree with your take. I will also be willing to admit that whatever he was trying to say he worded it stupidly and left the door open to get torpedoed.

Personally I don’t know anyone that believes God intends for rape to happen and I don’t believe that’s what Mourdock really meant even though he worded in such a way that it could be construed as he truly believes that.

 

[KLB]

I agree with your take. I will also be willing to admit that whatever he was trying to say he worded it stupidly and left the door open to get torpedoed.

Personally I don’t know anyone that believes God intends for rape to happen and I don’t believe that’s what Mourdock really meant even though he worded in such a way that it could be construed that he truly believes that.

How else would you interpret that? If God wanted that child and the child was conceived through a rape, how could God not have meant for the rape to happen to conceive the child?

Please do not take this as an attack. I am just curious.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Murder, generally, is the unjustified killing of a person. Like I said, cannibals even had societal rules against that. They couldn’t go around killing just anyone.

Once again, it varied greatly. I'll go again with slaves, killing someone else's was only a problem because it deprived the owner of their labor. The killing itself didn't matter, it was the same as if you had simply crippled them or otherwise made them unfit for work. Nobility/royalty and peasants were about the same.

How else would you interpret that? If God wanted that child and the child was conceived through a rape, how could God not have meant for the rape to happen to conceive the child?

Please do not take this as an attack. I am just curious.

God gave man free will, he doesn't make us do or not do anything. So it wasn't God's will that caused the rape. All life comes from God, so it is God's will that the life came into being.

Mourdock said something to the effect that if a woman gets pregnant as a result of rape, that God intended it to happen. Of course what he meant was God intended that life to happen, and the press made it sound like he was saying that God intended the rape to happen. But even the former sounds bad to most people. The press could have reported it honestly and he’d still have lost.

So that’s the kind of consequences we’re talking about.

I'm not so sure if he would have lost. I talked to a couple of people about him, and all they knew was what the press was twisting it as what he said. I showed them exactly what he said, and at first they didn't believe me. After I convinced them that that is what he said, and his follow up statement. They agreed with him.
Here is his exact words "“I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize life is that gift from God,” he said. “And I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”

I agree with your take. I will also be willing to admit that whatever he was trying to say he worded it stupidly and left the door open to get torpedoed.

Personally I don’t know anyone that believes God intends for rape to happen and I don’t believe that’s what Mourdock really meant even though he worded in such a way that it could be construed as he truly believes that.

I'll agree it could have been worded better.

 

[chipbennett]

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.

This seems to be the sticking point in our discussion. I keep saying that, from a scientific perspective, we cannot know where that link is drawn between being a living human and the attachment of rights. You keep saying that I am arguing that rights must attach at the zygote developmental stage.

My argument in this thread (because I am making a secular argument, not arguing from my personal, religious beliefs) is that, if we are going to err in our assumption regarding when rights attach, then it is best/least potentially harmful to the living human involved to err on the side of assuming that rights attach earlier than they actually do. That error merely ascribes rights to a developing human that doesn't yet have those rights but that, left to its own devices, will have those rights at some point. The opposite error runs the risk of denying already-attached rights to a developing human, by assuming that those rights don't attach until later than they actually do.

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.

You responded "no, it isn't" to a statement that "a two-celled zygote is human, and alive" (paraphrased). That's basic biology.

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.

Refer back to my comment above. You keep ascribing to me an argument that I'm not making in this thread.

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.

No. It's not an opinion. It's a logical construct, and nothing more. The "it" that you refer to as my opinion here appears to be something beyond the logical construct - and I suspect that the "it" is the argument that you keep ascribing to me, that I'm not actually making in this thread.

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.

I'm not exactly following what you're saying here. I think what you're saying is that, of the many conclusions that could be drawn from the logical construct, only one must be the correct conclusion. And, no: I'm not saying that, either.

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.

I'm saying that it is reasonable from a secular perspective to draw the conclusion based on application of "least harm" principle. I've never said that it would be unreasonable to draw any other conclusion. I fail to see the tautology.

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...

You've erected a straw man of me as the "internet warrior", which then frees you to ascribe motives to my responses, such as trigger-based attacks, and to fuel those triggers with inflammatory hyperbole.

...assumptions of an argument you assumed I was making, before understanding the argument I was making.

Just soak in the irony here.

Less hypberbolic would have been ", as if heretic".

Less hyperbolic would also be not asking if it is a "sin" to "kill human cells". Less hyperbolic would be not to refute basic biology, such as "a two-celled zygote is alive, and human."

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.

I still have not made an "at conception" argument in this thread. I still have not "attack[ed] as an 'internet warrior' would." Repeatedly trying to force me into an "at conception" box is an attempt to force me to play by a rulebook that I'm not applying in this thread. It is, indeed, a tactic - and whether or not it is your intent, that tactic is right out of the Alinsky rulebook.

If you honestly intend to argue in good faith, then please argue only the position I am articulating in this thread, and stop trying to ascribe to me some other argument that I'm not making in this thread.

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.

That the debate concluded differently with another person, making a different argument, has no bearing on our debate. It seems you are insistent to get me to admit that the argument I'm making derives from my religious beliefs, only I won't make such an admission, because it isn't true.

So really, I don't even seek an apology. I'd appreciate an admission that you were wrong about my motives...

To my recollection, I haven't said much, if anything, regarding your motives - only your arguments and tactics.

...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.

You mean like pattern-matching to an "internet warrior" "attacking" a "heretic"?

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.

The psychological projection is running deep. Would that you took your own advice here.

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 never claimed any such thing.

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.

...and yet, I still have not made an "at conception" argument in this thread. I have repeatedly stated that I am intentionally not making an "at conception" argument in this thread. So, why do you keep trying to force me to speak to an "at conception" argument, the basis for an "at conception" argument, and whether an "at conception" argument is reasonable for a secular viewpoint?

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.

My beliefs are irrelevant in this thread, given that I'm arguing a position that is different from my personal, religious beliefs. I also have never tried to make anything "black and white" out of the secular line of reasoning that I present. There is a logical construct that is black and white, and that construct leads to various, possible conclusions.

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.

A logical construct is black and white. It is either true or it is not true. Motives for creating the logical construct are irrelevant. That construct either stands on its own, or it doesn't. Attacking the motives for creating the construct, as a means of challenging the construct itself, is ad hominem.

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.

Nope. I still never made that argument. The logical construct I presented doesn't inherently lead to that conclusion, either. In fact, part of the construct is that we cannot know the point of development at which rights attach to a living human.

How many times do I have to say it, before you'll finally hear / understand / admit it: what you have stated above is not only not the argument that I have made, it is, in some aspects, literally the opposite of the argument that I'm making.

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.

Instead of attacking my motives (ad hominem), challenge the boundaries. Present alternative boundaries, and justify them.

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.

If you think so, then demonstrate how the boundaries are arbitrary. For clarity (since things get lost in nested quotes):

The premise:
a) humans have the right to life
b) a living human exists at least as early as the two-celled zygote stage of development

The boundaries I have presented, based on that premise:

a) rights must attach to living humans at some point during the developmental cycle
b) rights could attach to the two-celled zygote - just as rights could attach at some later point of development
c) we cannot know, scientifically, where that point actually exists

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.

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.

If you believe the boundaries I have presented are arbitrary, then the onus is on you to justify that belief.

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.

Where do the boundaries I have presented speak to, much less, deny agency/choice of the mother?

It still seems as if you're jumping to conclusions downstream from those boundaries, rather than addressing the boundaries themselves.