Leaked/breaking:Roe v. Wade expected to be overturned

[chipbennett]

I have to say that jamil and Chip are really fleshing this out very well…

This is INGO. That could totally be taken the wrong way... (Jamil, love you, man!)

 

[chipbennett]

I think a lot of pro-abortion proponents think that pro-life proponents are morally wrong to say that a mother who chooses to abort is morally wrong.

My point is that I do not accept the argument assigning greater moral importance to the mother who chooses to terminate the life of a living gestating human in the womb.

I think those pro-abortion proponents are merely avoiding the issue regarding the morality of the decision to end a human life. I can theorize that, often, it is because that issue is uncomfortable. But, of course, I cannot know.

 

[KG1]

I think those pro-abortion proponents are merely avoiding the issue regarding the morality of the decision to end a human life. I can theorize that, often, it is because that issue is uncomfortable. But, of course, I cannot know.

As an admitted pro-life proponent, I would assign a greater moral importance to the mother who carries the baby to full term and does the morally correct thing to give the baby up for adoption if they cannot provide for the baby. That's my idea of what would be most morally important over the choice to terminate.

 

[chipbennett]

As an admitted pro-life proponent, I would assign a greater moral importance to the mother who carries the baby to full term and does the morally correct thing to give the baby up for adoption if they cannot provide for the baby. That's my idea of what would be most morally important over the choice to terminate.

You and I are probably very closely - if not, entirely - aligned with respect to our personal beliefs on the issue of abortion.

 

[KG1]

You and I are probably very closely - if not, entirely - aligned with respect to our personal beliefs on the issue of abortion.

Yeah, unfortunately our views are ridiculed because they are mostly considered to be subjective because of our beliefs even though our views include scientifically recognized living human beings at the stage we most likely favor.

I'm not of the if they are "human enough" to grant them a moral right to live persuasion. Either they are living and human or they are not.

 

[Tombs]

That didn't work so well for chattel slavery.

The whole point of the Declaration of Independence is that unalienable human rights are not subject to the whims of man, whether monarchy, autocracy, or democracy. Our founders wrote the constitution to establish a federal, constitutional republic, explicitly rejecting a democracy - because a democracy does not adequately protect the rights of the majority against the whims of the majority.

I get your point, but my proposal is a fair compromise on the subject.

We aren't deciding human rights, we're deciding what is human; the point at which those rights are conferred.

Short of that proposal, I'm unsure how you'd decide the issue morally without injecting religion.

 

[chipbennett]

I get your point, but my proposal is a fair compromise on the subject.

We aren't deciding human rights, we're deciding what is human; the point at which those rights are conferred.

Short of that proposal, I'm unsure how you'd decide the issue morally without injecting religion.

I think I've just spent over 50 pages hashing this out with Jamil...

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I think I've just spent over 50 pages hashing this out with Jamil...

You guys have spent 50 pages worth of words in just a couple of posts each!

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I doubt that there's a way to rank threads according to average number of words per post, but this one would have to rank up near #1 if there were.

 

[oze]

I doubt that there's a way to rank threads according to average number of words per post, but this one would have to rank up near #1 if there were.

Meanwhile, I guess a new thread should be started in the event that some actual news about RvW is released .

 

[jamil]

Yeah, unfortunately our views are ridiculed because they are mostly considered to be subjective because of our beliefs even though our views include scientifically recognized living human beings at the stage we most likely favor.

I'm not of the if they are "human enough" to grant them a moral right to live persuasion. Either they are living and human or they are not.

I know some people ridicule people of your belief. I'm not ridiculing you, but your views are subjective. They're subject to your worldview. I think it can be hard to grok the thinking of someone who has a completely different outlook than you do. I think I can empathize with Christians on this issue, because I was one for many years. I can't grok the position of people who think abortions should be legal right up to birth! That's just foreign to me.

In terms of what the law is, my perspective isn't "at conception", but I do, like most people, think that there is a point where abortion becomes immoral. That's the point where the law should protect the life of the unborn, in my opinion. But personally I don't support abortion at all. I don't want tax money to fund it. If I can, I'd rather avoid products developed from research on aborted fetuses.

I don't call it a religious viewpoint that puts me in that place. But I do think there is something sacred about life, consciousness, self-awareness, etcetera. It's something I don't want to participate in ending. But since that is my own view, and society is all over the place on this, you know, because it is subjective, I don't support laws based on the views of a few people, relatively.

 

[LeftyGunner]

I think those pro-abortion proponents are merely avoiding the issue regarding the morality of the decision to end a human life. I can theorize that, often, it is because that issue is uncomfortable. But, of course, I cannot know.

I think you trivialize the risks inherent in pregnancy in order to dismiss a pregnant woman’s right to choose the path of least harm for herself.

Proving that gestating human life is actually, well, human life is only one part of the problem, as is determining when the law should recognize that gestating human as possessing basic human rights. Even if we assume that a two-cell zygote has full legal rights, there is still a potential conflict between those rights and the rights of the mother.

If a pregnant woman does not have a moral conflict with ending the life of her unborn child herself, why should I? That’s between her, her unborn child, and her moral authority, and in my view she alone speaks for all three.

thank you for your continued replies.!

 

[KG1]

I know some people ridicule people of your belief. I'm not ridiculing you, but your views are subjective. They're subject to your worldview. I think it can be hard to grok the thinking of someone who has a completely different outlook than you do. I think I can empathize with Christians on this issue, because I was one for many years. I can't grok the position of people who think abortions should be legal right up to birth! That's just foreign to me.

In terms of what the law is, my perspective isn't "at conception", but I do, like most people, think that there is a point where abortion becomes immoral. That's the point where the law should protect the life of the unborn, in my opinion. But personally I don't support abortion at all. I don't want tax money to fund it. If I can, I'd rather avoid products developed from research on aborted fetuses.

I don't call it a religious viewpoint that puts me in that place. But I do think there is something sacred about life, consciousness, self-awareness, etcetera. It's something I don't want to participate in ending. But since that is my own view, and society is all over the place on this, you know, because it is subjective, I don't support laws based on the views of a few people, relatively.

I can see where you're coming from with this jamil and as always I respect your point of view even though I razz you sometimes about the wordiness. You always bring it.

As to the "at conception" point of view even though people like Chip and I might believe life begins at that stage as part of our religious beliefs we have been willing to set that aside and start at a point I believe we a can all agree upon in which science acknowledges a position that a zygote is a living human.

.

 

[Twangbanger]

Meanwhile, I guess a new thread should be started in the event that some actual news about RvW is released .

Well, outside of screeching, it has been a slow news week:

We now https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/ne...rs-on-abortion/ar-AAWRcbl?ocid=BingNewsSearch

We now return you to your regularly-scheduled, echo-chamber pineapple pizza group-hump...

 

[KG1]

Well, outside of screeching, it has been a slow news week:

We now https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/ne...rs-on-abortion/ar-AAWRcbl?ocid=BingNewsSearch

We now return you to your regularly-scheduled, echo-chamber pineapple pizza group-hump...

Oh I believe this has been far from an echo chamber discussion and leave pineapple pizza out of this. It's too controversial.

 

[jamil]

I think you trivialize the risks inherent in pregnancy in order to dismiss a pregnant woman’s right to choose the path of least harm for herself.

Proving that gestating human life is actually, well, human life is only one part of the problem, as is determining when the law should recognize that gestating human as possessing basic human rights. Even if we assume that a two-cell zygote has full legal rights, there is still a potential conflict between those rights and the rights of the mother.

If a pregnant woman does not have a moral conflict with ending the life of her unborn child herself, why should I? That’s between her, her unborn child, and her moral authority, and in my view she alone speaks for all three.

thank you for your continued replies.!

I find this reasoning puzzling. Or, maybe it wasn't reasoning. maybe you didn't mean to word it in a way that sounds like you're adopting the morality of another person for how that person acts. That because she's okay with it something morally, then you should be okay with it, morally. I'd really like to assume you didn't mean it that way. I can understand why someone would not support intervening. But to say that what she's doing IS moral if she thinks it's moral, is stepping pretty far outside the bounds of normal human moral reasoning.

 

[jamil]

I can see where you're coming from with this jamil and as always I respect your point of view even though I razz you sometimes about the wordiness. You always bring it.

As to the "at conception" point of view even though people like Chip and I might believe life begins at that stage as part of our religious beliefs we have been willing to set that aside and start at a point I believe we a can all agree upon in which science acknowledges a position that a zygote is a living human.

.

Right, and I don't think anyone denies the science behind that, though I suppose people who think as you do might think we're dismissive, if not denying. It's a human with it's own distinct DNA. The issue is to most people is I guess a question of "personhood".

Again I will direct you to the two image I posted the other day. I'm not gonna look them up and post them again. I think you'll remember. The one was an image of a zygote. The other was an image of a baby just born as the umbilical cord is cut. To people without the idea of a soul that God breathed life into, that first image does not seem like a person. So it doesn't feel to people like aborting it is killing a person.

But, as the pregnancy gets to later stages, people start having more of a problem with it, because "it" starts to become a lot more like a person. As a zygote, it has potency. Not really a lot more than that, in terms of "personhood". But at some point, it has the things people have. Heartbeat, arms, legs, feet, head, genitals, etcetera.

I remember with my son, we were so happy that we were told the sex fairly early on. Now I'm sure BSC progressives will lose their **** because I said that. But because we knew the sex, we had already chosen the name for a boy, so then at the moment we knew the sex, he had a name. We came home from that appointment knowing his name. He was VERY much a person to us at that point. So I think a lot of the morality that goes into people's thinking has a lot to do with what people perceive is inside the womb at various stages. And that's why we see poll numbers change for allowing abortions at different stages of gestation.

 

[jamil]

Oh I believe this has been far from an echo chamber discussion and leave pineapple pizza out of this. It's too controversial.

I'm not sure I can even talk to someone who admits they like pineapple on pizza. That's obviously NOT a real pizza.

 

[jamil]

I think you trivialize the risks inherent in pregnancy in order to dismiss a pregnant woman’s right to choose the path of least harm for herself.

Proving that gestating human life is actually, well, human life is only one part of the problem, as is determining when the law should recognize that gestating human as possessing basic human rights. Even if we assume that a two-cell zygote has full legal rights, there is still a potential conflict between those rights and the rights of the mother.

If a pregnant woman does not have a moral conflict with ending the life of her unborn child herself, why should I? That’s between her, her unborn child, and her moral authority, and in my view she alone speaks for all three.

thank you for your continued replies.!

One other thing. The priority that people of different worldviews makes a lot of difference in how one view's the other side of the argument. I'm sure Chip thinks you are overstating the risks of pregnancy and trivializing the rights of the unborn. So do you think you have any greater moral authority to claim he's overstating the importance of the unborn while trivializing the risks inherent in pregnancy, than he has to say you're overstating those risks, and trivializing the importance of the life of the unborn.

Is the risk to the mother zero? No. Is the importance of the unborn zero? No. I think it's unreasonable to claim either. And I think we could infer some things about the opposite end. Is the risk of the mother everything? Is the importance of the unborn everything?

 

[KG1]

Right, and I don't think anyone denies the science behind that, though I suppose people who think as you do might think we're dismissive, if not denying. It's a human with it's own distinct DNA. The issue is to most people is I guess a question of "personhood".

Again I will direct you to the two image I posted the other day. I'm not gonna look them up and post them again. I think you'll remember. The one was an image of a zygote. The other was an image of a baby just born as the umbilical cord is cut. To people without the idea of a soul that God breathed life into, that first image does not seem like a person. So it doesn't feel to people like aborting it is killing a person.

But, as the pregnancy gets to later stages, people start having more of a problem with it, because "it" starts to become a lot more like a person. As a zygote, it has potency. Not really a lot more than that, in terms of "personhood". But at some point, it has the things people have. Heartbeat, arms, legs, feet, head, genitals, etcetera.

I remember with my son, we were so happy that we were told the sex fairly early on. Now I'm sure BSC progressives will lose their **** because I said that. But because we knew the sex, we had already chosen the name for a boy, so then at the moment we knew the sex, he had a name. We came home from that appointment knowing his name. He was VERY much a person to us at that point. So I think a lot of the morality that goes into people's thinking has a lot to do with what people perceive is inside the womb at various stages. And that's why we see poll numbers change for allowing abortions at different stages of gestation.

I agree there is not much that many people can identify with in terms of "personhood" at the zygote stages but for some of us it goes to a place of deeper moral identity. I see it in terms in which the scientifically recognized gestating living human at that stage has already begun it's journey and if allowed to be terminated will never get to develop to a point that others will acknowledge and accept as human and not just a "clump of cells" or a 'parasite" to be so easily discarded.

I find that position to be morally unpalatable. Please keep in mind that I don't believe you see it in those terms.

I will admit that my spiritual nature in part allows me to be able to see a living human being that was created at that level when others are unable and I want to see that living human being in my estimation be protected in their journey toward further development.

Anyway that's where I'm coming from and I just want others to know what grounds me morally on this issue.