Sorry Anti-Choicers - SCOTUS is wrong.

[Gozaburo]

So then they dont have a logical, reasonable argument (whatever words you used)...because the unborn does "not" have access to any of them and cannot exercise any of them. So it's not "equal" in any way. Except for a right to life, it's rights cannot be violated until birth.

Again, that's your opinion - there's no reason the pro-lifer would have to accept it. They could rightfully point out that science says a fetus becomes distinct human life at conception and all human life within our national borders is subject to the universal human rights given to us by the state. That's a strong argument!

nother difference, physically and morally...the woman suffers great pain and suffering and society is choosing to impose that on women in favor of recognize rights for the unborn. IMO it's immoral to intentionally impose pain and suffering on others, the woman has done nothing wrong to be punished by society. (Physically and mentally in the disrespect and minimization by society) The unborn however, suffer nothing.

I don't think this is a particularly strong argument. Suffering exists and while that's unfortunate, the other side could provide a logically sound argument for why human suffering doesn't justify abortion. You and I might disagree with that but once again - that's just a matter of taste.

Yes, they do...again...they focus on the individual and its rights. Which is what I said. They do not view it from a societal perspective...they have seen the data and economics regarding the benefits of abortion on society and refuse to accept those...after all...do we accept those as reasons for killing born people?

They might say that abortions have resulted in the "mass genocide" of 60 million plus children, which is far more societally devastating than the data and economics the pro-choicer presents. I disagree with that for several reasons, but I think it's a compelling moral argument.

I just don't think couching the argument as being morally or logically "superior" is convincing or even accurate. The vast majority of abortions are conducted by people who are poor, low IQ, disabled, mentally ill, or antisocial. Most children born to mothers who would otherwise abort them live horrible lives where they can't be properly loved or cared for. This has massive consequences for society and the economy more broadly as you rightly point out. There is also a certain beauty in the natural world and the planet - we don't need to fill it with humans until everything is made out of concrete and glass.

Policy on abortion, much like war, is a pragmatic decision based on progress and development, not a moral one based on individual rights. In politics we sometimes have to make uncomfortable - even horrible - decisions to ensure civilization can be sustained and continue its development. The pro-choice position is the obvious position for those willing to make the correct and pragmatic decision.

 

[Lursa]

Again, that's your opinion - there's no reason the pro-lifer would have to accept it. They could rightfully point out that science says a fetus becomes distinct human life at conception and all human life within our national borders is subject to the universal human rights given to us by the state. That's a strong argument!



I don't think this is a particularly strong argument. Suffering exists and while that's unfortunate, the other side could provide a logically sound argument for why human suffering doesn't justify abortion. You and I might disagree with that but once again - that's just a matter of taste.

That's science. No one denies the unborn are Homo sapiens. That's categorization, it has nothing to do with morality or rights. Science recognizes no values or rights for any species.

(That's practically a cliche in their repetoire these days. The religious only turned to "science" because they know religion cannot be used under our Const. and are desperate for a black and white argument...but it still fails.)

And I'd be interested in why "human suffering" doesnt justify abortion in terms of the law or morality. They havent really managed that except to dismiss everything in women's lives beyond a heartbeat. If she's got a heartbeat...the entire rest of her life as a part of society, her loved ones, her contributions to society, her responsibilities and obligations to others matter zero. Sorry, that's a huge moral can 'o worms.

And altho you didnt directly address it...how do you justify the govt punishing women that did nothing wrong with pain and suffering and risking their lives and health without their consent? That is definitely a moral argument. (the unborn suffer nothing and cannot consent...just more valid distinctions between born and unborn.)

They might say that abortions have resulted in the "mass genocide" of 60 million plus children, which is far more societally devastating than the data and economics the pro-choicer presents. I disagree with that for several reasons, but I think it's a compelling moral argument.

They try that but none have ever managed to demonstrate any harm to society from it. Do you know of any? And of course, we can also look at how 120 million people that avoided having a kid they couldnt raise properly or afford went on to be better educated, better providers, better citizens, better parents later, better contributors to society...and all that they ended up accomplishing without the added burden they knew they werent ready for (they never think of that. You didnt either, right ). This is above all why "choice" is the best position IMO.

I just don't think couching the argument as being morally or logically "superior" is convincing or even accurate. The vast majority of abortions are conducted by people who are poor, low IQ, disabled, mentally ill, or antisocial. Most children born to mothers who would otherwise abort them live horrible lives where they can't be properly loved or cared for. This has massive consequences for society and the economy more broadly as you rightly point out. There is also a certain beauty in the natural world and the planet - we don't need to fill it with humans until everything is made out of concrete and glass.

Those are nice arguments.

Policy on abortion, much like war, is a pragmatic decision based on progress and development, not a moral one based on individual rights. In politics we sometimes have to make uncomfortable - even horrible - decisions to ensure civilization can be sustained and continue its development. The pro-choice position is the obvious position for those willing to make the correct and pragmatic decision.

Sorry, I'm not disagreeing with you necessarily, except your view of the anti-abortionists. To them it's moral, it's their religious beliefs.

Feel free to convince them to make better political or social choices re: abortion.

 

[Gozaburo]

And I'd be interested in why "human suffering" doesnt justify abortion in terms of the law or morality. They havent really managed that except to dismiss everything in women's lives beyond a heartbeat. If she's got a heartbeat...the entire rest of her life as a part of society, her loved ones, her contributions to society, her responsibilities and obligations to others matter zero. Sorry, that's a huge moral can 'o worms.

It doesn't justify it on moral terms because the other side has a equally valid moral argument. They say all human life has individual rights. We might say rights are contingent upon certain jurisdictional and biological criteria. Neither position is illogical and both have morally sound argumentation.

They try that but none have ever managed to demonstrate any harm to society from it. Do you know of any? And of course, we can also look at how 120 million people that avoided having a kid they couldnt raise properly or afford went on to be better educated, better providers, better citizens, better parents later, better contributors to society...and all that they ended up accomplishing without the added burden they knew they werent ready for (they never think of that. You didnt either, right ). This is above all why "choice" is the best position IMO.

I've thought of that, but for me by far the most tangible aspect is the human suffering and social burden that comes from being an unwanted child raised by incapable, unfit parents. Abortion is a nasty business in general and it isn't something that should be celebrated or be made light of - something I'm very critical of some progressives & liberals about. I've seen cases of women celebrating or "bragging" about abortions, which is totally disgusting and repulsive.

Ideally contraception would be most available to the communities that need it the most - those that lack the educational and socioeconomic infrastructure to afford it. This alone would prevent tons of unnecessary abortions.

Sorry, I'm not disagreeing with you necessarily, except your view of the anti-abortionists. To them it's moral, it's their religious beliefs.

Feel free to convince them to make better political or social choices re: abortion.

Pro-lifers do make a moral case, I'm not disputing that. I'm simply saying their moral case is as logically sound as the pro-choice sides moral case. Their position is less convincing when we talk about what is pragmatic and right for civilization, however. I also tend to think that most pro-lifers are not intellectually honest. If abortion is murder, then we need to give about ~20% of the female population the death penalty or life in prison. I'd guess that the overwhelming majority of pro-lifers wouldn't stand for that without flinching.

 

[Lursa]

It doesn't justify it on moral terms because the other side has a equally valid moral argument. They say all human life has individual rights. We might say rights are contingent upon certain jurisdictional and biological criteria. Neither position is illogical and both have morally sound argumentation.

Again...you can examine and debate that morality on terms we generally view as moral. As I have done. So just "claiming" something is moral doesnt cut it.

I've thought of that, but for me by far the most tangible aspect is the human suffering and social burden that comes from being an unwanted child raised by incapable, unfit parents. Abortion is a nasty business in general and it isn't something that should be celebrated or be made light of - something I'm very critical of some progressives & liberals about. I've seen cases of women celebrating or "bragging" about abortions, which is totally disgusting and repulsive.

Nice pivot. Then you shouldnt have attempted it as an argument without actually mentioning that.

And people brag about abhorrent things all the time, that are legal. Like cheating, lying, etc.

Ideally contraception would be most available to the communities that need it the most - those that lack the educational and socioeconomic infrastructure to afford it. This alone would prevent tons of unnecessary abortions.



Pro-lifers do make a moral case, I'm not disputing that. I'm simply saying their moral case is as logically sound as the pro-choice sides moral case.

This is not be demonstrated. Ever. So I dont accept your statement. And none of them will ever carry on the argument to do so. I've tried. None will even address my moral arguments (I have at least 3) directly. They deflect, avoid, leave.

Their position is less convincing when we talk about what is pragmatic and right for civilization, however. I also tend to think that most pro-lifers are not intellectually honest. If abortion is murder, then we need to give about ~20% of the female population the death penalty or life in prison. I'd guess that the overwhelming majority of pro-lifers wouldn't stand for that without flinching.

I've certainly never said they were logical or reasoned or looked at it from a bigger picture. To me, their only real arguments are based on their feelings over personifying the unborn , or religious beliefs, or both. And from there they tend to make dishonest and emotionally manipulative arguments. Like "the pro-aborts want women to be able to abort a day before birth!"

 

[Gozaburo]

Again...you can examine and debate that morality on terms we generally view as moral. As I have done. So just "claiming" something is moral doesnt cut it.

What is morally unsound about saying all human life should have access to universal rights?

And people brag about abhorrent things all the time, that are legal. Like cheating, lying, etc.

Of course they do and it's gross.

This is not be demonstrated. Ever. So I dont accept your statement. And none of them will ever carry on the argument to do so. I've tried. None will even address my moral arguments (I have at least 3) directly. They deflect, avoid, leave.

Of course it is. Their view is that our universalist liberal society confers universal rights upon all human life. Your response (presumably) is a largely arbitrary argument about what constitutes biological criteria like "human consciousness" which is nebulous and once again a matter of taste.

I've certainly never said they were logical or reasoned or looked at it from a bigger picture. To me, their only real arguments are based on their feelings over personifying the unborn , or religious beliefs, or both. And from there they tend to make dishonest and emotionally manipulative arguments. Like "the pro-aborts want women to be able to abort a day before birth!"

Yeah if I were on the pro-life side I wouldn't get into the weeds with you about "personifying" or "consciousness". I'd simply assert that the overwhelming majority of biologists agree that human life starts at conception and all human life should be subject to the universal rights bestowed on us by our universalist liberal worldview.

 

[AZRWinger]

A person has demonstrated unique conscious human-like mind with conscious perception in conscious human-like vocal or facial expressive capacity to other conscious human-like minds with the same. That happens at birth.

The clumsy attempt to justify abortionists slaughter repeats "conscious" three times as if it is a magical incantation. Oxford defines "conscious" as
"aware of and responding to one's surroundings"

Using the dictionary definition of conscience, reaction to pain is an accurate proxy. Scientists don't uniformly agree but unborn children react to pain in as little as 9 weeks of pregnancy.

Fetal Pain in the First Trimester - PMC

Fetal pain perception has important implications for fetal surgery, as well as for abortion. Current neuroscientific evidence indicates the possibility of fetal pain perception during the first trimester (<14 weeks gestation). Evidence for this ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

So, would you support banning abortion after 9 weeks?

The reason this is important is as follows.

1. You might think that gastrulation would determine personhood for humans, because that is the early point in pregnancy when the number of embryos - one to four - is determined. After all, if there are two identical twins, though they have the same DNA, there are still two of them determined at gastrulation. But no. That's because no mindless organism is a person. A corpse is human, but it isn't a person, either.

Abortion makes unborn children into corpses.

2. When conjoined twins are born, the question is how many persons are born? There is only one organism or body, but when there are two heads, either both heads are functional or one isn't functional. When both are functional, each is capable of consciousness and perception which are demonstrated by human voice or facial expression and other objective organisms with such functionality can objectively observe that. Hence, there are two persons. But if one head is non-functional, it is called "parasitic," and only one person is claimed to be born. If the parasitic head can be removed without harming the well-being of the functional head/person, it is removed. When there are two functional heads/persons, if at all possible, doctors attempt to separate them, because each one deserves a separate body.

A long meaningless rant about the very rare condition of conjoined births.

The human unborn has not demonstrated personhood, which is not mere life. You have to demonstrate conscious mind and perception of human type with human type expressive capacity. Once you have, you can still be a person if you're asleep or in a coma, because you already did that.

More consciousness of consciousness circularity coupled with human type nonsense.

This, by the way, is the reason doctors who delivered babies traditionally spanked them on the backside when they came out, to get them to show that they could breathe air and use vocal communication.

Have you ever attended a human birth? Slapping the child has been discontinued as a recommended practice. More gentle procedures to stimulate breathing.

We actually have no way to know whether or not liberty depends on life. The implanted embryo is only alive because it is implanted and receiving life from the woman's body. When it isn't implanted, it dies because it has no life of its own. But when it develops fully and is born, it doesn't die when separated from the woman's body, because it has a life of its own. That is simultaneously life and liberty. You don't choose between them or put them in some stupid hierarchical relationship.

Without a right to life none of our liberties means amything.

Again, you show no exposure to newborn children. If you had, you'd know they are dependent on others for necessities of life.

 

[Lursa]

What is morally unsound about saying all human life should have access to universal rights?

I've outlined that already. But hey...you just spelled it out. The unborn have zero access to any rights. But to recognize those phantom rights would then supersede those of the woman they're contained in if the govt acted in any way against the woman's consent re: that unborn...and minimize her rights, making her less equal, deny her access to universal rights.

Your statement (I note you continue to distance yourself from committing personally to any position on the unborn, btw.) is not universal. There are goals to protect human rights. Here's one an example that's not strictly American:

Universal Declaration of Human Rights​

​

Article 1​

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. link​

Of course they do and it's gross.

But not illegal. Humans are...human. I mentioned things that most people consider immoral. (Even as they commit them.) Yet most Americans support elective abortion and do not consider it immoral. They see that it's what's best for the woman and our society. That's partially your stated view as well, re: society.

Of course it is. Their view is that our universalist liberal society confers universal rights upon all human life.

I asked you to source this ...please provide it. And it's also not a response to my disputing this:

Gozaburo:​

Pro-lifers do make a moral case, I'm not disputing that. I'm simply saying their moral case is as logically sound as the pro-choice sides moral case."​

I provided a clear argument disputing this...yes, it's my opinion but it's based on our society and common morals and finding a balance. That's what requires a debate on morality. You didnt address it directly...and anti-abortites refuse to.

Your response (presumably) is a largely arbitrary argument about what constitutes biological criteria like "human consciousness" which is nebulous and once again a matter of taste.

It is not arbitrary, are you kidding? There is a living individual Homo sapiens at fertilization/implantation. Please find a me a biological text that says otherwise? There's no requirement for human consciousness when it comes to defining that life. That's like saying it's a human life when the fingers develop or the lungs develop. Is it a human life before the lungs develop? Of course it is.

Yeah if I were on the pro-life side I wouldn't get into the weeds with you about "personifying" or "consciousness". I'd simply assert that the overwhelming majority of biologists agree that human life starts at conception and all human life should be subject to the universal rights bestowed on us by our universalist liberal worldview.

Yes, it does start then. That is biological fact. It has nothing to do with rights. Zero...if it did, why dont dogs and cows and tigers have rights at birth? Science is objective and as I wrote...does not confer rights or value on any species. Rights are a man-made construct...subjective. Man decides who has rights. Yes or no?

So then the overwhelming majority of Americans, and even many globally, do not agree that rights are recognized for the unborn. That is your belief, opinion. However it requires an authority to recognize, codify and protect/enforce rights. In the US, that authority is the Constitution. I note that you still wont commit to what rights you believe in that apply to this issue. You did say that they are dependent on location. So I asked for clarification for that regarding natural rights, if you remember?

 

[Lursa]

The clumsy attempt to justify abortionists slaughter repeats "conscious" three times as if it is a magical incantation. Oxford defines "conscious" as
"aware of and responding to one's surroundings"

Using the dictionary definition of conscience, reaction to pain is an accurate proxy. Scientists don't uniformly agree but unborn children react to pain in as little as 9 weeks of pregnancy.

Fetal Pain in the First Trimester - PMC

Fetal pain perception has important implications for fetal surgery, as well as for abortion. Current neuroscientific evidence indicates the possibility of fetal pain perception during the first trimester (<14 weeks gestation). Evidence for this ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

So, would you support banning abortion after 9 weeks?

Abortion makes unborn children into corpses.

A long meaningless rant about the very rare condition of conjoined births.

More consciousness of consciousness circularity coupled with human type nonsense.

Have you ever attended a human birth? Slapping the child has been discontinued as a recommended practice. More gentle procedures to stimulate breathing.


Without a right to life none of our liberties means amything.

Again, you show no exposure to newborn children. If you had, you'd know they are dependent on others for necessities of life.

Worms react to pain, to touching. Do worms have consciousness? If you actually read and learn anything on the subject, you'd find that the development of the nervous system is not "consciousness."

Rookie mistake, shows lack of preparation.

 

[Gozaburo]

I've outlined that already. But hey...you just spelled it out. The unborn have zero access to any rights. But to recognize those phantom rights would then supersede those of the woman they're contained in if the govt acted in any way against the woman's consent re: that unborn...and minimize her rights, making her less equal, deny her access to universal rights.

Your statement (I note you continue to distance yourself from committing personally to any position on the unborn, btw.) is not universal. There are goals to protect human rights. Here's one an example that's not strictly American:

Universal Declaration of Human RightsArticle 1All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. link

I think the point here is that rights come from the state. If the state gives rights to unborn human life, then the unborn have individual rights. This is a logically and morally defensible position.

I asked you to source this ...please provide it. And it's also not a response to my disputing this:

Gozaburo pro-lifers do make a moral case, I'm not disputing that. I'm simply saying their moral case is as logically sound as the pro-choice sides moral case."
I provided a clear argument disputing this...yes, it's my opinion but it's based on our society and common morals and finding a balance. That's what requires a debate on morality. You didnt address it directly...and anti-abortites refuse to.

I’m confused what source you want here. Do you disagree that the pro-life position asserts that universal human rights extend to all human life, including the unborn?

There is a living individual Homo sapiens at fertilization/implantation.

I agree, maybe just a misunderstanding here.

Yes, it does start then. That is biological fact. It has nothing to do with rights. Zero...if it did, why dont dogs and cows and tigers have rights at birth? Science is objective and as I wrote...does not confer rights or value on any species. Rights are a man-made construct...subjective. Man decides who has rights. Yes or no?

Correct. Rights come from the state.

So then the overwhelming majority of Americans, and even many globally, do not agree that rights are recognized for the unborn. That is your belief, opinion. However it requires an authority to recognize, codify and protect/enforce rights. In the US, that authority is the Constitution. I note that you still wont commit to what rights you believe in that apply to this issue. You did say that they are dependent on location. So I asked for clarification for that regarding natural rights, if you remember?

You seem to believe that rights come from democracy (the masses) or the constitution, which isn’t strictly true. Both the masses and the constitution are subordinate to the state. If state (regardless of popular opinion) declared that rights be recognized for the unborn, then it is so.

 

[Lursa]

I think the point here is that rights come from the state. If the state gives rights to unborn human life, then the unborn have individual rights.

Do you realize that this is "not" the position that the majority of anti-abortities take or accept?

This is a logically and morally defensible position.

I would llke to see it defended. I have arguments against it...but no one presents their "moral" arguments. They fall back on emotions and beliefs. So I still disagree with this until I see it.

What you posted re: rights coming from the state being morally defensible, one is not dependent on the other. If the state took away born people's rights...it's still the state determination....but is it moral?

I’m confused what source you want here. Do you disagree that the pro-life position asserts that universal human rights extend to all human life, including the unborn?

You wrote "Their view is that our universalist liberal society confers universal rights upon all human life."

That is what I would like to see sourced. I've never heard of or read such a thing. Yet you've posted it at least 3 times and I keep asking for more substance.

 

[Gozaburo]

Do you realize that this is "not" the position that the majority of anti-abortities take or accept?

Most anti-abortionists think rights come from God, but that's not the point I'm making. Functionally they think the state should extend universal human rights to the unborn, which is their position.

You wrote "Their view is that our universalist liberal society confers universal rights upon all human life."

That is what I would like to see sourced. I've never heard of or read such a thing. Yet you've posted it at least 3 times and I keep asking for more substance.

I suppose I'm missing an ought there. Their view is that our universalist liberal society ought to confer universal rights upon all human life, including the unborn. Whether or not this come from a religious moral framework is largely irrelevant in this case because it's a logical moral argument.

 

[Lursa]

Correct. Rights come from the state.

You seem to believe that rights come from democracy (the masses) or the constitution, which isn’t strictly true. Both the masses and the constitution are subordinate to the state. If state (regardless of popular opinion) declared that rights be recognized for the unborn, then it is so.

OK, please explain "who" the "state" is. What authority are you referring to?

 

[Gozaburo]

OK, please explain "who" the "state" is. What authority are you referring to?

There is no "who", it's just the state as an institution. Under the Romans it was Caesar, under the Germans it was Wilhelm & Bismarck, under the Americans it is the Republic, which has evolved over time to have varying levels of pluralism.

This is why I mentioned in the other thread that understanding the ontology of rights is crucial for a discussion like abortion.

 

[Lursa]

Most anti-abortionists think rights come from God, but that's not the point I'm making. Functionally they think the state should extend universal human rights to the unborn, which is their position.

That's not what they "believe." That's what they realize and accept is necessary to support their belief. Yes I realize that's what you were referring to as "functionally" but in case you didnt notice...they did not accept it at all with RvW and fought for 40+ years to over turn it.

It (up to the state) is not something they really "accept." Certainly not on belief or moral grounds.

I suppose I'm missing an ought there. Their view is that our universalist liberal society ought to confer universal rights upon all human life, including the unborn. Whether or not this come from a religious moral framework is largely irrelevant in this case because it's a logical moral argument.

Yeah, and again, the logical moral argument has to hold up against opposing moral arguments. And it's not provided. It's always just 'they OUGHT to'...and then nothing else besides feelings and belief.

 

[Lursa]

There is no "who", it's just the state as an institution. Under the Romans it was Caesar, under the Germans it was Wilhelm & Bismarck, under the Americans it is the Republic, which has evolved over time to have varying levels of pluralism.

This is why I mentioned in the other thread that understanding the ontology of rights is crucial for a discussion like abortion.

I call bullshit. If you want a discussion on rights, start one. Again, your amorphous use of 'state' and 'rights' enables you to avoid committing to almost everything. It's very clear in every governed municipality, state, and nation who "the state" is. And that's what affects the individual women who need abortions.

 

[Gozaburo]

That's not what they "believe." That's what they realize and accept is necessary to support their belief. Yes I realize that's what you were referring to as "functionally" but in case you didnt notice...they did not accept it at all with RvW and fought for 40+ years to over turn it.

It (up to the state) is not something they really "accept." Certainly not on belief or moral grounds.

Well of course they wouldn't accept it on moral grounds. That doesn't change the fact that it isn't a moral issue.

Yeah, and again, the logical moral argument has to hold up against opposing moral arguments. And it's not provided. It's always just 'they OUGHT to'...and then nothing else besides feelings and belief.

Well, no. There is not a moral solution to whether or not one human life is more valuable than another human life. There might be a political one, however, which is my position.

I call bullshit. If you want a discussion on rights, start one. Again, your amorphous use of 'state' and 'rights' enables you to avoid committing to almost everything. It's very clear in every governed municipality, state, and nation who "the state" is. And that's what affects the individual women who need abortions.

I'm not sure how many times I have to say it - the government (the state) gives you and I our rights. If the government decides women don't have a particular right, such as the right to have an abortion without being charged for murder, then women do not have that right. There are moral and logical reasons why women shouldn't have that right if we say that universal rights extend to all human life, including the unborn.

Now is that the best decision for civilization and human progress? No, not in my opinion. But that has nothing to do with morality.

 

[Lursa]

Well of course they wouldn't accept it on moral grounds. That doesn't change the fact that it isn't a moral issue.

Yes it is. You completely ignored my point which refuted yours. It is a moral issue for them. And they can vote. So they definitely affect the political/legal issue. As noted with the fighting and overturning of RvW.

Their beliefs/moral views affect the political outcomes. As do those who hold pro-choice views. But we dont base our views or votes on political bases (plural of basis)...we base them on our moral and ethical views supporting what's best for women and society. IMO, anti-abortites do the same, framing their argument with what's best for the unborn.

Well, no. There is not a moral solution to whether or not one human life is more valuable than another human life. There might be a political one, however, which is my position.

I've already addressed this elsewhere and as for a moral "solution," there is only finding the best balance with the least harm. IMO I have presented it and no one will address it directly. I have at least 3 different moral aspects to argue and again, antis- wont address them head-on.

I'm not sure how many times I have to say it - the government (the state) gives you and I our rights. If the government decides women don't have a particular right, such as the right to have an abortion without being charged for murder, then women do not have that right. There are moral and logical reasons why women shouldn't have that right if we say that universal rights extend to all human life, including the unborn.

Now is that the best decision for civilization and human progress? No, not in my opinion. But that has nothing to do with morality.

Then why did you "correct" me when I used the 'govt' and "the Const" in my post? Because our govt and Const do not recognize universal rights for the unborn. Morally and legally, this can be defended. If rights were to be recognized for the unborn, "the state" would have to amend the Const or create a new amendment.

I asked you previously, why would Congress decide to change the Constitution to recognize rights for the unborn? Again (sigh) the majority of Americans dont support that, they support elective abortion.

 

[Gozaburo]

Yes it is. You completely ignored my point which refuted yours. It is a moral issue for them. And they can vote. So they definitely affect the political/legal issue. As noted with the fighting and overturning of RvW.

Their beliefs/moral views affect the political outcomes. As do those who hold pro-choice views. But we dont base our views or votes on political bases (plural of basis)...we base them on our moral and ethical views supporting what's best for women and society. IMO, anti-abortites do the same, framing their argument with what's best for the unborn.

No, it isn't. Their moral position is just as logical and valid as the moral position of the pro-choice side. There's no moral case for why all human life ought not to have universal rights. Similarly, there's no moral case for why women ought not to have bodily autonomy. There are political reasons for either or, though. I happen to think the pro-choice side has a far stronger political argument.

I've already addressed this elsewhere and as for a moral "solution," there is only finding the best balance with the least harm. IMO I have presented it and no one will address it directly. I have at least 3 different moral aspects to argue and again, antis- wont address it head-on.

I very well might agree that those moral arguments are very strong and compelling. You're never going to articulate an objective moral argument for why the universal rights of some supersede the universal rights of others in a liberal democracy though.

Then why did you "correct" me when I used the 'govt' and "the Const" in my post? Because our govt and Const do not recognize universal rights for the unborn. Morally and legally, this can be defended. If rights were to be recognized for the unborn, "the state" would have to amend the Const or create a new amendment.

Whether or not they recognize those rights at the moment is irrelevant. If Republicans democratically elect a candidate who supports universal rights for the unborn and they legislate that using the power of the state, then they would be legislating their moral framework which - as I've said multiple times - is logical and stands to scrutiny. Now whether or not that's the best political solution for what's ideal for human progress is an entirely different question which I obviously disagree with them on.

I asked you previously, why would Congress decide to change the Constitution to recognize rights for the unborn? Again (sigh) the majority of Americans dont support that, they support elective abortion.

As I said, rights don't come from "the majority of Americans". Rights come from the state. If Congress under a particular regime extends rights to the unborn, then the unborn have rights.

Again, I still think there's this fundamental disconnect about the ontology of rights and how rights are conferred upon individuals in a liberal democracy. Abortion is an issue where one of two human lives must have their autonomy violated. There is no moral case in a liberal democracy for why an innocent human life should have its individual rights violated. The abortion argument presents two irreconcilable liberal axioms against one another, which creates this paradoxical impasse we find ourselves in: does individual autonomy take precedent over universal human rights? Isn't that a contradiction in of itself?

If you don't like that and insist the problem is strictly moral, then you are not a liberal in terms of political philosophy.

 

[Lursa]

No, it isn't. Their moral position is just as logical and valid as the moral position of the pro-choice side. There's no moral case for why all human life ought not to have universal rights. Similarly, there's no moral case for why women ought not to have bodily autonomy. There are political reasons for either or, though. I happen to think the pro-choice side has a far stronger political argument.

You are repeating yourself and I've made that moral argument. And it has not been challenged by anything except 'na huh' or "but it's a baybee!" from antis. So your statement is wrong every time you write it.

I very well might agree that those moral arguments are very strong and compelling. You're never going to articulate an objective moral argument for why the universal rights of some supersede the universal rights of others in a liberal democracy though.

Morality is not objective. Please source that it is. And yet, I have made a moral argument against that, even here in this thread. Where is your moral argument for why the universal rights of some supersede the universal rights of others in a liberal democracy?

Please present this for debate. First you have to establish there are universal rights, period. Define them. Then, that in *our liberal US democracy*, why such rights should be recognized for the unborn. Then...we can discuss superseding them for others.

Otherwise, it's clear you continue to frame your statements and challenges in abstract and amorphous terms to avoid committing to your own argument.

P.S. As previously noted, the answer to the bold italic above is not "because it's a human life." That is a biological categorization only.

Whether or not they recognize those rights at the moment is irrelevant. If Republicans democratically elect a candidate who supports universal rights for the unborn and they legislate that using the power of the state, then they would be legislating their moral framework which - as I've said multiple times - is logical and stands to scrutiny. Now whether or not that's the best political solution for what's ideal for human progress is an entirely different question which I obviously disagree with them on.

Yes...I wrote that. At least twice. However that does not validate that position as logical or moral. I dont know what 'scrutiny' you refer to.

And it would have to be Constitutional. Right?

Now where is the direct answer to my direct question:

I asked you previously, why would Congress decide to change the Constitution to recognize rights for the unborn? Again (sigh) the majority of Americans dont support that, they support elective abortion.​

As I said, rights don't come from "the majority of Americans". Rights come from the state. If Congress under a particular regime extends rights to the unborn, then the unborn have rights.

Repetition, and unchallenged. Pointless.

Again, I still think there's this fundamental disconnect about the ontology of rights and how rights are conferred upon individuals in a liberal democracy. Abortion is an issue where one of two human lives must have their autonomy violated. There is no moral case in a liberal democracy for why an innocent human life should have its individual rights violated. The abortion argument presents two irreconcilable liberal axioms against one another, which creates this paradoxical impasse we find ourselves in: does individual autonomy take precedent over universal human rights? Isn't that a contradiction in of itself?

If you don't like that and insist the problem is strictly moral, then you are not a liberal in terms of political philosophy.

Lots of typing, lots of avoidance. You are making statements that you refuse to back up. And I never said it's strictly moral and since you cant define anything for me, I certainly dont worry about how you classify my "political philosopy." To me, you are mostly throwing crap at the fridge to see what sticks...and have ended up only repeating yourself.

 

[Gozaburo]

You are repeating yourself and I've made that moral argument. And it has not been challenged by anything except 'na huh.' So your statement is wrong every time you write it.

Can you point out the moral or logical contradiction in saying all human life ought to have universal rights?

Morality is not objective. Please source that it is. And yet, I have made a moral argument against that, even here in this thread. Where is your moral argument for why the universal rights of some supersede the universal rights of others in a liberal democracy?

Please present this for debate. First you have to establish there are universal rights, period. Define them. Then that in *our liberal US democracy*, such rights should be recognized. Then...we can discuss superseding them.

Otherwise, it's clear you continue to frame your statements and challenges in abstract and amorphous terms to avoid committing to your own argument.

Dude, what? I don't believe "universal rights" exist physically, nor do I believe morality is objective. I'm saying that liberalism - as a political philosophy - believes in some concept of universal human rights and that is the political philosophy we live under.

Yes...I wrote that. At least twice. However that does not validate that position as logical or moral. I dont know what 'scrutiny' you refer to.

And it would have to be Constitutional. Right?

Now where is the direct answer to my direct question:

I asked you previously, why would Congress decide to change the Constitution to recognize rights for the unborn? Again (sigh) the majority of Americans dont support that, they support elective abortion.

Congress would decide to change the Constitution on the moral premise that all human life ought to have universal human rights under a Republican regime.

Lots of typing, lots of avoidance. You are making statements that you refuse to back up. And I never said it's strictly moral and since you cant define anything for me, I certainly dont worry about how you classify my "political philosopy." To me, you are mostly throwing crap at the fridge to see what sticks...and have ended up only repeating yourself.

Can you point out the moral or logical contradiction in saying all human life ought to have universal rights?

 

[Lursa]

Can you point out the moral or logical contradiction in saying all human life ought to have universal rights?

I have.

Dude, what? I don't believe "universal rights" exist physically, nor do I believe morality is objective. I'm saying that liberalism - as a political philosophy - believes in some concept of universal human rights and that is the political philosophy we live under.

And yet, I've seen no such thing sourced anywhere. I guess it's your personal belief I produced a link to Universal Rights...not law but philosophy (and you didnt acknowledge it). And the US liberal position of pro-choice also proves it's incorrect.

You are trying to argue that view without committing to it. You cant define or source it. That's obvious and...in bad faith.

Congress would decide to change the Constitution on the moral premise that all human life ought to have universal human rights under a Republican regime.

That's a valid opinion, ok. Where have you ever seen that proposed? "Universal human rights?" Certainly, TACO just reiterated that abortion is a state issue...like yesterday. So where is some significant evidence to support your opinion?

Can you point out the moral or logical contradiction in saying all human life ought to have universal rights?

Already have. I'm sorry you've been so resistant to actually reading what I wrote. I'm not surprised tho. I wrote an exerpt of it twice and you didnt address those directly...just like the anti-abortites.

 

[Gozaburo]

I have.

Where?

And yet, I've seen no such thing sourced anywhere. I guess it's your personal belief I produced a link to Universal Rights...not law but philosophy (and you didnt acknowledge it). And the US liberal position of pro-choice also proves it's incorrect.

You are trying to argue that view without committing to it. You cant define or source it. That's obvious and...in bad faith.

Perhaps it isn't common knowledge that the concept of universal human rights is baked into the cake of liberal philosophy.

From the wikipedia page...

common strands in liberal thought as individualist, egalitarian, meliorist and universalist. The individualist element avers the ethical primacy of the human being against the pressures of social collectivism; the egalitarian element assigns the same moral worth and status to all individuals; the meliorist element asserts that successive generations can improve their sociopolitical arrangements, and the universalist element affirms the moral unity of the human species

That's a valid opinion, ok. Where have you ever seen that proposed? "Universal human rights?" Certainly, TACO just reiterated that abortion is a state issue...like yesterday. So where is some significant evidence to support your opinion?

Yeah again I thought this was like common knowledge for anyone remotely interested in politics but yeah if you didn't know: liberalism is a universalist ideology that values human rights.

 

[Lursa]

Where?

Sorry you missed them. Find them please, I've wasted enough time here. It's rude that all of a sudden you'll deign to read them.

Perhaps it isn't common knowledge that the concept of universal human rights is baked into the cake of liberal philosophy.

From the wikipedia page...

common strands in liberal thought as individualist, egalitarian, meliorist and universalist. The individualist element avers the ethical primacy of the human being against the pressures of social collectivism; the egalitarian element assigns the same moral worth and status to all individuals; the meliorist element asserts that successive generations can improve their sociopolitical arrangements, and the universalist element affirms the moral unity of the human species

And?

And where is your argument? I'm not looking for you to repeat your statement over and over. Where is your argument for or against it when applied to the unborn?

I produced a link to Universal Rights...not law but philosophy (and you didnt acknowledge it). And the US liberal position of pro-choice also proves it's incorrect.

You are trying to argue that view without committing to it. That's obvious and...in bad faith. As is your assumption that liberal Democrats adhere to that specific definition from Gray or that it really applies to the unborn. You'll have to include that in your argument, please.

Yeah again I thought this was like common knowledge for anyone remotely interested in politics but yeah if you didn't know: liberalism is a universalist ideology that values human rights.

And? Where is the evidence I requested?

 

[Gozaburo]

Sorry you missed them. Find them please, I've wasted enough time here. It's rude that all of a sudden you'll deign to read them.

Well, no. You've presented your own moral arguments but those don't tell me how the statement "All human life ought to have universal rights" is a moral or logical contradiction.

And?

You asked me where the concept of universal human rights comes from and I'm providing you evidence that it's foundational to the liberal philosophical framework which our entire civilization is built on top of and that includes women's suffrage and bodily autonomy.

And? Where is the evidence I requested?

What does this even mean? Do you want me to give you quotes from Rousseau and John Locke? Do you even understand the subject matter being discussed here?

Like I'm genuinely trying to understand what you're even trying to say. You asked for philosophy, I'm providing it. If you're saying that the constitution and the Congress determine what is moral, then does this mean you'd defend the morality of slavery since (at one point) the Constitution and government allowed the existence of slavery?

Do you understand the difference between "rights" and morality?

 

[Lursa]

Well, no. You've presented your own moral arguments but those don't tell me how the statement "All human life ought to have universal rights" is a moral or logical contradiction.



You asked me where the concept of universal human rights comes from and I'm providing you evidence that it's foundational to the liberal philosophical framework which our entire civilization is built on top of.



What does this even mean? Do you want me to give you quotes from Rousseau and John Locke? Do you even understand the subject matter being discussed here?

Like I'm genuinely trying to understand what you're even trying to say. You asked for philosophy, I'm providing it. If you're saying that the constitution and the Congress determine what is moral, then does this mean you'd defend the morality of slavery since (at one point) the Constitution and government allowed the existence of slavery?

Do you understand the difference between "rights" and morality?

You are full of crap. My arguments do address why "All human life ought to have universal rights" is immoral when the unborn are included. On at least 2 of my 3 (maybe 4) moral arguments.

Apparently you are unwilling to address it directly with that in mind. Because you would have to admit to the moral failings of your statement.

If you want that "exactly" addressed after all this time, start a thread on it...and present your argument supporting or disagreeing with it. then I'll debate your argument...or maybe not. depends on your argument. Maybe we'll agree. (In any case, I wont debate it further without your argument.)