UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

The consensus in the nation seems to be to allow it first trimester but not after.

It’s still an abomination, but it would save a lot of babies.

I don't feel there much difference between contraception and early pregnancy abortion. I guess I'm just a left wing freak on this issue.

You aren’t supposed to kill innocent life. I’m not in either of the crazies camp, but the pro lifers have clearly the better moral argument as bad as their presentation of it can be sometimes. For what it’s worth I have published circuit cases upholding ordinance restrictions on some of the protest nuttiness.

I suspect you are right. They will not compromise.

Thanks to abortion up to the moment of birth, how many murdered little ones will never visit the great national parks or hear the music of The Beatles or see a Notre Dame game or have the chance themselves to perhaps find a cure for cancer or spinal cord injuries or even be the one person to bring peace to the world. I'm telling you, the immorality and lack of Faith in this country, all in the name of whatever the left decides is freedom at that moment, is mind blowing. Go volunteer at your local Planned Parenthood for a week and come back and let us know how invigorating it was.

(no message)

It is only as religious of an issue as murder or stealing or any other violation of rights crime. Either it is a violation of rights or it isn't. And you can determine that with out resorting to religion, by looking at two issues:

1) Is there a human or not. This is a scientific issue. All biology text books agree that a fetus is a unique, living human...with a unique set of DNA defining a unique human different from the mother. In the past, those who support the right to abort have argued that a fetus is not human, but we see that argument falling away because it is becoming harder and harder to maintain that argument in the face of science. Religion has nothing to do with this determination. (The people who still argue this are usually not up to date on the logic of this issue. The real crux of the debate is now the second point below...what do you do in the event of a conflict of rights between humans.)

2) Give than that there are two humans involved (mother and unborn child), which rights prevail in a conflict between the mother's right to freely act in any way she wants and the unborn child's right to live. Granted, many religions state that all humans have a right to life, and that resolves the issue for many, but you don't have to resort to religion to decide this issue. Atheists are perfectly able to analyze this issue, and decide that the right to life trumps a right to freedom of action, especially when the one which possesses the right to life had no say in being placed where he or she was placed. The unborn is 100% innocent in creating the situation. [Now, in cases of rape, the mother is obviously 100% innocent as well, and we can argue about those rare cases. I happen to think the child still wins, but we can have a reasonable argument about that special case if you want. But, there is no use arguing those rare cases if we can't agree that a 100% innocent child's right to life trumps the right of the mother to be rid of the child she created. I would say that if there is to be a discussion, we should argue the main issue first, since it sets the groundwork for any exceptions.]

Again, this is not a religious issue any more than any other rights violation crime, such as murder or stealing. This is not a crime which has no human victim, like taking the Lord's Name in vain...a "non-consequential," purely religious issue in which there is no human victim, and which the law should not address. The secular law is perfectly capable to properly address "consequential" issues of humans being victimized without resorting to religion. Per item one above, there is a human victim, so the secular law can and should resolve a conflict of rights between two humans.

Granted, many people don't like how this issue is naturally resolved, so they say that it is a religious issue, or a personal decision...but it is not a personal decision any more than it is a personal decision by one person to violate another person's rights. If I open my front door Saturday morning, and discover a baby in a basket on my front porch, I don't get to throw the baby in the trashcan because it violated my property rights, or because it has no right to demand that I feed it or to ask others to do so. The right to life trumps my right to not be bothered--not a religious issue.

You can argue that only a subset of humans actually have human rights...but then a right is not really a human right if not all humans have it. So, the right to life ceases to be a human right. It is just something that people have if they happen to live under a legal authority which gives them that right. It is not a right, it is a government benefit. Most people, even atheists, don't like that outcome.

(no message)

Atheism says there is no god.

There are pro-life atheists, and there are atheists that support the right to abort the unborn.

(no message)

What makes something a religious issue (a religion only issue) or a government issue is whether or not there is a human victim.
- If there is no human victim, it is a matter for religion to address (or not), not government.
- If there is a human victim, then the matter is proper for secular law (and religion) to address.

Application of the power of government (force of law against individuals) should require that a victim be identified first. Otherwise, the secular authorities could address any issue like religions can...and our free society would be destroyed.

Religion should use only persuasion to change behavior, and so can address all issues.

Governments can use force to change behavior, and so the issues governments can address should be limited, and that limit is usually to consequential laws (to protect victims). Only in totalitarian states are governments allowed to address non-consequential issues, like matters of sharia law.

Atheists being pro-life. You picked the group about which you are most wrong.

I was one for many years.

I grant you that American Atheists pretty much required left-leaning views...they were pretty paranoid that they were going to get infiltrated by religionists. (Maybe they've loosened up since Madalyn Murray O'Hair died, I don't know.) FFRF's newsletter always seemed a bit left leaning as well.

But, there are pro-life atheists out there. Pew says it is 11%. Doris Gordon, the founder of Libertarians for Life was an atheist. All of her reasoning was 100% atheist, and she wrote extensively on the subject. There was an Atheists & Agnostics for Life organization back when I was in law school. Not sure it is active anymore. Secular ProLife may have replaced them. Their position: "We see abortion not as a culture war issue or as a religious issue but as a human rights issue." That is my position. And, I think arguing that way will have much better pro-life impact than arguing from a religious point of view.

Those who claim abortion is merely a religious issue are using that claim as a cop-out so that they don't have to think through the issue. Young humans are being killed. It may help to be religious to see that is wrong, but you don't have to be religious to see that is wrong.

(no message)

Should you ever arrive to where you can compete with Lance's brain power, ... Ugh! ..... not to worry, you're not that capable.

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

It is probably correct that most atheists support the right to abort a human baby.

That doesn't mean the logic supports them. It may or may not. It certainly does not mean that atheism requires support for abortion. There are atheists who are pro-life.

Most libertarians argue for abortion, but their beliefs don't come out of libertarian theory, and there are libertarians who are pro-life. Libertarianism does not require support for abortion, and, indeed, you can fashion a libertarian argument against abortion (I basically did above). Similarly, atheism does not require support for abortion, and you can fashion a non-religious argument against abortion (again, as I did above).

Just because most theists are against stealing does not make stealing a religion-only issue. Secular law is quite capable of handling that issue, and any other rights-violation, consequential issue.

(no message)

(no message)

there are atheists that support the right to abort the unborn."

your suggestion is they're about equal, which they are not.

My post clarifies your misleading message.

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

I accept all science. Do you?

I suspect you deny science in two ways:
1) You deny actual science, such as the determination of sex through genetics...or possibly when the human life cycle begins; and
2) You believe that non-scientific issues such as policy decisions are actually products of the scientific method.

Not at all behaving like a cowardly puss. No sir.

Stop trying to include me in it.

I'm all in on science. There. No need to keep inventing some inane scenario. My belief in science has been inviolable on this board and everywhere else.

(no message)

In fact, that warming has been the greatest single natural benefit to humanity and civilization in the past 20,000 years.

I also believe that mankind contributes to warming by its activities.

I suspect we agree on the science. But on policy?...

I am also anti-pollution, and support government initiatives opposing pollution.

But, none of the above means I have to believe that there is an imminent disaster looming or that the policy decisions the Democrats propose are helpful. Those are matters of judgement and policy, not science.

Masks can be useful in many cases. In many cases they are as useful as wearing a helmet in a car. Is it safer than only wearing a seatbelt? Sure. Is it worth it? A policy decision, not a science decision.

(no message)

When a person is brain dead, you can legally turn off life support. This is because there has never been a case of a brain dead person resuming normal life. There is literally no chance of that person ever being viable again.

With regard to birth, the date of viability has rolled earlier as our medical abilities have improved. Babies are now born at dates that were unthinkable a decade ago. Another aspect of infant viability is different as well. One can say with near certitude that the fetus at six weeks WILL BE viable in a matter of weeks.

I understand that is a little vague but we need to establish a reasonable compromise. Birth itself is arbitrary since the human infant develops so much after launch. Meanwhile, the average chimp is more developed by the end of year one. Why not allow infanticide if a mother finds raising a baby too burdensome?

Those pre-teen and teen years can be hard on a mom!

Of course I jest, but agree this is a slippery slope. The standard in Roe is hard to justify morally, and becoming more difficult to implement from a practical standpoint.

I guest the question is: Does Curly feel comfortable defining human rights on a sliding scale...such that humans now do not have certain human rights (and therefore we can kill them), but if those humans were conceived 50 years from now, they would have human rights (and therefore we wouldn't be able to kill them if they were conceived later).

To me, viability is a point of compromise, and it is better than abortion right up until the baby is half born, which is what we have now. I would support the compromise of viability, not because it is correct (I don't think it is--I think all abortion is morally wrong) but because it will save lives in the short term (it will ban most abortions), and it will eventually lead to the abolition of abortion altogether.

(no message)

The only one I recall was the King of Sparta who fought the Persians at Thermopylae.

(no message)

(no message)