The meaning of life and other ill sh!t

[dream big]

2 hours ago, Banzai said:

You know what else has unique DNA and survives purely based on the hosts body?

Cancer.

Ummm interesting analogy…can’t say I’ve heard that one, 10/10 for creativity ….but no 

[ViperMan]

2 hours ago, Banzai said:

I fundamentally truly believe that killing a sperm, egg, or using an IUD or birth control to create a prohibitive environment that won’t allow a zygote to adhere to the uterine wall to all be the same outcome as stopping a zygote a few weeks to months later. I do not see why you get to make an arbitrary point that is way too early in the pregnancy the moment life begins (and therefore, the moment you gain control over women’s bodies).

Fair enough. That seems both extreme and clownish, but fair enough. Either way, I'm not the one who is drawing an arbitrary line, you are. I fully accept "early" "elective" abortion because I realize life is messy and people eff up and want an "undo" button. I think that's pretty fucking ugly, but I accept it. That is a pro-"choice" and pro-"woman" position - whatever the hell that means. Hence, I am not asserting control over women's bodies at the moment of conception, though that also seems to be a favored fallback of the left.

Anyway, there are two distinct arguments being made here. The first is when a unique human life exists - that happens at conception, and is scientifically unambiguous. The second, is a value-based argument about when a "human life" exists. You're conflating the scientific argument with the political one. And likening cancer to a human really is a pretty weak tangent. It sounds like something a middling 8th grader would write in a C- position essay, but I digress.

Here is your arbitrary line.

2 hours ago, Banzai said:

I will say that my personal cutoff is around 20 weeks when I consider life to exist and the gradient to shift where abortion should not be allowed.

Upon what basis are you considering these (15w vs 20w / 20w vs 15w) qualitatively different? I would like to hear it articulated. Can you even tell which is which? Personally, I can't draw a scientific distinction, and neither can anyone else, frankly. As one steps backwards through this continuum towards conception, it's not possible to draw a clean line until you get all the way back to the discrete event itself. That is all scientific. It has nothing at all to do with your value-based judgements.

On the value side of the argument, personally I would have a hard time hearing an argument as to why these fetuses should be valued differently, but that is at least the proper arena for the argument, and people are free to make value-based judgements and advocate for them within those boundaries. They are not free to make scientific distinctions.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that it seems to me that people who are pro-abortion really NEED there to be some sort of scientific distinction present in order to be able to morally justify their position. That's why I think there is so much focus on the use of the term fetus, zygote, the idea of consciousness, the ridiculous red herring of cancer having it's own DNA, etc. As long as you can name it something different, it is something different, right? That which we call a rose...

2 hours ago, Banzai said:

Finally, I leave you with this. You posit that a human exists at sperm+egg. Let’s go down the developmental path, I’m happy to do it. Is a sperm+egg human if it doesn’t have eyeballs? Is a sperm+egg human if it doesn’t have a functional brain? Is a sperm+egg human if it doesn’t have lungs? Is a sperm+egg human if it’s in your wife’s uterus, but she has an iud (or some forms of birth control) that makes it impossible for the zygote to adhere to her uterine wall?

The impossibility of drawing a clear scientific difference between a 15-week-old fetus, 9-week-old fetus, and a 20-week-old fetus does not give you the argument, and it's really not even a point. You know as well as I do that having eyeballs or not having eyeballs isn't what endows you with your humanity. See the above.

2 hours ago, Banzai said:

You believe there should be almost none for a woman (or a man, to be fair, as we have a say in a relationship) even when potential to develop hasn’t been proven. I believe individuals should be able to make financial, emotional, non-emotional, career, life, and pragmatic future decisions in their best interest if it deals with their body much longer than you.

I don't believe any of that, so let me state it clearly for you:

1. I think elective abortion on demand up to the moment of birth, which is what constitutes abortion rights activists' and the "Left's" position (along with a large majority of democrats) in this country, is an unacceptable moral problem and it needs to be resisted and ultimately outlawed.
2. Roe v Wade was wrongly decided and needs to be overturned, if for no other reason than to re-establish the supreme court's legal credibility.
3. The event called "birth" holds no special status in determining whether or not a human being is present. A "human" is present at some point between conception and birth.
4. I am fine with medical "abortions" in all circumstances wherein the mother's life is at stake. That said, the term abortion is misused in these cases and using the word only muddles the water. It's the left intentionally overloading a term in order to get the camel's nose into the tent.
5. A fundamental part of the confusion surrounding this issue boils down to word games being played by the pro-abortion side.

[Smokin]

23 hours ago, busdriver said:

Consciousness, agency, choice.  If we someday find out that Dolphins are actually conscious in the human sense of the word, your view that they are not made in God's image would make it fine to kill them?  Likewise if an intelligent alien species showed up at our doorstep, not in God's image?

Yes.  Although if an intelligent alien species showed up at our doorstep, it would probably not be wise...

The problem with the consciousness, agency, and choice argument is that I understand that all three of those are present to a surprising degree in many of the more intelligent life forms.  Monkeys have recognized themselves in the mirror, which seems to me to be a self-consciousness.  Octopus have shown problem solving capabilities that exceed some first graders.  Similarly, under this argument, someone in a coma may no longer meet the definition of human life.

This is kinda my point, that any argument that denies life is begun at conception has to have a definition that is extremely nuanced and with assumptions that will quickly change based on technological advancements.  This is not a good way to decide possibly one of the most important foundations of the legal system; who is entitled to protection by the government?

[busdriver]

1 hour ago, Smokin said:

Yes.  Although if an intelligent alien species showed up at our doorstep, it would probably not be wise...

Animal examples...... Similarly, under this argument, someone in a coma may no longer meet the definition of human life.

This is kinda my point, that any argument that denies life is begun at conception has to have a definition that is extremely nuanced and with assumptions that will quickly change based on technological advancements. 

So other than the stupidity of it, no qualms about killing a hypothetical sentient species?

Intelligence in animals is not the same thing sentience.  Although it's possible that some animals have some kind of proto sentience, on the way to evolving it.  I will grant the definition isn't nice and pat.

I never said life doesn't start at conception, I said that it's irrelevant.  Nuance is life.  In the desire for a pat answer, you've just said that killing a sentient creature (alien, my hypothetical super dolphin, whatever) has no more moral weight than killing a dog or cat. 

[Guardian]

[nsplayr]

A 2 year old, 34 minute long Ben Shapiro video, posted twice.

Well hot damn consider my mind changed! 😆

[Guardian]

No one is trying to change your mind. Just an good video that discussed a lot of points found in this chat group. Regress to sarcasm achieved nsplayr

Accidental double post deleted. But did you watch both?

Does 2 year old logic make it wrong?

[HeloDude]

So, as I predicted, the Dobbs decision doesn’t seem to be some great rallying cry to sink the GOP in the midterms.  Sure it’s affecting a few close races here and there, and an argument could be made that it possibly could be the difference between the GOP taking the Senate or not, but here’s why the Dems aren’t capitalizing like they had hoped:

Dems in swing states say that they don’t want any restrictions on abortion.  So they’re taking on an extreme position of the right by offering their own extreme position.  The net change:  Very little when you factor in the economy, border security, energy, etc.