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

[AndreusMaximus]

View attachment 199910

 

[chipbennett]

Hello.

I created an account specifically to post in this thread, I hope that’s allowed here.

Welcome to INGO! All civil discussion is welcome here.

Mr Bennet makes some good points about when a human life begins, and I think I understand his points about a two-cell zygote and human rights.

However, he fails to address the conflict that occurs between the rights of the unborn and the rights of the pregnant, as well as the moral issue of forced birth.

Doesn’t the mother have the same rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness as Mr Bennet wants to extend to the unborn? There is undeniable overlap between the rights of two people when they both occupy the same body. Does the right to life of the unborn have supremacy over the right to life of the pregnant?

Certainly. Rights co-exist and are co-equal. The rights of the mother and the unborn child, thus, are co-equal.

Regarding "supremacy" of the rights of the unborn, I respond by way of asking: how did that unborn child find himself in the womb? Except in cases of rape, that unborn child finds himself in the womb as a direct result of the choices and actions of the mother.

If so, based in what? The foundational element of our legal system (and government) is consent. Without consent there is no liberty.

Consent is implicit by the actions of the two parties who participated in the creation of the new human life.
By engaging in the activity known to result in conception of a new human life, the mother (and the father, though he rarely rates mention in these discussions) chose to enable to possibility of creating a human life that would gestate in the womb.

From my perspective, forcing a person to engage in an activity that may reasonably kill them is the exact opposite of liberty, and absolutely morally abhorrent.

So, forcing an unborn human to participate in an abortion is "the exact opposite of liberty, and absolutely morally abhorrent"?

Unless you are referring to the mother? In which case, I know of no one who argues against abortion when medically necessary due to risk of life to the mother (e.g. ectopic pregnancies).

Is there a side to this view I am missing? When Mr Bennet asserts that an unborn human has a right to life, does that right override the existing rights of the mother, including the right to choose to avoid reasonable forms of harm?

What forms of harm, specifically? Given that I have never argued against abortion when medically necessary to prevent loss of life of the mother, I'm not sure where this argument is going.

Doesn’t a mother’s right to life include the right to choose the least harmful path forward for her own life, or should the life of her unborn child legally negate her own?

The mother's right to chose, except when her own life is at risk, ends where that choice would deny that same choice to the human life gestating in the womb.

I reiterate: over 98% of abortions are for purely elective reasons (i.e. not related to threat to life of the mother, rape, or incest).

 

[KG1]

I'm in agreement with the medical necessity choice as I'm sure most of us are. So with that set aside should the mother's right to choose supersede over the rights of the developing human in the womb because of poor life choices? That is the more pertinent question here.

 

[chipbennett]

But you haven't refuted it. You've defined a point backed by science that begins the scope of pregnancy that no one disputes. And then you attached rights to it. I can do the same with any other point in a pregnancy documented by science. But that would be as arbitrary as yours.

Also, a right to live is not purely a religious concept or belief. There be no dragons there, though you've probably read the same theologians who insist otherwise.

I'll lay it out one more time:

1. "Humans have the right to life" is an accepted, absolute principle
2. Science determines that a human life exists at the two-celled zygote stage of development
3. Science does not and cannot address the concept of "rights", including "right to life", and cannot determine when such rights attach to a human life
4. The assumed, absolute, human right to life must attach at some stage of human life.
5. It may be true that unalienable rights attach to human lives at some point subsequent to the two-celled zygote stage.
6. Assuming unalienable rights, including the right to life, attaches universally to all human life - which includes human life at the two-celled zygote state of development - poses the least risk of unjustly taking the life of a human to which that right attached.
7. Assuming unalienable rights, including the right to life, attaches at some subsequent point must, by definition, increase the risk of unjustly taking the life of a human to which that right attached.

 

[jamil]

Your first paragraph is the idea that makes people's heads explode. Some think the geeky simplicity of being able to say, "One moment there were [X] chromosomes, then afterward, there were [2-times-X] chromosomes...so therefore, since there's a sort of geeky mathematical simplicity to it which always leads to the same answer - the one I happen to like - it's therefore the only right way to reason this debate." If things are being decided in a manner which lacks that "2x > x" simplicity, they feel the bottom of the lake disappearing from under their feet, and don't possess the confidence they can "use their words" and reason to win the argument anymore. Their ultimate root of moral reason is something delivered to them in a book, not something they baked in the kitchen of their own reason. So they feel like they're being entered in a cook-off with surprise ingredients where they won't be able to use their grandma's recipe anymore, and feel like they won't be able to win. (By "win," in this case I mean: reach an end-point in the debate which agrees with their already-existing concept of what is right).

On your second point, I'm not sure there's ever a bad time to strike down bad, activist legal reasoning. But if there's anybody I blame for the timing of this, it's Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Decades after The Left had converted SC appointments into asymmetrical partisan warfare, those doofuses were still trying to play the game symmetrically. By appointing people like Anthony Kennedy and (for chrissakes!) David Souter, they delayed the timing of this latest decision by at least 20 years. Now that we're dropping a precedent with half a century under its belt, I despair of any possibility of saving the Heller 2A decision from the leftist horde. I know they were eventually going to make a run at it, anyway. But RvW being overturned makes the job a lot harder, because now they're going to just have an aching hard-on for some kind of right-wing precedent they can overturn.

I have to agree that it was a bad decision in 1973. SCOTUS made up constitutional fluff from thin air. And yeah, I think if that could have been corrected, even in the 1990s, who knows what would have happened other than it would not have been during a culture war which the right is losing and has a good chance of losing outright. I don't know if it's too late to correct the education indoctrination system at this point. They're just cranking out purple hair ideologues like McDonald's cranks out big macs.

No doubt progressives wanting to get even will unleash whatever hell they can muster on the 2A. But, a majority of progressives on the bench would always have been a disaster for the 2A. I think there is even more resolve. But what are they going to do? Cheat harder? What excuse will they use this time to push easy to exploit voting methods?

 

[DoggyDaddy]

What excuse will they use this time to push easy to exploit voting methods?

They're already warming up in the bull pen with the latest greatest plague variant predictions. Or maybe they'll say that the food shortages are so severe that they'll allow mail in voting so that people don't have to expend extra calories by getting off their asses and going to the polls.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Your first paragraph is the idea that makes people's heads explode. Some think the geeky simplicity of being able to say, "One moment there were [X] chromosomes, then afterward, there were [2-times-X] chromosomes...so therefore, since there's a sort of geeky mathematical simplicity to it which always leads to the same answer - the one I happen to like - it's therefore the only right way to reason this debate."

On the other hand, if things were to be decided in a manner which lacks that "2x > x" simplicity, they feel the bottom of the lake disappearing from under their feet, and don't possess the confidence they can "use their words" and reason to win the argument anymore. Their ultimate root of moral reason is something delivered to them in a book, not something they baked in the kitchen of their own reason. And that makes all the difference. Because (I'm putting on my Jordan Peterson hat here) they feel like they're being entered in a cook-off with surprise ingredients where they won't be able to use their grandma's recipe anymore, and feel like they won't be able to win. (By "win," in this case I mean: reach an end-point in the debate which agrees with their already-existing concept of what is right).

Neither the Bible, nor any other scripture belonging to a major religion (AFAIK), gives a written out definition that "human life begins at conception." What the bible says is do not murder. The fact that that applies to human beings from the point they come into existence was figured out logically, not because it was handed to us in a book. Even during the middle ages, arguable the height of Christianity, many main-stream, Christian thinkers believed that the human did not have a soul until a certain point during pregnancy. But they still believed that abortion was wrong, because you don't have to believe in a soul to believe in human rights for ALL humans, not just those who meet certain criteria.

The reason religious types tend to believe more firmly that life begins at conception isn't because that was laid out to them in a book, it's because they take the idea of "do no murder" much more seriously than non-religious types, as a general rule, and so are much less willing to try bending the rules and testing the boundaries on that point. Now there are some who do blindly believe what a book says, and won't argue with any sort of logic except what's in there book. But I an several others in this thread have already tried, several times over, to make logical arguments not based on any scriptures. Why do you continue to level these accusations at us, instead of refuting our arguments?

We want principles that are simple and clearly defined, because that's how you get rights that last, and a society that stays the course. For decades smarmy politicians and elites have been telling us that our knuckle-dragging, antiquated ideas need to be updated and nuanced. "Oh, your right to bear arms shall not be infringed? You can't possibly think that applies absolutely; nobody needs a machine gun. Oh, free speech? But hate speech is violence, and we can't have that. Oh, right to life? But if someone isn't at the mental level to have a human experience of life, surely you can't really believe they're really a person?"

It's all part of the same tired old game; they know what they're up to. Once you start to complicate, then "nuance", then water down the definitions of human rights, that's when you can get the sheeple in line and slowly take away and whittle down those rights. If you won't give an understandable, consistent definition of a right, then you may as well not believe in that right at all. My definition of a human being with a right to life is ANY human organism. What's yours?

 

[jamil]

Should the mother's rights supersede because of poor life choices?

It's not always poor choices. People can use protection and the protection fails. Should people just not ****? Is that even realistic? I kinda think at some point in the pregnancy it's just too damn bad. It's kinda too late now, you're stuck with it.

In the case of rape, rare, sure. But it's a question not easily answered by the "at concpetion" proponents. Should the mother's rights be superseded by a fertilized egg?

 

[KG1]

It's not always poor choices. People can use protection and the protection fails. Should people just not ****? Is that even realistic? I kinda think at some point in the pregnancy it's just too damn bad. It's kinda too late now, you're stuck with it.

In the case of rape, rare, sure. But it's a question not easily answered by the "at concpetion" proponents. Should the mother's rights be superseded by a fertilized egg?

Thank you for your concise post.

 

[jamil]

They're already warming up in the bull pen with the latest greatest plague variant predictions. Or maybe they'll say that the food shortages are so severe that they'll allow mail in voting so that people don't have to expend extra calories by getting off their asses and going to the polls.

Oh. How about, we need mail-in voting so that people don't have to spend money on gas that we caused to skyrocket by our policies? I think soon they'll be pushing online voting.

 

[jamil]

Thank you for your concise post.

Uh. I think I'm being hit by the word shortage. Stock is low.

 

[BigRed]

Should people just not ****?

Joy Behar says yes.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Oh. How about, we need mail-in voting so that people don't have to spend money on gas that we caused to skyrocket by our policies? I think soon they'll be pushing online voting.

Yeah, that could work too. Of course it could go the other way. "Vote in person and stop in at the abortion clinic while you still can!"

 

[Mikey1911]

Oh. How about, we need mail-in voting so that people don't have to spend money on gas that we caused to skyrocket by our policies? I think soon they'll be pushing online voting.

Any kind of voting shenanigans that help to ensure the “Dominion” of the Democrat Party will be heavily promoted by that Party and by its Media acolytes.

 

[LeftyGunner]

I'm in agreement with the medical necessity choice. So with that set aside should the mother's rights supersede because of poor life choices? is the more pertinent question.

Thank you for your reply.

Yes. I think so. She still has the right to choose the least dangerous path forward for herself. I don‘t think she is obligated to defer to the needs of an unwanted pregnancy just because her poor choices led her to that point.

 

[Mikey1911]

Should people just not **** Joy Behar?

It’s well past Lent, but not doing so wouldn’t count for much of a sacrifice at any time.

 

[DadSmith]

It's not always poor choices. People can use protection and the protection fails. Should people just not ****? Is that even realistic? I kinda think at some point in the pregnancy it's just too damn bad. It's kinda too late now, you're stuck with it.

In the case of rape, rare, sure. But it's a question not easily answered by the "at concpetion" proponents. Should the mother's rights be superseded by a fertilized egg?

In about 20 years ask that fertilized egg if he/she thinks they have a right to life. I can garrentee you if they are physically and mentally healthy they will prefer life.
Isn't it our job to make sure they have a voice, and choice in the matter?

 

[KG1]

Thank you for your reply.

Yes. I think so. She still has the right to choose the least dangerous path forward for herself. I don‘t think she is obligated to defer to the needs of an unwanted pregnancy just because her poor choices led her to that point.

Thank you for your reply as well. I think the issue is should the developing human in the womb lose their rights outside of the medical necessity choice because it is unwanted? I think that is a pretty low marker for losing their human rights.

 

[jamil]

Neither the Bible, nor any other scripture belonging to a major religion (AFAIK), gives a written out definition that "human life begins at conception." What the bible says is do not murder. The fact that that applies to human beings from the point they come into existence was figured out logically, not because it was handed to us in a book. Even during the middle ages, arguable the height of Christianity, many main-stream, Christian thinkers believed that the human did not have a soul until a certain point during pregnancy. But they still believed that abortion was wrong, because you don't have to believe in a soul to believe in human rights for ALL humans, not just those who meet certain criteria.

The reason religious types tend to believe more firmly that life begins at conception isn't because that was laid out to them in a book, it's because they take the idea of "do no murder" much more seriously than non-religious types, as a general rule, and so are much less willing to try bending the rules and testing the boundaries on that point. Now there are some who do blindly believe what a book says, and won't argue with any sort of logic except what's in there book. But I an several others in this thread have already tried, several times over, to make logical arguments not based on any scriptures. Why do you continue to level these accusations at us, instead of refuting our arguments?

We want principles that are simple and clearly defined, because that's how you get rights that last, and a society that stays the course. For decades smarmy politicians and elites have been telling us that our knuckle-dragging, antiquated ideas need to be updated and nuanced. "Oh, your right to bear arms shall not be infringed? You can't possibly think that applies absolutely; nobody needs a machine gun. Oh, free speech? But hate speech is violence, and we can't have that. Oh, right to life? But if someone isn't at the mental level to have a human experience of life, surely you can't really believe they're really a person?"

It's all part of the same tired old game; they know what they're up to. Once you start to complicate, then "nuance", then water down the definitions of human rights, that's when you can get the sheeple in line and slowly take away and whittle down those rights. If you won't give an understandable, consistent definition of a right, then you may as well not believe in that right at all. My definition of a human being with a right to life is ANY human organism. What's yours?

I'm low on words. I'll be as brief as I can. What's my definition of human? Well, I kinda like to see that they have a few parts usually associated with being a human.

I've sat in pews and heard sermons from more than just a few preachers making the "at conception" case with scripture. I don't remember the references and I haven't time to look them up. It's more than "religious people care more about murder than nonreligious people do." It's not that nonreligious people don't care about murder. It's that they don't believe it's murder. Because they don't view what's there at conception a complete human. DNA isn't all of it. At least not in the earlier weeks of pregnancy.

If there's anything that I would want those of you who don't agree to at least acknowledge, is that there are reasons for people's pro-choice stances other than just not caring as much as you do about murder. That's as bad as the other side saying you don't care about women. Of course that's not true either. It's that you believe that it's murder even to abort even a fertilized egg, because it's living, and it has the DNA it's going to have outside the womb, and so on. And I think I've represented what you all have said to me in support of your point. It would be a way less controversial topic if people could represent the other's arguments fairly.

 

[chipbennett]

Thank you for your reply.

Yes. I think so. She still has the right to choose the least dangerous path forward for herself. I don‘t think she is obligated to defer to the needs of an unwanted pregnancy just because her poor choices led her to that point.

I disagree. The unborn human did not come into existence through any choice or action of its own, but rather through choice and action of the mother. The unborn human did not find itself in the mother's womb through any choice or action of its own, but rather through choice and action of the mother.

The life of a human being should not be taken simply because of choices (poor or otherwise) of the mother, or because that human life is "unwanted" by the mother.