The Effect of "Abortion Rights" on the Political Landscape

jamil said:

First you'd have to establish that it is murder. Those who do it think they're justified.

Click to expand...

Take it to its logical conclusion:

Capital Punishment for anyone who has had, performed, or funded an abortion, because…murder.

Criminalizing abortion doesn’t stop women from seeking abortions, it stops them from getting safe abortions.

I don’t think people appreciate how many criminals a law like this creates.

The largest single group of abortion users is the US is Christian women, a majority of whom report already having kids. In many cases these women use their marital finances to fund their abortion.

Bug wants to send PTA moms to the electric chair because they take pills that cause them to miscarry.

Does the idea sound stupid yet? It gets worse the closer you look.

A mifepristone and misoprostol abortion produces a miscarriage. How will the law know which miscarriages were natural versus induced?

How long will it be before some anti-choice crusading prosecutor who thinks like Bug hauls a devastated, grieving young woman into criminal court on homicide charges because she cannot prove her miscarriage was unintended?

If you think I am being overly hyperbolic, just remember Rokita and the 10-year old incest rape victim from Ohio.

You know…stupid ****.

LeftyGunner said:

Take it to its logical conclusion:

Capital Punishment for anyone who has had, performed, or funded an abortion, because…murder.

Criminalizing abortion doesn’t stop women from seeking abortions, it stops them from getting safe abortions.

I don’t think people appreciate how many criminals a law like this creates.

The largest single group of abortion users is the US is Christian women, a majority of whom report already having kids. In many cases these women use their marital finances to fund their abortion.

Bug wants to send PTA moms to the electric chair because they take pills that cause them to miscarry.

Does the idea sound stupid yet? It gets worse the closer you look.

A mifepristone and misoprostol abortion produces a miscarriage. How will the law know which miscarriages were natural versus induced?

How long will it be before some anti-choice crusading prosecutor who thinks like Bug hauls a devastated, grieving young woman into criminal court on homicide charges because she cannot prove her miscarriage was unintended?

If you think I am being overly hyperbolic, just remember Rokita and the 10-year old incest rape victim from Ohio.

You know…stupid ****.

Click to expand...

Babies who have been born also die of natural causes. By your logic, we should eliminate laws against infanticide, lest some poor grieving mother get dragged into court because her baby boy died of SIDS and she can't prove she didn't murder him.

LeftyGunner said:

Criminalizing abortion doesn’t stop women from seeking abortions, it stops them from getting safe abortions.

Click to expand...

That's not true. It won't stop all women that want an abortion from getting one. It will stop most of them.

AndreusMaximus said:

Babies who have been born also die of natural causes. By your logic, we should eliminate laws against infanticide, lest some poor grieving mother get dragged into court because her baby boy died of SIDS and she can't prove she didn't murder him.

Click to expand...

This is your dog chasing the car moment…publicly declaring that the government should be investigating SIDS moms and women who miscarry for murder charges is exactly how you turn public sentiment fully against you.

The anti-choice side can scream “abortion is murder” until they are blue in the face, but the vast majority of voters of all ideological stripes know this idea goes too far.

Abortion is the barrier reef that keeps your “red wave” from crashing ashore…and even Trump sees it.

AndreusMaximus said:

Also, didn't the ancient Egyptian practice infanticide?

Click to expand...

Haven't some Christians?

It looks like Egyptians actually didn't, according to Wikipedia anyway.

Ancient Egypt[edit]​

In Egyptian households, at all social levels, children of both sexes were valued and there is no evidence of infanticide.[17] The religion of the ancient Egyptians forbade infanticide and during the Greco-Roman period they rescued abandoned babies from manure heaps, a common method of infanticide by Greeks or Romans, and were allowed to either adopt them as foundling or raise them as slaves, often giving them names such as "copro -" to memorialize their rescue.[18] Strabo considered it a peculiarity of the Egyptians that every child must be reared.[19] Diodorus indicates infanticide was a punishable offence.[20] Egypt was heavily dependent on the annual flooding of the Nile to irrigate the land and in years of low inundation, severe famine could occur with breakdowns in social order resulting, notably between 930–1070 CE and 1180–1350 CE. Instances of cannibalism are recorded during these periods, but it is unknown if this happened during the pharaonic era of ancient Egypt.[21] Beatrix Midant-Reynes describes human sacrifice as having occurred at Abydos in the early dynastic period (c. 3150–2850 BCE),[22] while Jan Assmann asserts there is no clear evidence of human sacrifice ever happening in ancient Egypt.[23]

Click to expand...

LeftyGunner said:

This is your dog chasing the car moment…publicly declaring that the government should be investigating SIDS moms and women who miscarry for murder charges is exactly how you turn public sentiment fully against you.

The anti-choice side can scream “abortion is murder” until they are blue in the face, but the vast majority of voters of all ideological stripes know this idea goes too far.

Abortion is the barrier reef that keeps your “red wave” from crashing ashore…and even Trump sees it.

Click to expand...

He said no such thing.

KLB said:

He said no such thing.

Click to expand...

Perhaps I was a bit vague…I am not accusing AM of taking that position, I am trying to illustrate some of the unintended consequences of choosing to take that position.

I am trying to argue against a position, not accuse another poster of holding that position. (Edit: except for bug, because we have that kind of special friendship, he and I…)

My apologies for the gray.

LeftyGunner said:

This is your dog chasing the car moment…publicly declaring that the government should be investigating SIDS moms and women who miscarry for murder charges is exactly how you turn public sentiment fully against you.

The anti-choice side can scream “abortion is murder” until they are blue in the face, but the vast majority of voters of all ideological stripes know this idea goes too far.

Abortion is the barrier reef that keeps your “red wave” from crashing ashore…and even Trump sees it.

Click to expand...

As KLB, pointed out, investigating moms who miscarry for murder is your straw man.

The law says that killing a 3-month-old is murder. Somehow that law can exists without every mother whose child dies from natural causes quaking in her boots that she is going to be sent to the electric chair. A law saying that killing a 6-months-gestation child is murder should be no different. Or a newly conceived child, for that matter.

If a woman is brought to court being accused of murdering her own child, or hiring someone else to do it for her, it should be treated the same regardless of the child's age or physical location at the time of death. Innocent until proven guilty, only investigated when there is evidence of foul play. Consistent and logical, rather than based on emotion; that is the principle I keep going back to.

This entire line of argument that you just introduced is nothing but a combination of emotionally-charge arguments and straw men. Me personally, I am opposed to the death penalty, period. But even @BugI02, who thinks it should be used in some cases, said he only believes in the death penalty for heinous crimes that have no reasonable chance of rehabilitation. He can chime in and clarify, but somehow I very much doubt he has the notion that a distressed woman who takes the life of her own child at a point when she can emotionally convince herself that it's not even a human yet fits the bill for "heinous" and "no chance of rehabilitation."

KLB said:

Haven't some Christians?

Click to expand...

I'm not aware of any specific instances, but it wouldn't surprise me. Which reinforces my point about this not being a primarily religious issue. The fact is that most people attempt to bend their religion to justify their morals. Very few work the other way around by deriving their morals from their religion, otherwise you would see consistent morals among people of the same religion, and Heaven knows we don't have that.

KLB said:

It looks like Egyptians actually didn't, according to Wikipedia anyway.

Infanticide - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Click to expand...

Interesting information, I wasn't aware of most of that. Like I said, ancient Egyptian history is certainly not my forte.

AndreusMaximus said:

This entire line of argument that you just introduced is nothing but a combination of emotionally-charge arguments and straw men. Me personally, I am opposed to the death penalty, period. But even @BugI02, who thinks it should be used in some cases, said he only believes in the death penalty for heinous crimes that have no reasonable chance of rehabilitation. He can chime in and clarify, but somehow I very much doubt he has the notion that a distressed woman who takes the life of her own child at a point when she can emotionally convince herself that it's not even a human yet fits the bill for "heinous" and "no chance of rehabilitation."

Click to expand...

Where’s the straw man?

Did Bug post that abortion is premeditated murder or not?

Is murder a capital crime or not?

Would legally framing abortion as murder grant new prosecutorial powers to the state or not?

Like it or not, legally defining abortion as murder also legally changes the definition of miscarriage…abortion as murder creates a legal expectation of live birth for every zygote. Failure to give birth to a zygote you have created must be first defined as homicide before intentionally failing to do so can be defined as murder.

If failing to provide a live birth for your unborn intentionally meets the standard for murder, then failing to provide a live birth for your unborn unintentionally necessarily meets the standard for manslaughter…the “rights“ of the unborn to a live birth dictate as much.

This is why I argue that any fetal ”right” to birth is entirely contingent on a mother’s consent to endure it.

Yes, my argument has an overtly emotional element. Women tend to consider emotions when making important decisions for themselves, like the availability of abortion, and who to vote for this November. Ignore arguments from emotion at your own peril.

LeftyGunner said:

Where’s the straw man?

Click to expand...

The first straw man was when you said: "Bug wants to send PTA moms to the electric chair because they take pills that cause them to miscarry."

Bug never said that he thinks everyone who commits premeditated murder should be given the death penalty. He said it should be reserved for "...an adult or near adult human who has committed a crime or crimes so heinous as to cause society to conclude there is little possibility of rehabilitation, thus society opts for zero recidivism." (Post #363) You then jumped to the conclusion that he considers every single case of a woman committing abortion as "a crime or crimes so heinous as to cause society to conclude there is little possibility of rehabilitation", which he did not claim.

Here's the second straw man:

LeftyGunner said:

Like it or not, legally defining abortion as murder also legally changes the definition of miscarriage…abortion as murder creates a legal expectation of live birth for every zygote. Failure to give birth to a zygote you have created must be first considered homicide before intentionally failing to do so can be considered murder.

If failing to provide a live birth for your unborn intentionally meets the standard for murder, then failing to provide a live birth for your unborn unintentionally necessarily meets the standard manslaughter…the “rights“ of the unborn to a live birth dictate as much.

Click to expand...

There is absolutely no logical basis for this. Defining abortion as murder does not change the definition of miscarriage in any way, any more than defining infanticide as murder changes the legal definition of SIDS.

If you intentionally end the life of a child, that's murder.

If through gross negligence, you directly (albeit, unintentionally) end the life of a child, that's manslaughter.

If, through natural causes that are no fault of yours, your child dies, then you aren't guilty of anything.

We can easily see that these three statements are simple and moral to apply to born children. I don't know why you insist on pretending that they can't be logically applied to unborn children.

LeftyGunner said:

Yes, my argument has an overtly emotional element. Women tend to consider emotions when making important decisions for themselves, like the availability of abortion, and who to vote for this November. Ignore arguments from emotion at your own peril.

Click to expand...

Okay, are we right now writing the script for a campaign ad directed at the general population, or are we engaged in a reasoned, intellectual debate about morals? If the latter, I don't see the need or place for arguments from emotion.

AndreusMaximus said:

The first straw man was when you said: "Bug wants to send PTA moms to the electric chair because they take pills that cause them to miscarry."

Bug never said that he thinks everyone who commits premeditated murder should be given the death penalty. He said it should be reserved for "...an adult or near adult human who has committed a crime or crimes so heinous as to cause society to conclude there is little possibility of rehabilitation, thus society opts for zero recidivism." (Post #363) You then jumped to the conclusion that he considers every single case of a woman committing abortion as "a crime or crimes so heinous as to cause society to conclude there is little possibility of rehabilitation", which he did not claim.

Click to expand...

Bug stated that abortion is premeditated murder.

Murder is a capital offense. if you approve of abortion as murder you approve of capital punishment for abortion.

No straw man.

AndreusMaximus said:

Here's the second straw man:

There is absolutely no logical basis for this.

Click to expand...

There absolutely is, but it requires you to think like a lawyer.

Classifying abortion as murder necessarily creates a legal expectation of live birth that does not currently exist in law…and certainly does not exist in nature.

AndreusMaximus said:

Defining abortion as murder does not change the definition of miscarriage in any way, any more than defining infanticide as murder changes the legal definition of SIDS.

Click to expand...

Legally, it does.

It creates a legal burden to provide a live birth to every zygote created…that’s what a “fetal right to life” means in practical and legal terms.

AndreusMaximus said:

If you intentionally end the life of a child, that's murder.

Click to expand...

Sure, but for legal purposes children don’t exist until they are born...there is no concept in law that currently legitimizes the idea of a “conception certificate”.

Legally speaking, children are not alive until they take their first breath, even though this concept Is not entirely in line with biological reality.

AndreusMaximus said:

If through gross negligence, you directly (albeit, unintentionally) end the life of a child, that's manslaughter.

If, through natural causes that are no fault of yours, your child dies, then you aren't guilty of anything.

We can easily see that these three statements are simple and moral to apply to born children. I don't know why you insist on pretending that they can't be logically applied to unborn children.

Click to expand...

Miscarriage expels a living fetus, if the fetus died of natural causes in utero the resulting expulsion is a stillbirth.

Literally…by “abortion is murder” standards, a miscarriage is an involuntary homicide.

AndreusMaximus said:

Okay, are we right now writing the script for a campaign ad directed at the general population, or are we engaged in a reasoned, intellectual debate about morals? If the latter, I don't see the need or place for arguments from emotion.

Click to expand...

The title of the thread is The effect on “Abortion Rights“ on the political landscape not debating the morality of abortion.

For the purposes of this thread and it’s stated topic, I am arguing that abortion as murder is a stupid position to hold in this political landscape.

LeftyGunner said:

Bug stated that abortion is premeditated murder.

Murder is a capital offense. if you approve of abortion as murder you approve of capital punishment for abortion.

No straw man.

Click to expand...

100% a straw man. No matter how many times you claim that everyone thinks every act of murder deserves the death penalty, it won't make it any more true, because not everyone believes that.

LeftyGunner said:

There absolutely is, but it requires you to think like a lawyer.

Classifying abortion as murder necessarily creates a legal expectation of live birth that does not currently exist in law…and certainly does not exist in nature.

Click to expand...

Again, you keep repeating obviously untrue things. I keep asking, but getting no answer: If classifying abortion as murder would mean every time a child dies in utero is an act of manslaughter, then why doesn't classifying infanticide as murder do the same thing for a child dying outside the womb?

LeftyGunner said:

Legally, it does.

It creates a legal burden to provide a live birth to every zygote created…that’s what a “fetal right to life” means in practical and legal terms.

Click to expand...

No it doesn't. You keep trying to conflate a positive injunction with a negative one. "Right to life" means "don't intentionally kill a person", not that it's your responsibility to make sure this person doesn't die of any cause whatsoever. Saying "don't kill this person" absolutely does not equate to "if this person dies, we're holding you responsible even if it wasn't your fault." Neither in conversational, practical, nor legal terms.

This is so patently obvious, that I'm starting to wonder if you're being genuine at all here.

LeftyGunner said:

Sure, but for legal purposes children don’t exist until they are born...there is no concept in law that currently legitimizes the idea of a “conception certificate”.

Click to expand...

Yes there is. There' are cases where someone other than the mother has killed an unborn child and been charged with manslaughter.

LeftyGunner said:

Legally speaking, children are not alive until they take their first breath, even though this concept Is not entirely in line with biological reality.

Click to expand...

It's funny that you readily admit that you reject biological reality in favor of current law.

LeftyGunner said:

Miscarriage expels a living fetus, if the fetus died of natural causes in utero the resulting expulsion is a stillbirth.

Click to expand...

I've known several women who had what you call stillbirths, including my own mother, and I've always heard them refer to it as a miscarriage, so this definition is new to me. But I really don't see what that changes. Actually, this makes my point even more clear. In what fantasy world does a law that simple says "Unborn children are humans, don't murder them" lead to "this child was clearly alive at the time your body expelled it without your consent or control, but since it then later passed away due to the fact that no medical technology exists that could save its life, we're charging you with murder"?

LeftyGunner said:

Literally…by “abortion is murder” standards, a miscarriage is an involuntary homicide.

Click to expand...

Yes, that's what it is in reality. But you keep conflating involuntary homicide with manslaughter. Manslaughter means there was gross negligence involved. But when it's something that no person can reasonably be expected to control, it's not manslaughter, and there's no guilt. We literally apply this to every human being outside the womb with no problem, why should a pre-born human be different? If a doctor makes an honest mistake it can result in involuntary homicide, but we don't use that as an excuse to say that doctors need the right to kill all their patients.

LeftyGunner said:

The title of the thread is The effect on “Abortion Rights“ on the political landscape not debating the morality of abortion.

For the purposes of this thread and it’s stated topic, I am arguing that abortion as murder is a stupid position to hold in this political landscape.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, up until this paragraph I didn't pick up on any claims you were making regarding politics in your most recent string of posts. I thought you were making the claim that granting basic human rights to unborn children necessarily leads to women who miscarry being prosecuted with murder and/or manslaughter.

If you are only saying that, while the above is not the case, this is how it appears when viewed in an irrational, emotion-based assessment, then I can concede you may be right.

AndreusMaximus said:

Well, being concise has never been a gift of mine... Thank you very much for taking the time to read and respond to my entire essay.

Edit: Holy smokes, I just hit post and then scrolled through this entire tome that I just typed up, I didn't even realize how ridiculously long it got. If you don't have time to respond to the whole thing, feel free to just reply to the first couple points, as I think they're the most important points to iron out if we're to have an intelligible conversation. Or do whatever you want, of course, it's the internet and I'm not your boss, lol.

Click to expand...

I get that. I'm thinking through the reply on the keyboard. So it becomes a thought stream instead of thinking it, then parsing it into a short answer. I just cut out the middle man.

AndreusMaximus said:

Can you give an example of something that is objectively false, under you definition? It seems to me that you could potentially perceive literally anything as true if you take a contorted enough point of view. So under your definition, couldn't anything be "subjectively true"?

Click to expand...

I'm going to assume you wanted me to give an example of objectively false given the second line. Also, we agreed on my definition of objectively true. My definition of objectively false just flips the bit.

I gave you examples of subjectively true. To you, I'm sure you believe in "thou shalt not take the Lord's name in vein." But that's a subjective truth. It's only true for religious people. Consider unknown truths. A claim of truth where the truth value is actually unknowable, that's always going to be a subjective truth. Subjective truths can actually turn out to be true. Should I really not take the Lord's name in vein? I suspect you're sure of the answer to the affirmative. I suspect not, but it's not testable; not falsifiable, so one can't know. It's subjective.

Some more thought stream here. Morals usually are based on some form of harm to others or self. Bearing false witness is wrong. Deception for the purpose of harm, or personal gain without regard to harm of others, is morally wrong. It's universally true. So I think that to explain subjective morals within this context would be a moral statement that asserts some kind of harm that isn't apparent universally. It's not apparent to me that taking the Lord's name in vein is actually causing harm. I would have to believe in the religion to think that it does.

AndreusMaximus said:

Believing that one's left hand is inherently unclean is the erroneous belief. Believing that there is any moral dimension to it is also erroneous.

Click to expand...

Is this not a reason we both would call it a subjective moral? It's only true for the people who think that. Believing that one's left hand is inherently unclean (and I don't know enough about this belief to say "inherently" applies) fulfills the purpose of morals. It prevents self-harm by its adherents. It's what I call "accidentally true". But, the underlying premise is incomplete; outdated. It's one way to avoid ingesting harmful bacteria. Is there something sacred about cleanliness? A lot of religions have that concept.

AndreusMaximus said:

It has a connection to a practical truth, which is, as you said that before people had the easy option of washing their hands with clean water, they'd probably get diseases if they ate with the same hand they wiped with. But one is false, the other is true. And the way I use the words "true" or "false", I don't perceived any difference whether or not they have the word "objectively" in front of them, other than for emphasis.

Click to expand...

Now do the first few of the 10 commandments, which relate to your moral commitment to God. Those presume facts not falsifiable. If you believe in a "truth" that is unfalsifiable, it doesn't mean the thing you believe is false. It means you can't test it to prove it's false, so by definition it is a subjective moral.

Take the rest of the 10 commandments. Those are objective morals. Disobeying those morals objectively causes harm to others or yourself. It's testable.

AndreusMaximus said:

Yes, I do believe that one. But I don't describe it as relatively/subjectively true, because I believe it's true for everyone, and in reality ought to be followed by everyone. It's objectively true (which, as I just said, is really no different than just saying it's "true", other than the added emphasis.) I do realize that its truth cannot be perceived by secular reasoning alone, and one must have some degree of faith to see it, which is why I don't advocate making it into a secular law. But that doesn't make it any less true in my mind.

Click to expand...

But it is subjectively true for the reasons I stated above. It meets the definition of subjective truth. Which, wouldn't you use the same reasoning to determine whether we should legislate not taking the Lord's name in vein to abortion then? You believe it's true, but because secular reasoning alone cannot perceive the harm, should you legislate that?

AndreusMaximus said:

"A statement of logical fallacy can still be true."

I'm not sure I understand this, can you give an example?

Click to expand...

Sure. Take "argument from authority". It's a logical fallacy. It doesn't mean that the conclusion isn't true. It just means that it's faulty because the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. If you say 97% of scientists say global warming is a problem that must be solved right away, therefore we should endure every hardship to stop it. The conclusion doesn't logically follow from the premise that 97% of scientists claim it. Scientific consensus can be wrong. But. The fallacy used doesn't make the conclusion wrong. It's that this conclusion, to be logical, depends on a better argument.

AndreusMaximus said:

I think I got my statement switched around by accident.

I understand that you believe morals change/evolve. I'm the one saying that they don't.

Click to expand...

I admit that wording was clunky and imprecise. I think it's better stated as understanding of morals evolve as we apply them to new things. For example, I've said morals really deal with harming self or others in a malicious or careless way. Probably could use some other adjectives that explain the point better. For example, if humans had seen clearly that enslaving people causes harm, capturing people and selling them into slavery wouldn't have happened. But for most of human history, people enslaved other people. The thing that evolved wasn't the no-harm moral from which other morals sort of drill down into specificity. It was the specificity that evolved. A moral prinicple of individual liberty has always been there. But it took human social evolution a long time to derive language around it.

AndreusMaximus said:

Well, now that I put it like that, I realize that I failed to make a distinction. Morals, as in what the people believe is right or wrong, do change, obviously. But I believe in laws of morality that are objective and unchanging, just like laws of nature.

Click to expand...

Don't we need to discover those as humans evolve socially? Mutilating children for gender ideology is immoral as ****, but 10 years ago most people didn't even know it existed. It would always be immoral, but now we have to recognize it.

AndreusMaximus said:

Our understanding of both can change and evolve, but the laws themselves never change. To the extent that our beliefs coincide with or deviate from reality, they are either true or false. This is equally true of scientific and of moral knowledge.

Click to expand...

This is how I should have stated it, except that it's more like layers of abstraction. So as morals evolve the applications become more fine grained. So golden rule, and maybe that gets applied to not maliciously killing people, not lying about people, not stealing people's stuff, etcetera.

AndreusMaximus said:

Well, it seems we haven't even managed to get on the same page regarding what constitutes an objective moral, so until we arrive at some common definition, can you hold off on dismissing my case just yet?

Click to expand...

I don't think we're all that far on what an objective moral is. Can we agree on this? That the underlying truth statement that establishes an objective moral should be falsifiable. If it's based on faith, then whose faith prevails? Yours? Well, everyone thinks their faith is true. You're no more convinced about yours than a Muslim is about his.

AndreusMaximus said:

Well, I can't promise to "make it obvious." Morals are not generally obvious. If people only abide by morals that seem "obvious" to them, society generally ends up doing pretty messed up stuff. I think that just about sums up a great deal of human history.

Click to expand...

No, I think objective morals are generally obvious, which I think is why those are the ones that are widespread. Though the applications are not always obvious. That's why they became morals. Even subjective morals.

AndreusMaximus said:

To arrive at morals with non-religious reasoning, I contend that we need to start with the very most basic moral truths, that are self-evident to anyone who isn't a complete psychopath, and then apply a test of logical consistency.

So, as we both agree, it should be one of these obvious, self-evident truths that you don't murder an innocent person. Using that as a starting point, we have to then test our definitions of "murder" and "person" to make sure they stay logically consistent. I would contend that if you allow exceptions that don't make logical sense, then that alone is proof that your definition is a false one.

Click to expand...

I think first you need to define murder so we understand it the same way. I say murder is the unjustified killing of a person. So there are really three things in that which make it less objective than you'd like it to be. "unjustified" and "person" are two. "Harm" is the third, which is implied by calling it a moral. Is it harm to end the exact beginning of what will become a person? It's unique human dna. Is it person? I think because of your underlying religious beliefs you view it as more absolute than it is, just like you view not taking the Lord's name in vein as more absolute than it is. From my perspective, as a moral, that puts it in the subjective category.

AndreusMaximus said:

That's why we've gone round and round in this debate, because I keep trying to make the case that defining a pre-born child as not being a person is logically inconsistent. But to you, it seems that logical consistency is not the question that matters, but rather that we should just stick to what most societies/people have believe in history.

Click to expand...

I thought I had explained the highlighted, that this is not my position and yet it's still in the discussion. Again, the history is an indicator of an objective moral. Lack of history is not proof that it's not. I'm not saying we should adjust our morals to align with history. I'm saying that if our morals do align with history, that confirms it's an objective moral.

I think my position is logically consistent the way I've laid it out. So I do think logical consistency matters. I think your faith is strong and you believe it to be the same as objectively true. So you're having a difficult time seeing the other perspective. But you're free to pinpoint exactly where you believe the logical inconsistencies are. Maybe I've overlooked something.

AndreusMaximus said:

That's where we need to take a step back and first agree on what principle we are using to argue for objective morals. That's why I guess my first goal is to demonstrate that using near-universality throughout history as an indicator can lead to flawed results.

Click to expand...

I can't believe we're still hung up on this point.

AndreusMaximus said:

If we can both agree on that, then we will be at the point where I can make the case that a test of logical consistency is a better indicator for moral truths. (Well, actually that's my second goal; my first goal is to arrive at agreed-upon definitions of objective vs subjective truth.)

Click to expand...

You can be logically consistent and still be wrong.

AndreusMaximus said:

Well, now it sounds like we have some hope of agreeing after all. Isn't this basically what I'm saying? Look for an underlying principle that has near-universality throughout history, then try to apply it with logical consistency. Maybe this is really what you've been saying all along, and we're closer to agreeing than what I thought.

Click to expand...

Yes, like I've said above and in other posts, I think morals drill down to greater specificity. The golden rule for example is probably at the pinnacle. Think of all the moral principles that do, and could flow from that.

AndreusMaximus said:

Now in the midst of typing all this, I'm just realizing that I do partially agree with the "near-universality throughout history" idea, but there's two ways I think it needs to be done differently. First of all, it is a starting point, not a final test. You start with these near-universal principles, and then try to apply them in a way that's logically consistent. But logical consistency has to be the ultimate test. Secondly, a very important distinction has to be made, which is the difference between finding a moral principle, vs. observing a behavior. The near-universal practice of slavery up until fairly recent history did not indicate a moral principle in favor of slavery, it just goes to show that people aren't very good at applying their moral principles with logical consistency.
How much of the above paragraph would you say you agree with?

Click to expand...

Again, I'm using it as a test to determine if a moral is absolute. If it's universal across time and religions/cultures; something everyone recognizes, that's obviously not a subjective local opinion. It's true for pretty much everyone. It had some common thing that connects it to everyone. I think that should answer the question.

AndreusMaximus said:

I admit I am not very well versed on this history. Was it late-term surgical abortion? Or was it "if you miss your period and don't want a baby take this cocktail of questionable herbs that if you're unlucky will kill you, but if you're lucky will end your pregnancy at a point where we, without modern scientific knowledge, have no way of recognizing a baby is there yet"?

Click to expand...

It was non-surgical. So they'd engage in activities that would often cause miscarriages. That's my recollection of the reading.

AndreusMaximus said:

Also, didn't the ancient Egyptian practice infanticide?

How would you phrase the core of your argument, then? Yes, I suppose I was far to flippant and inexact when I reduced it to "well, lots of people have always done it." But isn't the idea that abortion has been practiced a lot throughout history the main thrust of your argument against anti-abortion laws?

Click to expand...

No, I used it as evidence that it's not historically, universally considered immoral. Even the catholic church was down with abortion in very specific circumstances in the middle ages.

AndreusMaximus said:

I didn't mean to come across as overdramatic. I think I may have jumped the gun, and was trying to make an argument that needs to wait until we iron out some of the definitions/principles that we disagree on (or maybe agree on, but just misunderstand each other) as laid out above.

Click to expand...

AndreusMaximus said:

But there is one thing I want to clarify: You are arguing that there shouldn't be laws against abortion, right? If that's true, I don't see your personal beliefs as relevant to the conversation at all, so anything I say is meant to be targeted at your argument that abortion should be legal, and not at your personal beliefs.

Click to expand...

I'd state it more that I'm saying that outright banning abortion as it looks to me is morally relative to a subset of society. Basically Christians, Jews, and some secular conservatives. So that's why I've been asking you to make the case that it is morally absolute. If it were morally absolute, it should be more obvious to society. But as it is today, it's considered extreme by the mainstream. It's outside of Overton's window. Society is just not at the same place with the law you want. And to the topic of this thread, there are political consequences. It can cost elections. I suspect it had a lot to do with the petered out red wave of 2022.

AndreusMaximus said:

You have stated, if I understood correctly, that for you, abortion being wrong is a "subjective truth." But as far as I can see, that only affects your personal life. So if we leave aside your own personal decisions, which I have no business prying in to, then for the purposes of a debate over what secular laws should be, "subjectively true" really does become the effective same as "just plain false." In other words, how would it make any difference in the position you are arguing for, with regard to secular laws, if you believed abortion was "subjectively wrong", "subjectively right", or even "objectively right"?

Click to expand...

I kinda explained it in the section above. If it's objectively right, it should be more obvious that it's wrong. And I think more people would be in a place where they would not consider outright bans extreme. If it's only "wrong" for a subset of the population, that's not the basis for policies that people will tolerate. For years the policy was first trimester. And people were mostly okay with that, except the extremists. And about that, abortion on demand up to birth is considered extreme by the mainstream according to polls. So the extreme policies are, outright banning of it, and on demand anytime up to birth.

LeftyGunner said:

This is your dog chasing the car moment…publicly declaring that the government should be investigating SIDS moms and women who miscarry for murder charges is exactly how you turn public sentiment fully against you.

The anti-choice side can scream “abortion is murder” until they are blue in the face, but the vast majority of voters of all ideological stripes know this idea goes too far.

Abortion is the barrier reef that keeps your “red wave” from crashing ashore…and even Trump sees it.

Click to expand...

Can we all stop with the pretense and spinning of sides using retarded, virtue signaling contortions?

If you are fine with abortions, you're pro-abortion. If you want to end abortion you're anti-abortion. Choice my ass. It's a choice no matter what side your on. It's only a difference of when you make the choice. Don't **** irresponsibly and you probably won't need to make any further choices down the line.

And on the other side, it's just as much a virtue signal to rebrand anti-abortion as "pro-life". Be real.

jamil said:

First you'd have to establish that it is murder. Those who do it think they're justified.

Click to expand...

The point is pointing out just how important it is for their belief structure to have it just be 'a ball of cells'. If they ever admit to themselves they're killing a person the false justification they feel will collapse

A reminder (CED):
murder
noun
the crime of intentionally killing a person:

The only way out of that box is to change the meaning of 'person', as they have sought to do

Some of us believe they will have a tougher time deploying semantics on judgement day

AndreusMaximus said:

100% a straw man. No matter how many times you claim that everyone thinks every act of murder deserves the death penalty, it won't make it any more true, because not everyone believes that.

Click to expand...

I don’t want to keep going around in circles about this, but I do want to try address the disconnect I am seeing between our arguments.

Murder, the crime, is specifically defined as a capital offense.

Treating abortion as murder means abortion is a capital offense…by definition.

Any and every capital offense is carries the risk of capital punishment, again…by definition.

If you support treating abortion as murder under US law, then you support capital punishment for abortion…by definition.

This is not a straw argument...if abortion itself does not warrant capital punishment abortion itself does not rise to the level of a capital crime

There is no way around it…if you support abortion as murder you support capital punishment for abortion…by definition.

AndreusMaximus said:

Again, you keep repeating obviously untrue things. I keep asking, but getting no answer: If classifying abortion as murder would mean every time a child dies in utero is an act of manslaughter, then why doesn't classifying infanticide as murder do the same thing for a child dying outside the womb?

Click to expand...

Your example is not logically consistent.

“If every time a child dies in utero is an act of manslaughter”

…this is only true where a legal expectation of live birth is afforded to the unborn, which does not currently occur in US law, but would be true under “Abortion is Murder”.

“then why doesn’t classifying infanticide as murder do the same thing for a child dying outside the womb.”

I don’t follow your logic here. Infanticide is most commonly defined as murder of a dependent aged less than 12 months.

Abortion is not legally defined as murder, so it cannot meet the legal definition of infanticide.

Is there another example you can use to illustrate this point? I want to avoid talking past one another on this point…it seems to be central to your position, and I want to be sure I understand the point as you intend to make it.

AndreusMaximus said:

No it doesn't. You keep trying to conflate a positive injunction with a negative one. "Right to life" means "don't intentionally kill a person", not that it's your responsibility to make sure this person doesn't die of any cause whatsoever. Saying "don't kill this person" absolutely does not equate to "if this person dies, we're holding you responsible even if it wasn't your fault." Neither in conversational, practical, nor legal terms.

Click to expand...

I think you are conflating your (perfectly valid) moral perspective with the legal definition of a right to life.

Being conceived does not grant a person legal rights…being born does.

AndreusMaximus said:

This is so patently obvious, that I'm starting to wonder if you're being genuine at all here.

Click to expand...

I am arguing from a different perspective than you, nothing more.

AndreusMaximus said:

Yes there is. There' are cases where someone other than the mother has killed an unborn child and been charged with manslaughter.

It's funny that you readily admit that you reject biological reality in favor of current law.

I've known several women who had what you call stillbirths, including my own mother, and I've always heard them refer to it as a miscarriage, so this definition is new to me. But I really don't see what that changes. Actually, this makes my point even more clear. In what fantasy world does a law that simple says "Unborn children are humans, don't murder them" lead to "this child was clearly alive at the time your body expelled it without your consent or control, but since it then later passed away due to the fact that no medical technology exists that could save its life, we're charging you with murder"?

Yes, that's what it is in reality. But you keep conflating involuntary homicide with manslaughter. Manslaughter means there was gross negligence involved. But when it's something that no person can reasonably be expected to control, it's not manslaughter, and there's no guilt. We literally apply this to every human being outside the womb with no problem, why should a pre-born human be different?

Click to expand...

Because these people exist entirely within another person, and the rights of that person take primacy.

AndreusMaximus said:

If a doctor makes an honest mistake it can result in involuntary homicide, but we don't use that as an excuse to say that doctors need the right to kill all their patients.

I'm sorry, up until this paragraph I didn't pick up on any claims you were making regarding politics in your most recent string of posts. I thought you were making the claim that granting basic human rights to unborn children necessarily leads to women who miscarry being prosecuted with murder and/or manslaughter.

Click to expand...

That is probably due to an excess of ambiguity in my writing style…and I am most certainly guilty.

Legal right are an attempt to protect human rights, but are not a 1:1 analogue. The law doesn’t create human rights, it creates legal rights, and every one of those contain unintended consequences that must be addressed.

AndreusMaximus said:

If you are only saying that, while the above is not the case, this is how it appears when viewed in an irrational, emotion-based assessment, then I can concede you may be right.

Click to expand...

This is where politics intersects with morality, and rational arguments are only one part of this landscape. When discussing political influence emotional, spiritual, and broader social attitudes are just as valid in moving the needle, and this thread seems to be geared toward discussion of the political effects of abortion more than the underlying morality involved,

jamil said:

It's only a difference of when you make the choice.

Click to expand...

Oh, it is worse than that. He thinks there is only one valid choice and that is the one he wishes to make

Thinking about whether you want a child, and taking precautions if you don't (or postponing the festivities if precautions aren't available) is too onerous a restriction to put on hedonism

One assumes he must be pro-STD also

BugI02 said:

The point is pointing out just how important it is for their belief structure to have it just be 'a ball of cells'. If they ever admit to themselves they're killing a person the false justification they feel will collapse

A reminder (CED):
murder
noun
the crime of intentionally killing a person:

The only way out of that box is to change the meaning of 'person', as they have sought to do

Some of us believe they will have a tougher time deploying semantics on judgement day

Click to expand...

I think that definition isn't useful. Is it murder if the state executes a violent felon? It's intentional. I think the answer is, only if he deserved it. I think unjustified or malicious, or negligent needs to be part of the definition if we're to derive a moral conclusion. You might say "unjustified" fits abortion. And someone else might say no it doesn't.

I don't think there's a secular reason to say that "a ball of cells" is exactly, morally, equal to a fully formed human. In one of the other discussions, I posted a photo of a baby in the mothers arms juxtaposed with a photo of an embryo. I asked the questions, are these equal morally?

I would wager that if we were to poll religious and non-religious people's answer to that question, the non-religious people would say no; the religious people would say yes. Or maybe a different way to break it down. Those who believe in immortal souls vs those who don't, are the two representations of "persons" morally equivalent? I strongly suspect the answer yes would overwhelmingly favor the immortal soul believers.

The purpose of the point about religion is not to disparage or say your view is invalid. But at least in a sense it is to show that it's not the consensus you'd like for a reason.

BugI02 said:

Oh, it is worse than that. He thinks there is only one valid choice and that is the one he wishes to make

Click to expand...

Well that would be moral relativism. And it does not consider the unborn. To me that is immoral because it irresponsibly disregards the importance of life. I don't need to decide if it's a person yet or not to know I think abortion is wrong.

BugI02 said:

Thinking about whether you want a child, and taking precautions if you don't (or postponing the festivities if precautions aren't available) is too onerous a restriction to put on hedonism

One assumes he must be pro-STD also

Click to expand...