3 ms·

>>No, there are no logically valid, non-religious arguments for prohibiting abortion. There are so many reasons why this is wrong. Under the Constitution, the

>>No, there are no logically valid, non-religious arguments for prohibiting abortion. There are so many reasons why this is wrong. Under the Constitution, the tenth amendment clearly reserves powers not expressly enumerated for the federal government, to the people and states, and the only exception to that is powers expressly denied by the Constitution to the states, which defining human life as beginning before birth is not one of them. Moreover, defining human life as starting at a heartbeat or before birth can be an entirely secular belief, your dogmatism denial notwithstanding. >>You’ve just demonstrated that yourself, by ignoring the fact that the opinion was based on works of a professional witch hunter and marital rape apologist. This is just ad hominem / character assassination, and not relevant to this point. >>When the society realizes they aren’t working properly, it should be possible to fix said courts. And you're arguing for fixing said courts through illegal acts. Like I said: If the law is only respected and observed when it agrees with one political platform, it's no law at all. >>And no, in US there is no working legal process for fixing the court, even in very obvious cases, like a judge protecting its wife, or just being a straight out human waste, like Scalia. Of course there is a way to fix the courts: legislation can dictate the jurisdiction of courts, and legislatures can appoint new justices to the court, and the legislature is democratically elected. Of course the latter takes time, as Supreme Court justices are lifetime appointments, but that is the Constitutional process, and that can also be changed if a supermajority vote for a Constitutional amendment. Your expressions of hatred and disgust toward those who through the Constitutionally legitimate process, became Supreme Court justices, is not a moral argument. It's just a manifestation of the moral superiority complex exhibited by those on the political left who support this subversion of the law.

trasz 4y ago
It doesn’t matter when human life starts: even assuming it started at fertilization, it wouldn’t override other person right to decide about their body. The law doesn’t force you to be a organ donor when it could save someone; this is the same situation. Like I said - there are no logically valid arguments for abortion ban, other than strictly religious.
- CryptoPunk 4y ago
  In case you forgot, numerous states forbid people from even going outside their home, and from perusing numerous services if they weren't vaccinated. This was restricting people's bodily autonomy under duress, to theoretically reduce the spread of a virus with a 99.5% infection survival rate. On the basis of prevailing legal norms, an entirely secular argument could absolutely be made for not allowing the eviction of a person from their mother's womb, to their death. We put mothers and mostly fathers in prison for not providing child support. The latter never even had an option to abort their parental responsibilities the way mothers did during pregnancy. The idea that a non-religious argument against abortion can't exist in light of this is absurd. >>Like I said - there are no logically valid arguments for abortion ban, other than strictly religious. Like I said, believing abortion should be prohibited can be an entirely secular belief, your dogmatic denial notwithstanding.
  - trasz 4y ago
    Entering public spaces because you’re potentially dangerous - because you are unvaccinated, are a sex offender, or you’re carrying a weapon - has nothing to do with bodily autonomy. As for child support - again, nothing to do with bodily autonomy, because the same happens in other directions, for failing to support other family members one is required to, not just one’s children. You still hadn’t managed to provide even a single secular reason to ban abortion. It’s not that they cannot exist - they perhaps could, but they don’t. “Prevailing legal norms” don’t matter, because they have been largely written to the tune of religious extremists; that’s where churches numerous privileges come from.

trasz 4y ago

It doesn’t matter when human life starts: even assuming it started at fertilization, it wouldn’t override other person right to decide about their body. The law doesn’t force you to be a organ donor when it could save someone; this is the same situation. Like I said - there are no logically valid arguments for abortion ban, other than strictly religious.

CryptoPunk 4y ago
In case you forgot, numerous states forbid people from even going outside their home, and from perusing numerous services if they weren't vaccinated. This was restricting people's bodily autonomy under duress, to theoretically reduce the spread of a virus with a 99.5% infection survival rate. On the basis of prevailing legal norms, an entirely secular argument could absolutely be made for not allowing the eviction of a person from their mother's womb, to their death. We put mothers and mostly fathers in prison for not providing child support. The latter never even had an option to abort their parental responsibilities the way mothers did during pregnancy. The idea that a non-religious argument against abortion can't exist in light of this is absurd. >>Like I said - there are no logically valid arguments for abortion ban, other than strictly religious. Like I said, believing abortion should be prohibited can be an entirely secular belief, your dogmatic denial notwithstanding.
- trasz 4y ago
  Entering public spaces because you’re potentially dangerous - because you are unvaccinated, are a sex offender, or you’re carrying a weapon - has nothing to do with bodily autonomy. As for child support - again, nothing to do with bodily autonomy, because the same happens in other directions, for failing to support other family members one is required to, not just one’s children. You still hadn’t managed to provide even a single secular reason to ban abortion. It’s not that they cannot exist - they perhaps could, but they don’t. “Prevailing legal norms” don’t matter, because they have been largely written to the tune of religious extremists; that’s where churches numerous privileges come from.