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

[jamil]

I do not support the death penalty for innocent persons for the crimes of their fathers. I do support the death penalty for convicted rapists.

Your justice will not be achieved by killing an innocent person.

And then you lose the election. Unless you’re running in a constituency where a good majority of voters feel the same way. I mean, that’s at least not a Mourdock answer. I don’t think if you’re of the position that abortion is murder at any stage, you can answer that question straight up as a candidate. That’s just not where America is right now. Politically, it’s probably better just to deflect.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

And then you lose the election. Unless you’re running in a constituency where a good majority of voters feel the same way. I mean, that’s at least not a Mourdock answer. I don’t think if you’re of the position that abortion is murder at any stage, you can answer that question straight up as a candidate. That’s just not where America is right now. Politically, it’s probably better just to deflect.

And that's why we get the politicians we get--they either equivocate their true beliefs to get votes or they are not principled. Indiana republicans like politicians that can say the right things instead of will stand up for the right things, especially if they can avoid offending as many people as possible.

 

[drillsgt]

I've never expressed much interest in the abortion question, It always seemed to me to be something that could be settled by a ballot. That's probably too simple, but as much time, money, and emotion as the issue has cost over the years, it seems a waste.

That's what CA thought about gay marriage but when they voted it down that wasn't good enough for the leftists, they just keep going until they get what they want.

 

[KLB]

And that's why we get the politicians we get--they either equivocate their true beliefs to get votes or they are not principled. Indiana republicans like politicians that can say the right things instead of will stand up for the right things, especially if they can avoid offending as many people as possible.

You're assuming the majority of voters agree with your view on this.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

You're assuming the majority of voters agree with your view on this.

I also assume stating your actual beliefs and your willingness to stand up for them is a sign of character.

ETA: Do you prefer politicians that tickle your ears? Those that will weasel all kinds of words to phrase things just so that you'll find them palatable? As for me, I'd find it refreshing and probably unique to find a republican that would actually outline their actual positions instead of the usual generalities like: "I'm 100% pro-life" or "I'm a 2A supporter". Typically, when pressed, they'll avoid taking a plain position on the legislation they would write, sponsor, and support. Our local, state, and federal offices are loaded with those types. Give the leftists like AOC and Omar credit, there's no doubt where they stand and the legislation they support. They're incredibly wrong on everything but at least they've removed all doubt.

 

[Twangbanger]

When I see stuff like this it looks like more evidence of the planning,timing , and money behind these movements. Somebody had to get the idea and run off the costumes rather quickly considering the amount of time involved. It would be interesting to see where the capes and hats were made and who paid.

My kid's been out of Trick or Treat for some time now, but I had long since assumed these costumes were readily available in the Halloween shops.

 

[Ingomike]

"Mr. Republican Legislative Candidate, if one of your constituents sitting in the audience tonight found out their daughter was raped and impregnated, do you believe she and her parents should be able to decide - for themselves - if she can receive an abortion in your state?"

"Mr. Republican Legislative Candidate, if one of your constituents sitting in the audience tonight found out their daughter was raped and impregnated, do you believe she and her parents should be able to decide - for themselves - if she can kill the SOB in your state?"

 

[chipbennett]

I put “life” in quotes for a reason. We’re not arguing about whether two-celled zygote's is living. No one on any of the sides contests that. Or that the dna is distinct from the Mother's. What's at issue is whether the two-celled zygote has equal rights to a human being separated from the umbilical cord. That seems to be the extent of the distance between the two extremes. So let's keep it where the contention is. And that discussion is not about science.

It would seem that only those who wish to deny the inherent right to life of that human being in the zygote stage of development attempt to use extra-scientific means to deny that right. Why might that be?

The default state is that all humans are created equal and are endowed with certain, unalienable rights; that among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Why would that living human being not have the right to life that is inherent and unalienable?

So, at what point does a human within the development cycle have the same rights as a person on the other side of birth? That's the question everyone has at odds. There are diverse opinions but we can use 3 pigeonholes that the factions reasonable fit into, at least those who have thought out opinions on it.

One is primarily right-wing religious people, who assert that the two-celled Zigote has equal rights. Claiming that this is based on science does not make it "scientific" because the discussion of rights doesn't really fit into science, though science could be used to help justify an position. It can't be reliant on science. So for you, why should a two-celled zygote have the same rights as a developed infant outside the womb? Are they really, for all moral purposes, equal? Does your belief that it has a soul have anything to do with your viewpoint? Is your viewpoint really, purely, scientific? Does religion not inform any of it? I have a hard time believing that.

A: This isn't the "religious" argument. The religious argument would, e.g. reference Scripture related to all life being God-breathed, to God knowing each life before forming it in the womb, and similar.

B. The scientific argument is that the two-celled zygote meets the scientific criteria for being both living and human. Science doesn't address the matter of inherent/natural rights; that would be the realm of philosophy. You are using philosophy, rather than science, to limit/refute the scientific argument.

On the other extreme is the opinion that as long as its dependent on its mother, if they concede that "it" has any rights at all, at any point in the pregnancy, they don't override the Mother's right to choose. That if it is an unwanted pregnancy, the unborn is essentially an "intruder", and the mother has a right to be rid of it. Obviously that's not based in science either. It's based on an ideological belief that the mother's right supersedes any right the unborn might have.

This is an absurd and evil argument. I don't dispute that many hold it.

And the last is the position that, during pregnancy, there is a point where the unborn has rights equal to a born human. I call that "sentience", more as a placeholder. As a basis for what equalizes rights is no more or less scientific than the other two positions. It's a moral position just as the others are. We all might use science to try to justify the point at which we confer equal rights on a new human life, wither at conception, at cutting the cord, or somewhere in between. But there is still not a scientific answer because it's a moral question and not a scientific one. And I've never claimed it as any more than that.

The problems with this argument are:

A) That it uses philosophy to limit the meaning of "human life" as a justification for taking what would, scientifically, constitute human life;
B) That it relies upon a scientifically unknowable/non-objective concept of "sentience". You can't define what, exactly, it is or when, exactly, it applies to the developing human.
C) And, therefore, it is a wholly inappropriate basis for rationalizing the taking of a human life.

You rightly point out that this is not a scientific argument. The only scientific position is the one that does not introduce religion, philosophy, morality, or other non-scientific concepts - the position that the two-celled zygote is a living human being. Anything you add to that statement is extra-scientific/non-scientific.

So for the religious argument for the moral answer, you have to attached some sacredness to your conception of "life" (again in quotes) to justify conferring equal rights at the point you do. To secular minded scientists, a two-celled zygote is alive. It's distinct from the mother. Yet there is no scientific reason to confer equal rights to it. That's a subjective call. And whether you're religious, especially of certain religions, or not, is a very good predictor of where you're going to fall on this question. One could say it's deterministic.

This is more than merely the religious argument; it is the philosophical argument - and one that is enshrined in the very founding document of our nation (the Declaration of Independence); again: all humans are created equal and are endowed with certain, unalienable rights; that among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

It is you who appends "at the point you do" to "conferring equal rights". The subjective call is limiting the scope of the developmental cycle during which a human being is endowed with the right to life.

And frankly I don’t think it hurts your argument to admit the religious concepts that make you believe what you do. So what? You'll find ideologically possessed atheists who twist their panties up that you're "ending women's rights" over dogma. But for their own idealistic, unscientific reasons, they don't consider the rights of the unborn. Like I've said all along, it is no worse than the dogma which asserts that aborting babies all the way up to snipping the umbilical cord is "women's rights."

I don't need to introduce religious concepts. My position stands, secure, on objective, dispassionate science.

 

[chipbennett]

That's ridiculous. You define "life" technically, and then insist that the technical definition you gave logically concludes with rights equally applies, as if a two-celled zygote is equal in every objectively relevant way to a human being after development from the womb. What justification do you have to apply the rights. Again, we're not arguing about the scientific definition of life. We're arguing about the moral definition of "life" insofar as when equal rights should confer. The straw argument isn't mine.

I'm not arguing the "moral" definition of life; you are introducing that as an extra-scientific argument - unless and until you can provide empirical evidence of precisely when "sentience" attaches to the developing human life and/or other means of establishing when the developing human is "human enough" for natural rights to attach.

I don't accuse you of insincerity. Not everyone who disagrees with you is insincere. So I'd appreciate if you'd afford me the same courtesy I give you.

I do not consider the comparison of a developing human being (e.g. a two-celled zygote) to "some human cells" (e.g. skin cells) to be a sincere comparison/argument. A "clump of cells" is not a human life. A gamete is not a human life. A two-celled zygote is a human life.

 

[Twangbanger]

I apologize; I was too snarky in some of my earlier replies. Thank you for being willing to continue the discussion with me.

Basically, it's the same as a I stated above: for society to function we need a definition of human "life" ("life" meaning not just a scientifically "living" organism, but a human life with equal rights) that does not rely on squishy, subjective criteria that are liable to change based on medical technology, or depending on the voting populace's current mood. There is no point after conception that fits the bill.

Okay, I think this is bringing us to another point I'd missed in what you've stated.

Pretend for a moment that we were like fish, that females laid eggs outside their bodies, than the males fertilized them, and then they developed outside of the mother's womb. In that scenario, would you think it reasonable to say that "life" (ie, human rights) begin at fertilization?

I ask this hypothetical because up until now I'd been assuming that you believe that conception is not a rational (from a secular point of view) point for "life" (ie, human rights) to begin because the zygote, at conception, does not meet certain criteria (such as sentience, etc) and/or is too simple a life form for a reasonable person to think it should have human rights. But is it not so much that, and more a concern for the rights of the mother?

In other words, would it be (at least somewhat) accurate to describe your thinking (from a purely secular standpoint) as more along the lines of "A zygote may have some sort of rights, but the right to life comes gradually as the fetus develops, and doesn't become absolute/inviolable until he/she reaches a certain point of complexity/'humanness'"?

Well, from my perspective it's not "might as well call it at conception" rather, it's "we have to call it at conception, because there's no other workable definition of when human rights begin.

I guess I need to better understand the answer to my question above before giving a good answer to this part, but for now, I'll just say that I agree that it's a poor argument to disregard the rights of the mother because she "already made her choice" or something like that, so we at least agree on that.

I'll push back on this. "Why" does the definition of the beginning point of human life, which is a scientific matter, but with tentacles into our understanding of human rights, have to be fixed for all time, unchangeable by new information?

That assertion sounds to me like someone trying to end debate, by setting the rules of intellectual engagement in a manner which only permits the discussion to reach their desired outcome.

"My method only leads to one possible answer; therefore it's the one which should be employed."

 

[chipbennett]

I think possibly heartbeat/brain waves, is an objective point. Whether one can appoint an objective justification for that being the point where it's either moral or immoral is still subjective. It really does belong in the statehouse, not the US houses of congress.

Heartbeat is at about 10 days, IIRC.

As for brain waves: Terri Schiavo would like a word.

 

[Tombs]

And then you lose the election. Unless you’re running in a constituency where a good majority of voters feel the same way. I mean, that’s at least not a Mourdock answer. I don’t think if you’re of the position that abortion is murder at any stage, you can answer that question straight up as a candidate. That’s just not where America is right now. Politically, it’s probably better just to deflect.

I don't think it's a losing position unless you're zealously going after women for having an abortion.

From what I've seen, the majority of people prefer some degree of restriction on abortion. Take baby steps with where the public is prepared to walk and it's going to pay dividends.

 

[chipbennett]

But doesn't this whole conversation revolve around the fact that (from a purely secular standpoint) there IS a murky zone; in other words, without the concept of a soul, we can't objectively define when "life" begins, or ends, or stops, except we can be 100% (or as close as reasonably possible to 100%) certain that it doesn't begin before conception, and doesn't end before death. Doesn't the fact that any other criteria we could possibly use to define "life" are subjective, squishy, and easily applicable to people whom a good, sane, moral person wouldn't consider it to be okay to kill; doesn't that alone constitute a pretty sound reason for saying we're better off as a society if we just consider all human life from conception to be worthy of the right to live?

That "murky zone" is where the matter can only be considered philosophically (i.e. it is "murky" because science cannot define it).

On that matter, I hold the philosophical position that it is better to err on the side that gives the benefit of the doubt to the developing human life, because it is most likely to avoid the unjustified taking of a human life that has the attendant right to life (at the risk of extending that attendant right to some point prior to when that human life is endowed with that right). The opposing position introduces the risk of unjustly denying the right life of a developing human with which that human is endowed.

The philosophical position I take is consistent with the concept of innocent until proven guilty and the right to due process. The opposing position largely exists for reasons of political expediency.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

What gives that fertilized egg rights? Is it just the DNA encoding? I think claiming it is, is just as subjective as any claim. It does not follow.

What gives you rights? What gives a newborn rights?

 

[chipbennett]

And remember, the defacto argument of WHEN for many is viability; its cool to suck it out as long as it cant survive on its own. I guess prior to that time they consider it part of the woman's body still because its technically a 100% parasite? Thats the only way it would fit into "my body my choice."

The earliest gestational age at which a born human being has survived is currently 21 weeks and 5 days. Not long ago, that age was 28 weeks.

Are we going to define human rights according to the medical/technological limitations of a given time period? Did a human born at 27 weeks 20 years ago not have the right to life that a 22-week fetus would have today? Would a human born at 18 weeks 20 years in the future have the right to life that a 20-week fetus today would not?

 

[Hatin Since 87]

What gives you rights? What gives a newborn rights?

Nothing/nobody gives me rights, I have rights.

 

[chipbennett]

No. I'll say the same thing a different way. I don't think there's a *good* argument why a fertilized egg
is the point at which rights should be conferred that does not require a religious (or ideological for that matter) belief. So I could ask the same as a question. What makes conception the morally objective point where abortion should be abolished? Do not give any religious moral reasoning for your answer.

There is a reason that I am using the two-celled zygote in my scientific argument. Once that cell mitosis has occurred, the organism is unquestionably a distinct, living, human being. That cell mitosis was an act of self-directed growth.

From a religious perspective: yes, I believe life begins at conception. But I need not rely upon that argument; the scientific evidence of life happens so quickly after conception that it is a distinction without a currently viable, scientific difference. So, I argue the two-celled zygote, to make perfectly clear that I am arguing from scientific evidence rather than from religious belief.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

The earliest gestational age at which a born human being has survived is currently 21 weeks and 5 days. Not long ago, that age was 28 weeks.

Are we going to define human rights according to the medical/technological limitations of a given time period? Did a human born at 27 weeks 20 years ago not have the right to life that a 22-week fetus would have today? Would a human born at 18 weeks 20 years in the future have the right to life that a 20-week fetus today would not?

And as I pointed out above, viability varies by location as well. Children's National in D.C. vs random rural hospital in Appalachia. Does that 22 week have rights at one vs the other?

 

[KG1]

That "murky zone" is where the matter can only be considered philosophically (i.e. it is "murky" because science cannot define it).

On that matter, I hold the philosophical position that it is better to err on the side that gives the benefit of the doubt to the developing human life, because it is most likely to avoid the unjustified taking of a human life that has the attendant right to life (at the risk of extending that attendant right to some point prior to when that human life is endowed with that right). The opposing position introduces the risk of unjustly denying the right life of a developing human with which that human is endowed.

The philosophical position I take is consistent with the concept of innocent until proven guilty and the right to due process. The opposing position largely exists for reasons of political expediency.

This is my way of thinking. Abortion to me boils down to taking away that human right to life of the unborn to develop in the womb once the process has begun at the zygote stage.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

I don't think it's a losing position unless you're zealously going after women for having an abortion.

From what I've seen, the majority of people prefer some degree of restriction on abortion. Take baby steps with where the public is prepared to walk and it's going to pay dividends.

This... sort of...

From what I've seen, a majority of people prefer little to no restrictions during the very early part of pregnancy, but the majority also prefer lots of restrictions or even bans later in pregnancy.

ETA: The media focuses on only one part of that when portraying the majority as "Pro-choice".

IIRC, 80% or more oppose any procedure that requires killing the unborn child in order to prevent the "abortion" from becoming a "delivery" of a live child who can survive outside the mother's body.

Somewhere between a heartbeat and viability, the majority changes from Pro-choice to Pro-life.