Prager University on Abortion.

[Teallaura]

It may become illegal in the future, but for now it is legal, so any legal arguments that it shouldn't be allowed are pointless.

Only someone totally and completely ignorant of the Constitution and how constitutional law works would say something that utterly idiotic. I suppose you would have said the same drivel to MLK when he was fighting for civil rights. ''Well, separate but equal is the law now so sitting at that lunch counter and saying Plessy v. Ferguson was wrong is pointless...'

Seriously, PM. that is just an ignorant thing to say. If you can't argue the point because constitutional law isn't your thing it's fine to just say so. That isn't a concession of the point. But don't try garbage like a school kid in hopes that no one will notice.

[Darth Ovious]

???

Well have a look at what you claimed.

A cat can enter you home against your will. It's weird that you don't think that a benign concept. There are many ways of removing a cat from your home without killing it. There is no way of removing a fetus from a woman's body without killing it.

The answer to your bolded part is called birth. Through this magical event life is able to exist in the first place for all mammals on this planet.

You don't know what bodily rights are. You are arguing against a position you don't understand. Bodily rights involve altering someone's body against their will.

The first two sentences just seem to say that I don't understand, so the last sentence here in bold must be you trying to explain what I don't understand.

The word "alter" is defined as:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/altering?s=t

1. to make different in some particular, as size, style, course, or the like; modify:

So the modification you define must be the pregnancy, the same pregnancy in which the parents are responsible for making in the first place.

It's like a person who eats a lot of fatty foods who then complains that their decisions have caused them to become fat and then complain that their body has been "altered" against their will.

I have heard the hypothesis that people who are anti-abortion don't really believe that abortion is murder, they just want to make sure women who have sex face consequences. This argument doesn't help dispel that hypothesis.

Which is like saying:

I have heard the hypothesis that people who are anti drink driving don't really believe that drink driving can cause murder, they just want to make sure that drunk drivers who drive face consequences. This argument doesn't help dispel that hypothesis

[Jaecp]

Only someone totally and completely ignorant of the Constitution and how constitutional law works would say something that utterly idiotic. I suppose you would have said the same drivel to MLK when he was fighting for civil rights. ''Well, separate but equal is the law now so sitting at that lunch counter and saying Plessy v. Ferguson was wrong is pointless...'

Seriously, PM. that is just an ignorant thing to say. If you can't argue the point because constitutional law isn't your thing it's fine to just say so. That isn't a concession of the point. But don't try garbage like a school kid in hopes that no one will notice.

It is pretty pointless though when the change would be an amendment happening or, in other cases that weren't tied to the supreme court, a statute being written/changed or a new supreme court decision replacing the previous one. Knowing constitutional law is of little help when the solution you desire would come from changing the law. These aren't questions of law, meaning the proper understanding of the law, but of morals and the creation of new law.

Which is the entire distinction PM was making

[Mountain Man]

It is possible for a woman and her fetus to both have rights while also allowing for abortion because the mother's right to her body supersedes the fetus's right to life. You already accept that sometimes one person's rights supersede another's. We have limitations on all of our rights for this reason.

The creation of innocent human life is a bad thing to a woman who that life resides in against her will.

You should be more careful when calling out logical fallacies and saying someone is an idiot.

I addressed your second assertion earlier in the thread: "It's hard to argue that the fetus is some sort of hostile invader who exists against the woman's will since the overwhelming majority of pregancies are the result of two people willingly engaging in an act that has a very good chance of causing the woman to become pregnant."

It's a basic fact that if you don't want to become pregnant then you shouldn't be having sex.

You say, "You already accept that sometimes one person's rights supersede another's."

In my world view, here are no rights that supersede another's right to life, and certainly not the desires of a woman who doesn't want to be inconvienced by a pregnancy.

You're basically arguing for graded absolutism, so if you want this ridiculous assertion to fly then you have to defend your belief that the right to life isn't the greatest good.

[Teallaura]

It is pretty pointless though when the change would be an amendment happening or, in other cases that weren't tied to the supreme court, a statute being written/changed or a new supreme court decision replacing the previous one. Knowing constitutional law is of little help when the solution you desire would come from changing the law. These aren't questions of law, meaning the proper understanding of the law, but of morals and the creation of new law.

Which is the entire distinction PM was making

Good grief. What are they teaching in school these days? Are you serious? Do you not even understand the basics?

Marbury v. Madison establishes the principle of judicial review. 'This means that the courts arbitrate the law itself. The courts, culminating with the Supreme Court, decide if a given law follows the Constitution. If not, that law is overturned or invalidated.

That is what Roe did. It found the laws prohibiting abortion to be unconstitutional.

BUT, the Court also possesses the power to overturn its own rulings WHEN the ruling is in error. That's why legal reasoning matters.

Now, go tell your government teacher that you are sorry for sleeping through class. If you didn't sleep through the entire year then demand your money back. Oh, and take PM with you.

lt is a question of law. You probably need to talk with your history teacher as well since you have not the slightest idea how abortion became legal or why ,Roe v. Wade is important.

Run along now, children. Your elders are talking.

[Jaecp]

Or perhaps instead of wigging out on something you think is so obviously incorrect that your counterargument is mentioning basic information from the single best known supreme court case from the early days of our country you could maybe, just maybe, give the other side the charity of the assumption that they aren't idiots and you might realize you'd spent too many words going off half cocked on an argument and distinction you were unable to parse


For crying out loud I spell it out directly at the end before announcing that as the distinction.

[Mountain Man]

I addressed your second assertion earlier in the thread: "It's hard to argue that the fetus is some sort of hostile invader who exists against the woman's will since the overwhelming majority of pregancies are the result of two people willingly engaging in an act that has a very good chance of causing the woman to become pregnant."

It's a basic fact that if you don't want to become pregnant then you shouldn't be having sex.

You say, "You already accept that sometimes one person's rights supersede another's."

In my world view, here are no rights that supersede another's right to life, and certainly not the desires of a woman who doesn't want to be inconvienced by a pregnancy.

You're basically arguing for graded absolutism, so if you want this ridiculous assertion to fly then you have to defend your belief that the right to life isn't the greatest good.

For the sake of clarity, I want to mention that I'm talking about the rights of innocent life since there are certain immorals acts, such as murder, that can cause one to forfeit their right to life.

[QuantaFille]

The legality of it is irrelevant. Throughout history, plenty of horrific things have been legal at some point. That doesn't make them any less horrific.

[Jaecp]

Right, which is why you then make moral arguments to change the law!

[Mountain Man]

Right, which is why you then make moral arguments to change the law!

Isn't that the basis for every law? If a law is immoral then a good argument can be made that the law should be struck down.

[Sparko]

Only problem is, personhood doesn't begin at conception. Such a definition that qualifies a fertilized egg as a human being no different than myself or a baby, is a purely philosophical idea at best, and a religious concept at worst. I see no reason to call a fertilized egg a human being any more than I see a reason to call a hickory nut a tree - or a call an egg chicken, or call a seed a flower. It's playing with words to call an embryo a human, and I'm not a "ghoul" because I won't accept what is an obviously religious concept.

I am sure the Nazi's used that argument against the Jews. Since they were not persons, it was OK to kill them.

[Jaecp]

Isn't that the basis for every law? If a law is immoral then a good argument can be made that the law should be struck down.

Yep!

I'm only saying it because this weirdness between PM/Teal and, I guess me.

You're right though. It's lobbying, making an argument. Lobbying in the classic sense, people addressing their representatives with desires.

[Sparko]

But there you go. The hickory nut is a tree yet, or an egg a chicken yet. These things are not made to progress. They are opportunistic organisms that given the right conditions, will develop into higher organisms. We cut down trees, we eat animals, we kill innocent people in war as collateral damage.

Go destroy a chicken egg and then an eagle egg and see what happens. A chicken egg is not a generic egg, it is quite different from an eagle egg.

Ontologically a chicken egg is a chicken, and eagle egg is an eagle, an acorn is an oak, and a fetus is a human being.

[rogue06]

I am sure the Nazi's used that argument against the Jews. Since they were not persons, it was OK to kill them.

They did. They considered them a sub-human race and compared them to things like germs and cancer infecting the public.

[Jaecp]

Yay Nazi arguments.

Anyone remember that time in the 50's-70's where sci-fi authors thought the internet would make us all smarter?