It's Official: SCOTUS Overturns Roe v. Wade

[Meadowchik]

2 hours ago, longview said:

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.

Atleast you do acknowledge the travails of mortality. But I am not convinced that you're being realistic about that in your argument. I find that whatever travails exist, being pregnant can make them exponentially more complicated and sometimes worse. You just can't know the particulars of every woman. You can repeat "murder" ad infinitum but you don't convince me of actual concern for the innocent, especially when you get carried away in a political rant. To me that just diminishes your argument as one using the unborn as a political football rather than beings we must endeavor to help.

My point of view is that we cannot collectively help the unborn by trying to force women to birth them. That attitude comes married with other damaging perspectives that continue to harm women and children. 

I think political will should have been channelled along time ago toward making the world better for women, which would naturally make it more amenable for bringing new life into the world.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

8 minutes ago, longview said:

You are using the word "potential" as an obfuscation in an attempt to justify murder. 
 

@Vanguard See how productive that was! 

8 minutes ago, longview said:

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.

Bwa ha ha! 

8 minutes ago, longview said:

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. 

How many embryos would it take before you would leave a single toddler to die?

[longview]

11 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.

There was a "holocaust" in which the entire world was wiped out except for Noah's family and a ark full of animals.  There was a "holocaust" in which Sodom and Gomorrah was wiped out after Lot and his two daughters were escorted out.  Plus there were several destructions carried out by His people under His mandate.  God even uses the wicked to destroy other wicked.  All were necessary because of the gross violence committed by the condemned in brutalizing people around them and even their little ones.  If you don't think God is a God of Justice then you are free to think like an atheist.

[Meadowchik]

17 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

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

Yup, and women are the ones enduring that process, in their bodies. Reproductive health is a huge part of a  woman's well-being and we often go through alot just to manage having bodies that are constantly naturally preparing to reproduce. The United States should be producing much better results for maternal health and infant mortality--trying to legalistically control the process more is not going to result in better healthcare for women 

[ttribe]

7 minutes ago, longview said:

There was a "holocaust" in which the entire world was wiped out except for Noah's family and a ark full of animals.  There was a "holocaust" in which Sodom and Gomorrah was wiped out after Lot and his two daughters were escorted out.  Plus there were several destructions carried out by His people under His mandate.  God even uses the wicked to destroy other wicked.  All were necessary because of the gross violence committed by the condemned in brutalizing people around them and even their little ones.  If you don't think God is a God of Justice then you are free to think like an atheist.

Hmmm, you forgot about Nephi being commanded to kill Laban and the children of Israel being commanded to kill all the men, women and children in the Promised Land. Of course, no one can actually prove that any god actually said anything of the sort, so you're really just defending the alleged 'morality' of historical (fictional?) figures. Regardless, it's not even debatable that you can claim abortion is ALWAYS morally wrong because it's 'murder' while still believing your god's actions were justifiable.

Edited July 14, 2022 by ttribe

[longview]

5 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

How many embryos would it take before you would leave a single toddler to die?

I have answered your question in a very straightforward manner.  If you did not understand, I'll say it again:  "the toddler has first priority".  Other considerations thus become moot.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 minutes ago, longview said:

I have answered your question in a very straightforward manner.  If you did not understand, I'll say it again:  "the toddler has first priority".  Other considerations thus become moot.

Well I agree with you. I will just gently point out that from where I’m sitting this result is 100 percent consistent with the idea that embryos are potential humans and toddlers are human. It seems entirely inconsistent to me with the idea that killing a toddler and killing an embryo are moral equivalents. 

[longview]

15 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Atleast you do acknowledge the travails of mortality. But I am not convinced that you're being realistic about that in your argument. I find that whatever travails exist, being pregnant can make them exponentially more complicated and sometimes worse.

Exponentially?  You are going overboard.  Still no justification for murder.  Fallen earth is NOT going to be a picnic.  Your wish for "just laws and regulations" is NOT going to overcome human nature and selfishness of carnal man.  In other words, man cannot create an utopia (despite the claims of communism).

15 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

You just can't know the particulars of every woman. You can repeat "murder" ad infinitum but you don't convince me of actual concern for the innocent, especially when you get carried away in a political rant. To me that just diminishes your argument as one using the unborn as a political football rather than beings we must endeavor to help.

I know enough that despite the billions of "lessons" experienced by uncountable men and women throughout history, children and young adults are going to do what they want to do.  Some will learn and be willing to listen to the wisdom of their elders.  Others will have accidents.  A number will choose to be hedonistic.  But regardless, the unborn have a right to life and must NOT be subject to dismemberment.

15 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

My point of view is that we cannot collectively help the unborn by trying to force women to birth them. That attitude comes married with other damaging perspectives that continue to harm women and children. 

Yes, back alley abortion is frightful.  But Pregnancy Centers can help.  Why in God's Name is Elizabeth Warren demanding that Pregnancy Centers be censured and shut down?  The woman's first option should be to visit those centers where resources can be provided that can help assuage the crisis.

15 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I think political will should have been channelled along time ago toward making the world better for women, which would naturally make it more amenable for bringing new life into the world.

As I said above, mere humans cannot create an utopia.  Actions have consequences.  Both good and bad.

[longview]

17 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Well I agree with you. I will just gently point out that from where I’m sitting this result is 100 percent consistent with the idea that embryos are potential humans and toddlers are human. It seems entirely inconsistent to me with the idea that killing a toddler and killing an embryo are moral equivalents. 

All life should be cherished.  Too many women consider abortion to be a very convenient form of contraception.  I consider your phrase "embryos are potential humans" to be propagandistic.  As I have already stated:  all embryos have their distinct DNAs and fully human from the moment of conception.

[ttribe]

2 minutes ago, longview said:

All life should be cherished.  Too many women consider abortion to be a very convenient form of contraception.  I consider your phrase "embryos are potential humans" to be propagandistic.  As I have already stated:  all embryos have their distinct DNAs and fully human from the moment of conception.

Except when they're 'wicked,' or babies of the 'wicked,' right?

[longview]

Just now, ttribe said:

Except when they're 'wicked,' or babies of the 'wicked,' right?

Do you believe:

1. there was a pre-existence in which we became spirit children of Heavenly Parents?
2. that we eventually plateaued off in making further progress in our desire to be like God?
3. at which point God offered a Plan of Redemption where we would be born into a fallen world to be tested in so many ways and learn powerful means for transformations into becoming like Him?
4. in order for that to work, we would have the "veil of forgetfulness" placed over our minds?
5. that free agency is essential for us to directly experience the effects of our choices?
6. we will learn that although we are free to choose, we are NOT free to get the consequences that we desire (depending on our choices)?
7. are you faulting God for offering us this bounty?
8. Satan's plan simply will NOT work (making everybody behave like automatons)?

[ttribe]

14 minutes ago, longview said:

Do you believe:

1. there was a pre-existence in which we became spirit children of Heavenly Parents?
2. that we eventually plateaued off in making further progress in our desire to be like God?
3. at which point God offered a Plan of Redemption where we would be born into a fallen world to be tested in so many ways and learn powerful means for transformations into becoming like Him?
4. in order for that to work, we would have the "veil of forgetfulness" placed over our minds?
5. that free agency is essential for us to directly experience the effects of our choices?
6. we will learn that although we are free to choose, we are NOT free to get the consequences that we desire (depending on our choices)?
7. are you faulting God for offering us this bounty?
8. Satan's plan simply will NOT work (making everybody behave like automatons)?

What I believe is irrelevant. I am pointing out the inherent conflict of your position. Your zealotry and resulting black and white thinking have created an enormous blind spot in your reasoning. You can try to justify and rationalize your god's murderous ways by referring to whatever doctrine you wish, but you cannot simultaneously hold that "all life is precious" and "all abortion" is "murder" while still claiming that murder is justified if someone says their god told them to do it. By that reasoning then, if I was a woman (which I'm not) and, through no fault of my own, I had an unwanted pregnancy, then if I prayed about an abortion and believed my god told me it was okay, then I'm perfectly justified in your world. If that is the case, then you should be advocating for all women considering abortion to just pray about it, not advocating for a secular government to enact restrictive and oppressive laws. I mean, you believe in personal revelation and you believe that god has, in fact, commanded the murder of babies in the past, so really you seem to be arguing the wrong thing.

Edited July 14, 2022 by ttribe

[longview]

2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

so really you seem to be arguing the wrong thing.

I don't think I am rationalizing God's Fallen Earth approach.  If you don't think the Plan of Redemption is meaningful or important to you, then we just will have that discussion in the next world.

[ttribe]

13 minutes ago, longview said:

I don't think I am rationalizing God's Fallen Earth approach.  If you don't think the Plan of Redemption is meaningful or important to you, then we just will have that discussion in the next world.

Then you need to stop saying that "all abortion is murder" and that "all life should be cherished" as justification for your argument, because you clearly don't actually believe that.

Edited July 14, 2022 by ttribe

[longview]

54 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Then you need to stop saying that "all abortion is murder" and that "all life should be cherished" as justification for your argument, because you clearly don't actually believe that.

You have injected an unnecessary absolute.  I did not rule out abortion for mothers in danger.  It remains my perspective that the most ideal situation is for couples (heterosexual) to honor the sanctity of the marriage covenant and follow God's will in bearing and caring for children.

[ttribe]

21 minutes ago, longview said:

You have injected an unnecessary absolute.  I did not rule out abortion for mothers in danger.  It remains my perspective that the most ideal situation is for couples (heterosexual) to honor the sanctity of the marriage covenant and follow God's will in bearing and caring for children.

'Unnecessary absolute?" I used your words. Blind spot, indeed.

ETA: Remember this?

 

Edited July 15, 2022 by ttribe

[smac97]

21 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Not a response inviting a discussion but just so you know:

 

Is this not your position??

For the most part, yes.

21 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Have you not presented it?

I did in that other thread, but I don't recall you responding to it then.  And you did not cite to in this thread.  You did say this:

Quote

From the outside your position (that embryos are people) makes no sense. What is clear though is that the church’s stance does not treat in utero life the same as life that is already born. It’s never acceptable to kill a person because they are the product of rape. It’s never acceptable to kill a person to save the life of another (without their consent). Those are things we just don’t do to people. 

The first sentence does not meaningfully interact with the Nine Principles I laid out in May. 

The second sentence is kinda sort okay, but it pertains to the Church's stance, not my own.  It also doesn't address D&C 59:6.

The third sentence is perhaps relevant to the points I made in "Principle 2" and "Principle 4."  However, I don't think you have ever addressed those points.

The fourth sentence is perhaps relevant to the points I made in "Principle 3."  Again, I don't think you have ever addressed those points.

21 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

If that’s not it (as well as previous back and forth that we’ve had on the subject as well) let me know and perhaps I have some retracting to do. 

Well, let me lay out those principles again, with some revisions (and an addition) :

Principle 1 - Personhood: A fetus is, during its development, an inchoate person, but a person nonetheless.  The most reasonable and accurate position on the beginning of life is that it begins at conception.  We, as a society (that is, each individual state), must come to a decision about when we deem such a "life" to have, in a legal sense, "personhood."  With personhood comes attendant rights, and with those rights comes the power of the state to exercise jurisdiction over and provide legal protections for these persons.  As persons, each of us has value.  A lot.  A lot.  It is a central consideration in discussions about abortion.  Many of the justifications used for elective abortions (matters of convenience, expense, preference, etc.) are abhorrent, even evil, and ought not be tolerated where the life of the child - who has personhood - is at stake.  If a young mother is having difficulties with her newborn, do we as a society take a 100% "hands off" approach and let her do whatever she wants?  Drug the baby so that he sleeps at night?  Strike the baby when he's crying?  Kill the baby if he's inconvenient?  No, no and no.  Why?  Because the child's personhood is acknowledged, and the government has a role in protecting the child.  The humanity, the personhood of the child is a central consideration here.

Principle 2 - Non-Volitional Pregnancies: There can be circumstances in which the pregnancy is not fairly attributed to the mother (rape, incest), such that she cannot be said to have consented to the conduct which precipitated the pregnancy.  In other words, free will has been materially undermined.  This may therefore create grounds for the state to craft limited and narrow exceptions to a general rule protecting the life of the unborn child.  {ETA: Pregnancy resulting from rape, coercion or deceit occurs without the consent of the mothers.  A woman who is involuntarily impregnated by force is situated quite differently from other contexts.}

Principle 3 - "Moral Dilemma" Pregnancies: There can also be circumstances in which there is a genuine moral dilemma, such as the life of the mother is materially at risk and/or where the child will not survive birth.  Society must therefore tolerate one terrible choice (death of the child) or another (death of the mother).  Again, this may create grounds for the state to craft limited and narrow exceptions to a general rule protecting the life of the unborn child.

Principle 4 - Pregnancy as a Reasonably Foreseeable Risk of Sex: Pregnancy is a known and foreseeable risk associated with engaging in sexual activity, such that absent force, coercion, deceit, mental defect, or substantial ignorance, a woman has the capacity to either A) avoid or B) accept that risk.  Because this risk is reasonably known and foreseeable, voluntary assumption of that risk (by voluntarily participating in the activity precipitating it) carries some measure of a personal responsibility, and even a legal obligation, to endure the foreseeable consequences, because once a pregnancy occurs, another's personhood and attendant rights are at stake. 

Principle 5 - Mitigating Effect of "Safe Haven" Laws: "Safe haven" laws allow abandonment of the newborn child, no questions asked.  This weakens the public policy argument pertaining to women being obligated to spend 18 years raising and paying for the child.  Also, those who truly find elective abortion to be abhorrent should prepare themselves and stand ready to adopt unwanted children abandoned by their birth mothers under such laws.

Principle 6 - Constitutional Considerations: The structure of the Constitution is better supported by leaving this issue to the states rather than to the Nine Enrobed Ones.

Principle 7 - Remembering Prior "Non-Persons": This is not the first time we as as a society have struggled to address the legal ramifications of granting personhood to parties previously denied it.  The stain of slavery is still on us, though it was abolished long ago.  Our country, our system of laws, treated black men, women and children as chattel, and refused them personhood and the legal rights associated therewith.  It took, and still takes, much effort to undo this terrible wrong.  It is now time to start undoing the terrible wrong of dehumanizing unborn children by denying them personhood and characterizing them as parasites, blobs of cells, and so on.

Principle 8 - Due Regard for Bodily Autonomy: We as a society ought to hold the concept of bodily autonomy in high regard.  Abortion is distinguishable from other manifestations of bodily autonomy because it involves the life of a baby.  The personhood of the child matters.

Principle 9 - Next Steps: We should continue to seek to use persuasion and education to reduce unwanted pregnancies, and to fund and provide resources for expectant mothers, and also inculcate society with the notion that human life, including the lives of the unborn, has incalculable worth.  We ought to work to overcome the misanthropy that has seeped into our society.

To which I would like to now add another:

Principle 10 - On "Hard Cases" and Non-Absolutes: There is an old legal maxim: "Hard cases make bad law."  The relationship between a mother and her unborn child is, as a function of biology, materially distinct from virtually all other types of interpersonal relationships.  This unique relationship can give rise to particularized tensions and conflicts between the rights of the mother and the rights of the child, tensions which lack corollaries in other interpersonal situations.  Consequently, comparisons to other my-right-versus-your-right scenarios will often be materially distinguishable or even altogether inapplicable.  Nevertheless, neither the mother nor the child have absolute or unassailable rights over the other.  

So, with these in place, here are my questions for you:

1. How is the "morality" of abortion determined by trimesters?
2. When, in your view, does "personhood" kick in?  
3. What event or benchmark occurs such as to trigger "personhood?"
4. On what factual and evidentiary basis does such a nonperson-to-person benchmark rest?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 15, 2022 by smac97

[SeekingUnderstanding]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

So, with these in place, here are my questions for you:

 

 

22 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Further conversation is pointless I’m afraid so feel free to dissect the post 24 ways and write an essay. The last word here is yours.
 

 

[Nofear]

I think there is some room for elevating the discussion of this thread to a greater level of sophistication (and much appreciation to the few that are endeavoring to do so). Here are some presentations that essentially mirror the video I posted. Though, the sources have much more than that too.

On the side of those that support unrestricted abortion, personhood isn't as relevant a question. It is not a right for one to enslave another.
"A fetus does not have a right to be in the womb of any woman, but is there by her permission. This permission may be revoked by the woman at any time, because her womb is part of her body...
What applies to a fetus, also applies to a physically dependent adult. If an adult—say a medical welfare recipient—must survive by being connected to someone else, they may only do so by the voluntary permission of the person they must be connected to. There is no such thing as the right to live by the efforts of someone else, i.e., there is no such thing as the right to enslave." (source)

On the side of those that oppose unrestricted abortion, personhood is somewhat relevant and non-aggression to persons is absolutely necessary moral foundation.
"[The] non-aggression principle is the foundation, the sine qua non, of a moral society. We owe others non-aggression. People who commit murder, theft, kidnapping, rape, or fraud, or fail to pay their just debts, are aggressors. ...
Non-aggression is an ongoing obligation: it is never optional for anyone, even pregnant women. If the non-aggression obligation did not apply, then earning money versus stealing it and consensual sex versus rape would be morally indifferent behaviors." (source)

 

PS: If one reads through the two sources I linked, no where is religion invoked. It is a red-herring.

[JAHS]

Arizona moves to impose abortion ban from 1800s as attorney general asks court to lift injunction

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, longview said:

I did not rule out abortion for mothers in danger. 

So you are just saying murder is justified sometimes?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

46 minutes ago, Nofear said:

 

On the side of those that oppose unrestricted abortion, personhood is somewhat relevant and non-aggression to persons is absolutely necessary moral foundation.
"[The] non-aggression principle is the foundation, the sine qua non, of a moral society. We owe others non-aggression. People who commit murder, theft, kidnapping, rape, or fraud, or fail to pay their just debts, are aggressors. ...
Non-aggression is an ongoing obligation: it is never optional for anyone, even pregnant women. If the non-aggression obligation did not apply, then earning money versus stealing it and consensual sex versus rape would be morally indifferent behaviors." (source)

 

PS: If one reads through the two sources I linked, no where is religion invoked. It is a red-herring.

Still browsing through the site, but on its face this falls flat. An unwanted pregnancy is definitely an aggressor. It literal attacks it’s mother’s body. It’s potentially fatal. It can result in months of bed rest and nausea. Does the law ever violate bodily autonomy of the parent in any other case? Are parents forced to provide blood transfusions to their children? Kidneys? There has to be a limit to what a child can demand from its parent and I think this “aggressor” argument works much more strongly on the pro choice side of the equation. Thanks for sharing though. I’ll browse through more later (though citing Rand is a pretty huge turn off for me  )

Edited July 15, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Meadowchik]

5 hours ago, longview said:

Exponentially?  You are going overboard.  Still no justification for murder.  Fallen earth is NOT going to be a picnic.  Your wish for "just laws and regulations" is NOT going to overcome human nature and selfishness of carnal man.  In other words, man cannot create an utopia (despite the claims of communism).

Of course, exponentially. The difference between being able to work or not, being able to finish school/training or not, being able to care for other children or not, being able to leave an abuser or not...these are very common and realistic situations. 

But you framing the travail as inevitable really doesn't help your case.

5 hours ago, longview said:

I know enough that despite the billions of "lessons" experienced by uncountable men and women throughout history, children and young adults are going to do what they want to do.  Some will learn and be willing to listen to the wisdom of their elders.  Others will have accidents.  A number will choose to be hedonistic.  But regardless, the unborn have a right to life and must NOT be subject to dismemberment.

So unplanned pregnancy is only a result of selfishness and hedonism eh?

Do you know that married women with children have elective abortions? And if they do so, very often because of financial hardship?

5 hours ago, longview said:

Yes, back alley abortion is frightful.  But Pregnancy Centers can help.  Why in God's Name is Elizabeth Warren demanding that Pregnancy Centers be censured and shut down?  The woman's first option should be to visit those centers where resources can be provided that can help assuage the crisis.

My guess is that they are often staffed by nonmedical personnel giving medical advice, is a major reason.

5 hours ago, longview said:

As I said above, mere humans cannot create an utopia.  Actions have consequences.  Both good and bad.

Humans can do better to help each other. You're willing to support a massive law to try to make the world better, so I see a contradiction here: you telling me utopia is impossible yet you trying to force your own vision upon other people.

Edited July 15, 2022 by Meadowchik

[longview]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

So you are just saying murder is justified sometimes?

If the church issues guidelines for exceptions allowing for abortions in the case of the mother's precarious condition, then the choice must be made for the mother.  However I question how can an abortion be done?  By dismemberment?  By poisoning the unborn in the womb?  In my opinion, I think a C-section is the simplest and most expeditious procedure for ending the mother's pregnancy.  At the same time, the child can be retrieved and nurtured with the best medical care.  I have read cases of the baby as small as the palm of the hand live to become vibrant and viable.  It is VERY rare for a mother to require emergency termination of her pregnancy.  You cannot trust the propaganda from the abortionist lobby.

[Meadowchik]

2 hours ago, Nofear said:

I think there is some room for elevating the discussion of this thread to a greater level of sophistication (and much appreciation to the few that are endeavoring to do so). Here are some presentations that essentially mirror the video I posted. Though, the sources have much more than that too.

On the side of those that support unrestricted abortion, personhood isn't as relevant a question. It is not a right for one to enslave another.
"A fetus does not have a right to be in the womb of any woman, but is there by her permission. This permission may be revoked by the woman at any time, because her womb is part of her body...
What applies to a fetus, also applies to a physically dependent adult. If an adult—say a medical welfare recipient—must survive by being connected to someone else, they may only do so by the voluntary permission of the person they must be connected to. There is no such thing as the right to live by the efforts of someone else, i.e., there is no such thing as the right to enslave." (source)

On the side of those that oppose unrestricted abortion, personhood is somewhat relevant and non-aggression to persons is absolutely necessary moral foundation.
"[The] non-aggression principle is the foundation, the sine qua non, of a moral society. We owe others non-aggression. People who commit murder, theft, kidnapping, rape, or fraud, or fail to pay their just debts, are aggressors. ...
Non-aggression is an ongoing obligation: it is never optional for anyone, even pregnant women. If the non-aggression obligation did not apply, then earning money versus stealing it and consensual sex versus rape would be morally indifferent behaviors." (source)

 

PS: If one reads through the two sources I linked, no where is religion invoked. It is a red-herring.

I would agree with the first quote. 

The second, I would say that person hood is at the foundation of moral society. Abortion bans are a result of denying person hood of the woman and is like enslavement. Aggression can sometimes be necessary to defend a person.

When my eldest son was about nine, he was being harassed on his way home from school by a classmate. The school eventually helped with the situation, but in the meantime I told him that if he was being cornered or hurt, he has the right to fight free. I made very clear though that once he was able to leave the situation, he should get away and get home. In other words, only be aggressive if necessary.

To me, it would not have been moral to tell him he must absorb blows passively from his schoolmate.