It's Official: SCOTUS Overturns Roe v. Wade

[longview]

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

The personhood route is wrong. It's not the personhood that gives the unborn less rights than the baby, it is the situation.

Situation does NOT justify murder or convenience.  The unborn has self awareness, feelings, ability to listen to people speaking/singing outside of the womb, etc.

[dannyg43]

14 minutes ago, longview said:

Situation does NOT justify murder or convenience.  The unborn has self awareness, feelings, ability to listen to people speaking/singing outside of the womb, etc.

Time is now the Supreme Court Justice Thomas says court should reconsider rulings on same-sex marriage, contraception
Specifically, Thomas wrote that the court should reconsider “substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence and Obergefell,” references to major rulings involving reproductive, LGBTQ+ and civic rights.

Griswold v. Connecticut was decided in 1965 and provided married couples the right to contraception without government interference. This ruling inferred the right to privacy and played a role in using the right to privacy in cases involving LGBTQ+, contraceptive and abortion rights.

 

We can't wait any longer time on are side help find Attorney, volunteer to overturn same-sex marriage for God & country

[SeekingUnderstanding]

6 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

The personhood route is wrong. It's not the personhood that gives the unborn less rights than the baby, it is the situation.

 

 

I agree that bodily autonomy is the source of a right to an abortion. That said, the prolife position is founded on the personhood of the fetus and embryo. Taking this literally could ban IVF, lead to mandatory adoption of abandoned embryo’s, and all types of other insanity. Pointing out that a human fetus in the first trimester is not a person can also help alleviate anti abortion concerns. The existence of things like “compassionate transfer” and exceptions for rape also point to idea that early fetal life is not the same as a baby. 

Edited July 14, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

The personhood route is wrong. It's not the personhood that gives the unborn less rights than the baby, it is the situation.

 

 

And what other "situations" allow us to declare people "nonhuman"?

Ancestry?

Whom they love?

It's time to start seeing ALL humans as having "human rights".

Or if we define being human according to age, let's "abort" everyone over 50!

I mean they are ready to die anyway, right?

Abortion is about ageism in the young.

[Nofear]

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

Religious/moral beliefs can and ought to inform our political/legal views (subject, of course, to the constraints of the Constitution).  In the end, a society in a given jurisdiction has to collectively make moral judgments.  That includes tough decisions where there is tension between the rights of one person (the expectant mother) and another (the unborn child).

And it's a legitimate debate to be had. I wish more people would see that. The Libertarian community (which tend to be all about rights) in many ways exemplify that debate.

 

[Meadowchik]

24 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

And what other "situations" allow us to declare people "nonhuman"?

Ancestry?

Whom they love?

It's time to start seeing ALL humans as having "human rights".

Or if we define being human according to age, let's "abort" everyone over 50!

I mean they are ready to die anyway, right?

Abortion is about ageism in the young.

The situation doesn't make someone nonhuman, not at all. Likewise, self-defense doesn't make a person non-human, nor does distribution of resources in times of scarcity, nor does triaging medical service when it is limited.

Situations can reduce people's options and force them to make decisions when every option is difficult, whatever they choose.

And so in the situation of pregnancy and possible abortion, a woman can be choosing what she estimates as the lesser of evils.

Regarding the persons involved, the woman's bodily resources are being directly consumed by another. It is her choice whether to allow it to continue or not.

[Meadowchik]

2 hours ago, longview said:

Situation does NOT justify murder or convenience.  The unborn has self awareness, feelings, ability to listen to people speaking/singing outside of the womb, etc.

In your estimation. But you don't know every situation, do you?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

26 minutes ago, Nofear said:

And it's a legitimate debate to be had. I wish more people would see that. The Libertarian community (which tend to be all about rights) in many ways exemplify that debate.

 

How do you debate someone’s religious conviction that an embryo is a person?

[Vanguard]

2 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

How do you debate someone’s religious conviction that an embryo is a person?

I'm not sure I follow. Why must it be a religious conviction? Aren't there other grounds for arguing an embryo is a person?

[Nofear]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

How do you debate someone’s religious conviction that an embryo is a person?

To second Vanguard's point, religion need not play a role. Though religious conviction or other ideological rational may inform a position, the source of one's position is irrelevant to the substance of the debate.

I forget if both individuals in the video are atheist or not. One can watch their arguments exactly as if they were atheist though.
 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

12 minutes ago, Nofear said:

To second Vanguard's point, religion need not play a role. Though religious conviction or other ideological rational may inform a position, the source of one's position is irrelevant to the substance of the debate.

I forget if both individuals in the video are atheist or not. One can watch their arguments exactly as if they were atheist though.
 

The pro life individual was religious. 
 

https://mereliberty.com/about/kerry-baldwin/
 

The pro choice individual was raised Pagan and has left that behind if I skimmed properly:

https://wildhunt.org/2016/04/growing-up-pagan-an-interview-with-avens-obrien.html

Edited July 14, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, Vanguard said:

I'm not sure I follow. Why must it be a religious conviction? Aren't there other grounds for arguing an embryo is a person?

 

7 minutes ago, Nofear said:

To second Vanguard's point, religion need not play a role. Though religious conviction or other ideological rational may inform a position, the source of one's position is irrelevant to the substance of the debate.

I forget if both individuals in the video are atheist or not. One can watch their arguments exactly as if they were atheist though.
 

https://www.christianpost.com/amp/how-many-atheists-are-pro-life.html
 

https://religioninpublic.blog/2019/01/23/are-there-pro-life-atheists-or-pro-life-liberals/
 

Quote

"So are there secular and/or liberal folks who are pro-life? The answer is yes, but they are clearly in a very, very small minority. In fact, much less than 10 percent of atheists hold any position that would restrict abortion, and that share is not much bigger among agnostics as well," Burge said.

Abortion views are very tightly correlated to religious views. 

[smac97]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

Smac, I feel like you ignored half of what I said, not interested in a discussion where that occurs.  Too much having to repeat myself. 

I didn't ignore what you said.  I am often faulted for my responses which "pick apart" other posts, so here I was just trying to focus on the point I felt worth further inquiry.  

Anyway, no harm done.  You have no obligation to continue the discussion.  I read nothing into that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[longview]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

5 hours ago, longview said:

Situation does NOT justify murder or convenience.  The unborn has self awareness, feelings, ability to listen to people speaking/singing outside of the womb, etc.

In your estimation. But you don't know every situation, do you?

It is NOT an estimation but a realistic acknowledgement of the travails of mortality.  Just because life is sometimes onerous and difficult and even devastating, there is NO justification for murder of the innocent.  In very RARE cases, the church allows for abortion if the mother is in danger.  What you are doing is parroting the propaganda of the godless communist social engineers and subversives remaking society into their image.  Pregnancy the result of rape?  My inclination is everyone involved should accept the new child and if necessary give the child up for adoption.  Difficult as it may be.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 minutes ago, longview said:

Just because life is sometimes onerous and difficult and even devastating, there is NO justification for murder of the innocent.  

 

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

"Murder?”

 

[Vanguard]

2 hours ago, Vanguard said:

I'm not sure I follow. Why must it be a religious conviction? Aren't there other grounds for arguing an embryo is a person?

1 hour ago, Nofear said:

To second Vanguard's point, religion need not play a role. Though religious conviction or other ideological rational may inform a position, the source of one's position is irrelevant to the substance of the debate.

I forget if both individuals in the video are atheist or not. One can watch their arguments exactly as if they were atheist though.
 

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The pro life individual was religious. 
 

https://mereliberty.com/about/kerry-baldwin/
 

The pro choice individual was raised Pagan and has left that behind if I skimmed properly:

https://wildhunt.org/2016/04/growing-up-pagan-an-interview-with-avens-obrien.html

But the pro-life individual didn't appeal to this supposed religious belief, so why not engage the argument based on what she presented? Nofear's position that their arguments can be addressed as though they were atheist seems appropriate.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

8 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

But the pro-life individual didn't appeal to this supposed religious belief, so why not engage the argument based on what she presented? Nofear's position that their arguments can be addressed as though they were atheist seems appropriate.

Did you listen to the video? She didn’t present an argument. She merely stated as a matter of fact that killing a zygote is murder (a position that is overwhelmingly likely informed by her religious belief). What exactly is there to engage? I mean I look at a zygote and I see a cell. So <shrug>. 

[Calm]

6 hours ago, longview said:

The unborn has self awareness, feelings, ability to listen to people speaking/singing outside of the womb, etc.

From the moment of conception or at some point in development.  If the latter, do you believe that makes a difference in whether or not abortion is moral?  If not, then why use this argument?

[Vanguard]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Did you listen to the video? She didn’t present an argument. She merely stated as a matter of fact that killing a zygote is murder (a position that is overwhelmingly likely informed by her religious belief). What exactly is there to engage? I mean I look at a zygote and I see a cell. So <shrug>. 

But we do know there is an argument that abortion is akin to murder and that many hold this position irrespective of religious ideology. I think that was NoFear's point - treat the argument as though an atheist were making it. I do agree with you, however,  that it would be difficult to make an argument against someone whose belief is religiously-based alone. 

[longview]

39 minutes ago, Calm said:

From the moment of conception or at some point in development.  If the latter, do you believe that makes a difference in whether or not abortion is moral?  If not, then why use this argument?

Abortion is NEVER moral no matter what system of philosophy you cater to.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

31 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

But we do know there is an argument that abortion is akin to murder and that many hold this position irrespective of religious ideology. I think that was NoFear's point - treat the argument as though an atheist were making it. I do agree with you, however,  that it would be difficult to make an argument against someone whose belief is religiously-based alone. 

The vast overwhelming majority (well over 90% per site linked above) of atheists don’t view a zygote as a person. That’s as close to a consensus as you can get on anything. The personhood of zygotes is very nearly entirely religious based. Debating it goes like this:

7 hours ago, longview said:

Situation does NOT justify murder or convenience.  The unborn has self awareness, feelings, ability to listen to people speaking/singing outside of the womb, etc.

 

1 hour ago, Calm said:

From the moment of conception or at some point in development.  If the latter, do you believe that makes a difference in whether or not abortion is moral?  If not, then why use this argument?

 

31 minutes ago, longview said:

Abortion is NEVER moral no matter what system of philosophy you cater to.

No attempt by Longview to engage. Just “abortion is murder” no matter what. 
 

If you would like to engage on this topic I’m willing. 
 

A zygote is a potential human with its full life ahead of it. A toddler is a human with its full life ahead of it. You say you believe a zygote is a person just like a toddler (not sure if you believe this or not, but apply this to the general you). Okay prove it:

You are at a fertility clinic on fire. You have time to grab a toddler (passed out from smoke inhalation) or a fridge containing thousands of embryos. You can only save one. If you actually believed the embryos were people in the same way a toddler is a person, you’d grab the fridge. What would you do in this situation? How many embryos would it take before you would leave a single toddler to die in the fire. 

For purposes of this thought experiment you know that the toddler will recover (if you save her) and half the embryos will survive the transfer and result in live births if you save them. 

Edited July 14, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[ttribe]

41 minutes ago, longview said:

Abortion is NEVER moral no matter what system of philosophy you cater to.

Sorry, as long as you espouse and promote books of scripture in which your god is directly responsible for murder, infanticide, and genocide, you don't get to claim the moral high ground on this one.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Sorry, as long as you espouse and promote books of scripture in which your god is directly responsible for murder, infanticide, and genocide, you don't get to claim the moral high ground on this one.

Not to mention that God designed a system where half of all fertilized eggs don’t make it. 

[bsjkki]

I think we can all agree the 10-year-old rape victim should not have been dragged into a national discussion on abortion. After watching a few things today which I won't post, this is a sad case and this little girl has suffered and her story should not have been used this way. But, in some ways the publicity might have forced action to detain and prosecute her rapist. There seems to be a delay that is unexplained with current facts. Even after she identified her rapist, with the timeline, she was still forced to live in the same house with him until he was arrested July 12. 

Edited July 14, 2022 by bsjkki

[longview]

13 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

A zygote is a potential human with its full life ahead of it. A toddler is a human with its full life ahead of it.

You are using the word "potential" as an obfuscation in an attempt to justify murder.  This zygote was human at the very moment of fertilization.  Its DNA is distinct and unique from the mother (as well as from the father).  Abortionists use abhorrent propaganda claiming that the fetus is just an organ in the woman's body.

I reject your "thought experiment" on the fertility clinic but I will answer that the toddler has first priority.  God will help with the rest, His Will be done.  I am uncertain that God would approve of the business of fertility clinics in warehousing frozen embryos and sperm banks.