2020 US Presidential election

[John Cracker]

I'm hoping well get 6/3 control and then overturn Roe vs Wade without having to worry about Roberts.

So sad that women's rights and other civil liberties are at stake with this pick. If Republicans have any moral integrity left in their souls then they'll wait till after the election. But alas, I'm afraid we're going to see yet another case of Republican hypocrisy once more.

I agree 100% the Senate needs to wait to after the election, if Trump wins, then he can pick another justice, if Biden wins he should not, however being pro life doesn't mean being anti women or civil liberties, I believe that abortian is wrong unless the mothers life is at risk, and I believe the baby has civil liberties just like the mother.

As a Republican, this is by far one of the dumbest things I've ever read. I cannot stand how a party whose mantra is "freedom, choice, etc." Has continually used some vague religious moral "high ground" to force state and federal government to tell women what they can and cannot do. I have no fucken clue how we can claim to be a party for freedom and "small government" and then literally tell women what they and cannot do with their bodies.

I don't base my stance on abortian of my faith, and I don't claim to have the moral high ground, that claim would be ridiculous, my position on abortian is that the baby has the right to life, it is a living being, I also believe that if Roe vs Wade is overturned then the federal government should not pass a heartbeat bill or anything like that, I think the states should decide because they are better suited to make the decision that the people in the state think is best, and I think we should try to convince the populous of other states to agree with us.

[jamescfm]

.

[John Cracker]

I don't base my stance on abortian of my faith, and I don't claim to have the moral high ground, that claim would be ridiculous, my position on abortian is that the baby has the right to life, it is a living being, I also believe that if Roe vs Wade is overturned then the federal government should not pass a heartbeat bill or anything like that, I think the states should decide because they are better suited to make the decision that the people in the state think is best, and I think we should try to convince the populous of other states to agree with us.

The problem with saying that you don't base your stance on faith is that there doesn't appear to be any reasonable basis for extending personhood to a foetus that is not conditional on a religious understanding of the world. At least throughout the early stages of pregnancy foetuses are not self-aware, they cannot communicate, they cannot reason and they do not have the capacity to feel pain. Philosophical disagreement about personhood exists but almost no position within that debate would extend personhood to a foetus.

If you believe that each person is created in the image of a divine being who is present from the moment of conception, a metaphysical claim with absolutely no evidence of any form and flying directly in the face of common sense, then you might believe on that basis that a foetus is a person that should possess the same rights afforded to other persons. Only based on this belief system does it appear sensible to seek to overturn Roe v. Wade.

I happen to agree quite strongly with Auditorii that the abortion issue shows a fundamental hypocrisy in the American religious right. Despite the repeated protestations that this group is in favour of individual liberty and freedom, they are willing to use the Supreme Court (a body that they often criticise for judicial activism) as a tool to overturn a verdict that even most Republicans seem to support because they want their own morality to be institutionalised through the US government.

If Roe vs Wade is overturned then that means the states decide, and in the Constitution, which is sorta the supreme law of the land, it says all men are created equal, not all men, except when the mother doesn't want her child, are created equal, and since when has a human life been based on the ability to self awareness, communicate, reason, and feel pain? People in a coma can not do much of those, and people with metal disabilities can not do some of those, so by your logic does a human life depend on one? Two? Or all of those things? What is your basis for human life?

[Auditorii]

Well, if that's the case, you must be opposed to the death penalty since your stating that your stance on human life is that it should be preserved at all costs? If you are in favor of the death penalty, it is obvious that your objection to abortion is rooted somewhere else, not just in the preservation of human life. The argument for "states rights" is silly, if states outlaw abortion totally and the procedure is medically necessary, then you are in fact sacrificing one life for another? Your ideology behind "preserving life" is again, flawed. While I don't agree that abortion should be permitted throughout the entire pregnancy and it should have some restrictions, the basis of repealing Roe v. Wade is just laughable. Republican's need to stop with this moral high ground shit (which, lets be real they fucken lost a long, long time ago), get back to wanting to actually govern the country and making progress.

[jamescfm]

.

[John Cracker]

For the record the Constitution does not say that. The Declaration of Independence reads: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." As far as I can tell nobody has any major problems with the core sentiment that is expressed by this statement even if we might point out that these "unalienable Rights" were limited in practice to wealthy white man for a significant period of time after their writing.

The main point of contention (which I made clear in my original post) is what constitutes a person. As far as I am aware no serious philosopher argues that anything with human DNA should be considered a person since this includes all manner of bizarre conclusions (for example I think most of us would agree that human corpses are not persons). For this reason we turn to some other criteria. In my previous post I gave some examples of what we might use based on the most commonly cited in the literature on the matter: the capacity for reason, self-awareness, the ability to feel pain and communication.

A common position on the subject that I personally believe is compelling is the notion of "partial personhood", i.e. the idea that something might be a person to a certain degree. For example an infant child is not held accountable for their actions in the same way as an adult because we recognise that they do not possess the same capacities of communication, self-awareness and reasoning. Nonetheless they are still fully able to feel pain and we afford the full protections from harm that we would any other person. In other words they are only partially a person.

Foetuses should be treated according to similar principles. For most of the pregnancy the foetus will possess none of the characteristics that we typically identify as being fundamental to personhood and for this reason we generally do not need to extend the rights that the Founders enumerated to it. At a certain point it will begin to feel pain and at this point it should probably be ascribed certain rights but the science seems to say that this probably does not happen until the third trimester.

As I have already said it not really necessary to make a decision about which of these various criteria for personhood we should adopt because they yield the same broad conclusion: a foetus is not a person in the same manner as an adult human being. On the other hand if you have a deeply-ingrained belief that an interventionist God was actually present in the moment of conception and that he "knit your together in your mother’s womb" then you will have a remarkably different stance on the matter. I don't think that is inherently a problem provided that you accept two points: 1) your faith is the source of your views on abortion and 2) you have no right whatsoever to enforce the writings of your ancient text on the rest of society.

I agree DNA doesn't constitute a person, and I agree that a fetus isn't a fully developed person, however I do believe that they are a life, the definition of life is this: "The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism."

Fetuses do grow, so by definition they do poses qualities that define life, and the definition of person is (the first one): "A living human. Often used in combination." So since by definition they poses qualties of life, then by definition they are a person since a person is a living human, and since the definition of murder is: "The killing of another person without justification or excuse, especially the crime of killing a person with malice aforethought or with recklessness manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life." So since by definition they are living, which by definition means they are a person, that means that by defintion abortion is murder, unless the have justification, which in my opinion would only be in the case of the life of the mother which could be considered self defense.

1) I will admit my faith plays a role, perhaps a large one, however it is not the defining factor, the defining factor is that I believe them to be a life, and by taking that life you commit murder.
2) I agree my beliefs should not be pushed on the rest of society, which is why I think that gay marriage should be legal, however I believe it to be wrong.

[John Cracker]

Well, if that's the case, you must be opposed to the death penalty since your stating that your stance on human life is that it should be preserved at all costs? If you are in favor of the death penalty, it is obvious that your objection to abortion is rooted somewhere else, not just in the preservation of human life. The argument for "states rights" is silly, if states outlaw abortion totally and the procedure is medically necessary, then you are in fact sacrificing one life for another? Your ideology behind "preserving life" is again, flawed. While I don't agree that abortion should be permitted throughout the entire pregnancy and it should have some restrictions, the basis of repealing Roe v. Wade is just laughable. Republican's need to stop with this moral high ground shit (which, lets be real they fucken lost a long, long time ago), get back to wanting to actually govern the country and making progress.

In most cases I believe the death penalty should not be applied but their may be cases were it should be, and I agree it should be allowed if it is medically nessacary, but ultimately I think the vast majority of decisions should fall to the states. And it is rooted in the fact that I believe that the fetus is a life, faith does play a role but not the defining one.

[Aquinas]

If Roe vs Wade is overturned then that means the states decide, and in the Constitution, which is sorta the supreme law of the land, it says all men are created equal, not all men, except when the mother doesn't want her child, are created equal, and since when has a human life been based on the ability to self awareness, communicate, reason, and feel pain? People in a coma can not do much of those, and people with metal disabilities can not do some of those, so by your logic does a human life depend on one? Two? Or all of those things? What is your basis for human life?

I don't base my stance on abortian of my faith, and I don't claim to have the moral high ground, that claim would be ridiculous, my position on abortian is that the baby has the right to life, it is a living being, I also believe that if Roe vs Wade is overturned then the federal government should not pass a heartbeat bill or anything like that, I think the states should decide because they are better suited to make the decision that the people in the state think is best, and I think we should try to convince the populous of other states to agree with us.

Two questions for you:

1. Critics of devolving abortion policy to the individual states argue that, in practice, this will discriminate against many poorer/disadvantaged women. The reason being, that they will not be able to afford to travel to states where abortion is legally available, whereas wealthier women would be able to do so. What do you make of this argument?

2. If you believe "the baby has the right to life" and that the constitution is meant to uphold this, then why are you in favour of letting individual states permit abortion? By your logic, would this not be (a) unconstitutional and (b) murder?

[John Cracker]

Two questions for you:

1. Critics of devolving abortion policy to the individual states argue that, in practice, this will discriminate against many poorer/disadvantaged women. The reason being, that they will not be able to afford to travel to states where abortion is legally available, whereas wealthier women would be able to do so. What do you make of this argument?

2. If you believe "the baby has the right to life" and that the constitution is meant to uphold this, then why are you in favour of letting individual states permit abortion? By your logic, would this not be (a) unconstitutional and (b) murder?

1. Perhaps a government subsidy for cases were the poor woman needs it for medical reasons, or something along the lines of that, I understand that issue would arise in this case so I suppose that would be the only solution.

2. I think ideally it would just be illegal except in the case of the life of the mother, however for social reasons I think leaving it up to states would be the most realistic path, I think the best way, which will take the longest, is to change to change the social feeling toward abortian, which is some states like New York it is looked upon as acceptable.

[Auditorii]

So what we've gained from this is that you're fine with abortion but just want the states to be able to determine it. That makes little sense imho. If a state is going to restrict and disadvantage or discriminate against a specific population or socio-economic class thats a Federal issue.