If a sovereign nation, such as the US, decides that abortion is a right, why should that have any bearing on anti-abortion Christians? Why can't anti-abortion Christians advocate against it while still respecting the decision of a secular government?

[The Sword]

17 hours ago, Lysandre, the Star-Crossed said:

Just so you know, some of the pro-choice crowd does view fetuses as people.
Judith Jarvis Thomson is one such example of some arguing the pro-choice position without the presupposition that a fetus is not a human being.

Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion (colorado.edu)

Ah, so it's the one with the "famous violinist"? The Sword didn't recognize the title, but knew of that thought experiment... and it's the argument that turned The Sword radically pro-choice from "pro-choice, but" (and back during puberty, The Sword even used to be "pro-life, but").

 

Personally, The Sword would say a fetus is alive, and is a human, but is not a person; but even if it were a person, the pregnant person's right to bodily autonomy would absolutely trump the fetus' right to live if it had such a right, as per Thomson's highly convincing reasoning. All these nitpicks about what starts when are irrelevant.

 

And yes, The Sword would look the violonist in the eye and say, "I'm having the operation. Sorry, dude - you will die tonight, and that's your problem, not The Sword's. Use your last hours to make peace with the world." This person, who can talk, reason, plead tearfully, and play wonderful music, does not have a right to use The Sowrd's body as a life support device. He will thus be killed by sunset, and killing him is a perfectly ethically accceptable exercise of The Sword's inalienable rights.

[bare_trees]

1 hour ago, uhtred said:

But as a society we take away lots of choices - like the choice to commit murder.

 

I don't think abortion is murder, but some people do.

I don't see any sense in taking away a person's bodily autonomy because of another person's delusions, and I'm not sure how many other ways to express that. I don't believe someone's bodily autonomy should be up for debate.

 

WTF is the point of this. Honestly.

[uhtred]

1 hour ago, bare_trees said:

I don't see any sense in taking away a person's bodily autonomy because of another person's delusions, and I'm not sure how many other ways to express that. I don't believe someone's bodily autonomy should be up for debate.

 

WTF is the point of this. Honestly.

But is it a delusion?  Who gets to decide what is human.

 

In my opinion, the point of the discussion is that tens of millions of women in the US are about to lose access to safe abortions.  Many of the people pushing for this are doing so because they believe it is morally correct to do so.   I disagree with them, but shouting won't change their minds.  Maybe talking and understanding their point of view will.   Also, there are no opinions I hold with such confidence that I'm unwilling to listen to people who disagree and give them the opportunity to change my  mind.  It has happened several times in the past.

[Calligraphette_Coe]

This just in from MSNBC- the top health czar in Missouri was caught having a computer spreadsheet of women's menstrual cycles who had appled to have abortions. Also, on his order, these same women were forced to undergo multiple dilations and pelvic exams. This starting to look like a Pelvic Secret Police tactic to catch women who go ahead with abortions after Roe v Wade is overturned.  When asked if Missouri was intending to go after women who went to Blue States to have abortions if they intended to extradite those women and/or charge then under MIssouri statutes, it sounded like they got somewhat self-righteoous and didn't give assurances.

 

I mean really, what's next? Mandatory rape reporting and pelvic exams? Proof of non-conception? Unborn Baby Bounty Hunters, blackmailing women suspected of conceiving, where the burden of proof is on the woman? Miscarriage Green Cards?

 

This is just scary.....

[uhtred]

5 hours ago, Calligraphette_Coe said:

This just in from MSNBC- the top health czar in Missouri was caught having a computer spreadsheet of women's menstrual cycles who had appled to have abortions. Also, on his order, these same women were forced to undergo multiple dilations and pelvic exams. This starting to look like a Pelvic Secret Police tactic to catch women who go ahead with abortions after Roe v Wade is overturned.  When asked if Missouri was intending to go after women who went to Blue States to have abortions if they intended to extradite those women and/or charge then under MIssouri statutes, it sounded like they got somewhat self-righteoous and didn't give assurances.

 

I mean really, what's next? Mandatory rape reporting and pelvic exams? Proof of non-conception? Unborn Baby Bounty Hunters, blackmailing women suspected of conceiving, where the burden of proof is on the woman? Miscarriage Green Cards?

 

This is just scary.....

This is one of the many reasons I think outlawing abortion is terrible.    I understand the argument that the fetus may be a person - but the real world effects of outlawing abortion are so broad and so horrible.   (such as what you describe).

 

Combine what you wrote, with the very broad level of surveillance we have in our society already and I see endless nightmares.

 

I hope people remember this in the next elections.   Congress has the power to fix this.

[Black Tourmaline]

On 5/9/2022 at 8:29 AM, Epic Tetus said:

this

i thought this might be of general interest to all parties, not either to support or not support anything in particular but rather to show an example of how the text makes a distinction between the death of the fetus (miscarriage) and a human death (murder). they are presented as distinct categories, the miscarriage being prosecuted similarly to Biblical penalties for property damage, whereas the death of the mother being punished as any murder, thus creating a formal legal statement of character.

 

the cultural historical context will not be the same as modern historical context. when studying ancient books of any type religious, historical, legal, fiction, poetry whatever we would study them in context with the time and place it was written and who wrote it. it would be surprising if we personally had pre-medieval ideas and values that we lived by in our own lives but a scholar needs to set that aside in order to analyze the text. we can look at the text technically as regional cultural history and even as the roots of western legal history.

 

from a purely technical standpoint in the dispassionate scholarly analysis of the text i feel this is a key verse to understanding the ancient Hebrew law and how it understands this issue. it seems relevant to the conversation is all. in a discussion of religion it is always fruitful to examine core texts imho.

 

to me it definitely appears clearly and distinctly to allow for abortion within it's own legal framework.

 

people also bring Numbers 5:11-31 but i believe it is a more problematic text in the context of this discussion and addresses the issue a bit more obliquely if it even addresses the issue at all (i can see either view). perhaps it might adds some support but for me the Exodus verse is primary and the Numbers verses are of coroborative interest. i like the clarity and directness of the Exodus verse "a miscarriage but there is no fatality" hence a miscarriage is not a fatality. simple. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Calligraphette_Coe]

7 hours ago, uhtred said:

This is one of the many reasons I think outlawing abortion is terrible.    I understand the argument that the fetus may be a person - but the real world effects of outlawing abortion are so broad and so horrible.   (such as what you describe).

 

Combine what you wrote, with the very broad level of surveillance we have in our society already and I see endless nightmares.

 

I hope people remember this in the next elections.   Congress has the power to fix this.

Me too! But I think this has gotten so far out of hand that any fix for this would just end up in the Supreme Court again with an identical outcome. They'd just use the 'States Rights' argument and that would again, be overturned. 

 

Really, I think the only remedy that would have any teeth is for all governments to eliminate property and/or income tax exempt status for Churches if they do _anything_ political. We could pay off the national debt in no time at all. Just point out that you can't swing a dead cat without finding 'justifiable infanticidd' in the Christian Bible's Old Testament and tell them if the want to reach into the womb, maybe it's time to reach into _their_ coffers.

[uhtred]

3 hours ago, Calligraphette_Coe said:

Me too! But I think this has gotten so far out of hand that any fix for this would just end up in the Supreme Court again with an identical outcome. They'd just use the 'States Rights' argument and that would again, be overturned. 

 

Really, I think the only remedy that would have any teeth is for all governments to eliminate property and/or income tax exempt status for Churches if they do _anything_ political. We could pay off the national debt in no time at all. Just point out that you can't swing a dead cat without finding 'justifiable infanticidd' in the Christian Bible's Old Testament and tell them if the want to reach into the womb, maybe it's time to reach into _their_ coffers.

Maybe the court would override it - but I think (not a legal scholar) that the current draft decision is based on the idea that there is no law guaranteeing a right to abortion, and its not in the constitution, so therefore its up to the states.  If there were a federal law, this argument would not hold.

 

Its possible the supreme court would try to find a way around that, but it would require a very different type of argument - they would pretty much have to recognize a fetus as a human being - and as a post above suggested that has all sorts of horrifying implications.

 

Besides, if we vote out the conservatives, at least then next justice to be appointed may have the opposite view

 

[Lysandre, the Star-Crossed]

5 hours ago, uhtred said:

Maybe the court would override it - but I think (not a legal scholar) that the current draft decision is based on the idea that there is no law guaranteeing a right to abortion, and its not in the constitution, so therefore its up to the states.  If there were a federal law, this argument would not hold.

That's the crux of the issue, there is no direct constitutional right to abortion. I'm not a legal scholar, but...

Amendment IX: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The right to abortion is not enumerated by the constitution. The right to regulate it is not delegated to the federal government or prohibited to the States, it logically belongs to the States. There is not really a constitutional "right to privacy", much less the one some claim is contained within the 14th Amendment.
https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/United_States_of_America_1992#s170

The closest thing to a right to privacy that we have is the Fourth Amendment...
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The legal precedent for Roe v Wade is not that strong, and I think it will unravel. I think a better argument has to be made for SCOTUS to intervene in a favorable manner, assuming they would even entertain it. Unfortunately I think the battle is already lost at the federal level, because the federal government seemingly is not able to universally ban nor universally permit abortion, at least constitutionally. 

[Tetus]

1 hour ago, Lysandre, the Star-Crossed said:

Amendment IX: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The right to abortion is not enumerated by the constitution. The right to regulate it is not delegated to the federal government or prohibited to the States, it logically belongs to the States. 

Emphasis mine. The people != the States. 
 

If the entirety of the argument to overturn Roe is that any right not enumerated in the Constitution may be denied by a State, then we’re in some hot fucking water, because, and I’m not sure if everyone knows this, but the Constitution was written by human men 250 years ago. Noble or ignoble as they may have been, I don’t think it is controversial to suggest that they weren’t perfect and they certainly had no idea what things would be like in the 21st century.

 

Sodomy laws are a classic issue here, as the right to have sex is not enumerated in the Constitution, the Founding Fathers not being that sexually liberated, and so by the same logic that is being proposed to overturn Roe, sex between consenting adults can be legally regulated by the States. 
 

Other things that aren’t enumerated: right to get treatments for chronic medical conditions, like HIV, diabetes, or MS. Right to get tattoos. Right to play video games. Right to eat nachos. Right to sleep past 8am. Right to enjoy sitcoms. Etc.

 

The idea that a US state can ban these things is ridiculous on its face.

[Tetus]

14 hours ago, Black Tourmaline said:

i thought this might be of general interest to all parties, not either to support or not support anything in particular but rather to show an example of how the text makes a distinction between the death of the fetus (miscarriage) and a human death (murder). they are presented as distinct categories, the miscarriage being prosecuted similarly to Biblical penalties for property damage, whereas the death of the mother being punished as any murder, thus creating a formal legal statement of character.

While I appreciate the legal reasoning here to some extent, I don’t think that real world applications of the law of the United States of America, a government which guarantees a separation of church and state, should be analyzed through the lens of a religious text that is thousands of years old.

 

Like, even if I felt that this constituted some kind of evidence or weight, by granting it consideration, we either have to grant all religious texts equal consideration, or choose to somehow weight them. Considering that most anti-choice people object to abortion on religious grounds, this is a weird kind of argument to make. Maybe they’re all wrong about their own religious beliefs - trust me, I’d be the last person to rule out that possibility - but I think that is not an easier or more effective conversation to have than that they are just wrong that abortion should be illegal in the US.

[uhtred]

3 hours ago, Lysandre, the Star-Crossed said:

That's the crux of the issue, there is no direct constitutional right to abortion. I'm not a legal scholar, but...

Amendment IX: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The right to abortion is not enumerated by the constitution. The right to regulate it is not delegated to the federal government or prohibited to the States, it logically belongs to the States. There is not really a constitutional "right to privacy", much less the one some claim is contained within the 14th Amendment.
https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/United_States_of_America_1992#s170

The closest thing to a right to privacy that we have is the Fourth Amendment...
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The legal precedent for Roe v Wade is not that strong, and I think it will unravel. I think a better argument has to be made for SCOTUS to intervene in a favorable manner, assuming they would even entertain it. Unfortunately I think the battle is already lost at the federal level, because the federal government seemingly is not able to universally ban nor universally permit abortion, at least constitutionally. 

The federal government does seem to have the power to regulate other things like recreational drugs,  and to some extent medical care.  They can also regulate some types of anti-discrimination laws.

[Lysandre, the Star-Crossed]

7 hours ago, uhtred said:

The federal government does seem to have the power to regulate other things like recreational drugs,  and to some extent medical care.  They can also regulate some types of anti-discrimination laws.

Just about anything that you say starting with "the government has the power to regulate" is already problematic for me. The government we have is exponentially larger than what it originated to be, and even that was at times too large. Almost the entirety of the government's reach is overreach.

[uhtred]

27 minutes ago, Lysandre, the Star-Crossed said:

Just about anything that you say starting with "the government has the power to regulate" is already problematic for me. The government we have is exponentially larger than what it originated to be, and even that was at times too large. Almost the entirety of the government's reach is overreach.

But don't you want it to regulate things like civil rights?  I expect things like gay marriage might become illegal in a number of states otherwise.  Protections for people of color might go away. Environmental regulations might vanish.

 

An additional problem for me is that in the modern world states are too small.  Many people commute across state lines every day, imagine the difficulties if they and their partner were legally married where they lived, but not where they were employed.

 

I'm on the other side. I would prefer to eliminate states.  I think they are the wrong size in the wrong places to be useful.  What is really New York City covers 3 states. California OTOH is really 3 completely different states, assuming you move the mountains into NV where they belong.

[Lysandre, the Star-Crossed]

56 minutes ago, uhtred said:

But don't you want it to regulate things like civil rights?  I expect things like gay marriage might become illegal in a number of states otherwise.  Protections for people of color might go away. Environmental regulations might vanish.

 

An additional problem for me is that in the modern world states are too small.  Many people commute across state lines every day, imagine the difficulties if they and their partner were legally married where they lived, but not where they were employed.

 

I'm on the other side. I would prefer to eliminate states.  I think they are the wrong size in the wrong places to be useful.  What is really New York City covers 3 states. California OTOH is really 3 completely different states, assuming you move the mountains into NV where they belong.

I'd have to derail this thread to a disrespectful degree to truly answer that question, so out of respect for the OP's thread topic I'm going to decline to continue this discussion. If you want an honest answer to that, it's probably better if we pivot to DM. Your call, I'm not bothered either way.

[Calligraphette_Coe]

18 hours ago, Lysandre, the Star-Crossed said:

That's the crux of the issue, there is no direct constitutional right to abortion. I'm not a legal scholar, but...

Amendment IX: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people."

I can't think of anyone more qualified who has an ectopic pregnancy and her doctors(s) who should have Consitutionally delegated power to exercise a right to a termination of said pregnancy as opposed to ignoranant lawmakers who in the past have said idefensible things like "women's bodies have a way to prevent pregnancies from rape." Nor can I think of anyone who is unjustly subjugated by whatever State prevents her from having a life saving termination because the numbers are pretty grim both for the mother and the fetus. Where is 'Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the very HEART of the Constitution in these unjust cases. Let us never forget that religious zealots used to demand the burning of anyone who was accused of practicing witchcraft-- what they are doing here is an apple that doesn't fall farm from this supposed Constitutional tree. 

 

From the Federalist Papers No. 51 by James Madison:

Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger....

[Lysandre, the Star-Crossed]

14 hours ago, Calligraphette_Coe said:

om the Federalist Papers No. 51 by James Madison:

Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger....

You and I view the world in fundamentally incompatible ways, I suspect.

 

"The horse, the cat, the bull, nay the ass itself, have generally a higher stature, and always a more robust constitution, more vigour, more strength and courage in their forests than in our houses; they lose half these advantages by becoming domestic animals; it looks as if all our attention to treat them kindly, and to feed them well, served only to bastardize them. It is thus with man himself. In proportion as he becomes sociable and a slave to others, he becomes weak, fearful, mean-spirited, and his soft and effeminate way of living at once completes the enervation of his strength and of his courage."

- Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men, Jean-Jacques Rousseau

[Guest]

if someone says, "it isn't murder to take away someone's life... it's euthanization!" people who believe in murder are still gonna argue tooth and nail to outlaw it. 

 

 

 

 

[Calligraphette_Coe]

6 hours ago, Lysandre, the Star-Crossed said:

You and I view the world in fundamentally incompatible ways, I suspect.

 

"The horse, the cat, the bull, nay the ass itself, have generally a higher stature, and always a more robust constitution, more vigour, more strength and courage in their forests than in our houses; they lose half these advantages by becoming domestic animals; it looks as if all our attention to treat them kindly, and to feed them well, served only to bastardize them. It is thus with man himself. In proportion as he becomes sociable and a slave to others, he becomes weak, fearful, mean-spirited, and his soft and effeminate way of living at once completes the enervation of his strength and of his courage."

- Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men, Jean-Jacques Rousseau

I'm sorry if I offended you, but I never suspected that quoting Madison and the Federalist Papers would elicit _this_ kind of response. Serves me right for getting sucked into a debate in which I have no dogs in the race.

[coolshades]

On 5/9/2022 at 8:12 AM, uhtred said:

I don't like viability as a standard because that is changing -an eventually we may have the technology to fertilize an egg and grow it completely outside the womb. 

 

As for the other possible choices, is there some reasonable way to decide?   You have (I think) picked the point where it has its fully formed DNA, I've picked the point where it has a human brain.   Can you think of any way to proceed?  As a society we need a single standard and I don't know how to get there.

Sorry for the late response.

 

Maybe it's just something the law needs to define.  Not everyone will agree with it, but at least we'd have a uniform standard.

[uhtred]

1 hour ago, coolshades said:

Sorry for the late response.

 

Maybe it's just something the law needs to define.  Not everyone will agree with it, but at least we'd have a uniform standard.

I agree that the law needs to choose. I just hope people on both sides can at least undestand that the other side isn't "evil".  Maybe its possible conversations can help figure out a set of laws that the largest number of people will find acceptable

[Lysandre, the Star-Crossed]

7 hours ago, Calligraphette_Coe said:

I'm sorry if I offended you, but I never suspected that quoting Madison and the Federalist Papers would elicit _this_ kind of response. Serves me right for getting sucked into a debate in which I have no dogs in the race.

I'm not offended in the least, merely speculating as to where the difference in opinion stems from. As is the case with many folks here... I found your response interesting, although ideologically disagreeable. I enjoy the discussion, and I'm grateful for the effort put in by all sides. 

[LeChat]

Hmm...I thought it might be important to add to the conversation that it's, probably, important to remember that hundreds of years ago, many people held sexist, racist views and quoting those/their views, today, can be seen as problematic.

[uhtred]

22 hours ago, Lysandre, the Star-Crossed said:

You and I view the world in fundamentally incompatible ways, I suspect.

 

"The horse, the cat, the bull, nay the ass itself, have generally a higher stature, and always a more robust constitution, more vigour, more strength and courage in their forests than in our houses; they lose half these advantages by becoming domestic animals; it looks as if all our attention to treat them kindly, and to feed them well, served only to bastardize them. It is thus with man himself. In proportion as he becomes sociable and a slave to others, he becomes weak, fearful, mean-spirited, and his soft and effeminate way of living at once completes the enervation of his strength and of his courage."

- Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men, Jean-Jacques Rousseau

For all their natural strength, the lion, the elephant, and the rhino, are robust, stronger and have more courage than puny modern domesticated humans. Yet those puny humans need to tread carefully so as to avoid accidentally trampling into oblivion, not just those individual creatures, but their entire species.  Such is the power of acting collectively as part of a civilization.

 

By bowing to collective authority, the modern human wields what our ancestors would have considered god-like powers.  Wrapping this back around, that power includes the ability to control our own reproduction, and it is a power we need to choose how to use wisely .