Trump Sneaks Dangerous Rights for Fetuses Into Executive Order

[Atreus21]

What reason is that? Be specific! Human being is a scientific designation, not a legal one. Trying to direct attention to me is avoiding an argument, not making one.

The only person avoiding anything here is you bud.

It's a moral axiom: human beings have a right to life.

Do you agree with that or not?

 

[Atreus21]

That's still not articulating the argument.

Slaves legal status was property. Freed blacks had rights, they were persons. Their rights were not based on Homo sapiens DNA.

We're going in circles. If the law said that black people were no longer "persons", and thus had no rights, would you agree?

No, you wouldn't. Because you believe those rights exist no matter what the law says.

I don't understand how we're in such disagreement here.

 

[Gordy327]

The only person avoiding anything here is you bud.

It's a moral axiom: human beings have a right to life.

Do you agree with that or not?

You still haven't provided a legal argument. Morality is also subjective and cannot (or should not) be legislated. Neither do I generally use morality in my arguments.

 

[Lursa]

We're going in circles. If the law said that black people were no longer persons, and thus had no rights, would you agree?

Not 'no longer.' It said that slaves, "property", did not.

No, you wouldn't. Because you believe those rights exist no matter what the law says.

No I do not. What?

I don't understand how we're in such disagreement here.

 

[Lursa]

You still haven't provided a legal argument. Morality is also subjective and cannot (or should not) be legislated. Neither do I generally use morality in my arguments.

I believe in a moral argument but it also has to be articulated as an argument beyond a statement. Like cause and effect, pain and suffering, etc.

It's still subjective but then there are merits to discuss, weigh, etc.

 

[Gordy327]

We're going in circles. If the law said that black people were no longer "persons", and thus had no rights, would you agree?

No, you wouldn't. Because you believe those rights exist no matter what the law says.

I don't understand how we're in such disagreement here.

Belief is irrelevant. People can believe all sorts of things. But belief is not a rational or legal argument.

 

[Atreus21]

Belief is irrelevant. People can believe all sorts of things. But belief is not a rational or legal argument.

Again, we're going in circles. Essentially it's just this:

Me: Abortion should be illegal.

You: It can't be made illegal. It's legal.

 

[Gordy327]

I believe in a moral argument but it also has to be articulated as an argument beyond a statement. Like cause and effect, pain and suffering, etc.

It's still subjective but then there are merits to discuss, weigh, etc.

You can make a moral statement/argument far better than I. I prefer to focus on the more "objective" aspects from a practical standpoint.

 

[Gordy327]

Again, we're going in circles. Essentially it's just this:

Me: Abortion should be illegal.

You: It can't be made illegal. It's legal.

Me: make the legal argument why abortion should be illegal.

You: Failed to make a legal argument.

 

[Atreus21]

Me: make the legal argument why abortion should be illegal.

You: Failed to make a legal argument.

Define legal argument, and I'll make one if possible.

 

[Gordy327]

Define legal argument, and I'll make one if possible.

Am argument based on law and legal reasoning. Not feelings or beliefs. If you don't even know that, I doubt you'll be able to make one. But take your best shot. Depending on your "argument," I might offer a legal counter-argument.

 

[Atreus21]

Am argument based on law and legal reasoning. Not feelings or beliefs. If you don't even know that, I doubt you'll be able to make one. But take your best shot. Depending on your "argument," I might offer a legal counter-argument.

Alright, but I don't see why making a legal argument is relevant. Murder, rape, and theft are illegal because they harm people and are morally wrong. If the law permitted them, they'd remain morally wrong and harmful. The legal argument for or against any of them is irrelevant. Is that not so?

 

[Lursa]

Am argument based on law and legal reasoning. Not feelings or beliefs. If you don't even know that, I doubt you'll be able to make one. But take your best shot. Depending on your "argument," I might offer a legal counter-argument.

However the support of legal rights do have a consensual (societal) moral relationship...a person can believe it's morally right or wrong to deprive people of their rights, or specific rights, and provide arguments why.

"Should people have a right to individual liberty?"

 

[Gordy327]

Alright, but I don't see why making a legal argument is relevant. Murder, rape, and theft are illegal because they harm people and are morally wrong. If the law permitted them, they'd remain morally wrong and harmful. The legal argument for or against any of them is irrelevant. Is that not so?

They infringe on other people's rights or autonomy.

 

[Gordy327]

However the support of legal rights do have a consensual (societal) moral relationship...a person can believe it's morally right or wrong to deprive people of their rights, or specific rights, and provide arguments why.

"Should people have a right to individual liberty?"

Yes, morality is often associated. It's the arguments that tend to be lacking, depending on the position. The issue with unborn rights is 1 example.

 

[Atreus21]

They infringe on other people's rights or autonomy.

Right, and that would be the case whether or not the law recognized it. Right?

 

[Lursa]

Right, and that would be the case whether or not the law recognized it. Right?

No, why do you keep writing that? What imaginary rights are you referring to and if everybody had whatever they wanted, how would they be protected or enforced?

 

[Atreus21]

No, why do you keep writing that? What imaginary rights are you referring to and if everybody had whatever they wanted, how would they be protected or enforced?

I keep writing it because I can't believe you don't agree. Murder is wrong whether or not a law says so. Same for theft and rape. You don't believe that? Good grief.

 

[Lursa]

I keep writing it because I can't believe you don't agree. Murder is wrong whether or not a law says so. Same for theft and rape. You don't believe that? Good grief.

Murder is wrong IMO. That's a moral stance, it harms others. As are the harms inflicted by theft and rape. Why do you keep bringing up rights?

 

[Gordy327]

Right, and that would be the case whether or not the law recognized it. Right?

If you agree with that, then surely you can see why abortion restrictions have no legal merit, right? Still no legal argument to be made for restrictions or unborn rights.

 

[Atreus21]

If you agree with that, then surely you can see why abortion restrictions have no legal merit, right? Still no legal argument to be made for restrictions or unborn rights.

What's legal isn't really relevant, because what's legal is specifically what I want to change. Abortion should be generally illegal for the same reason murder should be: it deliberately takes the life of an innocent.

 

[Lursa]

What's legal isn't really relevant, because what's legal is specifically what I want to change. Abortion should be generally illegal for the same reason murder should be: it deliberately takes the life of an innocent.

At the expense of another individual, overriding her consent to her own life, health, pain and suffering, bodily autonomy, and moral agency. It doesnt just affect her having a heartbeat...that 9 months of sickness, debilitation, financial hardship for her and dependents, food on the table, roof over heads, inability to fulfill her obligations to others...all affect the entire rest of her life. Only the individual woman (and her dr.) know these risks and circumstances. How are strangers or the govt. justified in imposing their will on that woman, imposing those risks and harm on her and others?​

​

Is it your view that humanity's goal should be merely that "both woman and unborn survive the birth with a heartbeat?" No matter if one or both will be tied to a ventilator? Be severely sick, defective, in pain, non-functioning mentally or physically, etc?​

​

Do you choose quantity over quality of life? If so, IMO that view dehumanizes both woman and unborn...reducing both to nothing but physiological functions...their humanity lost. Do you see this as well? If not, please explain.​

Please respond to my argument...the questions are the foundation for that response.

 

[Gordy327]

What's legal isn't really relevant, because what's legal is specifically what I want to change. Abortion should be generally illegal for the same reason murder should be: it deliberately takes the life of an innocent.

"Innocent" of what? Innocence denotes a determination criminality. Murder is illegal because it intentionally infringes on ones bodily autonomy and well being. Abortion is not murder either. What about the life of the one the "innocent life" is occupying? How do you reconcile establishing rights for the unborn at the expense of the gestator's rights and autonomy?

 

[Lursa]

"Innocent" of what? Innocence denotes a determination criminality. Murder is illegal because it intentionally infringes on ones bodily autonomy and well being. Abortion is not murder either. What about the life of the one the "innocent life" is occupying? How do you reconcile establishing rights for the unborn at the expense of the gestator's rights and autonomy?

The woman is innocent as well. She has not committed evil, wrong, broken the law, etc. What is the justification for the govt imposing its will on her to demand she produce the unborn? Does the govt have some interest in the unborn that supersedes its interest in the citizen already contributing to society? How is the govt entitled to know what is between a woman and her dr?

Edit: @Atreus21 since Gordy asked below.

 

[Gordy327]

The woman is innocent as well. She has not committed evil, wrong, broken the law, etc.

Agreed.

What is the justification for the govt imposing its will on her to demand she produce the unborn? Does the govt have some interest in the unborn that supersedes its interest in the citizen already contributing to society?

There is none. So I'm interested in how unborn rights can be reconciled with the woman's rights and autonomy. I doubt there can be any reconciliation. It's impossible to grant rights to both equally. Maybe @Atreus21 can provide us a rational and legal explanation?