If you believe that life begins at conception you could say that abortion deprives that "unborn person" of their right to life, as long as carrying the fetus to term would not put the life of the mother at risk.
Someone believing life begins at conception is a reason for THEM to not get an abortion, it is not a reason for the government to outlaw it.
That's the claim, not whether a fertilized egg is a human.
I'd like you to explain the personhood and citizenry rights of the non-living. Regardless, from section 1 of the 14th amendment[1]:
> nor shall any state deprive any person of life,
Did you not think to check it first?
I'm done here.
Have a nice day.
The remainder of the reasonable discussion around this topic is centered around the blurry point between inception and when viable birth is possible. The vast majority of people would classify a fetus, minutes before birth, being aborted as murder.
As well, in most countries restrictions occur at some point in the pregnancy (recognition of the trade-off between bodily autonomy and the rights of the unborn). In my country that happens to be nine weeks unless there's an emergency.
Missouri just banned abortion as a result of this being overturned, so yes, it does.
> other people's beliefs are entirely a sufficient condition in what the government will do
False. Other people's beliefs are a necessary condition. If I convince 51% of the populace geminis are evil and should be imprisoned, this is not a sufficient condition for the government to implement this policy. We would need to scientifically demonstrate that astrology is in fact true. This is the sufficient condition. The necessary condition is a majority believing it. Likewise, having an objective, unambiguous, scientific definition of what life is and when it begins is the sufficient condition for outlawing abortion and a majority believing that is the necessary condition. A characteristic of a free society is not one where the government creates laws based on the whims of particular religious groups.
> Missouri just banned abortion as a result of this being overturned, so yes, it does.
No, it doesn't, Missouri's laws have prohibited abortion.
> If I convince 51% of the populace geminis are evil and should be imprisoned, this is not a sufficient condition for the government to implement this policy. We would need to scientifically demonstrate that astrology is in fact true.
Government is not bound by what is scientifically demonstrated, thus making this statement and the rest of what you wrote, incorrect.
> A characteristic of a free society is not one where the government creates laws based on the whims of particular religious groups.
Hundreds, if not thousands of years of fairly consistent belief that life is sacred is hardly a whim, neither is the opposition to Roe v Wade from certain religious groups. It's also not characteristic of free society, governments put in place plenty of silly laws "on a whim" in free societies.
You're implying:
something is scientifically demonstrated -> government is bound by it
What I said was:
government has bounded something -> it can be scientifically or logically demonstrated
> Hundreds, if not thousands of years of fairly consistent belief that life is sacred is hardly a whim
You're appealing to the populace. How long or who believes something has no bearing on whether or not it is true or whether anyone should care about it. People thought the earth was the center of the universe for a long time too. Also, something cannot be "sacred" universally, only conditionally.
> You're implying:
> something is scientifically demonstrated -> government is bound by it
How have you managed to change round such a simple sentence and state it means the opposite? I'm astounded.
1. Government is not bound by what is scientifically demonstrated.
2. Something is scientifically demonstrated.
3. Hence, government is *not* bound by it.
> What I said was:
> government has bounded something -> it can be scientifically or logically demonstrated
You wrote no such thing as the words "bound" and "can" are not to be found in your statement in any form. What you actually wrote was:
> If I convince 51% of the populace geminis are evil and should be imprisoned, this is not a sufficient condition for the government to implement this policy. We would need to scientifically demonstrate that astrology is in fact true.
Aside from your clearly not understanding what a necessary nor a sufficient condition is, this statement is not true. I shall do some reordering of my own to shine light on this:
We would need to scientifically demonstrate that astrology is in fact true… for the government to implement this policy.
That's your implication and it's not based in reality.
I could go round in circles like this forever, much like the constellation of Gemini around the Earth but it would be as much use as reading my horoscope.
> > Hundreds, if not thousands of years of fairly consistent belief that life is sacred is hardly a whim
> You're appealing to the populace. How long or who believes something has no bearing on whether or not it is true or whether anyone should care about it.
I didn't claim that the length of time it has been around has any relation to its truth, I corrected your use of the word "whims" to mischaracterise those you clearly oppose.
> whim | wɪm | > noun > 1 a sudden desire or change of mind, especially one that is unusual or unexplained:
There's nothing sudden about Christian opposition to abortion.
> People thought the earth was the center of the universe for a long time too.
It's Earth. I feel like making that pedantic point because I hope that making you more careful with your writing might lead you to read more carefully too.
> Also, something cannot be "sacred" universally, only conditionally.
What on Earth are you babbling about?
In the eyes of roughly half the country, it's plainly injust to allow anybody to murder what they believe to clearly be a human being just because the other half believes they're subhuman.
It's the government's job to punish injustice, even if the actors don't believe they're being unjust. Very few people in prison will say they did anything wrong. In their eyes, their crime was justified. Everybody thinks they're doing the right thing. Like it or not, it's the government's job to determine if that's true or not in many cases.
Slavery unambiguously violates the autonomy of another human being.
If it could be demonstrated scientifically what life is and when it begins and that happens to be at conecption, then yes, abortion should be outlawed. But we don't know this. In a free and open society, in the absence of knowledge, we should default to people making their own choices; we should default to freedom and not restriction.
"In the eyes of roughly half the country..."
61% of the country believes abortion should be legal. 39% is closer to 1/3 than 1/2.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/06/13/about-six-i...
37% is even more closer to 1/3; I wouldn’t count the 2% that don’t have a position with the pro-ban faction.
You are incorrect. When you apply for benefits, they ask you how many people in your family, and an unborn child counts as a person.
Most tax benefits work on a yearly calendar, but the ones that work on a monthly calendar certainly count an unborn child.