The little problem with using fetal viability as a standard

I agree. The religious argument would seem to go way beyond any question of viability or definition of life. For them, the issue is that once the egg is fertilized the story is over. We're not going to change that by conceding ground on some number of weeks of gestation. These people can not ever call an end, regardless of any deals that are made.

It seems to me that makes the whole discussion of viability and definition of life or personhood no more than a stepping stone.


imo it would be better if the issue was somehow morphed in favor of the fact that ALL Americans want there to be fewer abortions, and that it is just this one methodology (laws against women) that is being debated.


Other nations have lower abortion rates than we do without using this legal methodology. See Norway, Switzerland, The Netherlands, Belgium, Japan and others where strong religious proscriptions are less likely to have an effect.

If we could get past this one methodology (laws against women), it would mean that we would be far closer to being on the same side and more able to make the kind of progress other nations have made.

 

And there is no person whose rights have been violated during a murder trial. Just a mass of rotting flesh. If a fetus has no rights, then neither do dead people.

 

Why? A fetus isn't dead.

Canada has no abortion laws and their abortion rate is slightly lower than ours.

 

According to pro-choice theory, a fetus has no rights because it is not a person. Upon the instant of one's death, one ceases to be a person. So all of these folks with murdered loved ones who shout, "We are seeking justice for so and so!", are wrong. Supposedly there is no justice for nonpersons...right?

 

"Rights of dead people"??

Murder is prosecuted by the government and for the benefit of the population as a whole.

Dead people are dead. They get last rights (sometimes). Full stop.

 

Justice and rights aren't the same thing.

 

There is a right to life in the US constitution. But according to pro-choice theory, that makes no sense because dead people have no rights. Once one is dead, all cases and controversies in which one was the offended are moot because no court can provide a remedy to a nonperson.

 

I didn't say they were. But is it not correct to say I am seeking justice because my rights were offended?

 

There are no rights for dead people.

There are no rights for fetuses, who do not become "persons" until birth.

...and you are interchanging "rights" and "justice"...they are not the same thing...

 

Sure, but dead guys don't do that. And, we don't have a document identifying what "justice" might be. We favor the living. We have laws limiting the time a criminal may be charged. Victims of property crime rarely get back equal value. Etc. We even suspend sentences - which can't really be compared to "justice". The Bible goes the other direction, with the death penalty for seemingly trivial misdeeds.

Those other than the dead guy (obviously) could lobby for what they think of as "justice" - which could be anything.

 

So is it pointless to say that someone may not be deprived of life without due process, since something that is dead is not an existing person, and thus can claim no rights or justice for violation of rights?

 

What has this got to do with abortion and/or viability ??


There are no dead people involved....are you seeing dead people...?

 

Our laws are for those who are alive. More importantly, for our civilization.

There are clear examples of laws that are not written to maximize justice for the injured party. For example, we have statutes of limitations for just about every law on the books. There are even statutes of limitations on debt. We have laws of adverse possession.

Our law is written and prosecuted in favor of our civilization.

 

The religious argument is bad because "God says so" does not constitute justification for law in a secular society. It is also logical fallacy (how does now prove that such a claim is true ?)

Rather than focus on women in general we should focus on respect for individual rights and freedoms in general and the rule of law, with respect to justification for law.

The Fact of the matter is that "Experts Disagree". There is no consensus that a single human cell (at conception) is a living human. This is then equivalent to saying "we do not know" - although I would argue that we kind of do know. Claiming a single human cell is on par with a living human is somewhat absurd.

Regardless - even if we cede ground and state "we don't know" - there is then no legitimate justification for law prohibiting abortion (at least in the early stages of pregnancy) in a society that claims to respect individual liberty.

"We don't know" or "We don't know otherwise" is an absurdly bad justification for law. Should we make a law banning "walking" because you don t know for sure that one wont trip and hurt oneself ?

There are some cases where things get grey due to conflicting rights (the rights of a person to breath clean air verses the right to smoke for example). This is not one of them. The right of a person's sovereignty over their own body weighs heavy on the scales of justice. How are we to value the rights of "we don't know" on the other side.

It is no contest.

 

I like your points in the first paragraph.

However, arguing those points with someone who disagrees is really just a matter of trying to convince them that their religion is bogus, isn't it? If so, we know where that goes.

I'm just suggesting to skip that step and go directly to the point where we DO agree. I've never met someone who didn't believe that there should be fewer abortions.

I'd rather say, "Look, I don't accept your religion and you don't accept the idea that women should have full rights to their bodies. But, we can work together if we stop trying to argue those two issues. So, let's give women their rights back, stop arguing religion and start working together to lower the abortion rate."

If Canada and other countries can do that effectively, surely America can.

 

That's not what prosecutors, law enforcement, and victims' families say during trial. They all say they seek justice for the slain.

 

Justice is not rights.

 

Well, those are social statements.

If we were looking for "justice" we wouldn't have statutes of limitation, early parole, differences in penalties based on the history of the criminal, forgiveness of uncollected debt, etc.

The objective of our laws is a society that is the best we can create for those living in it.

So, we prosecute murderers - even when neither the murderer nor the victim have families.

 

Are you conceding that justice is sought for nonpersons?

 

Statutes of limitations can effect justice too. For example it doesn't seem just to deport someone who broke the law a decade ago by illegally immigrating.

Prosecuting for murder of someone with no friends or family is further evidence that our legal system upholds the rights of the dead, who are not persons under the law.

 

It's quite true that statutes of limitation can affect what various individuals feel is "just".

And, it's pretty easy to look at individual results of legal action and suggest the result was or was not "just".

In the case of murder and other of our laws the objective is to reduce the number of such offenses.

 

Not at all. Biden said it very well in his VP debate with Paul Ryan. Biden said "As a Catholic I am against abortion but, I do not believe in forcing my religious beliefs on others".

There is a difference between 1) having a belief and 2) forcing that belief on others through physical violence (Law).

If one does not like alcohol (on the basis of religious belief) then don't drink. Forcing others to not drink is a whole other kettle of fish.
If one does not like abortion due to religious belief ... fine ... don't have one.

All kinds of religious people belief in separation of church and state. Why ? because they belief people should be free to believe in what ever religious they choose. These people are grateful that they live in a country that allows them to practice their religious belief and so they respect the right of others to do the same.

The "MAIN" principle ... the "ROCK" on which Jesus based his ministry was not "though shalt not have an abortion". It was the Golden Rule - Matt 7:12 ... "The rule that sums up the law and the prophets" https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7

Do unto others as you would have done to you/Treat others as you would be treated. Jesus restated this many different ways (Judge not lest you be judged, take log out of own eye before picking speck out of brothers, let ye who is without sin cast the first stone, love neighbor as self .. and so on).

Biden restates the same principle. If you do not want others forcing their religious beliefs on you through physical violence, force, coercion (which is what law does) then do not do this to others.

If one calls oneself a Christian ...should then one not follow the main principle on which Christ based his teachings ?

This rule is very deep. Jesus did not invent this rule ... it is in Hammurabi's law code (1800 BC) and other law codes such as the Hittites. Confucius states this rule as does Buddha. It can even be found in the Koran (and they ignore this rule even worse that Christians).

This rule is fundamental to the rule of law, it is the basis for the main principle on which this nation was founded and the social contract.

In summary - if you do not want others making laws (on the basis fallacious justification "God says so" - "we do not know otherwise" and so on) that force you to do things you do not want then do not support law that do this to others.

Logical fallacy is .. by definition "false logic". Fallacy does not prove a claim true. "God says so" ... as justification for Law is Fallacy. It is a claim that can not be proven true.

Sound law requires sound justification otherwise it is no longer sound law.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Justice is not rights.

No, I not conceding anything. I stated "Justice is not rights. "


But justice is sought for the dead, nonpersons.