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

[bwframe]

 

[KG1]

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.

.

This could be a valid explanation for non-believers based on the theories of evolution alone.

I guess it's all part of the creation/evolution debate in which believers believe that any inherent moral compass emanates from a higher being but by your definition non-believers feel that it is not a necessity from which to draw morality.

 

[Shadow01]

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.

Turn the question around. Should a child endure death just to avoid a woman from spending her adult life in a wheelchair?

 

[KG1]

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.

Surely Yellen must then believe in abstinence unless the pregnancy is intended. That would keep women working and the economy growing without the need for the whole abortion issue. Right Janet?

 

[Cameramonkey]

So if this sticks in liberal states. Should we also push to remove penalties for killing unborn during crimes? I mean, its a double standard for a doctor to do it and its fine, but somebody else kills the kid and they are in trouble.

Either its murder or its not. Cant have it both ways.

Or do we let it ride to "get anything we can" because only being able to punish a murderer at least is better than nothing?

 

[KG1]

So if this sticks in liberal states. Should we also push to remove penalties for killing unborn during crimes? I mean, its a double standard for a doctor to do it and its fine, but somebody else kills the kid and they are in trouble.

Either its murder or its not. Cant have it both ways.

Or do we let it ride to "get anything we can" because only being able to punish a murderer at least is better than nothing?

Yep if they can say it's not a human in the womb for abortion purposes how can they then justify penalizing for the termination as a result of a crime if it's not a human by their standards.

What happens in the end in either case results in the same thing.

 

[jamil]

I would like to ask you why it matters?

Because1) it's kinda the crux of the whole debate between pro-life/pro-choice. When should rights attach to the unborn? 2) Resolution. It tends to help resolve a couple of questions. First, is it right when people claim "at conception" is "the science". I think not. If both answer that it's not a question biology/science can answer, then it tends to confirm the theory. If the religious biologist says, "at conception" and the secular biologist says, not a question biology/science can answer, that would tend to support that the religious biologist is biased.

 

[jamil]

...
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?

This doesn't answer the question, but I guess I should have excluded the mother's actual health risks.

I think if doctors tell the mother that she's in grave risk if she takes the baby to term, c-section is off the table. All the other interventions for whatever reason is off the table. And the only way to avoid the risk is to terminate the pregnancy (and I think this would be an extraordinary case, so is not much more than philosophy that we're talking about it) then I think the mother has a right to save herself.

But, we're not talking about that. We're talking about for any other reason. So, after a night of fun and ****ing--nothing wrong with that, but without thinking of consequences, some point after she finds out she's pregnant, and at some point after that she decides she doesn't really want to be pregnant. So how long into the pregnancy does her right to her whim, supersede the unborn's right not to be killed?

You said something about "at first breath". If that's the case, do you think that responsibility plays any role at all? Should that responsibility not be encoded in the law at least a little? What about the fact that by whim, after declining opportunities to be at least a little more responsible, she chooses to discard a child at the worst possible time for the child to be killed? Is that okay?

 

[jamil]

So if this sticks in liberal states. Should we also push to remove penalties for killing unborn during crimes? I mean, its a double standard for a doctor to do it and its fine, but somebody else kills the kid and they are in trouble.

Either its murder or its not. Cant have it both ways.

Or do we let it ride to "get anything we can" because only being able to punish a murderer at least is better than nothing?

I think it's fair to make that policy match the abortion policy. if while committing a crime, the "birthing person" (I just said it that way because it's really hilarious to see in print) is killed along with the unborn child, and abortion is unrestricted, the offender should only be charged with 1 count. If abortion is illegal, then the offender should be charged with 1+n count, where n is the number of unborn children in the womb.

 

[Tombs]

Because1) it's kinda the crux of the whole debate between pro-life/pro-choice. When should rights attach to the unborn? 2) Resolution. It tends to help resolve a couple of questions. First, is it right when people claim "at conception" is "the science". I think not. If both answer that it's not a question biology/science can answer, then it tends to confirm the theory. If the religious biologist says, "at conception" and the secular biologist says, not a question biology/science can answer, that would tend to support that the religious biologist is biased.

But it doesn't matter because it's perfectly normal in law for situations to exist to lawfully take a life.

So I don't understand why it's even an issue on those grounds.

 

[jamil]

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?

That's not exactly what a reductive argument is, and I think you know that. But anyway, there's not a logical reason that follows other than an opinion.

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

Well. I think I've answered that a few times. I'm one of the few non-religious people in the conversation. And it seems to be primarily the religious people who confidently proclaim that "the science" says it should be at conception. I'm trying to get people to see that it really is not as objective as they think. And this orthodoxy of opinion is probably based on their common religious beliefs.

And I've also said that that doesn't matter in terms of what policies you want. If you want abortions banned because you think it's a sin, then you get to vote for the people in service of that. And bat **** crazy people with far left ideologies get to vote for other bat **** crazy people in service of allowing abortions up until the kid is out of high school. Anyway, "at conception" is no more objective than anyone else who might base their morals on something besides religion.

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.

Morality has obviously gone through some social maturity. How long did it take before the West decided slavery was wrong? The concept of human rights as the constitution was written did not include black people. Because they weren't regarded as having rights. The 3/5ths clause is horribly mockable in terms of moral maturity of the time, for **** sake.

There are subjective morals and there are objective morals. The subjective ones are local across cultures and time. Like ******** and then wiping with your right hand--that's immoral in some cultures. The objective ones are ones that tend to transcend culture and time. And maybe we could say they're more like the moral foundations from Jonathon Heidt's work. I mean, I think there are some legitimate criticisms of Heidt's moral foundations. But it's kinda on right the right track, IMHO. And that brings us to rights following from morals. One moral foundation would be a sense of fairness. And that's what gives rise to the idea of having rights. And this follows the idea that this is all developed through social evolution.

But, if you don't have a secular worldview, you might be more of the mind that rights come from God. So that whole paragraph won't ring true for you.

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

That comes from early on in the discussion, which basically started the whole thing. Someone asked if I thought there was a good secular argument for "at conception" and I said, not really. The "potential" argument was the best I could think of and I said I didn't think it was all that good.

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.

In your opinion.

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.

My opinion is that the question of abortion is relative to one's worldview. And that makes it subjective. As far as when to attach rights, yeah, mine is more mainstream, but that is because I'm looking more for the point of consensus, since it is subjective otherwise. It doesn't make the mainstream "right". But then, it's a binary wholly dependent on one's worldview. So my rightness =/= your rightness unless we share the same worldview on abortion.

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.

Well. I'll disagree that the abortion debate is mostly about a woman's right to her own body. It's about eugenics, it's about political expedience, by politicians, ideologues, religions, etcetera. It's about politicians' fund raising. It's about othering people. Women's rights claims by establishment activists are mostly in service of that by people who don't actually give a flying **** other than their larger political goals being furthered.

But to your point. I favor the libertarian point of view on that. People should get to do what they want as long as waht they want doesn't infringe on other people's rights. So if they choose to do drugs, and it only harms them, then have at it. Just don't make me pay for the rehab. And don't make me pay for the house you blew up because your shake-n-bake went bad.

 

[jamil]

But it doesn't matter because it's perfectly normal in law for situations to exist to lawfully take a life.

So I don't understand why it's even an issue on those grounds.

I'll be honest right now. I really don't know what you're talking about. I'd be happy to tune in if you could make the point clearer.

 

[Tombs]

I'll be honest right now. I really don't know what you're talking about. I'd be happy to tune in if you could make the point clearer.

If someone is trying to kill you, it's legal to end their life.

If a court sentences someone to death, our laws permit taking their life.

If a loved one is vegetative, it's perfectly legal to pull life support.

 

[jamil]

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.

.

Yeah, that's probably pretty close. A sense of morality is an evolved trait with a selective advantage, where furthering cooperation made one group more likely to reproduce than a group without it.

 

[jamil]

If someone is trying to kill you, it's legal to end their life.

If a court sentences someone to death, our laws permit taking their life.

If a loved one is vegetative, it's perfectly legal to pull life support.

No, I mean what were you asking in the first place? You quoted a paragraph and asked me why that matters. But you didn't say why what matters? And I answered the question I thought you were asking. But your subsequent replies make me think I answered the wrong question. So I guess what I need is for you to ask me that question again, but be specific in what you're referring to.

 

[jamil]

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

Well they tried that. It didn't work. So they drafted the constitution we have now. But then subsequently, more authority was given to the central state than was originally intended by the constitution. But, under the constitution, the states were never separate countries. Even under the articles of confederation, the states weren't separate countries, though they were much closer to that than ever.

 

[jamil]

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.

Well if we're all being curious it seems fair that both sides are presented.

Non-religious people think that religion evolved as an instinct as primitive humans tried to understand all the things they couldn't explain. As societies scaled larger, the societies with religion tended to survive better than those without because of various advantages that religions gave the societies that believed in them.

Many non-religious people, some of whom are INGO members who tend to be, let's say, more controversial, believe that we no longer need religion, that we should override the instinct. And they have quite the contempt for religious believers. Personally, I don't think society is all that advanced yet that we can survive as a species without the stability that religion provides.

As the West has been primarily of Judaeo-Christian values, as it has rejected them, the West seems to be turning into a ****-hole. I kinda think we should wait to override some instincts that survived all that the world could hurl at humans, until maybe we learn a bit more about how to behave without it. People without religion have just invented their own cults while claiming not to be religious! If you think that men can be pregnant. YOU are in a cult. Please seek intervention.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

That's not exactly what a reductive argument is, and I think you know that. But anyway, there's not a logical reason that follows other than an opinion.

Yes I know what a reductive argument is, I disagree that I'm using one. Logically it's both human and alive.

Well. I think I've answered that a few times. I'm one of the few non-religious people in the conversation. And it seems to be primarily the religious people who confidently proclaim that "the science" says it should be at conception. I'm trying to get people to see that it really is not as objective as they think. And this orthodoxy of opinion is probably based on their common religious beliefs.

And I've also said that that doesn't matter in terms of what policies you want. If you want abortions banned because you think it's a sin, then you get to vote for the people in service of that. And bat **** crazy people with far left ideologies get to vote for other bat **** crazy people in service of allowing abortions up until the kid is out of high school. Anyway, "at conception" is no more objective than anyone else who might base their morals on something besides religion.

I don't want abortions banned because I think it's a sin. Once again you are the one bringing religion into this. Perhaps it is primarily religious people who proclaim it, that doesn't mean that religion is the reason for their point of view. I believe lots of things are a sin, that doesn't mean I want them to be illegal and/or banned.

Morality has obviously gone through some social maturity. How long did it take before the West decided slavery was wrong? The concept of human rights as the constitution was written did not include black people. Because they weren't regarded as having rights. The 3/5ths clause is horribly mockable in terms of moral maturity of the time, for **** sake.

There are subjective morals and there are objective morals. The subjective ones are local across cultures and time. Like ******** and then wiping with your right hand--that's immoral in some cultures. The objective ones are ones that tend to transcend culture and time. And maybe we could say they're more like the moral foundations from Jonathon Heidt's work. I mean, I think there are some legitimate criticisms of Heidt's moral foundations. But it's kinda on right the right track, IMHO. And that brings us to rights following from morals. One moral foundation would be a sense of fairness. And that's what gives rise to the idea of having rights. And this follows the idea that this is all developed through social evolution.

But, if you don't have a secular worldview, you might be more of the mind that rights come from God. So that whole paragraph won't ring true for you.

I notice you didn't answer the question. Although I do agree that there are subjective and objective morals. Not that long ago it was morally acceptable for a grown person to marry a early teen. Not the case anymore.

But again. Did slaves have rights that were being denied, or did they not have rights due to the morals of the time? IMO a pretty simple question.

That comes from early on in the discussion, which basically started the whole thing. Someone asked if I thought there was a good secular argument for "at conception" and I said, not really. The "potential" argument was the best I could think of and I said I didn't think it was all that good.


In your opinion.


My opinion is that the question of abortion is relative to one's worldview. And that makes it subjective. As far as when to attach rights, yeah, mine is more mainstream, but that is because I'm looking more for the point of consensus, since it is subjective otherwise. It doesn't make the mainstream "right". But then, it's a binary wholly dependent on one's worldview. So my rightness =/= your rightness unless we share the same worldview on abortion.

A persons opinion of abortion maybe subjective, same as anything else. A person's world view may have them believe it's perfectly acceptable to fly a passenger jet into a large building. Objectively speaking, a two cell zygote is as human as a newborn, is as human as a two year old, is as human as a 18 yr old, is as human as a... That is not subjective, it is an objective scientific fact.

Well. I'll disagree that the abortion debate is mostly about a woman's right to her own body. It's about eugenics, it's about political expedience, by politicians, ideologues, religions, etcetera. It's about politicians' fund raising. It's about othering people. Women's rights claims by establishment activists are mostly in service of that by people who don't actually give a flying **** other than their larger political goals being furthered.

But to your point. I favor the libertarian point of view on that. People should get to do what they want as long as waht they want doesn't infringe on other people's rights. So if they choose to do drugs, and it only harms them, then have at it. Just don't make me pay for the rehab. And don't make me pay for the house you blew up because your shake-n-bake went bad.

For politicians/ideologues/etc you are probably correct. For others not IMO.

 

[BigRed]

Well they tried that. It didn't work. So they drafted the constitution we have now. But then subsequently, more authority was given to the central state than was originally intended by the constitution. But, under the constitution, the states were never separate countries. Even under the articles of confederation, the states weren't separate countries, though they were much closer to that than ever.

The States began as sovereign states no later than September 3, 1783 and since then have only delegated authority through various contracts. Authority delegated can be recalled; particularly when the other party has demonstrated a long train of abuses and breaches.

Be that as it is, I do not want to hijack this thread.

The subject of this thread is a matter for the States. The central state has no authority in the matter. The leviathan's tentacle needs to be chopped off.

I hope it is the first of NUMEROUS amputations.

 

[KG1]

Well if we're all being curious it seems fair that both sides are presented.

Non-religious people think that religion evolved as an instinct as primitive humans tried to understand all the things they couldn't explain. As societies scaled larger, the societies with religion tended to survive better than those without because of various advantages that religions gave the societies that believed in them.

Many non-religious people, some of whom are INGO members who tend to be, let's say, more controversial, believe that we no longer need religion, that we should override the instinct. And they have quite the contempt for religious believers. Personally, I don't think society is all that advanced yet that we can survive as a species without the stability that religion provides.

As the West has been primarily of Judaeo-Christian values, as it has rejected them, the West seems to be turning into a ****-hole. I kinda think we should wait to override some instincts that survived all that the world could hurl at humans, until maybe we learn a bit more about how to behave without it. People without religion have just invented their own cults while claiming not to be religious! If you think that men can be pregnant. YOU are in a cult. Please seek intervention.

I agree with you that the turning away of increasing numbers from religion is a contributing factor in the societal degradation we are currently experiencing as a Nation. It appears that relying on the theory of a simple evolutionary sense of morality sans a religious contribution left to it's own accord is not enough in today's society.