A Young Conservative Doesn't Understand the Constitution

[rdubwiley]

[Drale]

1. That "Young Conservative" is everything that is wrong with America

His entire "argument", if you can call it that, was built on the slippery slope mentality that any intelligent person knows is complete and utter bullshit.

[JackHughes]

3. A better argument

Rather than use the valid, but en-enunciated, right to privacy, there is a stronger constitutional argument to be made for abortion rights.

The conflict is not, as anti-abortion zealots would frame the argument, over the morality of "killing babies." The crux of the "pro-life" argument is that abortion is murder because of a religious belief that human life begins at conception. Naturally, almost all of those who hold a "pro-choice" position do not share this belief.

Since early-term embryos have no brains, brain function can not be used as a criterion for when life begins -- as is commonly used to mark when life ends. The absolutist "pro-life" position that refuses to acknowledge the gray area of fetal development is unarguably a religious belief.

Laws to ban abortion should be challenged under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. This allows a much stronger defense with fewer ambiguities and explicit constitutional protection.

[AtheistCrusader]

5. That was one of his first strawmen.

Pro-abortion (can I say pro-abortion? Fuck 'em, I am, it's a sensible choice in a lot of situations) folks don't say an embryo isn't a HUMAN. We don't recognize its PERSONHOOD, which is an entirely different thing. Personhood carries qualities like rights and responsibilities. Something a multi celled blastocyst doesn't have.

There is no countervailing pro-abortion movement to classify that multi celled blastocyst as a non-human. It isn't a tricycle. it's not a shoe. It's not a puppy. It's a human embryo. But what it isn't, yet, is a PERSON with rights.

It represents POTENTIAL only. Whereas, the mother's rights DO exist, and are paramount.

[JackHughes]

8. A better argument

By proving the concept of "fetal personhood" is a religious belief -- which it obviously is -- the Establishment Clause clearly makes such laws unconstitutional and illegal.

Relying on "privacy rights" takes defenders of reproductive freedom down the rabbit hole into the anti-abortion zealots' turf.

[AtheistCrusader]

10. Precisely.

Before it even has a single differentiated brain cell, they call it a person. Predicated on what? A soul?

By all means, establish the existence of this 'soul' thingy.

[rdubwiley]

7. I don't know about that

It's hard to suggest that abortion laws is an endorsement of religion. We all know it is highly influenced by religion, but I don't really think they violate the first amendment.

[JackHughes]

9. A better argument

How many secular opponents of abortion are there?

[rdubwiley]

11. That doesn't really matter

There are some atheists who are pro-choice, but to violate the first amendment most use the Lemon Test, and abortion bans do have a secular purpose, to protect the life of a fetus, which they want to define as a child from conception.

Obviously, we both disagree with that, but Roe v. Wade does not use the first amendment, so I don't know why anyone would introduce it into the argument now.

[JackHughes]

12. A better argument

Again, is there any *secular* basis for considering a fertilized egg a "person"?

There are only religious justifications -- which is why the Establishment Clause approach would be a much more potent strategy.

[AtheistCrusader]

4. It appears 'State of Daniel' is in some sort of competition to build the largest strawman ever.

Nice video response though.

[rdubwiley]

6. Yup

Thanks

[90-percent]

13. I appreciate your video

I learned a lot about the constitution as it currently exists. This helps to appreciate the magnitude of what some Republican states are doing to abortion access, which from your video is clearly unconstitutional.

It pisses me off to refight battles that have already been won. It appears the battle never stopped and this one issue alone illustrates how important our vote still is. We are suffering the consequences of the 2010 elections when all those Tea Partiers managed to flip the House Republican.

-jim