For the purpose of this discussion I define victory as my satisfactory demonstration of my knowledge and understanding of P.C. arguments and lines of logic. It is my goal to show that I can argue P.C. at least as well as real P.C.‘rs can by avoiding common P.C. logical pitfalls and playing to P.C. strengths, so that in the future, on regular forums, no claim of intellectual bias or lack of comprehension can accurately be levied against me.
Assuming the Pro-Choice position, it is my goal to demonstrate a woman’s right to medical privacy as decided in Roe-V-Wade, and also her right to abortion as illustrated in Planned Parenthood –v- Casey
***
Regardless of whether one is pro-choice or pro-life, in my opinion both camps should seek to minimize abortions, and perhaps both camps would even agree that everyone stands to benefit from a decrease in the number of abortions.
At best arguments of
ideology are entertaining, most appeal to emotion and therefore can never be logically considered, and at worse arguments of ideology only serve to impugn the character of "the other side".
At best arguments of
religion, or the lack there of, serve to help us understand each other’s core motivations, though many such discussions divert to the evident contradictions in translated scripture, and at worse arguments of religion serve only to foster elitism and divisiveness.
Nearly all
ideological and
religious arguments, however inspiring, emotionally compelling and thought provoking they may be, inherently violate the First Amendment when distilled down to their core: The Natural Law premise and one‘s understanding of it.
Certainly there are Theist supporters of therapeutic abortion-on-demand, just as there are many Agnostic, Atheist and Humanist supporters of various restrictions on abortion. Therefore religion, or the lack there of, is not a uniting element of The People....at least not on this issue.
The only debate format that I have observed addressing the Natural Law premise while not violating the Separation of Church and State is the format concerning “
Fundamental Rights” and “
Compelling State Interests”.
What unites The People is our Constitution and the enumeration of protected rights therein. In understanding how modern science, our ever evolving societal standards, and ’compelling state interests’ relate to the "
fundamental rights" of the individual, the best resource at our disposal is SCOTUS.
The central holding of Roe-v-Wade is that viability marks the earliest point at which the State's interest in fetal life is constitutionally adequate to justify a legislative ban on non-therapeutic abortions.
P.P.-v-Casey, Section 1g.
To the best of my knowledge, viability occurs between 22 to 25 weeks'
Source 1 Source 2 Source 3
Therefore first and second trimester abortions are purely private medical decisions between the pregnant woman and her physician. Prior to viability, there is no "
compelling state interest" in protecting the unborn's potential life.
Having said that, it is my opinion that the vast majority of Pro-Life arguments are meant to persuade an individual away from or towards a particular choice, and are ill suited to argue for or against matters of public policy. In other words, the language of Pro-Life speaks to the individual, not the population, as P.L arguments almost always carry a heavy personal element, on the part of the argument’s presenter, best suited for connecting with a person, not a law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftyHenry  The pictures are not an emotional appeal, they are reality. |
If your pictures represented an augment other than an appeal to emotion they would have been accompanied by unbiased scientific data showing that those fetuses were "
viable" and therefore the state had a "
compelling interest" in protecting them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftyHenry Of course, but give a zygote several months and it'll be breathing like you and me. |
Indeed.
And if you give a Zygote "
several more months" then there may be a "
compelling state interest" in imposing a due-burden on the pregnant woman's right medical privacy and her right to abortion.
However, give a Zygote "
several more months" and you wouldn't have a Zygote at all, but an Embryo or a Fetus.
Therefore it is safe to logically assume that there will never be a ban on aborting Zygotes.