I've noticed something has changed about the abortion debate on DP

[Lursa]

Okay then. So if the constitution were amended to say the unborn had a right to life, you'd thus oppose abortion?

Please answer my question before asking more of your own.

 

[Atreus21]

Please answer my question before asking more of your own.

"If you dont know the answer to that, why do you believe that the unborn have a right to life?

I do know the answer - I wanted to know what you consider to be such an authority; the sort we're obligated to follow, as you put it.

For my part, my belief in the right to life is anchored in a general impression from Christianity: That we are precious, made in God's image, and he loves us. To my mind, all human rights extend from that. Otherwise we're no different from the animals. But you need not be a Christian to believe in a right to life. It has to come from somewhere, or else we can't condemn Hitler or Stalin or any other of the 20th century's monsters.

So can you now answer my question?

 

[vegas giants]

It is evidence of His creative power.

I know. You don't believe me and I'm never going to change your mind but my point is still valid.

The flying spaghetti monster is indeed great

 

[Lursa]

"If you dont know the answer to that, why do you believe that the unborn have a right to life?

I do know the answer - I wanted to know what you consider to be such an authority; the sort we're obligated to follow, as you put it.

For my part, my belief in the right to life is anchored in a general impression from Christianity: That we are precious, made in God's image, and he loves us. To my mind, all human rights extend from that. Otherwise we're no different from the animals. But you need not be a Christian to believe in a right to life. It has to come from somewhere, or else we can't condemn Hitler or Stalin or any other of the 20th century's monsters.

So can you now answer my question?

Answer: if that happened, then all laws that would violate the rights of born and/or unborn would have to have the Balancing Principle applied to them (if challenged in court). (Google it) The deciding factor is generally benefit/harm to society.

Since there are no negative effects on society from abortion and there would be a greater burden of harm and loss on women (since the unborn experience no pain and suffering) IMO most decisions would be decided in favor of women. This is a Reader's Digest version, of course it's a more complex topic. So IMO the life of the unborn would be weighed against the life of the woman...who is already contributing to society and abortion would still remain mostly legal. I would not oppose abortion because it's better for society and causes less pain and suffering.

OK...answered. But I dont believe that Congress will create such an amendment. So why do you believe that women that do not believe in your God or your belief should be forced by law to submit to your belief? That is pretty clearly defined in the 1st A.

 

[Gordy327]

The flying spaghetti monster is indeed great

Ramen!

 

[Atreus21]

Answer: if that happened, then all laws that would violate the rights of born and/or unborn would have to have the Balancing Principle applied to them (if challenged in court). (Google it) The deciding factor is generally benefit/harm to society.

Since there are no negative effects on society from abortion and there would be a greater burden of harm and loss on women (since the unborn experience no pain and suffering) IMO most decisions would be decided in favor of women. This is a Reader's Digest version, of course it's a more complex topic. So IMO the life of the unborn would be weighed against the life of the woman...who is already contributing to society and abortion would still remain mostly legal. I would not oppose abortion because it's better for society and causes less pain and suffering.

Okay, so even if the constitution was amended to grant a right to life for the unborn, you'd still not oppose abortion. That suggests that the constitution is not an authority you'd follow. What is? "What's good for society"?

OK...answered. But I dont believe that Congress will create such an amendment. So why do you believe that women that do not believe in your God or your belief should be forced by law to submit to your belief? That is pretty clearly defined in the 1st A.

They already do submit to it. Both men and women generally believe killing human beings is wrong. My job is to get them to follow that logic where it leads. If human beings have a right to life, and the unborn are human beings, then the unborn have a right to life.

 

[Lursa]

Okay, so even if the constitution was amended to grant a right to life for the unborn, you'd still not oppose abortion. That suggests that the constitution is not an authority you'd follow. What is? "What's good for society"?

Please answer my questions before asking more of your own. And I still suggest you google what I said, since you already have no idea what you're talking about.

They already do submit to it. Both men and women generally believe killing human beings is wrong. My job is to get them to follow that logic where it leads. If human beings have a right to life, and the unborn are human beings, then the unborn have a right to life.

No they dont, that's not an answer, since a majority of Americans support legal abortion. Your authority for the unborn having a right to life is a fiction to many Americans, not an authority. So why should people follow the Const in your example (a new amendment for personhood) but not in mine where ALL Americans are protected by the 1st Amendment from having to follow your fiction? That doesnt 'work,' you are relying on cheap convenience here, not argument.

 

[Atreus21]

Please answer my questions before asking more of your own. And I still suggest you google what I said, since you already have no idea what you're talking about.

I did answer your question.

 

[Lursa]

I did answer your question.

No you didnt. See edit.

 

[uptower]

 

[Atreus21]

Please answer my questions before asking more of your own. And I still suggest you google what I said, since you already have no idea what you're talking about.


No they dont, that's not an answer, since a majority of Americans support legal abortion.

People don't believe that it's generally wrong to kill human beings? I think you'd have to cite something like that.

Your authority for the unborn having a right to life is a fiction to many Americans, not an authority. So why should people follow the Const in your example (a new amendment for personhood) but not in mine where ALL Americans are protected by the 1st Amendment from having to follow your fiction? That doesnt 'work,' you are relying on cheap convenience here, not argument.

Cheap convenience is definitely on my side. Sane people would all agree that killing people is wrong, whatever authority they believe in, and even in the case of no authority at all.

 

[Lursa]

People don't believe that it's generally wrong to kill human beings? I think you'd have to cite something like that.

Why do I need to repeat what I wrote. I was very clear...the majority of Americans support abortion...so obviously not unborn human beings.

Cheap convenience is definitely on my side. Sane people would all agree that killing people is wrong, whatever authority they believe in, and even in the case of no authority at all.

Yes they do. The unborn are not people. And your statements are stupid because if they were true...the majority of Americans wouldnt support abortion remaining legal.

 

[Atreus21]

Why do I need to repeat what I wrote. I was very clear...the majority of Americans support abortion...so obviously not unborn human beings.

Right - that's the work that pro lifers have ahead of them. Convincing society that the unborn are human beings with a right to life. With Roe hopefully and finally dislodged, that can really happen.

Yes they do. The unborn are not people. And your statements are stupid because if they were true...the majority of Americans wouldnt support abortion remaining legal.

They are biological human beings, and for that reason should have the same rights to life that other biological human beings have.

 

[Lursa]

Right - that's the work that pro lifers have ahead of them. Convincing society that the unborn are human beings with a right to life. With Roe hopefully and finally dislodged, that can really happen.

They are biological human beings, and for that reason should have the same rights to life that other biological human beings have.

That's your opinion. It's not any authority that woman should have to submit to. And many people, including myself, consider it immoral to place protection for the unborn ahead of protection for women...who would actually suffer pain, health damage, possibly death and awareness of our diminished role in society...now subservient to men and the unborn.

My stance is on the side of morality...the one that causes least intentional pain and suffering and harm to society. So again...what authority says unborn humans have a right to life "that Americans are obligated to follow"? And yes, I've clarified it for you.

 

[Atreus21]

That's your opinion. It's not any authority that woman should have to submit to.

It's clear to me that the only authority you'd submit to is one that allows abortion.

And many people, including myself, consider it immoral to place protection for the unborn ahead of protection for women...who would actually suffer pain, health damage, possibly death and awareness of our diminished role in society...now subservient to men and the unborn.

It's immoral to require women to die for the sake of their children, agreed. It's not immoral to require women to suffer before killing their children. Men are under the same prohibition. You can't kill people to ameliorate suffering, unless your life is threatened.

My stance is on the side of morality...the one that causes least intentional pain and suffering and harm to society. So again...what authority says unborn humans have a right to life "that Americans are obligated to follow"? And yes, I've clarified it for you.

If killing one's children is moral to you, then you may consider me immoral from your point of view.

Your question is really beside the point. The authority doesn't matter. It is a fact that, whatever authorities they follow, most sensible people bristle at the deliberate death of innocent human beings. The reason abortion persists is because most people dont know or (a few) dont care that the unborn are innocent human beings. The pro life mission is to enlighten those who don't know, and compel those who don't care.

 

[Lursa]

It's clear to me that the only authority you'd submit to is one that allows abortion.

I see no reason not to. I value the unborn but I value all born people more. If a woman needs an abortion, who are strangers to tell her differently? Do you know her circumstances? Her risks? Her obligations and responsibilities to others? Will you pay her consequences? (Of course you wont.)

There are no negative effects of abortion on society...I told you I would stand on the side of morality, which I explained IMO. And also for the greater good of society.

It's immoral to require women to die for the sake of their children, agreed. It's not immoral to require women to suffer before killing their children. Men are under the same prohibition. You can't kill people to ameliorate suffering, unless your life is threatened.



If killing one's children is moral to you, then you may consider me immoral from your point of view.

Nowhere have I ever endorsed parents being allowed to kill their children. That is immoral IMO.

Your question is really beside the point. The authority doesn't matter. It is a fact that, whatever authorities they follow, most sensible people bristle at the deliberate death of innocent human beings.

We have an authority that is obligated to protect women and our rights...the Const, so it's not true that the authority doesnt matter. You would choose something that harms women physically, emotionally, mentally, and socially if it's without our consent. Pain, suffering, disrespect, minimization in society.

The unborn suffer none of that AND you cannot name any authority that is obligated to protect them.

The reason abortion persists is because most people dont know or (a few) dont care that the unborn are innocent human beings. The pro life mission is to enlighten those who don't know, and compel those who don't care.

Source that most people dont know that the unborn are human? That's a dumb statement. Anyone that graduated 8th grade in the US knows that. As for 'innocent,' I've posted this to you before: why do you value the 'innocence' of the unborn? It cannot act or even form intent. It's a meaningless, empty 'innocence.' A vacuum. Why do you value that 'innocence' over the entirety of the life of a woman? What is she guilty of? So you can see that your use of 'innocence' would have no meaning to many people...who values emptiness?

 

[minnie616]

…They already do submit to it. Both men and women generally believe killing human beings is wrong. My job is to get them to follow that logic where it leads. If human beings have a right to life, and the unborn are human beings, then the unborn have a right to life.

You are mistaken.
There are a lot of Pro choice religious groups.

From the following:
MS magazine article.

There is a vast pro-choice religious community in the United States with the potential to provide the moral, cultural and political clout to reverse current anti-abortion policy trends in the United States.

This is well documented by reputable polling and a study of religious institutional support for abortion rights.
Most, but certainly not all, of this cohort are Christians and Jews. Nevertheless, the pro-choice religious sector is not much recognized in the political world, by the media and by elected officials. But it ought to be.

While a long term Pew study shows that public support for legal abortion in the United States has fluctuated a bit over the past quarter century, the historic trend is upward, and has remained relatively stable over the past five years. Currently, 59 percent say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while 39 percent say it should be illegal in all or most cases. Other reputable polls have shown similarly increasing support for abortion rights, and have been widely reported.


Read more :

https://msmagazine.com/2021/10/12/pro-choice-religion-abortion-catholic/

 

[HangLow]

It's clear to me that the only authority you'd submit to is one that allows abortion.
It's immoral to require women to die for the sake of their children, agreed. It's not immoral to require women to suffer before killing their children. Men are under the same prohibition. You can't kill people to ameliorate suffering, unless your life is threatened.
If killing one's children is moral to you, then you may consider me immoral from your point of view.
Your question is really beside the point. The authority doesn't matter. It is a fact that, whatever authorities they follow, most sensible people bristle at the deliberate death of innocent human beings. The reason abortion persists is because most people dont know or (a few) dont care that the unborn are innocent human beings. The pro life mission is to enlighten those who don't know, and compel those who don't care.

​

 

[NatMorton]

Why do I need to repeat what I wrote. I was very clear...the majority of Americans support abortion...so obviously not unborn human beings.



Yes they do. The unborn are not people. And your statements are stupid because if they were true...the majority of Americans wouldnt support abortion remaining legal.

The majority support a right to abortion in the first trimester but not Roe's second trimester standard. Roe's "viability" line is a minority position.

 

[vegas giants]

The majority support a right to abortion in the first trimester but not Roe's second trimester standard. Roe's "viability" line is a minority position.

The trimester standard has not been the standard for years

 

[ttwtt78640]

Is Griswold judicial activism?

To some extent yes, the SCOTUS held that the “right to privacy” was linked to (created by?) marriage. Obviously, the idea that contraceptive use “rights” should (or could?) be limited to married persons was and remains nonsense, but that was central to the Griswold majority opinion, but was overturned (by the SCOTUS) about 10 years later.

The SCOTUS tends to ease into its final positions, IMHO fearing that taking giant leaps based on a single case would allow their judicial activism to become more readily apparent.

The use (treatment?) of SCOTUS precedent as de facto Constitutional amendment, until the SCOTUS expands upon or reverses their prior opinion, seems counter to the founders’ intent that Constitutional amendment is not a power of the judicial branch.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The trimester standard has not been the standard for years

True, but did not exist at all until the SCOTUS invented it.

 

[vegas giants]

True, but did not exist at all until the SCOTUS invented it.

Just like they invented separate but equal was illegal

 

[minnie616]

The majority support a right to abortion in the first trimester but not Roe's second trimester standard. Roe's "viability" line is a minority position.

So why didn’t the new the Justices take that into consideration in their draft instead of trying to overturn Roe?

Oh , I know why….. They seemed more concerned about the domestic supply of babies.

Let me repeat :
“whereas the domestic supply of infants relinquished at birth or within the first month of life and available to be adopted has become virtually nonexistent.”

They seem very greedy with making more babies avaible for adoption.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Just like they invented separate but equal was illegal

After they declared that ‘special’ form of racial segregation was legal (Constitutional) 58 years before that. At least in those cases, the SCOTUS was basing their opinions on Constitutional text beyond what was meant by ”others” in the 9A.