ATHEIST ONLY: Atheist View On Abortion

[leahrachelle]

But I was explaining how it's not inconsistent for you to use the "potential" argument for an embryo but not for a sperm. He was equating the two as if it was hypocritical to use it in reference to the one and not the other.

Right, I just wanted credit for my idea

 

[Willamena]

I dont understand..?
If you are saying that one right cannot be more important than another, than that would mean that you can kill people and do whatever you want for whatever reason. Obviously this is not the case. There are limitations on the term 'liberty' and most of these limitations are to protect the rights of others.

Ahh, I see what you're thinking. But "liberty" has a specific meaning in terms of human rights.

"The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing."
liberty: Definition, Synonyms from Answers.com

It's not about what you do, which is limited and bounded by the law. It's about being you.

 

[leahrachelle]

Nobody's. It's not about feeling, it's about legal interpretation. At the end of the day, that's up to the Supreme Court.


That's one way to put it. I think another would be to say that a convincing case has not been made to show why a fetus should be considered a person under the law.


But it's not so easy. According to the Supreme Court in Roe vs. Wade, denying a woman the right to an abortion goes against her constitutional rights. In the same decision, the court ruled that fetuses were not "persons" for the purposes of the Constitution.

That's another problem. Weren't the majority of judges at this time democrat?

 

[Magic Man]

Since we are unsure, we should go with the way that FOR SURE does not go against the constitution, and that is not allowing abortion.

We're not really unsure of anything. There is a difference of opinion on whether or not a fetus or embryo is person. Even if it is a person, it's still inside of the mother, and therefore is a different situation than some random person. Even if you consider it a human being from conception, you also have to admit that there are huge difference between an abortion and a woman shooting another person in the head.

 

[leahrachelle]

quote=Willamena;1405141]It's not about what you do, which is limited and bounded by the law. It's about being you.[/quote]

I don't know what you mean exactly.

 

[Magic Man]

That's another problem. Weren't the majority of judges at this time democrat?

What does that have to do with it?

 

[doppelganger]

And then we are back to the part where the guarantee of life to the offspring and liberty to the parent clash.

And from there we get to the part where a constitutional compromise is reached to an otherwise intractable problem by basing personhood and the point at which rights attach using the fiction of "fetal viability" - allowing a constitutionally protected choice to the mother through the first trimester.

"We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer . . .

With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother. . . .

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. "

 

[leahrachelle]

We're not really unsure of anything. There is a difference of opinion on whether or not a fetus or embryo is person. Even if it is a person, it's still inside of the mother, and therefore is a different situation than some random person. Even if you consider it a human being from conception, you also have to admit that there are huge difference between an abortion and a woman shooting another person in the head.

I honestly don't see the difference.

 

[Willamena]

I don't know what you mean exactly.

You are guaranteed in your Constitution the right to be you in what you do, in what you express (communication, feelings, etc.) and in what you believe.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's another problem. Weren't the majority of judges at this time democrat?

I don't know. Does it matter?

 

[leahrachelle]

What does that have to do with it?

In our regular jury system, we find an equal number of people that we think will side with each group right? In order to have an unbiast opinion.
We don't do this with the Supreme Court, and I do not feel it is right. As much as you try to tell yourself 'I have to say what's constitutional,' there is still that part of you that is pushing more for your personal side. It is natural of us.

 

[doppelganger]

In our regular jury system, we find an equal number of people that we think will side with each group right?

No. Technically, we are trying to find a jury of people who will not let any outside bias or belief lead them to prejudge the facts they are to decide.

 

[Magic Man]

In our regular jury system, we find an equal number of people that we think will side with each group right? In order to have an unbiast opinion.
We don't do this with the Supreme Court, and I do not feel it is right. As much as you try to tell yourself 'I have to say what's constitutional,' there is still that part of you that is pushing more for your personal side. It is natural of us.

Well, they better not be doing that. They are supposed to be able to put that aside more than most other people.

 

[leahrachelle]

You are guaranteed in your Constitution the right to be you in what you do, in what you express (communication, feelings, etc.) and in what you believe.

Expressing falls into what you do, though. Though yes, believing does not.

 

[Magic Man]

I honestly don't see the difference.

That's very sad. I honestly don't see how you can't see the difference between doing something to your own body and doing something to someone else's body.

 

[leahrachelle]

No. Technically, we are trying to find a jury of people who will not let any outside bias or belief lead them to prejudge the facts they are to decide.

Exactly. The Supreme Court judges are whoever the president at the time chooses them to be - and of course he chooses people that feel the way he feels.

 

[leahrachelle]

That's very sad. I honestly don't see how you can't see the difference between doing something to your own body and doing something to someone else's body.

No, that's not what it was about.
The question was the difference between and abortion and shooting a woman in the head.
I see them both as murder. How is one murder better than the other?
I guess I would judge it by pain, but in this instance, the woman dies instantly, and the baby does not yet feel pain.

 

[doppelganger]

Exactly. The Supreme Court judges are whoever the president at the time chooses them to be - and of course he chooses people that feel the way he feels.

Correct, and that's a shame. Judges on the SCOTUS should be there based on their legal acumen, wisdom and above all their dedication to making our constitutional system as just and workable as possible. Lately, the refusal of certain fringe groups to compromise on irresolvable philosophical and relgious conflicts that involved directly conflicting individual rights are the reason we now have a "litmus test." And the result has been some damn crappy SCOTUS justices.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In our regular jury system, we find an equal number of people that we think will side with each group right? In order to have an unbiast opinion.

No, that's not how it works. Here's how a jury is selected (generally... the details might vary, but this is the basic idea):

- citizens are selected at random for jury duty.
- they confirm that they're eligible to be jury members (e.g. not in a profession that's exempt from jury service, not serving overseas, not a felon, etc.).
- their names go into a common pool.
- when a trial comes up, a group of jury candidates are chosen at random.
- these people are reviewed one-by-one. If they're not ineligible (e.g. if it appears that they wouldn't consider the evidence of the trial fairly, if they have some sort of personal connection to the case, or if some other exemption reason has come up since they were first screened), then they go on the jury. This repeats until you get a full jury plus a couple of alternates.

We don't do this with the Supreme Court, and I do not feel it is right. As much as you try to tell yourself 'I have to say what's constitutional,' there is still that part of you that is pushing more for your personal side. It is natural of us.

It may be that people have these tendencies, but this is why the Supreme Court (all courts, actually) work within set legal frameworks. They can't just issue decrees on whatever they feel like; every decision they make has to have a demonstrable basis in law.

 

[Willamena]

Expressing falls into what you do, though. Though yes, believing does not.

Believing in the right of liberty means believing that people, under ordinary circumstances --that is, not mentally debilitated or considered too young or too old to make reasonable choices --have the right to direct their own lives however they see fit within the limits of the present laws. Whether small stuff like wanting to cover themselves with tatoos, or put a ring in their nose, or big stuff like drinking too much, doing drugs, or not wanting or believing they should have to go through a childbirth, believing in the right of liberty means believing that they should be allowed to make their own choices, their own triumphs, their own little miracles, and their own mistakes.