Roe v. Wade Overturned June 24, 2022

Two hot topics for the price of one

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Diogenes
Guru
Posts: 1304
Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
Location: Washington
Has thanked: 862 times
Been thanked: 1265 times

Roe v. Wade Overturned June 24, 2022

Post #1

Post by Diogenes »

Roe v. Wade has been overturned today.
This subtopic specifically does not invite debate on the prohibition of abortion.

The question for debate is whether this sweeping decision allowing the States to outlaw abortion will lead to civil unrest and disrespect for the Court. My guess is, it will do both and will lead to women traveling from their homes in the South and much of the heartland of the United States to States that protect the 'right' for 50 years.

The 'abortion pill' will be banned in many States and the 'pro-choice' advocates will try to get the pill into those States where it will be a felony to possess it. I can envision armed militias at borders and around airports.
When the 18th Amendment prohibited Alcohol in 1919 it produced a new, illegal industry and related violence that lead to the passage of the 21st Amendment in 1933, repealing that Amendment.
___________________________________

Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves

— Confucius

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20496
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 335 times
Contact:

Re: Roe v. Wade Overturned June 24, 2022

Post #81

Post by otseng »

Moderator Intervention

Just a reminder the OP explicitly states:

This subtopic specifically does not invite debate on the prohibition of abortion.

The question for debate is whether this sweeping decision allowing the States to outlaw abortion will lead to civil unrest and disrespect for the Court.


Please create another thread for debating anything outside of this.


______________

Moderator interventions do not count as a strike against any posters. They are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels that some sort of intervention is required.

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1569
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 16 times

Re: Roe v. Wade Overturned June 24, 2022

Post #82

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to Diogenes in post #1]
The question for debate is whether this sweeping decision allowing the States to outlaw abortion will lead to civil unrest and disrespect for the Court.
My response to the OP:

sweeping decision? What should be considered sweeping is the decision almost 50 years ago making abortion legal. As the recent decision stated, Roe was “egregiously decided”.

And having “disrespect” for the Court depends on whether you believe the Supreme Court has the power to declare something a Constitutional right that is not in the Constitution.

As for, will this lead to civil unrest and disrespect for the Court? Well, that is irrelevant. The Court should not make decisions based on whether some will not like it. Should slavery have not been abolished because doing so would cause civil unrest? Doing what’s right isn’t always easy or popular.

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9340
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 882 times
Been thanked: 1240 times

Re: Roe v. Wade Overturned June 24, 2022

Post #83

Post by Clownboat »

Readers, take note that once again, RightReason failed to answer the question as to which they would save (I believe I asked the questions 4 times in my last post. That's a lot of dodging!). Admitting that they would save the 1 year old over the 5 blastocysts shows that the intrinsic value for just being human is not equal like they claimed before.

Since a blastocyst and a 1 year old do not have the same value, we cannot discuss abortion issues while pretending they have the same value. Now I'm off to go murder babies, because I'm pro women's choice. :dizzy:

The answer to the debate question is, we don't know.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

User avatar
Diogenes
Guru
Posts: 1304
Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
Location: Washington
Has thanked: 862 times
Been thanked: 1265 times

Re: Roe v. Wade Overturned June 24, 2022

Post #84

Post by Diogenes »

RightReason wrote: Fri Jul 15, 2022 7:58 am [Replying to Diogenes in post #1]
The question for debate is whether this sweeping decision allowing the States to outlaw abortion will lead to civil unrest and disrespect for the Court.
My response to the OP:

sweeping decision? What should be considered sweeping is the decision almost 50 years ago making abortion legal. As the recent decision stated, Roe was “egregiously decided”.

And having “disrespect” for the Court depends on whether you believe the Supreme Court has the power to declare something a Constitutional right that is not in the Constitution.

As for, will this lead to civil unrest and disrespect for the Court? Well, that is irrelevant. The Court should not make decisions based on whether some will not like it. Should slavery have not been abolished because doing so would cause civil unrest? Doing what’s right isn’t always easy or popular.
"As for, will this lead to civil unrest and disrespect for the Court? Well, that is irrelevant."
Wrong! That is the question asked in the OP, therefore it is the only question that is relevant in this subtopic
I think you meant the Court shouldn't consider the damage they do to the country when they overturn a well established precedent they promised under oath they would respect.
As for respect for the Court, it has fallen to its lowest point in its history at 25%
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-ba ... oll-finds/

Alito's claim Roe was “egregiously decided” does not make it so. Most legal scholars think his reasoning was dishonest and “egregiously decided.” In fact, in throwing out a 50 year precedent, in the same breath Alito claimed he couldn't decide the question on equal protection grounds "because of precedent."
Such blatant hypocrisy and 'double standarding' boggles the mind, or would if we didn't already know his bias.
'William Blackstone's widely read Commentaries on the Laws of England, first published in 1765, made this exact point: Life "begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother's womb." Under the common law, Blackstone explained, legal penalties for abortion only occurred "if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion, or otherwise, killeth it in her womb."
Blackstone's work was a major influence on America's founding generation. The founders read Blackstone and they well understood that abortion was legal during the early stages of pregnancy under the common law. What is more, because every state at the time of the founding followed the common law as described by Blackstone, no state originally possessed the lawful power to prohibit abortion before quickening. We might call this the original understanding of the regulatory powers of the states.
That same original understanding extends to the Ninth Amendment. Because the states followed the common law at the founding, the American people originally understood that lawmakers lacked the lawful power to prohibit women from ending an unwanted pregnancy during its early stages. The freedom to end an unwanted pregnancy before quickening thus falls within the original meaning and understanding of a right "retained by the people."'
https://reason.com/2022/06/24/alitos-ab ... bq34fsE6QE

Thus the common law at the time of the signing of the Constitution held that human life does not begin until quickening. You can find support for this in the Bible as well. In fact, Jews (it's their Bible after all, sans the NT) believe human life begins at birth.
The lawsuit filed by the Congregation L'Dor Va-Dor of Boynton Beach contends the law that takes effect July 1 violates Jewish teachings, which state abortion "is required if necessary to protect the health, mental or physical well-being of the woman" and for other reasons.
When does life begin? Religions don't agree.

"As such, the act prohibits Jewish women from practicing their faith free of government intrusion and this violates their privacy rights and religious freedom,"
https://www.npr.org/2022/06/15/11052295 ... t-15-weeks

In 'Strange Justice' Thomas's view, this court will next go after more rights of privacy. He hinted the Court should revisit same sex marriage laws and contraception. What's next? The Anti Masturbation Police?https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/2 ... s-00042256
___________________________________

Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves

— Confucius

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1569
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 16 times

Re: Roe v. Wade Overturned June 24, 2022

Post #85

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to Clownboat in post #83]
Readers, take note that once again, RightReason failed to answer the question as to which they would save (I believe I asked the questions 4 times in my last post. That's a lot of dodging!).
You dodged my response each time. I continued to explain how we human beings make value judgments all the time, and often they are not good or cool. History shows how humans valued white people over black people. How we often commit ageism and value young people over old people. We value athleticism and attractiveness. Yes, these things are all human nature, but they do not mean white people are more valuable than black. Or that we ought to be able to discriminate against the aging. The fact that you think if someone would save a 1 year old over an embryo, or their own child over someone else’s, or one person they fancy over someone else must mean the human not chosen actually has less value does not logically follow.

I’m really not sure what you don’t understand about that.

Also, you don’t really listen very well, because in fact I did say if I was made aware that there were embryos in the building, I would try to save them.
Admitting that they would save the 1 year old over the 5 blastocysts shows that the intrinsic value for just being human is not equal like they claimed before.
See my response above. It does not mean that. Not by a long shot. Unless you’re willing to say, since human beings at one point counted the vote of African Americans less than a white person’s vote, it must mean humans do not have intrinsic value. WRONG! What it means, is people were idiots/prejudiced/racist/and had ulterior motives why they wanted to claim black people were less value and inferior to white people. What it shows is humans can be ignorant and uneducated and behave according to their emotions/feelings and prejudices over science/facts.

Since a blastocyst and a 1 year old do not have the same value, we cannot discuss abortion issues while pretending they have the same value.
“Well, since black people are clearly inferior to white people, we shouldn’t even be debating whether to end slavery or not. We can’t pretend they are equal.” -said any uneducated racist.

The answer to the debate question is, we don't know.
This use to be an easier argument prior to ultrasound imagery/science/technological advances. Today we can know.

** Also, a little side note: Your hypothetical is kind of gross, because in your scenario humans are about to die in a fire, but choosing an abortion would be equivalent to starting the fire. And well, how about just not starting the fire! That seems to make the most sense.

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1569
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 16 times

Re: Roe v. Wade Overturned June 24, 2022

Post #86

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to Diogenes in post #84]
"As for, will this lead to civil unrest and disrespect for the Court? Well, that is irrelevant."

Wrong! That is the question asked in the OP, therefore it is the only question that is relevant in this subtopic
Again, you wouldn’t say that if we were talking about ending slavery. The fact that abolishing slavery causes unrest should not be taken into consideration. There are some things that you stand up for because it is the right thing to do.
I think you meant the Court shouldn't consider the damage they do to the country when they overturn a well established precedent they promised under oath they would respect.
Ha, ha, ha . . . they didn’t consider the damage in establishing a right that was never in the Constitution. Many people do not even know much about Roe v. Wade. Most people don’t even realize that the Jane Doe in Roe did not even end up having an abortion. And most people have no idea that Roe made it ok to kill a baby at any time for any reason up until the moment of birth. We are talking about a 9 month 8 pound baby. I find that fascinating.

As for respect for the Court, it has fallen to its lowest point in its history at 25%
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-ba ... oll-finds/
Respect for lots of things has fallen to its lowest point in history – respect for our government, respect for our country, respect for the media, respect for parents, respect for police officers, etc. I could go on and on.

Alito's claim Roe was “egregiously decided” does not make it so.
Correct. What makes it so, is the facts at how they came to the decision they did. Roe was built on a shaky legal foundation.

The Constitution says nothing about abortion, abortion involves the taking of a life therefore cannot be treated in the same manner as many of the other “rights” we have, women’s voices were silenced under Roe as the decision was decided by 9 unelected males, state’s have legitimate interests in regulating abortion and therefore it should be based on elected representatives and kept at the local level. This all makes a lot of sense to anyone who appreciates Democracy.
The lawsuit filed by the Congregation L'Dor Va-Dor of Boynton Beach contends the law that takes effect July 1 violates Jewish teachings, which state abortion "is required if necessary to protect the health, mental or physical well-being of the woman" and for other reasons.
When does life begin? Religions don't agree.
Yeah, this is quite lame. When life begins is not a religious question. It’s based on science. That some branches of Judaism want to believe that the unborn is not human life, they are free to do so (some fundamentalist Christians believe the earth is flat).
"As such, the act prohibits Jewish women from practicing their faith free of government intrusion and this violates their privacy rights and religious freedom,"
This is silly. If someone’s religion didn’t acknowledge black people as fully human, we wouldn’t say well, then they should be able to kill black people, otherwise the law is a violation of their religious freedom!

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9340
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 882 times
Been thanked: 1240 times

Re: Roe v. Wade Overturned June 24, 2022

Post #87

Post by Clownboat »

RightReason wrote: Mon Jul 18, 2022 7:58 pm You dodged my response each time.
This is false. Post 79:
"I have acknowledge what you typed above. What you typed above is true. However, your words do not affect the value argument that I'm putting forward."

I actually acknowledged what you said. To acknowledge is not to dodge. To refuse to answer my direct question is to dodge.
The fact that you think if someone would save a 1 year old over an embryo,

This shows that the intrinsic value that you claimed was there just for it being human is not an equal amount of value as I have been arguing from the beginning.
I’m really not sure what you don’t understand about that.
I'm not asking you to help me understand anything. I'm asking you if you saved the blastocysts or the 1 year old. This question is the question you continue to dodge.
Also, you don’t really listen very well, because in fact I did say if I was made aware that there were embryos in the building, I would try to save them.
Readers, notice how this debater thinks they answered the question about which one they would save (remember, there is only time to save one) because they said they would try to save the blastocysts as well, dodging the point which is, which one (1 year old or 5 blastocysts) do you save.

I submit that my reading skills do not affect the inability to answer the question being posed to this person.
Admitting that they would save the 1 year old over the 5 blastocysts shows that the intrinsic value for just being human is not equal like they claimed before.
See my response above. It does not mean that.

Readers, let's examine RightReasons words:
Copy/paste: "Again, a 6 week old and a 6 year old and a 60 year old, and a 6 month old in utero all look different, but they are still human. Being human, they have the same value. Their value is intrinsic in being human."

Even though the debater feels I don't listen well, it seems that I have been listening to their claims and addressing them specifically. The intrinsic value for just being human is not the same. The point about saving a 1 year old over 5 blastcysts shows this, but I'm the one not listening. RightReason would prefer to discuss racism and not the value subject at hand that they brought up themselves when they brought up intrinsic value for being human.
Since a blastocyst and a 1 year old do not have the same value, we cannot discuss abortion issues while pretending they have the same value.
“Well, since black people are clearly inferior to white people, we shouldn’t even be debating whether to end slavery or not. We can’t pretend they are equal.” -said any uneducated racist.
Let's be honest, this was said by you and I don't know your education level nor if you are racist.
I made my value argument comparing a 1 year old to a blastocysts, please do your best to defend your claim that black people are inferior to white people and if we should then have slavery. I have a point with my comparison, what is your point in arguing the blacks are inferior to whites, I cannot see it?
** Also, a little side note: Your hypothetical is kind of gross, because in your scenario humans are about to die in a fire, but choosing an abortion would be equivalent to starting the fire. And well, how about just not starting the fire! That seems to make the most sense.
I agree with you and acknowledge that not starting the fire makes the most sense. Sorry to say, it was started either way and in the senario that shows your failure, you can only save 1, not both.

Did you save the 1 year old or the 5 blastocysts? I'm sorry to assult your senses with this gross hypothetical and truly hope you will find peace. How about an answer and we can begin the healing process?
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1569
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 16 times

Re: Roe v. Wade Overturned June 24, 2022

Post #88

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to Clownboat in post #87]
You dodged my response each time.
I did no such thing. I am not a fan of the yes or no questions. To demand such is quite frankly to be no better than a slimy lawyer asking, “So, Mr. Smith, when did you stop beating your wife?” But despite my dislike of rare extreme examples and hypotheticals being put forth to attempt to make some kind of point, I actually did answer your silly thought experiment and in quite detail. In fact, I even responded that if I knew there were human embryos in the burning building, I would save them. But of course, you didn’t like this answer – as it isn’t the answer you were seeking.

The truth is, many people are ignorant regarding their behavior. Like I tried to explain, in the past, many people actually were completely oblivious to the fact that they were not considering or treating African Americans as fully human. For some, this was something they had to be taught or shown, as they simply were accepting and believing what they had been taught – even though it was contrary to truth/science. I think the viewing the unborn as inferior/less than/not fully human/burdens/parasites/problems/etc, is based on ignorance. As I tried to explain in my previous posts human nature is fascinating, but it certainly does not always represent that which is good and right.

Throughout history, many have had to learn to treat those who we see as different with respect and dignity. Through education we can come to see that often humans treat other humans poorly. Sometimes we try to take advantage of another human’s weakness or we ourselves feel insecure and want to feel better by making another group feel less. We also often lose sight of our shared humanity over what we see as financial benefits. In other words, we put money over people. (How often is ‘can’t afford a baby’ or ‘you will be a drain on society’ cited as reasons to terminate a pregnancy?) That is basic human nature, but it is never right/good, or ok.

This is exactly what is going on regarding those supporting the legalization of abortion. They have lost sight of the dignity of the human person. They have lost sight of the intrinsic value that all of us have merely in being human, and instead tried to exercise a ‘might over right’ type of behavior. This is often disguised as ‘that which is for the common good’ or ‘no one likes abortion, but it is a necessary evil’, or ‘this is the responsible thing to do – consider the planet – consider your future’.

There are always attempts to justify and rationalize immorality. Again, this is human nature. But again why one would think this human nature somehow represents the inherent value of a human makes no sense. Just because one human thinks another is undesirable and can just be discarded does not make or even indicate said human is undesirable. The only thing it indicates is often people make foolish, selfish, cruel, and ignorant choices. However, if one considers the actual facts/science and isn’t swayed by emotion/ideology he would permit human reason and logic to kick in and would understand the injustice.

And I am hopeful. As we as a society have learned that humans come in all shapes and sizes, in all stages of development. We all can look very different from one another, but we all share the dignity and equal value in being human.

What you typed above is true. However, your words do not affect the value argument that I'm putting forward."

<sigh> I have tried to explain several times now that the “value” argument you are putting forward is bunk. One more time, the fact that someone would save their own child or the person they find more attractive from a burning building has NOTHING to do with whether the person not chosen is actually of less value! Your argument does NOT logically follow.

Admitting that they would save the 1 year old over the 5 blastocysts shows that the intrinsic value for just being human is not equal like they claimed before.
1- I did not say I would actively choose the 1 year old over the embryos. In fact, I actually said, if I knew there were human embryos in the building, I would save the embryos. (And I think I may have initially said I
would probably grab a 1 year old because just like a human would be moved to save their own child over someone else's, a human also would likely notice a 1 year old over a human hidden in a container. But if there was a sign explaining the container contained human embryos, I would view saving the embryos as right and good, as I believe we are talking about a human life, just at a different stage of development.)

2- What people would save, does not mean the one not saved is of less value. What it means is the person doing the saving is making a choice/decision based on personal motive/prejudice and is quite frankly ignorant of the facts/science.

The intrinsic value for just being human is not the same. The point about saving a 1 year old over 5 blastcysts shows this

Ha, ha, ha . . . you keep repeating the conclusion you wish your thought experiment showed, but 1) I did not indicate I would choose a 1 year old over another human life at a different stage of development, and 2) even if someone did make such a choice, that does not mean the embryos are of less value. Just like when black people were not treated as fully human did it actually mean they were not fully human. The reality is they should have been treated equally and their value is not dependent on the prejudice of another human.

RightReason would prefer to discuss racism and not the value subject at hand that they brought up themselves when they brought up intrinsic value for being human.

AGAIN, I bring up racism because I noticed the parallels and really hope you think about them as well. Much of what you argue is exactly what some tried to argue when defending slavery. You should really think about that.

** Also, a little side note: Your hypothetical is kind of gross, because in your scenario humans are about to die in a fire, but choosing an abortion would be equivalent to starting the fire. And well, how about just not starting the fire! That seems to make the most sense.
I agree with you and acknowledge that not starting the fire makes the most sense. Sorry to say, it was started either way and in the senario that shows your failure, you can only save 1, not both.
AGAIN, in abortion, there is no burning building – UNLESS someone chooses to start a fire. In abortion the person does not have to choose to save one life over another life. No lives are in danger. In fact, the person doesn’t even have to choose to save the life of her unborn. She merely has to NOT kill him/her. So, as you can see, your analogy is a very poor one.

Did you save the 1 year old or the 5 blastocysts? I'm sorry to assult your senses with this gross hypothetical and truly hope you will find peace. How about an answer and we can begin the healing process?
Asked and answered multiple times now. Now let me ask you, if Mr. Smith chose to save his little Susie Smith over someone else’s Jane Miller, would that mean unchosen Jane had less human value? Is Jane’s value dependent on Mr. Smith?

Humans deserve dignity and have intrinsic value/worth from womb to tomb. It’s time to accept the science and not use one’s prejudices to determine value/worth.

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9340
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 882 times
Been thanked: 1240 times

Re: Roe v. Wade Overturned June 24, 2022

Post #89

Post by Clownboat »

You really still have not answered my question and this is the reason why I'm starting to address the readers and not yourself. I'll try yes or no to see if that helps.

Burning building. You can save a 1 year old or a jar containing 5 blastocysts. You cannot save both.
Did you save the 1 year old? Yes or no?

On to your questions because that is how debate works:
RightReason wrote:(How often is ‘can’t afford a baby’ or ‘you will be a drain on society’ cited as reasons to terminate a pregnancy?)
I don't know. Why do you ask me and not do the work yourself if you want to know? I am not here to do the work for you and I don't see how it even comes close to addressing the value difference.
RightReason wrote:Now let me ask you, if Mr. Smith chose to save his little Susie Smith over someone else’s Jane Miller, would that mean unchosen Jane had less human value?
To Mr. Smith, yes. That is exactly what it shows and let me remind you, it is Mr. Smith who is putting their life on the line.
Is Jane’s value dependent on Mr. Smith?
When we are relying on Mr. Smith to make the decision, yes, that is exactly what this shows. In this instance, little Susie Smith has more value then Jane Miller when it comes to Mr. Smith. You may disagree, but I must ask, who the heck are you in this situation that we should care about your feelings on the matter?

It's as if RightReason feels they should be the one to determine who Mr. Smith should risk his own life for.
Should RightReason make this decision for Mr. Smith or is Mr. Smith the one in the best position to determine who he runs into a burning building to save? I say, not only should Mr. Smith be free to choose, but he should be free to choose to save the one he values most. If you disagree, please explain why.
Should RightReason make the decision as to if my daughter should attempt to carry a fetus to term or not or would my daughter be in the best position to determine such?

I argue that Mr. Smith and my daughter should be able to choose their actions and that RightReason should keep their nose out of Mr. Smith and my daughters business. I also acknowledge that there is a value difference between the born and unborn as I would save a 1 year old over hundreds if not thousands of blastocysts. Should I amend my thinking? If so, why?
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1569
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 16 times

Re: Roe v. Wade Overturned June 24, 2022

Post #90

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to Clownboat in post #89]

You really still have not answered my question
I have. You just don’t like the answer.
Burning building. You can save a 1 year old or a jar containing 5 blastocysts. You cannot save both.
Did you save the 1 year old? Yes or no?
I would save whichever I saw first. I’m still unclear on why I couldn’t save both. One could carry both a 1 year old and a jar. Ask any mother how great we are at multi tasking.

And again, if I knew there were five embryos in a jar (Of course, like I said, I’m not sure how I would know this without a neon sign saying “Five embryos with an arrow pointing to some jar”) I would save them.

I also believe it would be wonderful whether I saved the five embryos OR the 1 year old – as all life has value.

So, several times now I have said, I would have no problem saving the embryos. So, once again, I say, I would save the embryos. Not sure how many more times you plan to ignore what I’m saying.

You, however, do not think human life has equal value/dignity/worth at his/her different stages of development and consequently can be discarded at the hands of another human, which I will remind you is exactly the thinking behind ageism, as well as prejudiced and discrimination against the mentally or physically challenged. These simply stem from an ill-informed worldview based on ignorance.

On to your questions because that is how debate works:
RightReason wrote:(How often is ‘can’t afford a baby’ or ‘you will be a drain on society’ cited as reasons to terminate a pregnancy?)

I don't know. Why do you ask me and not do the work yourself if you want to know?
Ok.

***********


According to the research 73% of women cited, "I can't afford a baby now" as a reason they had an abortion.


https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psr ... rspectives



Poverty is the Commonest Reason For Abortion: This is not a choice.


The well-written and moving BMJ piece also tellingly describes abortion as a "women's right to choose". However the evidence has consistently shown that the vast majority of women request abortions due to a lack of financial resources(3,4). A Guttmacher Institute study reported that 73% of women cited this as the motivating factor for abortion(4). Under these circumstances there is no way abortion can be called a “choice”. Indeed the Guttmacher institute went on to expressly state in the wake of their study that “Qualitative data from in-depth interviews portrayed women who had had an abortion as typically feeling that they had no other choice, given their limited resources and existing responsibilities to others”(5) It is in many ways an affront to suggest to women, who are compelled to have an abortion out of poverty and an inability to afford childcare; that they have "chosen” their abortion. It is sadly ironic that in the same issue that the BMJ calls for greater socio-economic diversity in medicine(6), it then only engages in the abortion debate from the vantage point of the privileged

https://www.bmj.com/content/367/bmj.l6424/rr


In a 2005 study, 73% of women undergoing an abortion said not being able to afford a baby now was a reason for the abortion. That number rose to 81% for women below the federal poverty line.1 And while the abortion rate for American women declined by 8% between 2000 and 2008, among poor American women it increased by 18%.2


https://www.usccb.org/committees/pro-li ... ious-cycle




Why Women Abort
By HLI Staff | May 5, 2021

• 1.14% are done to save the life or physical health of the mother.
• 1.28% to preserve the mental health of the mother.
• 0.39% in cases of rape or incest.
• 0.69% for fetal birth defects, or eugenics.
• 3.50% for all the hard cases combined.
• 96.50% of all abortions are therefore performed for social or economic reasons.2

https://www.hli.org/resources/why-women-abort/



. Fewer than 1% of all abortions take place because there has been rape or incest involved to create the pregnancy.


Up to 85% of the women who become pregnant through rape or incest choose to have their children.


An Elliot Institute study on rape-related pregnancies found that nearly 80% of the women who aborted said that abortion was the wrong solution.


43% of women said they felt pressure to abort from family members or health workers.


https://healthresearchfunding.org/18-sh ... e-victims/


So, again as the research shows, women are not free to make the choice they want. No woman should have to choose between her education, her career, or money in order to keep her baby. Abortion is oppression.

and I don't see how it even comes close to addressing the value difference.

Any “value difference” is all in your head and not based on facts/science. I’m afraid it is you who holds some kind of prejudiced value difference. I believe all human beings have equal value/dignity, inherent in being human. I do not judge humans on which stage of development they are. Or on if they look different than me. Or on what they bring to the table. Or on the color of their skin. Or on their intelligence or mental capabilities. Or if they would be a financial burden or inconvenience, etc.

RightReason wrote:Now let me ask you, if Mr. Smith chose to save his little Susie Smith over someone else’s Jane Miller, would that mean unchosen Jane had less human value?
To Mr. Smith, yes. That is exactly what it shows
Tsk. Tsk. NOT what I asked. And not even true for Mr. Smith. Do you believe Jane has less human value?


Mr. Smith saving Susie does NOT indicate Jane is worth less. Once again, your analogy does not logically follow. In your little hypothetical, we could say that during the time Abraham Lincoln was president a barn caught fire. Inside the barn was a slave and a free man. Joe can only save one. Who does he save? Does whoever Joe saves mean that human has more value? Such nonsense. The one behavior does not determine or indicate value. That’s not how it works. Even Mr. Smith would never claim Jane’s life is worth less.

Is Jane’s value dependent on Mr. Smith?

When we are relying on Mr. Smith to make the decision, yes,
Huh? Nooooooooooooo! That is illogical. One human being does not get to determine the value/worth of another human being. Each human has equal value in being human. And whichever human is fortunate enough to be saved does not mean the one who died must have been worth less. How odd.

And I have no idea why you continue to relate abortion to a tragic natural event like an uncontrollable fire. Abortion is the direct purposeful intentional unnecessary taking of a life. There is a huge difference in trying to save a human vs. purposely killing a human. In saving Susie, Mr. Smith is not intentionally killing Jane. Duh.

that is exactly what this shows. In this instance, little Susie Smith has more value then Jane Miller when it comes to Mr. Smith.
No. She doesn’t. Both Susie and Jane have equal beauty and dignity. And even Mr. Smith would acknowledge that it is tragic that Jane died. He would know that Jane was someone else’s little Susie. He would know that Jane is just as beautiful and valuable as his child. He would also know the difference between accidental tragedies and murder, as we all do.
You may disagree, but I must ask, who the heck are you in this situation that we should care about your feelings on the matter?
I’m not asking you to care about my feelings. It isn’t about feelings. It is about facts. Both Susie and Jane are human beings, with their own unique set of DNA. With this scientific definition of human life, they have intrinsic value.

It's as if RightReason feels they should be the one to determine who Mr. Smith should risk his own life for.
Ha, ha, ha . . . I’m doing no such thing. I’m only saying all humans have equal value/worth. Our value/worth is not dependent on whether someone else (including Mr. Smith) thinks we are worthy of saving. It’s funny to me that you think it does or should. LOL! Again, you ought to be really grateful that you don’t live in a world where some other human who finds you inconvenient can simply destroy you.
Should RightReason make this decision for Mr. Smith or is Mr. Smith the one in the best position to determine who he runs into a burning building to save?
I’m making no decision for Mr. Smith or anyone else. I’m the one saying no one has the right to decide whether another innocent human life lives or dies. Mr. Smith can save however many and whoever’s lives he wants to save. What he can’t do is purposely kill an innocent human.
I say, not only should Mr. Smith be free to choose, but he should be free to choose to save the one he values most. If you disagree, please explain why.
<sigh> Poor, poor Mr. Clownboat. We are witnessing what happens when a person’s argument is drawn out to its logical conclusion. The unraveling reveals the eerie. We are left with defending horrific behaviors like ageism – believing different humans have different value/worth based on their stage of development or whether I desire them.
Should RightReason make the decision as to if my daughter should attempt to carry a fetus to term or not or would my daughter be in the best position to determine such?
The human life in your daughter’s womb should not be subject to either of our decision as to whether he/she can live. The baby in the womb has the right to life in being human. That fetus has his/her own unique set of DNA and his/her value is not granted to him/her via another human, rather is intrinsic in being human himself/herself.

I argue that Mr. Smith and my daughter should be able to choose their actions and that RightReason should keep their nose out of Mr. Smith and my daughters business.

I know you do, but it is both illogical and unscientific.
I also acknowledge that there is a value difference between the born and unborn as I would save a 1 year old over hundreds if not thousands of blastocysts. Should I amend my thinking? If so, why?
Yes. It is anti science and illogical and also lacks compassion/reason. It does not recognize the most weakest and most vulnerable among us, who need protection.

Post Reply