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

[Timjoebillybob]

That's a reductive argument, and an opinion that rights should apply at that point.

Yes, I'm reducing it to the basics. But I feel it's more a deductive argument. Do humans have rights? And is the fetus human?

If you've followed the conversation, that's been my point all along, that it's all a lot more subjective than people think. Which is, I think, because it's based on the surety of a religious belief in a soul that gives a even a zygote a moral status that most people don't give it.

You're pretty much the only one bringing religion into this, why is that?

I've tried to be more brief. I hope that doesn't make you feel left out, lol. This is less brief. Human rights follow from morality. Where the morals are, so follow the rights. So that's where I'm at on natural rights. Of course I have natural rights.

Nah, I don't feel left out. And thank you for your replies. But I have to disagree that human rights follow from morality. Morality does influence whether those rights are recognized and/or infringed upon. In the early part of this country, blacks were considered to be subhuman and to not have rights. It was morally acceptable to enslave them and even kill them. Did they not have the right to pursue life/freedom because of the morals of the time. Or was it that their rights were not recognized due to the morals of the time? IMO it is the latter.

Where you're going with this is essentially what you've said all along, the same reductive fertilized egg == human == human with rights. Is there something other than "potential" that morally attaches the rights of a fertilized egg, equally with any more developed human? At conception, it doesn't think, breathe, feel, have dreams or aspirations. It is difficult to have sympathy or to empathize with it. I know that sounds insensitive to you guys. I'm trying to say it in a sensitive way. But can I have a moral reaction to make me believe it has rights at conception? Not without believing it has a soul.

Yes, I'm going with the basics of the argument. Why do you say "potential" though?

I will agree that it is perhaps harder to empathize with it. But once again you are the one bringing religion into is. Soul or not, it has human rights.

My opinion on that is unpopular here, but it is much closer to the mainstream opinion. Like I said, I'm trying to say all this in a sensitive way, because obviously that opinion is gonna evoke some negative emotions, as it has already. But trying to be honest without offending people is not always easy. I don't know another way to say it. Without having something more than just a fertilized egg, without the concept of a soul, it's hard to conceive of it not being an "it" at that stage, and I find it an arbitrary requirement to say it has the same rights of a more developed human. And that's probably gonna trigger some people too. It's the nature of discussing controversial topics where people have strong opinions about it.

Your opinion may be closer to mainstream, but that doesn't mean it's correct. No negative emotions or offense for myself, this is simply a discussion. One that both sides believes they are correct. Once again you are the one bringing religion into this, and perhaps it is arbitrary. But basing it on development, a human is not completely physically developed until what? The brain isn't fully developed until sometime in the 20s.

I'm not pro-abortion. But because it all is so subjective, my opinion on it is that our laws should reflect the will of the people. We're too old for it to affect us. I hope my son whenever he marries is responsible and does not cause an unwanted pregnancy, because I think abortions shouldn't happen. I'd rather people make smarter choices. that's pretty much it.

I'll conditionally agree that our laws should reflect the will of the people. That condition being that it doesn't infringe upon the rights of people. I'll bring up slavery again as an example. Or closer to home on this forum, laws that require people to attempt to retreat before using self defense, even in their own home in some states. Heck I'll even throw in prostitution and drugs, if a person has a right to their own body which is what the abortion debate is mostly about, correct? Then they should have the right to do with it as they please.

 

[DragonGunner]

Pro-Choice, its my body and I should have the freedom to do what I want to my body even if it means killing my baby.

Not true. If it was your own body then you would be the one that died.

Case closed.

 

[chipbennett]

Believers think they have the monopoly on morals.

Yes, and no.

Yes, insofar as morality requires moral authority, and moral authority requires a higher power/moral being to define what is moral.

No, insofar as, at least per Judeo-Christian belief, that higher Being (God) created humans to resonate with and to seek Him and His definition of morality. So, even non-believers will have some inherent sense of moral direction.

 

[KG1]

Yes, and no.

Yes, insofar as morality requires moral authority, and moral authority requires a higher power/moral being to define what is moral.

No, insofar as, at least per Judeo-Christian belief, that higher Being (God) created humans to resonate with and to seek Him and His definition of morality. So, even non-believers will have some inherent sense of moral direction.

I get that true believer's moralities are guided by biblical definition. What guides morality in non-believers? It looks to me that you as a believer are saying they are still subconsciously guided by God with an inherent sense of morality and that is where it emanates from even though they are a non-believer and don't adhere to the biblical definition per se.

Point of clarification. I am true believer. I'm just curious as to what your take is on where non-believers acquire morality and if my understanding of your post is correct.

 

[chipbennett]

I appreciate you laying it out here. But I recall that we've had maybe 4, give or take, exchanges. Where was all this laid out? I think I missed some of it.

I thought it might be helpful to make sure it was all in one place, given the many voices in this thread.

Call it right to pursue life and I can buy that as an absolute principle, but it's not universally held as an absolute principle. But, in Western thinking, it's close enough. But you do need to say it more precisely, that you have a right to pursue life. You don't have a right to my help if you need it. But because I'm a compassionate man, I feel like it's a moral duty as a fellow human being to help you however I am able when you need it.

A distinction without a difference, I think, but fair enough. I don't think "right to life" of one individual implies any compulsion on the free will of anyone else, in general. (There is obvious implication here to the gestation period in utero, but I've addressed that already: the gestating human life is present in utero through choice and action of its parents, not through its own choice and actions.)

I am not a scientist. I would like to ask biologists from both a religious worldview and a secular worldview, to see if they both agree that a two-celled zygote is considered equal to a fully developed human, which is what you seem to keep asserting. So then I can imagine how that conversation would go. "Equal in what way?" Uh, equal in terms of human rights. "That's not a question for biology to answer. That's a question for philosophy." Oh.

Science doesn't address the question of "equality" of life. A two-celled zygote meets the definition of life, and that life is genetically human. That is all that science can tell us. As you say (and with which I agree): anything you add to that scientific understanding of "human life" becomes a matter of philosophy.

This is my position from the start.

Agreed, but with the aforementioned caution about using absolute with right to life. I'll add another acceptable alternative. You can say right not to be killed. Or right to pursue life. Or both.

I think this is, again, a distinction without a difference, but fair enough. The right to life can be forfeited through one's actions, following due process. (And, I would not have a great problem with eliminating capital punishment for even the most evil among us - though that still leaves justifiable forfeiture of life through an act of self-defense against a mortal threat.)

None of that applies to a gestating human life, though.

Okay.

That's a case you could make. But I would like some balance with the rights of the mother when we're talking about just a fertilized egg. I understand that to you this is as much a person at the very beginning of its life as someone near the very end of his, and all points between. But this is what I've asked you to do. Draw the dots between fertilized egg and "unjust". You've listed 7 statements. None of them lead from embryo to "unjust".

The point is that we have no empirical (i.e. scientific) means to determine at what point in development rights attach to a developing human. That point could be "conception", "two-celled zygote", or some other developmental point beyond those. The principle is that, once those rights have attached, taking that life becomes unjust. If we assume that rights attach at the two-celled zygote point of development, our assumption leaves zero "gray area" for unjustly taking a human life. If we assume any developmental point beyond that one, then by definition we increase the risk of unjustly taking a human life, because our assumption creates "gray area" where we may have made an incorrect assumption. (I think this point is clear? If not, I can give examples.)

And there's really not much we can say about this point. It doesn't move us any closer to a logical path from the science, a life equal to any other. If I don't have a belief in the same moral attachment you've given it, how can I logically agree with "unjustly taking the life of a human?"

We have already established the universal principle that humans have an inherent right to life. Why do we now need to revisit that principle, to examine it for a moral or religious attachment?

And again, I think the moral attachment you have is because of what, as a Christian, you believe about the human soul. And there's nothing wrong with that.

The reason that I keep hammering you for this is because it reeks of an Alinsky tactic; specifically Rule #4: "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules."

I do not kowtow to Alinsky tactics. I have very intentionally kept my own, personal religious beliefs out of my argumentation, and you seem hell-bent on forcing me to apply my religious beliefs. In doing so, it appears that you are attempting to weaken a non-religious argument by forcing it to be founded upon my religious beliefs. I have said nothing whatsoever about the soul. The above, point-by-point rationalization I provided stands on its own, without introducing the concept of a soul or any other religious beliefs. The only potential "moral" attachment involves the first point - that humans have an inherent right to life - which is why we established, up front, that the principle is universal and accepted, regardless of religious belief.

Unless you can demonstrate where particular religious belief is required for any subsequent point, then I will continue to assert that the position I articulated is wholly appropriate as a secular justification for assuming that the right to life for humans attaches to human life from the point of development of a two-celled zygote. (Note: that is not to say that it is the only possible secular position; rather, that it is a legitimately secular position.)

 

[chipbennett]

I think that strikes at the very heart of the question:

Does an unborn human have a right to live birth and, if so, how absolute it that right?

There seems to be strong agreement, even here, that a woman should not be forced to carry a pregnancy to term if the delivery will kill her.

The problem, as I see it, comes in attempting to draw the line at exactly how much harm a woman should be forced to endure in order to ensure a live birth for her unborn. Killing her is too far, clearly, but what about leaving her wheelchair-bound for the rest of her natural life? Should a woman be legally forced to endure this amount of harm on behalf of her unborn?

Should she be legally forced to endure *any* amount of harm, even that normally associated with a healthy pregnancy and delivery?

I think there is sound reasoning behind the First Breath doctrine, personally.

Individual rights begin when our lives as individuals begin. Until birth the rights of the unborn are inexorably tied to the rights of the pregnant, and it makes the most sense to me to defer to position of the mother when conflicts arise.

Thank you for your response.

Gestating humans breathe in utero. Further, the gestational age of viability is, today, at least under 21 weeks. By the "First Birth" doctrine, abortion up through and including partial birth is justifiable.

Please define when "our lives as individuals" begin? Every growth of the gestating human is self-directed. The mother provides nothing but environment and nourishment (scientifically speaking). The gestating human even creates its own growth environment inside the uterus, including placenta, amniotic sac, and amniotic fluid. There is an explicit distinction between what is the body of the mother and what is the body of the gestating human.

 

[chipbennett]

I get that true believer's moralities are guided by biblical definition. What guides morality in non-believers? It looks to me that you as a believer are saying they are still subconsciously guided by God with an inherent sense of morality and that is where it emanates from even though they are a non-believer and don't adhere to the biblical definition per se.

Point of clarification. I am true believer. I'm just curious as to what your take is on where non-believers acquire morality and if my understanding of your post is correct.

If I may use a Christian cliche: the "God-shaped hole in the heart". God created man in his image - which I believe means that God created humans as spiritual beings, with an inherent desire to know God and to align with His perfection (i.e. an inherent sense of morality).

So, yes, I believe that atheists can be moral - but I believe that, whether they believe/accept it or not, their sense of and desire for morality originates with their having been created in the image of God.

 

[BigRed]

Okay. I'm intrigued. So without the central state, each state becomes its own country?

They were before delegating authority to the central state agent. Withdraw the authority and they are again.

 

[KG1]

If I may use a Christian cliche: the "God-shaped hole in the heart". God created man in his image - which I believe means that God created humans as spiritual beings, with an inherent desire to know God and to align with His perfection (i.e. an inherent sense of morality).

So, yes, I believe that atheists can be moral - but I believe that, whether they believe/accept it or not, their sense of and desire for morality originates with their having been created in the image of God.

Just wanted to clarify that I do think atheists can be guided by a moral compass. My question was where is that moral compass derived from? I think I understand your position that it is still driven by a higher authority even though they would not attribute it to that.

I think the question would better be defined by non-believers as to where their sense of morality comes from. And to be fair I am not demanding as a believer that they are under any obligation/pressure to explain nor do I think that as a non-believer they are incapable of having morals.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I think the question would better be defined by non-believers as to where their sense of morality comes from.

If they're materialists, everything is the result of molecules bouncing off of each other. Brain fizz is the term I've heard before. It's one moist robot brain fizzing with other moist robot.

 

[KG1]

If they're materialists, everything is the result of molecules bouncing off of each other. Brain fizz is the term I've heard before. It's one moist robot brain fizzing with other moist robot.

That's an interesting take. So the morals of a non-believer are derived from "Brain fizz?"

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

That's an interesting take. So the morals of a non-believer are derived from "Brain fizz?"

As I've had it explained to me, materialists believe everything there is is because of matter, matter in motion. Random things happening in the universe, undirected, unauthored, stuff just bumping and bouncing off of and reacting other things. Therefore anything that a human can conceive of is because of electrochemical reactions inside your head -- brain fizz.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Listening to Yellin is sickening. (paraphrased) "We need abortion because abortion is good for the economy. It keeps women working and making money without being burdened by children"

Wow. just wow.

Reminds me of a VERY controversial study that the Freakanomics guys talked about years ago. Somebody did a study and it shows a strong correlation between abortion and crime. Apparently, starting around 15 years after RvW was passed, crime started dropping. The correlation they made was that fewer unwanted pregnancies=fewer abused/ignored children in low income brackets, which reduces the number of young folks breaking the law since that bracket is predominantly where criminals come from. Apparently if you kill the future criminals in the womb, the crime cant happen. A fascinating theory.

Nobody said that it was good, but there was still alot of blowback from daring to notice such a trend.

Shocking, but understandable. But sadly along with those dead criminals were dead good people who never made it to the world.

 

[daddyusmaximus]

Here's my .02

My take is that everybody knows it's wrong to kill people. Yes, I believe in God, but even those who don't (for the most part) are in agreement that to commit a murder is not a moral act. The problem with the lefties is that they have a shifting view on when it is ok to kill.

For most conservatives, you don't have the right to take a live unless there is no other choice. This would be time like you were sent to war, or are in a situation where you have to defend your own life (or others) from a violent threat. It would also happen if a violent offender had earned his/her death by committing evil crimes, and it is no longer safe (for the rest of us) for them to be left alive on this earth.

For a leftie, an unborn child is a blessing (if that child is wanted) but nothing more than a clump of cells... if it is an mere inconvenience to their happy-go-lucky lifestyle, due to them having unprotected sex.

This shifting definition of words (their favorite thing to do) is why abortion is so immoral, and should be stopped in all cases, save for rape.

To be honest, I'd even hesitate to make that exclusion, for fear of the thousand-fold increase in rape allegations that would surely follow every other one night stand. (Though that may teach guys to keep it in their pants, or wear a love glove.)

To put it simply, you don't kill someone, unless they have earned it, and an unborn child... hasn't.



Here endeth the lesson.

 

[KG1]

As I've had it explained to me, materialists believe everything there is is because of matter, matter in motion. Random things happening in the universe, undirected, unauthored, stuff just bumping and bouncing off of and reacting other things. Therefore anything that a human can conceive of is because of electrochemical reactions inside your head -- brain fizz.

In simpler terms I think this means that a non-believer does not believe creation including all things conceivable which includes their sense morality is driven by a higher power.

 

[DragonGunner]

Listening to Yellin is sickening. (paraphrased) "We need abortion because abortion is good for the economy. It keeps women working and making money without being burdened by children"

Wow. just wow.

Reminds me of a VERY controversial study that the Freakanomics guys talked about years ago. Somebody did a study and it shows a strong correlation between abortion and crime. Apparently, starting around 15 years after RvW was passed, crime started dropping. The correlation they made was that fewer unwanted pregnancies=fewer abused/ignored children in low income brackets, which reduces the number of young folks breaking the law since that bracket is predominantly where criminals come from. Apparently if you kill the future criminals in the womb, the crime cant happen. A fascinating theory.

Nobody said that it was good, but there was still alot of blowback from daring to notice such a trend.

Shocking, but understandable. But sadly along with those dead criminals were dead good people who never made it to the world.

Well the worse violent crimes and murders happened in the 70's....and again even worse in the 90's. I put no stock in that theory. Plus they don't take into account every abortion is a murder....also a crime whether its lawful or not resulting in even more murders....62 million. Thats a lot of crime.

 

[KG1]

I would just like to say that I think this line of discussion about moralities can easily be interpreted as atheist bashing which was not intended on my part. I participated solely from a position of better understanding. As I've said in a previous post, I do believe a non-believer is indeed capable of having morals. I was just curious as to where they believe their morality is derived from. In other words, I do not wish this to become another flame war over morality between believers and non-believers.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Well the worse violent crimes and murders happened in the 70's....and again even worse in the 90's. I put no stock in that theory. Plus they don't take into account every abortion is a murder....also a crime whether its lawful or not resulting in even more murders....62 million. Thats a lot of crime.

Thats because abortion isnt criminal. So therefore not a crime. So of course it wouldnt factor into the stats. I dont disagree with the murder premise, but it is what it is.

 

[KG1]

Gestating humans breathe in utero. Further, the gestational age of viability is, today, at least under 21 weeks. By the "First Birth" doctrine, abortion up through and including partial birth is justifiable.

Please define when "our lives as individuals" begin? Every growth of the gestating human is self-directed. The mother provides nothing but environment and nourishment (scientifically speaking). The gestating human even creates its own growth environment inside the uterus, including placenta, amniotic sac, and amniotic fluid. There is an explicit distinction between what is the body of the mother and what is the body of the gestating human.

I agree with this that at some point the body of the child bearer and the developing human in the womb become two separate entities each entitled to their own human rights. Some believe that they are not yet merely at conception which is more of a religious belief, and they question when it should be if ever.

Some even go so far as say they are not two separate entities until after childbirth and the mother obtains sole rights in every step of the process which I believe is the fundamental grounds for pro-choice advocacy. Given that foundation to me they cannot honestly make the case there is any point in gestion otherwise that is not acceptable for abortion.

 

[LeftyGunner]

Just wanted to clarify that I do think atheists can be guided by a moral compass. My question was where is that moral compass derived from? I think I understand your position that it is still driven by a higher authority even though they would not attribute it to that.

I think the question would better be defined by non-believers as to where their sense of morality comes from. And to be fair I am not demanding as a believer that they are under any obligation/pressure to explain nor do I think that as a non-believer they are incapable of having morals.

I get the feeling that most non-believers think human morality is an evolved trait universal across all human culture, necessary for the function of human social groups, especially as they get larger.

.