The meaning of life and other ill sh!t

[ViperMan]

4 hours ago, Pooter said:

For example: it begs the question, why aren't pro lifers also laser focused on miscarriages (which are nearly as prevalent as abortions?) By your own logic that's a fully fledged human being that lost their life, and a miscarriage should warrant an autopsy at least and possible criminal investigation if there was suspected negligence. If we could be saving potentially millions of lives per year, you'd expect them to be dumping money into pre-natal research, paid maternity leave, and free pre-natal healthcare for everyone. But none of that is happening. 

I'm having a hard time determining if you're arguing in good faith. Are you serious? Are you honestly confused about the qualitative differences between an abortion and a miscarriage? One is a natural event that will occur from time to time no matter what humanity does. The other requires an intentional intervention by an individual. How are you confused about this or how/why are you equating these two categorically different things?

17 minutes ago, Pooter said:

I'm simply asking for some logical consistency. If a zygote is a fully fledged human, then abortion is clearly murder and a miscarriage is at the very least a horrible tragedy and at most manslaughter or murder as well.  There are also very easy bipartisan ways to improve pre-natal care to make concrete improvements in miscarriage rates. Stopping both abortions and miscarriages should be important if you truly believe they are a full human life. But If the only child deaths you're concerned about are the ones that let you tell the dirty liberal sexual deviants what to do, maybe you're not actually concerned about child deaths. 

Why they're not focused on it is the same reason anti-death penalty folks are not trying to stop all death. "Oh, you're anti-death penalty? Then why aren't you out there trying to develop technology that will extend life indefinitely. How 'bout some consistency bruh."

[Prozac]

13 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

I'm having a hard time determining if you're arguing in good faith. Are you serious? Are you honestly confused about the qualitative differences between an abortion and a miscarriage? One is a natural event that will occur from time to time no matter what humanity does. The other requires an intentional intervention by an individual. How are you confused about this or how/why are you equating these two categorically different things?

Why they're not focused on it is the same reason anti-death penalty folks are not trying to stop all death. "Oh, you're anti-death penalty? Then why aren't you out there trying to develop technology that will extend life indefinitely. How 'bout some consistency bruh."

I think some of you are missing the forest through the trees.  The question being posed here is: If we are going to argue that a fetus is a human, then why don't all laws/norms then apply to that human? The example given makes sense. If an infant dies in his or her parent's care, it will generally be investigated as to whether the parents were neglectful. If a miscarriage takes place, and we define the fetus as human, why don't we apply the same rules? Shouldn't the mother, at the very least, be forced to to take a blood alcohol test? If she is positive, should she be then charged with murder? 

[Pooter]

33 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

I'm having a hard time determining if you're arguing in good faith. Are you serious? Are you honestly confused about the qualitative differences between an abortion and a miscarriage? One is a natural event that will occur from time to time no matter what humanity does. The other requires an intentional intervention by an individual. How are you confused about this or how/why are you equating these two categorically different things?

Why they're not focused on it is the same reason anti-death penalty folks are not trying to stop all death. "Oh, you're anti-death penalty? Then why aren't you out there trying to develop technology that will extend life indefinitely. How 'bout some consistency bruh."

I'm absolutely arguing in good faith.  Im asking if we have considered the full ramifications of considering a 1 week zygote a full human life. Of course I agree miscarriages are usually natural and a part of life, and that they aren't intentional like abortions are. 

But if you say it's legally a full blown human, you don't just get to miscarry, say "oh well," and try again next time. A human being just lost their life so we need to figure out what happened and if there was negligence involved. Just like what would happen if you or I died. 

That's the problem with putting assertions like "life begins at conception" into law. It takes you to weird places really quickly.  It's a nice thing to say to claim moral high ground and use to control people, but there is a fuck ton of baggage that comes along with that belief that hasn't been addressed at all. 
 

It also doesn't hold water when conservatives say "why are liberals so mad, repealing roe just gives the decision back to the states?"  If you legit believe any abortion is murder, you shouldn't be okay with potentially legalized murder on a state by state basis. 

[ViperMan]

33 minutes ago, Prozac said:

I think some of you are missing the forest through the trees.  The question being posed here is: If we are going to argue that a fetus is a human, then why don't all laws/norms then apply to that human? The example given makes sense. If an infant dies in his or her parent's care, it will generally be investigated as to whether the parents were neglectful. If a miscarriage takes place, and we define the fetus as human, why don't we apply the same rules? Shouldn't the mother, at the very least, be forced to to take a blood alcohol test? If she is positive, should she be then charged with murder? 

Abortion is currently the law of the land, and you're confused as to why laws protecting human beings don't apply to the unborn...who are currently allowed to be aborted??? You see the problem with that argument, right? 🤔

The example makes no sense. Pooter is equating a natural death with an intentional one. They are categorically different.

If your argument is that *if* Roe is overturned, *then* those things will need to happen for consistencies sake, then that is a different argument, but I've yet to hear that articulated.

6 minutes ago, Pooter said:

I'm absolutely arguing in good faith.  Im asking if we have considered the full ramifications of considering a 1 week zygote a full human life. Of course I agree miscarriages are usually natural and a part of life, and that they aren't intentional like abortions are. 

But if you say it's legally a full blown human, you don't just get to miscarry, say "oh well," and try again next time. A human being just lost their life so we need to figure out what happened and if there was negligence involved. Just like what would happen if you or I died. 

That's the problem with putting assertions like "life begins at conception" into law. It takes you to weird places really quickly.  It's a nice thing to say to claim moral high ground and use to control people, but there is a fuck ton of baggage that comes along with that belief that hasn't been addressed at all. 

It also doesn't hold water when conservatives say "why are liberals so mad, repealing roe just gives the decision back to the states?"  If you legit believe any abortion is murder, you shouldn't be okay with potentially legalized murder on a state by state basis. 

Ok, you're arguing in good faith, but you felt the need to draft a false equivalency between abortion and miscarriage??? Yeah, I'm confused. If that's your point, I just don't understand the need to do that. But whatever. Either way, it's a weak argument. Not all deaths are investigated as homicide. Even the majority of deaths are not investigated as homicide. And don't you think that if your concern became a real problem, our legislators could simply enact a law that says the presumption is that miscarriages are resultant from natural causes? It's just not the big issue you're making it out to be.

Finally, yes, you're right about the state-by-state murder issue. The "state's issue" trope is inconsistent. Abortion will need to be regulated at the federal level.

[busdriver]

12 minutes ago, Pooter said:

It's a nice thing to say to claim moral high ground and use to control people

This is basically all of modern politics.  Right, Left.  Chicken, Beef.

[Prozac]

33 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

If your argument is that *if* Roe is overturned, *then* those things will need to happen for consistencies sake, then that is a different argument, but I've yet to hear that articulated.

I kind of thought that was assumed. It certainly appears that Roe will be overturned very soon. There are many states that will immediately ban abortion when that happens. The argument made is only a hypothetical for a few more weeks. 

[bfargin]

Science has long established when human life begins. Here is a 1999 article that examines and reviews much of the science (that predates it) outlining the human growth process. The zygote stage is simply a stage in a human's life cycle. Quote from one part of the paper at bottom, in case you're not wanting to read it all.

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html

Bottom line is, we can decide as a culture when we want to give that human the basic right of life, but any point we choose after fertilization, is arbitrary.

"Zygote: This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo). The expression fertilized ovum refers to a secondary oocyte that is impregnated by a sperm; when fertilization is complete, the oocyte becomes a zygote."¹⁰ (Emphasis added.)

This new single-cell human being immediately produces specifically human proteins and enzymes¹¹ (not carrot or frog enzymes and proteins), and genetically directs his/her own growth and development. (In fact, this genetic growth and development has been proven not to be directed by the mother.)¹² Finally, this new human being�the single-cell human zygote�is biologically an individual, a living organism�an individual member of the human species. Quoting Larsen:

"... [W]e begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual."¹³ (Emphasis added.)

[Banzai]

Here’s a question for you, then. Should IUDs be illegal? Because part of their purpose is to intentionally stop fertilized eggs - zygotes - from implanting on the uterine wall. Some forms of oral birth control do the same.

Should we charge any sexually active woman who intentionally creates a less than ideal uterine environment with a crime? Because lots of people on birth control create zygotes that simply can’t implant.

Honestly, why not charge men as well? If you’re a sexually active male and you do something to endanger the zygote’s chance of viability or implantation after conception - perhaps you damage your sperm and therefore the zygote by exposing your body to industrial chemicals, heavy metals, x-rays, or you just straight up let your balls get too hot (look it up) - why is that not a crime?

[Lord Ratner]

15 hours ago, Pooter said:

I'm not assuming everyone believes the same as me. I'm applying existing laws and societal norms to the very absurd supposition that a 1 week old zygote should legally be considered an alive human being. 

I don't agree with it, but it's hardly absurd. It's always curious to me when people outright dismiss something that millions/billions of other humans believe.

[Day Man]

10 hours ago, bfargin said:

Science has long established when human life begins. Here is a 1999 article that examines and reviews much of the science (that predates it) outlining the human growth process. The zygote stage is simply a stage in a human's life cycle. Quote from one part of the paper at bottom, in case you're not wanting to read it all.

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html

Bottom line is, we can decide as a culture when we want to give that human the basic right of life, but any point we choose after fertilization, is arbitrary.

"Zygote: This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo). The expression fertilized ovum refers to a secondary oocyte that is impregnated by a sperm; when fertilization is complete, the oocyte becomes a zygote."¹⁰ (Emphasis added.)

This new single-cell human being immediately produces specifically human proteins and enzymes¹¹ (not carrot or frog enzymes and proteins), and genetically directs his/her own growth and development. (In fact, this genetic growth and development has been proven not to be directed by the mother.)¹² Finally, this new human being�the single-cell human zygote�is biologically an individual, a living organism�an individual member of the human species. Quoting Larsen:

"... [W]e begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual."¹³ (Emphasis added.)

seems legit:

just because you find something that supports your side, doesn't mean it's settled

[Prozac]

5 hours ago, Banzai said:

Here’s a question for you, then. Should IUDs be illegal? Because part of their purpose is to intentionally stop fertilized eggs - zygotes - from implanting on the uterine wall. Some forms of oral birth control do the same.

Should we charge any sexually active woman who intentionally creates a less than ideal uterine environment with a crime? Because lots of people on birth control create zygotes that simply can’t implant.

Honestly, why not charge men as well? If you’re a sexually active male and you do something to endanger the zygote’s chance of viability or implantation after conception - perhaps you damage your sperm and therefore the zygote by exposing your body to industrial chemicals, heavy metals, x-rays, or you just straight up let your balls get too hot (look it up) - why is that not a crime?

Exactly. The rabbit hole is open. Part of the court’s rationale is that there is no specific right to abortion in the constitution. Well, there is no specific right to birth control either. No one should be the least bit surprised when conservative states start banning things like IUDs. And it doesn’t necessarily stop there. There are any number of rights that we currently enjoy that are not specifically enumerated in the constitution. Where does it say you have a right to interstate travel for instance? This ruling and the logic behind it has much further reaching implications than just abortion & has the potential to put many of the rights we enjoy at risk. 

[busdriver]

12 minutes ago, Prozac said:

 There are any number of rights that we currently enjoy that are not specifically enumerated in the constitution. Where does it say you have a right to interstate travel for instance? 

Did you read the draft?  This is pretty clearly covered.  Long historical tradition of inter-state travel/commerce.

[Guardian]

Share the link to the draft

[ViperMan]

22 minutes ago, Prozac said:

Exactly. The rabbit hole is open. Part of the court’s rationale is that there is no specific right to abortion in the constitution. Well, there is no specific right to birth control either. No one should be the least bit surprised when conservative states start banning things like IUDs. And it doesn’t necessarily stop there. There are any number of rights that we currently enjoy that are not specifically enumerated in the constitution. Where does it say you have a right to interstate travel for instance? This ruling and the logic behind it has much further reaching implications than just abortion & has the potential to put many of the rights we enjoy at risk. 

This is simply not factual.

Birth control has a long history of legality in the country prior to 1973 - it has nothing at all to do with Roe v. Wade. There is long-standing supreme court precedent ruling that birth control can't be restricted. The FDA has had approved birth control pills since 1960.

[jazzdude]

This is simply not factual.
Birth control has a long history of legality in the country prior to 1973 - it has nothing at all to do with Roe v. Wade. There is long-standing supreme court precedent ruling that birth control can't be restricted. The FDA has had approved birth control pills since 1960.

There's a long standing supreme court precedent that abortion is legal...

[nsplayr]

48 minutes ago, Guardian said:

Share the link to the draft

LMGTFY
 

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21835435-scotus-initial-draft

Edited May 6, 2022 by nsplayr

[nsplayr]

This is a good explainer on Alito’s potential Pandora’s box opening re: unenumerated rights and the 14th Amendment. He may imply he’s not personally open to re-litigating rights like interracial marriage, gay marriage, sodomy, contraception, etc., but by re-litigating and overturning the 14th Amendment’s protection of abortion rights, there’s no real reason a future court couldn’t use his opinion as precedent for doing so. So he’s not just striking down Casey and Roe, but IMHO greatly weakening the 14th Amendment’s other protections as well.

“Distinguishing Abortion From Other Unenumerated Rights in the 14th Amendment

The Supreme Court has held that the 14th Amendment grants more unenumerated rights than just the right to an abortion. Alito attempts to distinguish these rights from abortion, holding that Roe and Casey are fundamentally different in that "[a]bortion destroys . . . potential life" and "none of the other decisions cited by Roe and Casey "involve the critical moral question posed by abortion." These rights include:

• The right to interracial marriage (Loving v. Virginia),
• The right to obtain contraceptives (Griswold v. Connecticut)
• The right to engage in private, consensual sexual acts (Lawrence v. Texas)
• The right to same-sex marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges).

In distinguishing these unenumerated rights from Roe and Casey, Alito implies these rights could remain untouched by the forthcoming majority opinion in Dobbs. However, Alito's draft version of Dobbs inarguably opens the door to further challenges of the rights granted by the 14th Amendment. From this first draft it appears Justice Alito may not be as receptive to these challenges as he is with abortion, but forecasting any potential future cases is completely speculative at this point.”

[tac airlifter]

If you want abortion to be the law of the land, then pass a law that says so. Either at the state or the federal level I don’t care. Row v. Wade is an illegitimate decision because it’s in conflict with how our government is organized to function, analogous with Congress deciding court cases or POTUS creating new laws. Not how our system works.

 In this context, abortion itself is irrelevant.  ETA: draft opinion specifically self-limits to the issue of abortion.

Edited May 6, 2022 by tac airlifter

[nsplayr]

9 minutes ago, tac airlifter said:

If you want abortion to be the law of the land, then pass a law that says so. Either at the state or the federal level I don’t care. Row v. Wade is an illegitimate decision because it’s in conflict with how our government is organized to function, analogous with Congress deciding court cases or POTUS creating new laws. Not how our system works.

 In this context, abortion itself is irrelevant.  ETA: draft opinion specifically self-limits to the issue of abortion.

See above. The right to abortion is an unenumerated right based largely on the 14th Amendment, and as a constitutional right, it therefore does not require a law stating it’s legality specifically. That’s the legal theory, you are of course free to disagree or not like that.

There are quite a few other rights that fall under that same category, and if/when this opinion becomes official people are understandably worried about the security of those rights going forward.

Edited May 6, 2022 by nsplayr

[Prozac]

6 minutes ago, tac airlifter said:

If you want abortion to be the law of the land, then pass a law that says so. Either at the state or the federal level I don’t care. Row v. Wade is an illegitimate decision because it’s in conflict with how our government is organized to function, analogous with Congress deciding court cases or POTUS creating new laws. Not how our system works.

 In this context, abortion itself is irrelevant.  ETA: draft opinion specifically self-limits to the issue of abortion.

Negative ghostrider. The Supreme Court has continually affirmed unenumerated rights through its interpretation of the 14th and 9th amendments. You have a ton of rights in this country that are not codified in specific laws. That’s why this ruling is concerning. And yes, I understand that justice Alito intends this only to apply to abortion but that’s not how legal precedent works and the logic behind this ruling will absolutely be used when states and other entities desire to limit rights for one reason or another. Alito argues that abortion is specifically a threat to human life. Well, many would say the same of gun violence. See how this case could be used as a precedent to re-interpret the second amendment? Alito may be earnest in his intention to limit this ruling to abortion, but what happens when he is gone? This ruling will have far reaching and long lasting consequences. 

[1:1:1]

If abortion is protected by the 14th amendment why did it take 100 years to realize it? When Roe was decided, every state in the union had laws restricting abortion. 

Edited May 6, 2022 by 1:1:1

[HeloDude]

9 minutes ago, Prozac said:

Well, many would say the same of gun violence. See how this case could be used as a precedent to re-interpret the second amendment?

Pretty sure it’s illegal in all 50 states to harm someone with a firearm (or any other weapon) unless you’re defending your life, etc. 

By the way…weren’t you in a favor of a ban limiting the ammunition capacity of magazines? 
 

I find it rich how you and your fellow progressives believe in “rights”, but are all about limiting the rights of others when it’s not about abortion.  This goes for conservatives as well…they’ll say they’re for “rights”, but have no problems banning/limiting the use of drugs, gambling, prostitution, who you can marry, etc.

[Prozac]

13 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

By the way…weren’t you in a favor of a ban limiting the ammunition capacity of magazines? 

I was, and am. Doesn’t mean I am against the second amendment. It is possible to exist on a spectrum regarding most of the issues that get debated here, and most people don’t live on the very edges of that spectrum. 

[HeloDude]

Just now, Prozac said:

I was, and am.

All you needed to say—thanks.

Just spare us your “rights” argument though…just say you’re for a woman being able to kill her unborn child (fetus I guess is the “medical” term), and I’ll accept it as that’s what you support, whether I personally agree or disagree.

[Prozac]

Just now, HeloDude said:

All you needed to say—thanks.

Just spare us your “rights” argument though…just say you’re for a woman being able to kill her unborn child (fetus I guess is the “medical” term), and I’ll accept it as that’s what you support, whether I personally agree or disagree.

Ahh yes, the old everything must be black and white argument. My personal view is that abortion should generally be restricted at some point in a pregnancy, generally in the third trimester except in extreme circumstances (mother’s life at risk). Otherwise, it’s none of my fucking business what a woman chooses to do with her body. Most Americans live in the part of the abortion debate that lies between ‘under no circumstances ever’ and ‘game on until the chord is cut’. Just like most Americans live in the part of the gun control debate between ‘no guns for anyone’ and ‘Apaches for sale on eBay’. Glad you’ve got it all figured out, but just because you’re the smartest person you know doesn’t mean the rest of the country is magically going to fall in line with your reasoning.