Sorry Anti-Choicers - SCOTUS is wrong.

[Gordy327]

You're getting confused.

Not even a little. You're dodging the questions.

I'm saying that liberal democracy was founded on the concept of natural rights, so there is a precedent for enumerating them in law. If the Pro-Lifer says the state should enact these laws, they would have a moral and logical ground to stand on.

Your opinion is noted. But you still have not answered the questions: What are "natural rights?" Where are these "rights" enumerated? How are they different from rights established by a governing body?

Except some states say it is murder and potentially the federal government could say it's murder, in which case it is murder. Where's the confusion here?

No confusion. Abortion is not murder, period! Neither is it equated to murder under the law. That is simple legal fact. Since murder is illegal on the state and federal levels, a woman would not be allowed to have an abortion at all. Yet women can still have an abortion without due process. Murder also applies to legal persons, not non-persons.

 

[Gozaburo]

Your opinion is noted. But you still have not answered the questions: What are "natural rights?" Where are these "rights" enumerated? How are they different from rights established by a governing body?

No "rights" are real outside of those enforced by the state. Natural rights are a philosophical concept, obviously.

No confusion. Abortion is not murder, period! Neither is it equated to murder under the law. That is simple legal fact. Since murder is illegal on the state and federal levels, a woman would not be allowed to have an abortion at all. Yet women can still have an abortion without due process. Murder also applies to legal persons, not non-persons.

Actually you're correct. For some reason I was under the impression Indiana classified abortion as murder. In any case, that wasn't really my point.

My point is: if a state did classify abortion as murder, then it is murder.

 

[weaver2]

As I've said before, I'm pro-choice so I don't necessarily disagree with your argument (although I would articulate it differently) but I do think the other side has an equally valid argument from the position of liberal rights for which there are only arbitrary counterarguments against, here's what I'd imagine a steelman looks like:

Supporting or denying abortion procedures based on morals or rights is hopeless, both moral and rights are different for different groups. What is needed is a utilitarian argument the greatest good for the greatest number and that can be documented with research into the outcomes of access or denial to abortion? Using the numbers showing what actually happens in every scenario surrounding unplanned and unwanted pregnancy it is quite possible to determine the greatest good for the greatest number.

Yeah, yeah that gets shot down by the inane argument that abortion is never good for the murdered fetus. It's an argument based on the morality of the individual person who is opposed to abortion.

P1: Liberalism upholds the fundamental negative right to life, which prohibits actively killing another human life, especially an innocent one, as a cornerstone of non-aggression and protection of the vulnerable.

Right to life is different for every single person or group or church or organization that gets into this argument. Even if the question of abortion is turned over to a smaller unit, the states, there are differences of opinion and morality making it difficult to get consensus and respect for the law.

P2: The right to life for the fetus entails protection from direct harm or killing, not merely a positive claim on resources; abortion procedures (such as dilation and evacuation) actively kill the fetus through dismemberment or other means, distinguishing it from passively "unplugging" or refusing aid in hypothetical scenarios like organ donation.

Abortions where these procedures have to be used happen only after about the 15th week of pregnancy after which only 5% of all abortions happen. The anti-abortion/pro-life movement keeps basing objection to abortion on these procedures in the vain hope that people will come to believe that this 5% of usually emergency abortion represents all abortions. It is probably the religious rights most dishonest argument. The proof of this arguments dishonesty is in the constant stream of videos, pictures and descriptions of the procedures themselves. Yes, they are horrifying. They are done late term to save the mother's life in a pregnancy in which the fetus is dead or is unable to sustain life after being born. They do not represent 95% of all abortions.

P3: Pregnancy often arises from voluntary actions (e.g., consensual sex) that foreseeably create the fetus's dependency, imposing a special parental responsibility to avoid harming one's offspring, unlike cases of forced dependency on a stranger; this responsibility aligns with liberal duties to not abandon or kill dependents one has created.

The problem here is not the pregnancy. It is the activity before there is a pregnancy yet the solution is still the same: deny abortion. If the anti-abortion movement really wanted to reduce abortion then reduce unplanned pregnancy by providing honest sex - ed, not abstinence only, and provide universal access to all contraceptives that women control not condoms. It is the anti-abortion movements total refusal to even acknowledge this issue that is the biggest clue that the abortion issue is not about saving babies but something unmentionable about control and women's status.

P4: In exceptional cases like rape, where dependency is imposed without consent, the fetus is still an innocent party not responsible for the crime; ending its life would compound the trauma of the assault with additional violence against an undeserving human, akin to revenge killing which is rightly deemed immoral and illegal in liberal societies, as justice does not permit punishing children for their parents' actions.

This is the argument that a fetus is innocent of any lapse in morality so it has the right to life over an immoral woman, who "asked for it" and should now have to pay the price.

 

[weaver2]

C: Therefore, on liberal principles, permitting abortion as a refusal of bodily use overlooks the violation of the fetus's right to life through active killing and parental accountability, contradicting the liberal emphasis on non-violence and responsibility for one's actions; the claim prioritizes one autonomy while ignoring the equal bodily rights of the unborn.

This is the "fetal life only" argument. It ignores the lives of the rest of the family involved. It's convenient to regard only the fetus' life in the abortions issue then one doesn't have to look at what an unwanted pregnancy and child does to the other children in the family, the mother and father of the unintended child and the lives of the grandparents often are the care givers of unintended children in a family. Most grand parents shorten their life expectancy with the stress of child care, complicate their lives and destroy their financial security by taking on the job of raising unintended children. Most of all it is destructive to the unplanned and unwanted child itself.

I think this is a sound and logical argument which is just as reasonable and fair as the pro-choice argument on logical and moral grounds. In fact, it might even be a stronger argument because the pro-choice argument you present could be seen as prioritizing some rights over others, or providing a hierarchy of rights, which I'd say is generally illiberal in its approach. Generally speaking, I don't think the strongest arguments for abortion are a woman's "autonomy", though I do think that's valuable.

The first Amendment is the only really legal, reasonable and honest argument for being against abortion and banning it. "My religion is against abortion" cannot be argued against. However, because it is a religious belief no church, denomination, sect, or other religion related organization has the right to force all women to follow its religious tenet.

 

[Gozaburo]

Supporting or denying abortion procedures based on morals or rights is hopeless, both moral and rights are different for different groups. What is needed is a utilitarian argument the greatest good for the greatest number and that can be documented with research into the outcomes of access or denial to abortion?

I could reply to your counterarguments with steelmans of my own, but you're correct that this is the fundamental issue. The abortion argument is deadlocked because it is two diametrically opposed axioms trying to articulate moral, legalistic, and logical arguments against the other side which just rejects their first principles and foundational assumptions.

As a consequence, this is a debate where we can only really make utilitarian and pragmatic arguments, which I would agree the pro-choice side wins handily. The pragmatic eugenic, aesthetic and stable child rearing benefits of the pro-choice position far outweigh the benefits of the pro-life position which are mostly speculative.

 

[LittleNipper]

The Supreme Court isn’t always right, even though it has a lot of power. The Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade, is a modern example of how the Court can make mistakes, just like it did in Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896. In Plessy, the Court said racial segregation was okay, but that was overturned by Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. Both cases show that the Supreme Court can get things wrong, and its decisions can be changed later.

Just because something is decided by the Supreme Court doesn’t mean it’s automatically right, like with Dobbs. This is an example of the appeal to authority fallacy, where people assume the Court is always correct. The Plessy decision was eventually corrected by Brown, and the same could happen with Dobbs if society decides it’s wrong. The Court’s power doesn’t mean its decisions can’t be challenged.

The Supreme Court was wrong when it removed consideration of GOD from public education ----- that's for sure.

 

[Lursa]

The Supreme Court was wrong when it removed consideration of GOD from public education ----- that's for sure.

Why? What keeps anyone in schools from 'considering' God all they want during the school day?

 

[LittleNipper]

Why? What keeps anyone in schools from 'considering' God all they want during the school day?

The teachers are not allowed to talk in regards to HIM all day long... But they can talk about secular philosophy, secular theory, secular values. As long as it's regarding secularism, instructors are free to instruct. But elude to any possibility of the supernatural or morality and suddenly some line has been crossed and the teacher is accused of being a preacher.

 

[Lursa]

The teachers are not allowed to talk in regards to HIM all day long... But they can talk about secular philosophy, secular theory, secular values. As long as it's regarding secularism, instructors are free to instruct. But elude to any possibility of the supernatural or morality and suddenly some line has been crossed and the teacher is accused of being a preacher.

Why should they? It's school. They are there for educations, not religious dogma.

Arent churches and parents effective enough in teaching their religions? Why should taxpayers pay for more?

 

[LittleNipper]

Why should they? It's school. They are there for educations, not religious dogma.

Arent churches and parents effective enough in teaching their religions? Why should taxpayers pay for more?

They are educators, but what and how they educate shouldn't be manipulated to eliminate thoughts regarding religion. Parents are not as effective as they once were. Many parents today are very immature and totally lack common sense. Many act as though they are still teenagers, both in behavior, actions and dress. And frankly, this can be linked to how the parents were educated and what they were allowed to get away with when they were students themselves. All one needs to do is see how teens are portrayed in the movies. And the fact that parents allow their children to see such trash and not prohibit it. I've witnessed 10 year old's with their parents watching "FAMILY GUY." You might as well allow them to watch porn (which they may in fact do).

I've seen parents in their 30's and 40's and the Father is covered with tattoos, wears his shorts down to expose his boxers, while the mother is still wearing extra tight pants and enough makeup to paint a house. They are still listening to the same old crap they did when young. There is no responsibility taken in growing up. They are still juveniles ----- 35 going on 16. And people wonder why the kids are like they are. Who sets the example. If the parents don't have enough sense to mention GOD ----- why not the teacher. It would likely MAKE KIDS THINK and not simply exist to do what they please, while being restricted from hearing anything wholesome ----- because that would be a "bad, bad, thing."

 

[Gordy327]

The Supreme Court was wrong when it removed consideration of GOD from public education ----- that's for sure.

Explain how! The constitution forbids religious teaching or promotion in public schools.

 

[Lursa]

They are educators, but what and how they educate shouldn't be manipulated to eliminate thoughts regarding religion.

It shouldnt include anything about religion...on that we agree.

Parents are not as effective as they once were. Many parents today are very immature and totally lack common sense. Many act as though they are still teenagers, both in behavior, actions and dress. And frankly, this can be linked to how the parents were educated and what they were allowed to get away with when they were students themselves. All one needs to do is see how teens are portrayed in the movies. And the fact that parents allow their children to see such trash and not prohibit it. I've witnessed 10 year old's with their parents watching "FAMILY GUY." You might as well allow them to watch porn (which they may in fact do).

Tough shit. Maybe it's because of their attempts to hand over their parental responsibilities regarding behavior, bullying, discipline, how we treat others, to schools or are just lazy. Maybe they believe someone else should be handling their religious obligations to their kids?

I've seen parents in their 30's and 40's and the Father is covered with tattoos, wears his shorts down to expose his boxers, while the mother is still wearing extra tight pants and enough makeup to paint a house. They are still listening to the same old crap they did when young. There is no responsibility taken in growing up. They are still juveniles ----- 35 going on 16. And people wonder why the kids are like they are. Who sets the example. If the parents don't have enough sense to mention GOD ----- why not the teacher. It would likely MAKE KIDS THINK and not simply exist to do what they please, while being restricted from hearing anything wholesome ----- because that would be a "bad, bad, thing."

Too bad...you dont get to force your religious dogma on other people's kids. Let YOUR religion...your churches and parents do THEIR jobs. Your religion wants to teach that it's wrong, bad, sinful to be gay. To have sex outside of marriage (no one's encouraging that for minors), to not believe in evolution. All a nightmare for non-religious (and generally intelligent religious) people.

 

[Gordy327]

It shouldnt include anything about religion...on that we agree.



Tough shit. Maybe it's because of their attempts to hand over their parental responsibilities regarding behavior, bullying, discipline, how we treat others, to schools or are just lazy. Maybe they believe someone else should be handling their religious obligations to their kids?



Too bad...you dont get to force your religious dogma on other people's kids. Let YOUR religion...your churches and parents do THEIR jobs. Your religion wants to teach that it's wrong, bad, sinful to be gay. To have sex outside of marriage (no one's encouraging that for minors), to not believe in evolution. All a nightmare for non-religious (and generally intelligent religious) people.

Some people won't be happy until we have a theocracy in the 1950s style.

 

[mrjurrs]

The Supreme Court was wrong when it removed consideration of GOD from public education ----- that's for sure.

And you would vigorously defend the right of pagans, satinists et al to practice their faith as well?