How to overturn Roe v. Wade

Author: 949havoc

Posts

Total: 280
#61
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
"obvious"
Your words not mine.

And I responded.
But refuse to answer questions when asked.

I am not your servant
I said nothing of the sort.

I read threads and comment accordingly
The only thing you don’t do is answer questions apparently.
#62
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tarik
So what is your knowledge of right and wrong?

See how you avoided the question again?
#63
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
So if one were to kill you and your entire family then they wouldn’t be wrong for doing so?
See how you avoided mine FIRST?
#64
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tarik
I clearly responded to that question. #42

In short...

Under current British social law..... wrong.

Universally....I don't know.



So what is your interpretation of right and wrong?

See if you can not avoid this request again.


If I know what your views are, we can then continue to share data accordingly.
#65
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
Following the rules is right and not following them is wrong.

#66
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,167
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
Abortion has nothing to do with an unborn child being alive or being life or potential life, abortion is about when human rights are afforded to a human being.  The arguments for when that happens are so weak and subjective it is laughable. You cant give rights to that which is not alive. As it stands, using the current logic for Roe v Wade it is no different if I smash the eggs of any animal or kill the fetus of any animal than to kill a human fetus. I have killed nothing. Why would I be punished for smashing Bald  Eagle eggs? And don't give me your endangered species BS. A species is nothing until it is born. It is not life. It is a collection of cells that can not exist outside of the egg or the mother animal. Animals are however, afforded rights by humans before humans are afforded rights by humans.  Totally and complete unreconcilable, well it can be reconciled by just ignoring it. Which is the case. The law is who ever is in power says it is. 
#67
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tarik
In terms of social law, I would agree.

What about in terms of universal law?

And what about hypothetical situations?
Topic's author
#68
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@sadolite
A species is nothing until it is born. It is not life. 
Where did that come from? Pre-school biology?
A pre-natal is nothing? Funny thing, it meets every description of biological life. But, keep thinking limited potential. Guess what it yields?
Topic's author
#69
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
I launched this thread a week ago, before leaving for a vacation, during which I had no internet service. That was great!
Y'all have bickered, as usual.

#70
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@949havoc
Bickering is fun.


It's either that or worrying about the Moon.

Which is lunacy.
#71
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
And what about hypothetical situations?
You’re gonna have to be a little bit more specific.
#72
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tarik
So, we can judge right and wrong simply in accordance with social rules.

Though ultimately social rules are contrivances, based upon internally manipulated data.....Essentially hypothetical, when relative to philosophical standards of ethicality and morality.

How do we establish the right and wrong of setting hypothetical standards?

Especially when ethical and moral standards can vary considerably.
#73
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
Especially when ethical and moral standards can vary considerably.
That would ultimately lead to ethical and moral standards being fundamentally impossible to interpret, do you agree with that?
#74
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tarik
Good question.

We can always interpret, but not necessarily always agree upon a standard interpretation.

Nonetheless, there is still no external basis to interpret from.

So fundamentally......As in from the very beginning.....I would say yes.
#75
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,167
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@949havoc
It came from the way roe v wade justifies abortion. I am just applying that logic to all "so called life ."
#76
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
I would say yes.
Well in that case your also saying yes to nihilism, do you agree?
#77
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tarik
I don't see the connection.

We can extract meaning and value from all sorts of things.

Not accepting the idea or existence of a greater authority, doesn't make one a nihilist.
#78
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,167
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@949havoc
To be clear, If I kill an unborn human fetus I have not killed anything. It is nothing, you cant kill that which is not  alive according to Roe v Wade. Again Roe v Wade can not reconcile its justification without contradicting science. As you so plainly pointed out. 
#79
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
We can extract meaning and value from all sorts of things.
But why would we do that if there’s no greater authority telling us to do so?
#80
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Tarik
But why would we do that if there’s no greater authority telling us to do so?
There are people around the world that like to dress up in fury costumes and f**k each other. For many of them, it’s an important aspect of their life, and a way, I’m sure, that they can derive personal self worth or satisfaction. It has meaning to them.

Fury orgies occur not because there is some higher power that imparts some objective meaning - no God that sits down and determines that Jimmy dressing up in a chipmunk costume with a pink dress has some greater purpose or meaning.  But because Jimmy has emotions, and emotional interactions that end up manifesting in the way he weights or reacts the importance of things that happen around him. And these emotions end up making him feel like dry humping someone dressed as a Chinchilla, has some greater meaning.
Topic's author
#81
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@sadolite
It came from the way roe v wade justifies abortion. I am just applying that logic to all "so called life ."
It seems apparent your "assessment" of the Roe v. Wade decision was not based upon a full read of the Court's decision, but, rather, on some media summary. Try reading the decision itself,  https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113

Your "so called life" is a complete misnomer, because you assume all "life" referenced in the decision is the fetal life when, in fact, of three separate references to "life" rendered, fetal life is the least mentioned by the numbers in the decision. The "lives" discussion are:
1. Mother's life.
2. Human life, generally
3. Fetal life.

of the 3, Mother's life is the most frequently mentioned. Read the decision.

And, while you conclude that the Court concluded there is no pre-natal life at all, that is a grave misconception of the Court's attitude and decision point. Read the decision.

When you read, I suggest you pay particular attention to paragraphs 42, 52, 82, 84, and 86. The Court is, at best, conflicted, even among those seven who found in favor of plaintiff Roe.


Topic's author
#82
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@sadolite
To be clear, If I kill an unborn human fetus I have not killed anything. It is nothing, you cant kill that which is not  alive according to Roe v Wade. 
You completely ignore Title 18 USC 1841, which post dates Roe v. Wade by over 30 years, and which specifically makes the violence-caused end of fetal life a legal crime. Therefore, the law does recognize fetal life, and Roe v. Wade did not discount it. The decision discusses the matter of fetal life, but does not draw any conclusion regarding it. Again, you've been misled, as I noted in my #81.
#83
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Ramshutu
But because Jimmy has emotions, and emotional interactions that end up manifesting in the way he weights or reacts the importance of things that happen around him.
But why would we emote if there’s no greater authority telling us to do so?
#84
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tarik
Internal function and process.


Nihilism is no more or less a label for a philosophical amalgamation of data, loosely relative to something and not particularly definitive of anything.


We process data and variously attribute meaning and value.....So a greater authority is but one of many derived concepts that we might or might not attribute meaning and value to. 
#85
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
Internal function and process.
You’re gonna have to be a little more specific.
#86
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Tarik
But why would we emote if there’s no greater authority telling us to do so?
Why is a greater authority required in order to tell us to emote?
#87
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Ramshutu
Why is a greater authority required in order to tell us to emote?
Because it wouldn’t make sense to do it otherwise.

Topic's author
#88
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@Ramshutu
Why is a greater authority required in order to tell us to emote?
You mean, the universe and its alleged determinism? We tell ourselves to emote, and not by suggestion of any physics law. Physics is not the be-all, end-all of existence. Release your self from that trap, you begin to see the true human potential to be divine. No physics there. There's a greater law than physics, to which even physics bows.

If you really want to know what that law is, it's called priesthood, the law by which God acts, and a law in which we are being schooled. Priesthood is synonymous with truth and light and intelligence.
#89
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Tarik
Why is a greater authority required in order to tell us to emote?
Because it wouldn’t make sense to do it otherwise.

Why?

On what basis do you think having emotions “doesn’t make sense” without a greater authority.

It seems to be a complete non sequitor - the two seem completely unrelated; and you’re just injecting the necessity as an unfounded assertion in order to be able to assume your own conclusion
#90
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@949havoc
You mean, the universe and its alleged determinism? We tell ourselves to emote, and not by suggestion of any physics law. Physics is not the be-all, end-all of existence. Release your self from that trap, you begin to see the true human potential to be divine. No physics there. There's a greater law than physics, to which even physics bows.

If you really want to know what that law is, it's called priesthood, the law by which God acts, and a law in which we are being schooled. Priesthood is synonymous with truth and light and intelligence.
Please don’t cross pollute threads