What's The Balance Between The Law And Morality?

Since the dawn of human society, there has been tension between the strong arm of the law and the persuasive arm of morality. Click on the links below for some informed opinions on the matter. With the actions of conservatives to suppress democratic institutions through the packing of the Supreme Court and state courts, and acting immorally as a feature and not a bug, there has never been a better time to understand the roles both should play in a healthy society:

Does Law Exist to Provide Moral Order?

Law versus Morality as Regulators of Conduct

Law and Morals: The Perennial and NecessaryTandem

- - - - - - -

Other points to ponder: 

The question of when personhood begins is a legal issue and there is great diversity of opinion on such. However, the longer a product of conception develops, there is more and more consensus regarding when such becomes another legal person. Those who say it starts at conception are presenting their personal moral view. There is a strong legal precedent for the bodily autonomy of a person.

If all people were moral, laws would not be necessary. Unfortunately, we need laws. Unfortunately, many appropriate laws are not enforced. Unfortunately, many laws are immoral.

Conservative Violence

Since the Republican Party united with conservative Christians in recent decades, elected Trump, and took over local politics in several US states, they have organized efforts to deprive people of their fundamental reproductive, sex, and gender rights. Ironically, these conservatives have claimed, erroneously, that they have been more victimized by progressives than vice-versa. For example, this Fox News piece cites statistics by the discredited organization Crime Prevention Research Center.

Click on the links below for the truth:

House GOP Is Passing Bills Based on Outright Lies About “Pro-Choice Violence”

Violence against abortion providers continues to rise

How political rhetoric factors into the violence against the LGBTQ community

"Human Rights" Vs "States' Rights"

Since at least the onset of the US Civil War, groups of people within individual states have used parts of the US Constitution to support nefarious anti-democratic activity under the banner of "States' Rights." Below are some reasons why states' rights do not trump human rights and why the federal government is the final arbiter in protecting both human rights and democracy:

"The protection of fundamental human rights was a foundation stone in the establishment of the United States over 200 years ago." (link)

"Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions. It prohibits states from interfering with the federal government's exercise of its constitutional powers, and from assuming any functions that are exclusively entrusted to the federal government. - - - " (link)

Human rights are embedded within the US Constitution and its Amendments. (link)

One has to be willfully ignorant not to see what is happening within both federal and state governments, as well as small and larger groups of organized civilians, to defy human rights by acting outside of laws protecting such. It is not unusual for these folks to cloak their action within the "States' Right" meme. Consistent with this is the phenomenon of the "Constitutional Sheriff." Click on the link below for a podcast delving into the history of sheriffs and this concept of such:

The "Constitutional Sheriff" Myth

- - - - - - -

A point to ponder: bodily autonomy is a universal, precedent-supported human right. Why is the US Supreme Court essentially finding that such is a "States' Rights" issue?

The Handmaid's Tale And Bodily Autonomy

" - - - This theme – women’s bodily autonomy – is intrinsic to 'The Handmaid’s Tale.' Atwood poignantly said, 'A belief is a belief. It is not evidence-based. These ideas that a cluster of cells is a human being – that is a belief.' In our extended conversation, Atwood dives into the subversion of religion and warns about what she views as 'a sham version of Christianity.'”

Click on the link below for a clear and concise video conversion with Margaret Atwood:

Margaret Atwood in a #PostRoeAmerica

Fetal Rights

"Historically, under both English common law and U.S. law, the fetus has not been recognized as a person with full rights. Instead, legal rights have centered on the mother, with the fetus treated as a part of her. Nevertheless, U.S. law has in certain instances granted the fetus limited rights, particularly as medical science has made it increasingly possible to directly view, monitor, diagnose, and treat the fetus as a patient." (link)

The issue of fetal rights is not easy to determine and essentially involves unsettled law in many cases. Regarding the question of abortion, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which adjusted some of the features of Roe v. Wade, seemed to me to be a reasonable decision. An important issue left undecided in both of these cases is the question of personhood. Good luck with agreeing on that.

Conservative Morality Is Based On Narrow, Unsupported Ideology

The slogan for today's Republican Party. They have
been hijacked by conservative Christians who
reject science-informed morality.

The USA was NEVER "Great", it has been a work-in-progress from its beginning. Conservatives want to "conserve" an imperfect past, whereas, progressives look forward to improving the well-being of all (link). One has to be blind to reality not to see the slow and unsteady progress toward greater recognition of basic human rights, much of which has been opposed by religious dogma. The case can be made that this is because morality pertains to the conduct of human affairs and relations between persons, while religion primarily involves the relationship between human beings and a transcendent reality (link).

It is clear that morality is not objective (no evidence of a God), but subjective in each normal human from biological and social factors. Thus, an agreement is difficult. However, if at least most of us can agree with the general definition of morality as well-being and flourishing, humanity can maximize such with information from science. Evidence shows that morality without a God (secular) is superior (link). 

Applying the above to the question of abortion:

• Religions can't agree on when a human person begins, and science shows that life does not begin but it has flowed continuously since the first chemicals emerged with the traits we call life.
• There IS agreement that a woman is a person. Persons have bodily autonomy.
• One has the right to believe anything they want but not the right to impose it on others. The law must reflect what the majority believes is moral.

Bodily Autonomy Is THE Basic Human Right

ANOTHER PERSON'S BODY IS NOT YOURS

I have written several blog posts on the issue of abortion and bodily autonomy (link). As with many moral issues, reasonable people can disagree. The following links are the best I could find discussing this issue. 

I will not be posting on this issue again. My strong conclusion is that, since the case is made and supported that bodily autonomy is THE basic right, pro-choice is both the most moral and practical stance regarding abortion:

Seven Myths That Undermine Individual Rights And Freedoms

United Nations stance on the issue of discrimination against women in law and in practice

The Right's Bad Faith Argument About Bodily Autonomy

Whose Rights Are Most Right?

Abortion Facts

Abortion opposition primarily comes from conservative Catholics and evangelical Christians. However, there is no agreement within Christianity, or most other religions, regarding the issue. (link) The Old and New Testaments don't mention it. (link) There is no objective evidence for anything supernatural, let alone a god. (link) Thus, secular morality from biology and socialization should be used only. (link)

There is no agreement on when *life begins or when personhood begins. (link)(link) 

• *Life began within the ancient history of the Earth and has been an evolving and continuous process. Thus, the eggs and eggs/sperm produced by animals are not dead tissue. All life on Earth today came from the same source. (link)

The US government/Constitution is secular, with a strong separation of religion and government.

Bodily autonomy is a universally-recognized principle but it is ignored by abortion opponents. (link)

The Evidence Is Clear Regarding The Social Effects Of Abortion

The research supporting Roe v. Wade was clear: "Possibly there is no social measure with a higher benefit-to-cost ratio than the legalization of abortion, and therefore none more qualified to be given number one priority on the agenda of needed domestic social reforms." (American Journal of Public Health, 1972)

The latest research continues to support the social benefits of abortion. (The State of Abortion Rights Around the World)

Abortion And The US Constitution

"The right to abortion is not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution because the Constitution does not concern itself with the rights of women. As originally written, the Constitution did not even guarantee women the right to vote—it endowed no one with that right aside from propertied white men. The omission of abortion, then, says less about the issue itself than about who the Founding Fathers considered *people. (* NOTE: it doesn't include non-sentient human tissue)

"Nearly 200 years after the Constitution was drafted, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, women across America pushed to liberalize restrictive abortion laws. These advocates were coming into their own as professionals, and they realized that reproductive autonomy was essential for them to live full lives."

Click on the link below for more:

The Constitution Was Not Written For Women

History Of Legal Precedent And Greater Recognition Of Human Rights

The Dred Scott decision by the US Supreme Court is universally recognized as its worst because of its support of slavery. The Civil War and the 13th Amendment officially ended slavery and led to a period of "Reconstruction." However, such was resisted through Jim Crow Laws, which peaked with Plessy v. Ferguson legalizing "separate but equal" in 1896. It wasn't until 1954 that this Supreme Court case was overruled by Brown v. Board of Education. In 1973, the Roe v. Wade decision recognized the right of a woman to choose abortion up to the time of viability.

The only way women and minorities have gained recognition of their inherent rights is through court decisions actualizing the US Constitution and the use of the legal principle of precedent, which directs a court to look to past decisions for guidance on how to decide a case before it. The history of Supreme Court decisions has been a bumpy ride toward greater recognition of human rights. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, it would be another unfortunate case of a recognized human right being no longer so!

Regarding women's rights, it's more than time for the USA to wake up to the fact that the Republicans are attempting to continue a history that has been within the USA since its founding: stripping women of political and economic power.

"Pro-Life" Morality Debunked (One More Time)

I have posted several times on this issue. The above is an encapsulation of my stance regarding the morality of abortion. Click on the links below for two concise and informative videos that also help in this regard:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQoSZixSFEw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qn_7X9t3xTs

NOTE: If you have a hard time understanding the concepts of continuity of life/evolution, and change as the potential person develops, think in terms of emergence: for example, oxygen and hydrogen are not water until they merge to form it. Thus, parents - sperm and egg - zygote - embryo - fetus - viable person.

Legal Precedent And Bodily Autonomy

I have posted several times on the issue of abortion. And, I have said that bodily autonomy is the best argument for a women's right to choose to end a pregnancy (link). Why? The legal precedence for such is very strong (link). Why then is there such opposition to accepting this precedent? Consider: 

• The vast majority of opponents to abortion are religious (link).
• Religion is the greatest force for magical thinking on the planet (link).
• Magical thinking is opposed to objective evidence as determined by science-based thinking (link).

The Most Heinous Sin?

The Catholic Church considers abortion as the WORST sin one can commit (link). Consistent with this dogma are the apologists on Catholic Answers Live. Here is an example (see approx the 50-minute point forward in the video), and below was my response:  

• "So, abortion is the WORST sin? I guess God is the biggest sinner then? https://www.verywellfamily.com/making-sense-of-miscarriage-statistics-2371721#:~:text=Based%20on%20the%20current%20evidence,This%20statistic%20is%20sobering. Can you see the difference between a fertilized egg, or even an implanted pregnancy, and a human person with the attributes that most people accept as indicative of personhood? How about a violation of a pregnant women's bodily autonomy as being a sin worse than abortion? Instead of focusing on this issue, how about focusing on your dogma of an aborted or miscarried fetus going to God forever because of never committing an actual mortal sin? Think of all the souls with God that may end up in Hell if they achieve the "age of reason" and commit a mortal sin. Please be consistent with your dogma."

Ponder the irony here: these same conservative Catholics will vote for Trump based on this issue. Religion is a brain poison. In contrast to this dogmatic delusion, here is a reasonable "Pro-Lifer" expressing her opinion on how she now votes (link).

A Deeper Look Into Personhood

"Now that we’ve started talking about identity, today Hank tackles the question of personhood. Philosophers have tried to assess what constitutes personhood with a variety of different criteria, including genetic, cognitive, social, sentience, and the gradient theory. As with many of philosophy’s great questions, this has much broader implications than simple conjecture. The way we answer this question informs all sorts of things about the way we move about the world, including our views on some of our greatest social debates."

Conservative Christians use the concept of personhood for a product of conception within a woman in a rigid manner. The video below takes a more nuanced look at it (view to the end, as bodily autonomy is addressed briefly):

Personhood: Crash Course Philosophy

An In-Depth Look At Personhood

I have been very open about my opinion in the abortion debate: bodily autonomy for the pregnant woman is the sole decider (link). However, other pro-choice folks focus on the concept of personhood. The brief article below is a nice analysis of the topic (click on the link below)

What Is a Person?

An In-depth Look At Bodily Autonomy

• The concept of autonomy goes back to the Greek philosophers. With the European Enlightenment, autonomy comes to be widely understood as a property of persons.
• Most people would agree that autonomy is normatively important.
• An autonomous person has a right to determine their life without interference from social or political authorities or forms of paternalism.
• Autonomy is an important value to be taken into consideration in the abortion debate, although it is referenced in different ways. On the one hand, it is argued that some abortions are justified as an expression of a woman’s reproductive autonomy (see Overall 1990 and Fischer 2003). On the other hand, it could be argued that abortion is morally unacceptable, among other reasons, because it fails to respect the potential future autonomy of the aborted (for a related argument, see Marquis 1989).  Assuming that both of these autonomy-based arguments have weight, adjudicating this dispute requires–among other things–establishing and defending the relative weights of actual and potential autonomy, both in relation to particular choices and in relation to lives as wholes. (link)

Following are a few more links to articles and videos that clarify the controversial principle of "Bodily Autonomy":

A Defense of Abortion: The Violinist Analogy

Abortion Essay - The Bodily Autonomy Argument

My Body, My Choice: Why the Principle of Bodily Autonomy can Unite the Left

Woman, Womb, and Bodily Integrity

YouTube Link

YouTube Link

Why have we so enshrined our right to control our own bodies … unless you happen to be a woman?

- - - - - - -

Also:

This link is for any so-called "Pro-lifer" who thinks the God of the Bible shares his or her opinion on abortion and the value of life in general.

This link presents the reality that "Privacy" is not the only support for abortion constitutionally.

Bodily autonomy for a woman who is pregnant is a legitimate point of discussion. However, I support this right to the point that if my mother, for ANY reason, thought that it would have been better for her to abort me, fine.

Redemptive Suffering: A Harm From Religion

In my interaction with Christian apologists, many say, "Why are you atheists so active in attacking religion?"  My general retort is to point out the harm from belief without evidence.  However, my specific response is to point out some examples of the direct harm from religion.  A good example of this is the Christian concept of redemptive suffering.

Abortion: Bodily Autonomy And Personhood

In McFall v. Shimp, the court ruled that a person cannot be forced to donate body parts like bone marrow, even if such a donation would save another person's life.

What Does It Take To Create Open-Mindedness?

The Limits of Open Mindedness in Debates on Same-Sex Marriage and Abortion