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

[chipbennett]

I'm still waiting to hear a good argument for "at conception". Because I've identified what is wrong with yours. It's soemthing that if you don't have a secular worldview in the first place, you put that logic together to justify what you already believed. There is no secular reason to confer rights to a zygote.

Why? Why are you waiting for me to present a good "at conception" argument? I've stated, repeatedly, that I am intentionally not making an "at conception" argument. If you want to hear that argument, you should probably ask one of the people in this thread actually making an "at conception" argument.

If you think we haven't been addressing the actual arguments, I think that's because you haven't acknowledged, at least not initially, that yours is biased.

Addressing arguments doesn't require addressing biases, and therein lies the problem.

It's a secular worldview. You CAN make some assumptions about it. Not a lot, because, like the meme someone posted where the "pro-life" view is unified and, you know, black and white, the secular view is all over the place. And something that is subjective, you should expect to be all over the place. Because it IS subjective. And as far as ascribing any arguments, you assumed I was using an "Alinsky tactic." That's not debating the arguments. It's not debating any argument I've made, even after clarifying what that point was about.

I am open to other explanation for why you keep trying to force me into an "at conception" argument and keep referencing my religious biases.

And it's all about beliefs and biases whether you choose to admit that or not. I still think, even though you pay some lip service to the subjective parts, you're still trying to make it objective.

The argument I'm making is, in fact, objective.

The straw man argument you keep trying to force me into, however, is indeed subjective.

 

[KG1]

I'm going to share something personal, and I am hesitant to do so. I will probably bow out of the discussion after that, but I wanted to give everyone a glimpse into my perspective.

My oldest sister (God rest her soul) was born as a result of someone that forced their way and will upon my mother (God rest her soul as well) My mother didn't believe in abortion and carried my sister to full term until childbirth. She loved and accepted her just like she would with any of the rest of us and we did the same as well.

My sister passed away at the age of 45 from cancer in the late 90's with three small children left behind (they are also a blessing) She would've been 68 back in Jan, and I miss her dearly every day. If my mother had decided to abort her then we would've never had the chance to know her, and I feel that God created such a wonderful person as a blessing for us out of a bad situation. She had a name. Her name was Victoria.

So yeah, I might be a little biased on the issue but given how it turned out I don't feel ashamed about my position.

Now after sharing that if anyone feels that my position is radical then I don't know what else to say.

 

[chipbennett]

Your logic has been repeatedly stated. Humans have rights. A zygote is a living human. Therefore it has human rights. or something to that effect, if not worded exactly that way. I've never misunderstood that argument. I just don't think it's a good one.

Nope; I've still never made that argument.

See above. You misunderstood what I was saying. I didn't say you said those words. I was talking about what your argument requires us to assume, because it's reductive. And I'm not saying you're making a reductive argument, in formal logic. I'm saying reductive to mean it's missing the proper complexity to make the logical statement you're making.

The only thing "reductive" is your hacking of my logical construct, and appending to it a conclusion that I'm not making. You seem desperately to want me to hold a "rights must attach to the two-celled zygote", when I have, repeatedly, said that we cannot know when rights actually attach to a living human.

I dunno. I guess you believe that. I'll give you the benefit of that doubt. I think your logic isn't as solid as you think it is. I've explained why in several posts, but in this post I've tried to pay particular attention to make it as unlikely that you could mistake what I'm saying.

You've made it quite clear what you're saying. You are ascribing to me, and then refuting, an argument that I'm not making, and that I have explicitly stated is not the argument that I'm making. We should be abundantly clear on that point by now.

But I think that unless you can acknowledge that this isn't as black and white as you want it to be, I'm not sure what the point is of continuing. We seem to be saying the same things over and over. And getting no where from it.

The logical construct is black and white. You have yet to demonstrate how it is anything but.

 

[chipbennett]

This again? Is there anyone in this thread who is asserting that slaves didn't have rights?

Yes. Slaves had a right at the time, before that time, and after that time, and forever, not to be held in slavery in against their will.

Since we're all welcome to hold other views, I'll share mine. My conclusion is the same as yours, that human rights are inherent and unalienable. However, I don't attribute that to a deity. It's my belief that rights come from morals, which evolved, and are necessary for propagating humanity in scaled societies. Specifically the moral foundation around the idea of fairness is probably where the notion of rights come from. I also think that fairness is an absolute moral idea. So then human rights are also absolute. They're not granted, they can only be recognized. If it is absolute, it's not subject to time or space. The slaves always had rights.

How can human rights be inherent, unalienable, and absolute - yet originate from morals, that have changed/developed/evolved?

Did humans not have those inherent, unalienable, absolute rights prior to the evolution of morals from which you state those rights come?

 

[chipbennett]

Yes, but of course that's an opinion. Other people have opinions too. But to the point of "least harm" to whom, the "just in case" least harm argument does not take into account harm to the mother. I think within this view "responsibility" is assumed to be absolute, that any "unwanted pregnancy" (except for rape), always implies the mother is responsible for it. That's not always the case.

What is the actual potential/risk of harm to the mother, from the point of conception up until whatever arbitrary point we (for the sake of argument) assume that rights attach to the developing human life?

There's ectopic pregnancy (which, as far as I know, will cost both mother and developing human their lives). Beyond that? Say, up to 20/21 weeks (which is the current limit of ex utero viability based on current medical technology)?

 

[chipbennett]

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

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

That God works out all manner of things for good - even things committed out of evil - is not evidence that God wanted the evil to occur. (This is a variant on the "why do bad things happen to good people" question.)

 

[jamil]

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

I suspect you're arguing against a point I'm not making. I am not saying the concept of murder is always applied consistently. I'll make the point this way. What varied is not that some societies have the concept of murder and some societies don't. What I said was that pretty much every society had the concept of murder being morally wrong, in service of the point that there are objective moral truths. I think you believe that's true too. But I think you might also say morality comes from God. And I think the ability to develop moral thinking evolved.

When you first posed the question about slavery, I think you meant it as a counterexample to my thinking that rights developed from morality. And I talked about moral maturity. But ss I've thought this through, which is why I love discussions like this, at least when people are arguing in good faith, I have changed my thinking on the moral maturity as the cause of the end of slavery.

It occurred to me that I was arguing an unnecessary point. The people at the time already had sufficient moral maturity to recognize the concept of rights, and even freedom. They just didn't apply it to Black people. So that really doesn't address my point that rights come from morals. They already had the morals.

In the days of slavery in the US, murder was illegal. They knew murder was wrong. But killing someone is not always morally wrong. It's not unjust to kill someone in self defense. That's not murder. Murder is the unjust killing of another person. To slavers, Black people weren't "persons". Killing a black person wasn't murder. It was destruction of property. They didn't apply the moral maturity they had to Black people.

God gave man free will, he doesn't make us do or not do anything.

I mean. The Armenian position is at least a way saner position on pregnancies caused by rape than the Calvanist one.

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

I'll agree it could have been worded better.

Well, I'm glad you found a consensus. Technically, I guess you could say the plural of anecdote is data. But I've been told that talking to a couple of people does not produce a reliable survey.

72% of Hoosiers are Christians. Of those 31% are evangelical protestants, and 18% are Catholic, which are the most likely Christians to hold the view that Mourdock does. Of those, Even if all of those were of the same mind regarding Mourdock, it's 49%. I think that it's still less than an even bet that Mourdock would still win. Remember, Lugar owned this state for many decades. Mourdock beat Lugar in the primaries, but I believe with more factors than just because Indiana, as a whole, is conservative. Hoosiers are more conservative than most states, but also they's some sqishy Republicans here.

 

[jamil]

How can human rights be inherent, unalienable, and absolute - yet originate from morals, that have changed/developed/evolved?

Did humans not have those inherent, unalienable, absolute rights prior to the evolution of morals from which you state those rights come?

I have not said that objective morals evolve. I have used the term "moral maturity" which refers to discovering moral truths. Here's one, "responsibility". If you have a view of the world that life evolved, at some point humans figured out the concept of responsibility, and that being responsible has a better outcome than not being responsible. People that understand this have matured morally, or evolved morally in that regard. But they were still either responsible or irresponsible along with whatever consequences before they figured that out.

 

[KLB]

That God works out all manner of things for good - even things committed out of evil - is not evidence that God wanted the evil to occur. (This is a variant on the "why do bad things happen to good people" question.)

I don't really follow your logic.
God wanted that baby conceived.
It was conceived because of a rape.
If not for the rape, the baby would never have been conceived.
How then could God not have wanted the rape?

 

[Cameramonkey]

And sometimes bad things happen so that good things can come of it. We lost our church secretary in the fall to covid lung. her death and the literal miracles she witnessed before (spontaneous cancer healing) caused her husband and atheist son to come to Christ. The husband didnt like church because he grew up in an abusive household where religion was an excuse for the abuse, and the son just didnt believe God existed.

So lose one gain two. I'd call that a good thing in the end.

 

[chipbennett]

I don't really follow your logic.
God wanted that baby conceived.

...we don't really know that, though. It is equally possible that God worked a good out of an evil, the end result being conception of new life.

It was conceived because of a rape.
If not for the rape, the baby would never have been conceived.

Rape is the only, er, conceivable means for a child to be conceived?

How then could God not have wanted the rape?

I think the premise is faulty, so the conclusion does not follow.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I suspect you're arguing against a point I'm not making. I am not saying the concept of murder is always applied consistently. I'll make the point this way. What varied is not that some societies have the concept of murder and some societies don't. What I said was that pretty much every society had the concept of murder being morally wrong, in service of the point that there are objective moral truths. I think you believe that's true too. But I think you might also say morality comes from God. And I think the ability to develop moral thinking evolved.

When you first posed the question about slavery, I think you meant it as a counterexample to my thinking that rights developed from morality. And I talked about moral maturity. But ss I've thought this through, which is why I love discussions like this, at least when people are arguing in good faith, I have changed my thinking on the moral maturity as the cause of the end of slavery.

It occurred to me that I was arguing an unnecessary point. The people at the time already had sufficient moral maturity to recognize the concept of rights, and even freedom. They just didn't apply it to Black people. So that really doesn't address my point that rights come from morals. They already had the morals.

In the days of slavery in the US, murder was illegal. They knew murder was wrong. But killing someone is not always morally wrong. It's not unjust to kill someone in self defense. That's not murder. Murder is the unjust killing of another person. To slavers, Black people weren't "persons". Killing a black person wasn't murder. It was destruction of property. They didn't apply the moral maturity they had to Black people.

You agree that slaves had the right to life, is that correct? You also agree that the morals of the time did not recognize those rights, or allow the recognition of blacks as "persons", correct? Then it does follow that rights flow from morals. Nobility/royalty and peasants/surfs is an example as well. Peasants were people and recognized as such, it's just that their rights were not recognized by the morals of the time.

I could make the argument that you have it almost completely backwards, and that morals stem from a recognition of rights.

I mean. The Armenian position is at least a way saner position on pregnancies caused by rape than the Calvanist one.

You probably know more about that than I. I've discussed my relationship with the church/religion in another thread, let's say it is very limited.

Well, I'm glad you found a consensus. Technically, I guess you could say the plural of anecdote is data. But I've been told that talking to a couple of people does not produce a reliable survey.

72% of Hoosiers are Christians. Of those 31% are evangelical protestants, and 18% are Catholic, which are the most likely Christians to hold the view that Mourdock does. Of those, Even if all of those were of the same mind regarding Mourdock, it's 49%. I think that it's still less than an even bet that Mourdock would still win. Remember, Lugar owned this state for many decades. Mourdock beat Lugar in the primaries, but I believe with more factors than just because Indiana, as a whole, is conservative. Hoosiers are more conservative than most states, but also they's some sqishy Republicans here.

I wouldn't say Mourdock would have guaranteed won without the media twisting what he said, but I'd say the likelihood of it would have been much higher. Reporting that he believes life is a gift from God in all cases vs that he believes God wants people to rape. Which one would a reasonable person take as a reasonable opinion even if they didn't agree with it?

 

[KLB]

...we don't really know that, though. It is equally possible that God worked a good out of an evil, the end result being conception of new life.

Rape is the only, er, conceivable means for a child to be conceived?

I think the premise is faulty, so the conclusion does not follow.

Huh?

If there is a rape and the victim gets pregnant, how is that line of logic not true?

So, God decides on the spur of the moment to have a woman get pregnant from a rape to make something good out of it?

Rape is the only conceivable way for a woman to get pregnant from being raped.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

We were studying Acts today in Sunday school. In particular the part of chapter 3 where Peter and John cure the crippled begger. What good could God bring from making a baby to be born crippled one might ask? When we consider we puny humans are too finite to see all the ripple effects that can happen from a single event much less from uncountable numbers of interacting events—but God can, it helps put some things into perspective. That one Jewish baby born a cripple 2000 years ago has had a profound effect on untold millions of men, women, and children by being born that way and having Peter cure him so he could walk. We think we have right and wrong all figured out. We’re so arrogant in our ignorance.

 

[BugI02]

Do you think I was using an Alynski tactic?

Is it an Alynski tactic to misspell Alinsky? If so, then yes

 

[jamil]

Nope; I've still never made that argument.

Alright. I think this isn't working unless we get some things figured out. You think I'm misstating your arguments. I think you've misstated my arguments. You think you haven't made some arguments that I'm pretty sure you've made. Something has to give here.

Okay so about your claim that I said something that I don't think I said. Something to the effect that a zygote isn't living or isn't human. I looked back at my earlier posts and I don't see anywhere that I claimed that. I see plenty of places where I agreed that it is human and rebutted by saying it's arbitrary or subjective to attach rights at that point. I think in a reply to another poster I used the term "life" in quotes to represent the idea of when rights should attach to that life. I made some points to the effect that at the zygote stage it isn't human enough. That's the closest I can find to your claim, and it isn't claiming what you said I claimed. If you have the post number, I'll go back and look at it. But I've gone back through many pages and I'm not seeing it.

Now. About the arguments you say you're not making. I think there are two. One is that you say you haven't made the argument to the effect that a human has rights, a zygote is a human, therefore it has rights. The other you insist haven't argued is the "at conception".

On the first, do you recall reciting a section of the Declaration of Independence? You argued something to the effect that "the science" says that a zygote is a living human, and because the constitution says humans have inherent rights, the zygote has inherent human rights. Did you not make that argument? I think you kinda insisted that's your secular argument. But is that not the same argument you have been claiming over the last several posts that you haven't made? Because, if you syllogize that, it pretty much is the argument I said you made that you deny making.

I recall that you made a similar point maybe 3 or four times, insisting that's the non-religious argument, it's "the science". My rebuttal to those were pretty much it's arbitrary/subjective. You insisted, no it's "science", that attaching elsewhere is arbitrary/subjective. And I said it's ALL arbitrary/subjective. Until you kinda dropped that and started making other arguments. Do you still deny that you made that argument? I don't care to go back dozens of pages to look up the post numbers. I'm sure you at least remember your Declaration of Independence post.

The other argument you claim you're not making and haven't made in this thread is the "at conception" argument. So I have to ask, why are we discussing this at all then? I think it was R45 that asked me something like what was the secular argument for a right to life "at conception"? I said I didn't think there was a good one. You insisted there was. And off we went. So if you're not arguing the point you contested, are you planning to start arguing it anytime soon? If you are going to fulfill your claim that there is a secular argument for “at conception” you need to actually make that argument, hopefully not while claiming that you're not making it. So are you going to make this secular argument for "at conception"? Or have you already argued the "at conception" point while claiming you’re not making that point? I think it's the latter. But you tell me. Either way. We can then proceed from there.

 

[jamil]

Is it an Alynski tactic to misspell Alinsky? If so, then yes

Dude, I keep getting the placement of the y and i flipped. I dunno why I do that. I bet I've spelled it both ways in the same post even.

 

[jamil]

Huh?

If there is a rape and the victim gets pregnant, how is that line of logic not true?

So, God decides on the spur of the moment to have a woman get pregnant from a rape to make something good out of it?

Rape is the only conceivable way for a woman to get pregnant from being raped.

Eh. With God anything is possible?

No, seriously, think of it this way. A rapist rapes a woman. God doesn't desire this, but allows it to happen because people have free will. As was said earlier, this is essentially the question, "why does God let bad things happen?"

Okay so the rape happens, and perhaps God wants something good to come of it. Or perhaps, since the child was raped, God has plans for that child, or the mother, that through the experience, they are better prepared to serve his will later. So she conceives. That's not saying that it's God's will that she was raped. But that even though she was raped, God used that for his purpose.

Obviously from a secular point of view there are problems with that. But I think that's reasonable within an evangelical Christian worldview.

 

[jamil]

You agree that slaves had the right to life, is that correct? You also agree that the morals of the time did not recognize those rights, or allow the recognition of blacks as "persons", correct? Then it does follow that rights flow from morals. Nobility/royalty and peasants/surfs is an example as well. Peasants were people and recognized as such, it's just that their rights were not recognized by the morals of the time.

I could make the argument that you have it almost completely backwards, and that morals stem from a recognition of rights.

I'm not sure about that. For example, the idea of responsibility. That's a moral absolute. It's not really involved in the idea of rights, other than the idea that rights come with responsibility. There's no reason the rights would have had to come first.

Like I said before, I think the moral from which rights come is the idea of "fairness". I suppose the idea of fairness could have come from the concept of rights, but that doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

You probably know more about that than I. I've discussed my relationship with the church/religion in another thread, let's say it is very limited.

I wouldn't say Mourdock would have guaranteed won without the media twisting what he said, but I'd say the likelihood of it would have been much higher. Reporting that he believes life is a gift from God in all cases vs that he believes God wants people to rape. Which one would a reasonable person take as a reasonable opinion even if they didn't agree with it?

Agreed. Mourdock would have stood a better chance if the media had honestly reported what he said.

Mourdock could have given himself a better chance to win if he'd have just dodged the question. He believes that even in case of rape, the unborn has a right to live that supersedes the mother's trauma from being raped. First, there's no way he can explain that to secular people that doesn't sound crazy. In Indiana that's not his primary audience. But there is no way he can explain that without the press characterization it.

 

[bwframe]

Pavlich explains why there isn't much interest in finding Supreme Court leaker

Fox News contributor Katie Pavlich discusses speculation over who leaked the Supreme Court draft opinion.

www.foxnews.com