Debate: Should abortion be legal?

[DC Al Fine]

anyways. there's no case in which a person has a right to use another person's body without their consent, regardless of how lifesaving it might be. why on earth should fœtuses/embryos have more rights than already-born people?

How is that any different from a newborn? If anything a newborn baby makes more demands on other people than an unborn one.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

anyways. there's no case in which a person has a right to use another person's body without their consent, regardless of how lifesaving it might be. why on earth should fœtuses/embryos have more rights than already-born people?

How is that any different from a newborn? If anything a newborn baby makes more demands on other people than an unborn one.

and people have the right to give newborns up for adoption. or do you want to take that away too?

[100% pro-life no matter what]

anyways. there's no case in which a person has a right to use another person's body without their consent, regardless of how lifesaving it might be. why on earth should fœtuses/embryos have more rights than already-born people?

How is that any different from a newborn? If anything a newborn baby makes more demands on other people than an unborn one.

and people have the right to give newborns up for adoption. or do you want to take that away too?

I would argue that, by having sex, the woman already consented to having a baby (that's the real purpose of sex, after all.  In the extremely rare case of a pregnancy resulting from rape, I would say that pregnancy is temporary, and the right to life for the baby supersedes (though, the rapist should have to pay some financial penalty to the woman to help the raising of the child).

[DC Al Fine]

anyways. there's no case in which a person has a right to use another person's body without their consent, regardless of how lifesaving it might be. why on earth should fœtuses/embryos have more rights than already-born people?

How is that any different from a newborn? If anything a newborn baby makes more demands on other people than an unborn one.

and people have the right to give newborns up for adoption. or do you want to take that away too?

I think my position has been very clear from the beginning. No skull impaling for anyone. k?

[Mopsus]

How boring!

Sorry I don't choose my political views based on how #edgy they sound.

You should be. People don't want to debate each other because they already know their opponent's position on everything, and that's killing productive discourse in this country.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

anyways. there's no case in which a person has a right to use another person's body without their consent, regardless of how lifesaving it might be. why on earth should fœtuses/embryos have more rights than already-born people?

How is that any different from a newborn? If anything a newborn baby makes more demands on other people than an unborn one.

and people have the right to give newborns up for adoption. or do you want to take that away too?

I would argue that, by having sex, the woman already consented to having a baby (that's the real purpose of sex, after all.  In the extremely rare case of a pregnancy resulting from rape, I would say that pregnancy is temporary, and the right to life for the baby supersedes (though, the rapist should have to pay some financial penalty to the woman to help the raising of the child).

Yes, well you're bonkers.

[Antonio the Sixth]

How boring!

Sorry I don't choose my political views based on how #edgy they sound.

You should be. People don't want to debate each other because they already know their opponent's position on everything, and that's killing productive discourse in this country.

Yes, clearly having more edgy contrarians around will improve the state of public debate.

[DC Al Fine]

anyways. there's no case in which a person has a right to use another person's body without their consent, regardless of how lifesaving it might be. why on earth should fœtuses/embryos have more rights than already-born people?

How is that any different from a newborn? If anything a newborn baby makes more demands on other people than an unborn one.

and people have the right to give newborns up for adoption. or do you want to take that away too?

I would argue that, by having sex, the woman already consented to having a baby (that's the real purpose of sex, after all.  In the extremely rare case of a pregnancy resulting from rape, I would say that pregnancy is temporary, and the right to life for the baby supersedes (though, the rapist should have to pay some financial penalty to the woman to help the raising of the child).

Yes, well you're bonkers.

Well argued.

[Mopsus]

How boring!

Sorry I don't choose my political views based on how #edgy they sound.

You should be. People don't want to debate each other because they already know their opponent's position on everything, and that's killing productive discourse in this country.

Yes, clearly having more edgy contrarians around will improve the state of public debate.

So will calling people names because they used a little bit of logic. Apparently.

[Antonio the Sixth]

How boring!

Sorry I don't choose my political views based on how #edgy they sound.

You should be. People don't want to debate each other because they already know their opponent's position on everything, and that's killing productive discourse in this country.

Yes, clearly having more edgy contrarians around will improve the state of public debate.

So will calling people names because they used a little bit of logic. Apparently.

Someone who dismisses arguments because they are "boring" is hardly in a position to complain about that.

[Mopsus]

How boring!

Sorry I don't choose my political views based on how #edgy they sound.

You should be. People don't want to debate each other because they already know their opponent's position on everything, and that's killing productive discourse in this country.

Yes, clearly having more edgy contrarians around will improve the state of public debate.

So will calling people names because they used a little bit of logic. Apparently.

Someone who dismisses arguments because they are "boring" is hardly in a position to complain about that.

I'm calling you "boring", because you refuse to speculate beyond what's expected of you.

[Antonio the Sixth]

ayy lmao

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

anyways. there's no case in which a person has a right to use another person's body without their consent, regardless of how lifesaving it might be. why on earth should fœtuses/embryos have more rights than already-born people?

How is that any different from a newborn? If anything a newborn baby makes more demands on other people than an unborn one.

and people have the right to give newborns up for adoption. or do you want to take that away too?

I would argue that, by having sex, the woman already consented to having a baby (that's the real purpose of sex, after all.  In the extremely rare case of a pregnancy resulting from rape, I would say that pregnancy is temporary, and the right to life for the baby supersedes (though, the rapist should have to pay some financial penalty to the woman to help the raising of the child).

Yes, well you're bonkers.

Well argued.

It's as you said in this very thread - there is no point debating with the absurd self-caricatures of the pro-choice side, so why bother with their equivalent on the pro-life side?

[Person Man]

anyways. there's no case in which a person has a right to use another person's body without their consent, regardless of how lifesaving it might be. why on earth should fœtuses/embryos have more rights than already-born people?

How is that any different from a newborn? If anything a newborn baby makes more demands on other people than an unborn one.

and people have the right to give newborns up for adoption. or do you want to take that away too?

I would argue that, by having sex, the woman already consented to having a baby (that's the real purpose of sex, after all.  In the extremely rare case of a pregnancy resulting from rape, I would say that pregnancy is temporary, and the right to life for the baby supersedes (though, the rapist should have to pay some financial penalty to the woman to help the raising of the child).

Yes, well you're bonkers.

Well argued.

It's as you said in this very thread - there is no point debating with the absurd self-caricatures of the pro-choice side, so why bother with their equivalent on the pro-life side?

As if the only reason that every person or even every animal has sex is to have a baby.

[catographer]

I'm going to apply the Supreme Court's Lemon test, a.k.a. "secular purpose" and "neither advance nor inhibit a religion" tests for whether a statue violates the establishment clause. If abortion is made illegal, does it pass these tests?

1. Well, does banning abortion have a secular legislative purpose? Well, the argument in favor of banning abortion are based on the religious doctrine that legal personhood begins at conception. So I would say that no, it does not have a secular legislative purpose because the primary purpose behind the law is to adhere to religious doctrine. Unless someone here can give me an argument not based on religious belief as to why legal personhood should be granted to an unborn, pre-viable human life.

2. Does it advance or inhibit religion? It appears as though it advances the religious belief of legal personhood at conception. In the same way that the government cannot advance one religion over another (ex. Judaism over Islam), it cannot advance religion over non-religion (ex. Christianity over atheism).

3. Does banning abortion result in excessive entanglement with religion and religious authority? I lean towards no, because the government banning abortion wouldn't necessarily involve it being directly involved with or connected to religious institutions like churches or temples. However, I can see an argument the other way, because for the government to enact a law based on religious belief would make the government compliant with religious authorities, and essentially be doing what the religious authorities tell the govt to do.

Feel free to disagree with this argument or not. I'm not sure if I agree with this argument entirely anyway, though it's an interesting thought exercise.

[Person Man]

I'm going to apply the Supreme Court's Lemon test, a.k.a. "secular purpose" and "neither advance nor inhibit a religion" tests for whether a statue violates the establishment clause. If abortion is made illegal, does it pass these tests?

1. Well, does banning abortion have a secular legislative purpose? Well, the argument in favor of banning abortion are based on the religious doctrine that legal personhood begins at conception. So I would say that no, it does not have a secular legislative purpose because the primary purpose behind the law is to adhere to religious doctrine. Unless someone here can give me an argument not based on religious belief as to why legal personhood should be granted to an unborn, pre-viable human life.

-It is a belief based on objective evidence that any biological entity whose metabolic activity could potentially cause the development of a person is a person by virtue of that metabolic activity. -However, this notion is heavily influenced by religious belief and a large majority whose only determination of moral and ethical rights and responsibility is through objective evidence reject this belief.
-At this moment in time, a "secular legislative purpose" based on "personhood" probably is a stretch, at best.
- However, there are other secular purposes. It could be used as a way to protect communities from the negligent infliction of emotional distress caused of adultery or fornication and it definitely could serve as a purpose to stabilize demography and public revenue
- Therefore, I think it does serve a "secular legislative purpose", but at this time to protect the fetus's right to not be aborted isn't one of them.
- The answer is "sort of".



2. Does it advance or inhibit religion? It appears as though it advances the religious belief of legal personhood at conception. In the same way that the government cannot advance one religion over another (ex. Judaism over Islam), it cannot advance religion over non-religion (ex. Christianity over atheism).
- As Santander has explained time and time again, there are very visible religions in the general community that hold that life begins at birth and some moderate-to-liberal religious officials in those religions believe that abortion can even be a sanctioned activity in certain situations. However, there are those religions who believe that abortion is amongst the most deplorable acts imaginable. Therefore, a law that makes abortion a crime, at any level and for whatever reason, who advance certain visible religions over others.
-The answer here is "Yes".

3. Does banning abortion result in excessive entanglement with religion and religious authority? I lean towards no, because the government banning abortion wouldn't necessarily involve it being directly involved with or connected to religious institutions like churches or temples. However, I can see an argument the other way, because for the government to enact a law based on religious belief would make the government compliant with religious authorities, and essentially be doing what the religious authorities tell the govt to do.

-Like in the first question, this one hinges on what is publicly within the capacity and experience of the people. In this situation, the general understanding is that the campaign to abrogate the right to an abortion and then to make abortion a crime is primarily organized through a coalition of religious entrepreneurs in the  "Non-Denominational" and "Evangelical" American Christian tradition and religious officials in the Holy Roman Catholic Church.  There are many people who want abortion to be illegal that are secular or are a member of a religious minority community, but it is reasonable to believe that the religious infrastructure that made abortion illegal would also play a large role in it staying illegal and making sure those who break the law are caught and punished.
-Of course campaigning for new laws and helping maintain them are two different things but I doubt that many abortion opponents would just stop caring about the issue once they have their laws on the books. It is definitely reasonable to foresee a future where the Sheriff Office keeps a few patrol cars on duty at the local Catholic Church or Evangelical Center to organize volunteers to keep an eye on the young adults and especially the single active young women, in their congregation and subdivisions.
- This is a "yes".

- On the whole, barring any other constitutional issues, I would say that I don't consider abortion bans to conform with the whole Free Exercise clause. Maybe they could if it they were strictly tailored to population or community welfare issues and punished the same way that sex crimes or tax evasion would be, with exceptions that allow abortions to be done in hospitals if they are for non-discriminatory (not selective based on the phenotype, sex, potential sexual orientation et al.) eugenical, therapeutic, or forensic purposes. 

Feel free to disagree with this argument or not. I'm not sure if I agree with this argument entirely anyway, though it's an interesting thought exercise.

[MAINEiac4434]

Yes.

[RFayette]

Absolutely not.

[Person Man]

Do you think the world, or at least the United States, would be a better place if more people who wanted abortion to be illegal were Roman Catholics?

[Person Man]

Abortion should be attempted for every pregnancy. Only a select few babies will survive the procedure, granting them an invaluable +1 immunity to feticide which can be passed down to future offspring until we finally eradicate abortion as an option. It is the only way to save the children, ultimately.

Evolve abortion resistance?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Do you think the world, or at least the United States, would be a better place if more people who wanted abortion to be illegal were Roman Catholics?

The kind of Catholics who actually adhere to Catholic doctrine, including on matters of social justice and solidarity? Hell yes.

The kind of Catholics who voted for T***p in a landslide? Hell no.

[RFayette]

Do you think the world, or at least the United States, would be a better place if more people who wanted abortion to be illegal were Roman Catholics?

Maybe, but it'd be best if more of them were Evangelicals.

[Person Man]

Do you think the world, or at least the United States, would be a better place if more people who wanted abortion to be illegal were Roman Catholics?

The kind of Catholics who actually adhere to Catholic doctrine, including on matters of social justice and solidarity? Hell yes.

The kind of Catholics who voted for T***p in a landslide? Hell no.

This would be nice.

Do you think the world, or at least the United States, would be a better place if more people who wanted abortion to be illegal were Roman Catholics?

Maybe, but it'd be best if more of them were Evangelicals.

Maybe if those Evangelicals were vegitarian though they can eat meat if they are warriors.