• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump Sneaks Dangerous Rights for Fetuses Into Executive Order

It's not about me. If one thinks a law is wrong, they can make a legal argument and challenge to it. I have yet to see anyone make a rational legal argument to restrict abortion.
Since rational is a subjective value, both sides are always going to see the other as irrational.
 
Since rational is a subjective value, both sides are always going to see the other as irrational.
Not really. Irrational is based more on belief or feelings. Rational is not.
 
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.
By this logic, then the argument for freeing slaves and giving/ensuring their rights is the same as for giving/ensuring rights for the unborn. Why is the argument to make blacks persons when they weren't before any different than the argument to make the unborn persons?
 
Not really. Irrational is based more on belief or feelings. Rational is not.
Whether something is a person or not is certainly belief and feeling based.
 
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?
If a man is raping a woman, and the only way to stop him, short of waiting for him to finish, is to kill him, does he still have a right to life. If so, does it trump the woman's right to bodily autonomy? Does the right to life always apply, and/or always trump other rights?
 
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.
For the record are you asserting that the death penalty and war are wrong, and should never be used? And if you don't feel that they are the same as murder, explain why.
 
Murder is illegal because it intentionally infringes on ones bodily autonomy and well being.

When it comes to bodily autonomy, does intent matter? Let's apply that to a hypothetical. I kidnap you and hook you up to a machine that takes part of your bodily resources and transfers them to a third unconscious person. If you are disconnected from that machine, the person will die. That other person did not intentionally infringe upon your bodily autonomy. But you would have to intentionally terminate them in order to be free of the machine. Would it then be murder since you would intentionally infringe upon their bodily autonomy

Abortion is not murder either.

Per what argument? What makes a homicide murder or not?
 
Whether something is a person or not is certainly belief and feeling based.
No, a person is a legal determination.
By this logic, then the argument for freeing slaves and giving/ensuring their rights is the same as for giving/ensuring rights for the unborn. Why is the argument to make blacks persons when they weren't before any different than the argument to make the unborn persons?
The difference is, freeing slaves did not infringe on anyone's rights or autonomy. Granting unborn rights will.
 
It's impossible to grant rights to both equally.

I disagree with this statement. It is quite possible. But it has to be under the recognition that certain rights trump other rights in specific conditions. If a man is trying to beat me senseless, his right to life holds no bearing, as I can kill him if that is what it takes to stop him from beating me like that. My right of bodily autonomy overrides his right to life in that situation. Thus it would be the same for the woman even if the unborn had a right to life.
 
No, a person is a legal determination.

On what basis?

The difference is, freeing slaves did not infringe on anyone's rights or autonomy. Granting unborn rights will.

It infringed upon private property rights since it removed the status of property from the owners.
 
By this logic, then the argument for freeing slaves and giving/ensuring their rights is the same as for giving/ensuring rights for the unborn. Why is the argument to make blacks persons when they weren't before any different than the argument to make the unborn persons?

No it's not. Their status as property was changed. They were fully able to exercise their rights all that time and their freedom did not violate the rights of anyone else. They were fully realized and capable of being part of society, not just potential ones. Those are some examples.

The unborn are inside a person, who's rights would be violated. None of those things listed applies to them.

What reasoning do you have that disputes those listed?
 
When it comes to bodily autonomy, does intent matter? Let's apply that to a hypothetical. I kidnap you and hook you up to a machine that takes part of your bodily resources and transfers them to a third unconscious person. If you are disconnected from that machine, the person will die. That other person did not intentionally infringe upon your bodily autonomy. But you would have to intentionally terminate them in order to be free of the machine. Would it then be murder since you would intentionally infringe upon their bodily autonomy



Per what argument? What makes a homicide murder or not?
Using my body for the benefit of another without my consent violates my bodily autonomy. Even if you seek my consent, I can still refuse, regardless if another dies as a result. Forcing me to do it not only violates my autonomy, but I can retaliate and maybe even kill in self defense if my life is jeopardized.
 
No it's not. Their status as property was changed.

Exactly my point. If their status was changed, then why can't the status of the unborn be changed?

their freedom did not violate the rights of anyone else.

It violated private property rights by removing that status.
 
Exactly my point. If their status was changed, then why can't the status of the unborn be changed?

Answer my question first. (And your question is already answered in the post you responded to).

It violated private property rights by removing that status.

The federal govt tried for years before the war to give slave owners compensation for their slaves and were refused. After the war, they instituted the District of Columbia Compensated Emancipation Act to do so. link
 
On what basis?
The Constitution and federal law.
It infringed upon private property rights since it removed the status of property from the owners.
No, it didn't. Slaves status was changed. They were no longer considered property. In
effect, the government banned a product and made owning it illegal, just as it can do this day. Changing that status did not infringe on a slave owner's autonomy.
 
Using my body for the benefit of another without my consent violates my bodily autonomy. Even if you seek my consent, I can still refuse, regardless if another dies as a result. Forcing me to do it not only violates my autonomy, but I can retaliate and maybe even kill in self defense if my life is jeopardized.
All true. So then you agree that intentional infringement upon by another on one's bodily autonomy is irrelevant. If the argument is that only intentional infringement is necessary, then that infringement would not apply to the unborn since there is no intent there. As we argue often, there is no brain present during the period of development where the vast majority of abortions are done for any intent to be present. Intent is irrelevant, when it comes to bodily autonomy. I can factor into the response to the violation, but a lack of it does not excuse the violation nor warrant the continuation of the violation.

You didn't answer the other question.
 
Exactly my point. If their status was changed, then why can't the status of the unborn be changed?
Because it would violate the rights and autonomy of the pregnant woman. It would essentially be the same as you example of forcing me to have my body benefit another without consent.
 
The use of it in US law is one example.

So then it is possible to legally remove an individual's personhood, or even that of a group, correct?

The federal govt tried for years before the war to give slave owners compensation for their slaves and were refused. After the war, they instituted the District of Columbia Compensated Emancipation Act to do so. link

So basically they pulled Eminent Domain on them. Does that make it any less of a personally property rights violation? Or do you only have rights when the government allows you to?
 
So then it is possible to legally remove an individual's personhood, or even that of a group, correct?

Who's "personhood" was removed?

So basically they pulled Eminent Domain on them. Does that make it any less of a personally property rights violation? Or do you only have rights when the government allows you to?

Eminent Domain is a thing 🤷 It's legal. And please dont start in with expanding this conversation. The conversation was a moral one and avoiding a discussion of rights as much as possible.
 
The Constitution and federal law.

So personhood is a subjective value, determined only by what the law says? Obviously the law and the Constitution determine that blacks were not initially people. What criteria does the COnstitution provide for determining personhood? How would we, for example, determine personhood in a non-human?

No, it didn't. Slaves status was changed. They were no longer considered property. In
effect, the government banned a product and made owning it illegal, just as it can do this day. Changing that status did not infringe on a slave owner's autonomy.

So why can't that status be legally changed for the unborn?
 
Because it would violate the rights and autonomy of the pregnant woman. It would essentially be the same as you example of forcing me to have my body benefit another without consent.
But that third person in the example already had personhood and rights and all. And yet your bodily autonomy still overrode all of that. So why would that be any different for an unborn?
 
Who's "personhood" was removed?

Why are you using past tense on a future tense question?

Eminent Domain is a thing 🤷 It's legal.

Slavery was a thing and legal as well. You're still not providing me a difference here save as a matter of opinion.
 
Why are you using past tense on a future tense question?

You did so. You brought up removal. I have no idea who has had "personhood" removed. And I asked you to respond to my question first before asking more of yours.

What reasoning do you have that disputes those listed? post 111.​

Slavery was a thing and legal as well. You're still not providing me a difference here save as a matter of opinion.

I didnt say otherwise about slavery. I showed that your use of private property rights being violated was done under legal circumstances as the property owners were compensated. Actually you did before I had to bring up Eminent Domain.
 
You did so. You brought up removal. I have no idea who has had "personhood" removed.

Yes, I asked if something could be done in the future. You then asked who had had it done to them in the past. Your response did not address the question I asked. It addresses something that I did not ask. That is a strawman fallacy.

And I asked you to respond to my question first before asking more of yours.

What reasoning do you have that disputes those listed? post 111.​

Rephrase the question. I am not understanding what you are asking. I suspect that you are asking me about things that go beyond the point of my argument.

I didnt say otherwise about slavery. I showed that your use of private property rights being violated was done under legal circumstances as the property owners were compensated. Actually you did before I had to bring up Eminent Domain.

And the slaves violations of bodily autonomy were done legal circumstances as well. And if a status can be given, then why can it not be removed? If we were able to say that blacks were not persons, then what, for example, stops us from saying that women are not persons and thus it's not a violation of bodily autonomy to force them to gestate?
 
Back
Top Bottom