The meaning of life and other ill sh!t

[ClearedHot]

 

59 minutes ago, El Duderino said:

If living, single-celled organisms are found on the moon, Mars, an asteroid or anywhere other than planet earth are the scientific journal headlines going to be “Life found on Xxxx” or “Organism that’s not quite life found on Xxxx”?

Once the egg is fertilized and the cellular functions are functioning and the cell begins dividing I don’t understand how it’s not alive. It’s human DNA in the cell so saying it’s not human life also doesn’t make sense to me. I am not the smartest person though and am open to a scientific explanation of how it’s otherwise.
 

After conception isn’t the nature versus nurture part of the equation that determines what a human is going to be like settled?

I agree, I said the science has not been settled in the eyes of the law.  They have been all over the map..abortion is ok in 1st trimester, maybe in the 2nd, not in the 3rd...to no abortion at all...to fetal heartbeat to just before birth.  Now there will be 50 different interpretations.  

Ohio will be the first domino and their law is draconian, if there is a fetal heartbeat no abortion...many times there is a heartbeat before the woman even knows there is a heartbeat.

I feel bad for any woman in the military.  If she is assigned to a state that outlaws abortion, she may have no choice but to have the baby.  She can't just up and fly to another state.  The backroom abortion industry will sadly thrive and women will get hurt.

[pbar]

18 hours ago, Day Man said:

there are plenty of stories of IUD babies, pill babies, condom babies, vasectomy babies...accidents happen despite precautions. in 2020 there were 400k+ in foster care...that number, or women's deaths due to inaccessible health care, will only go up.

For the record, I'm OK with abortion for rape, incest, life of the mother, severe birth defects, etc.  But otherwise, maybe you shouldn't have sex unless you are prepared for the fact that you can become pregnant despite precautions.  Sex isn't mandatory to live (despite what many think)...  The right to abortion (except for the aforementioned exceptions) is like  arguing for the right to be careless or irresponsible. 

[brickhistory]

The politics of this thing aren't quite so devastating as have been claimed.

Remind me which major political party controls the legislature and the executive branch?

If they want to pass a national abortion law, they can.

They don't have the votes.

Although some squishy Republicans will also have to fish or cut bait if put to the test.

But neither side will apply said test.

Too much fundraising to be had railing for/against the issue.  

Not so much in actually making it a law.

[jazzdude]

It's a dodge because the left side of this argument paints any pro-lifer as a religious fanatic or zealot (which you did) precisely so they can dismiss religion (which is easy / justified) without having to deal with hard science that shows that there is an independent life inside a pregnant woman. That was the structure of your argument from a couple posts ago. You painted the other side as religious and then you closed the book without ever having to grapple with something scientific. Go re-read your post.
And it is absolutely settled scientifically. It's not settled by our courts because we live in a messy and self-interested society. I agree that it is a messy issue and that there is probably wiggle room on the early side for things like abortion to take place. That said, there is clearly a human at 7, 8, and 9 months of pregnancy. I'm trying to find time to read the whole draft decision, but the first 6-7 pages make some pretty good arguments. And you can't talk about abortion without implicitly talking about life. Here's some words for you:
Abortion (noun) - "the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy."
Pregnant (adjective) - "(of a woman or female animal) having a child or young developing in the uterus."
Finally, to your point about Roe, I don't think you really care what the courts say as far as your argument is concerned, and neither does anyone else on the left. It's an appeal to authority - nothing more. How do I know this? Because they're not all of a sudden going to go away when/if the court comes down with this decision...

Probably my posts you're thinking of, so I'll bite.

The religious argument tends to be the loudest for pro-life, so that's the example I used. I also consider myself religious, and think life is precious and starts early, but life is messy and I can see situations where an abortion might be reasonable. But that decision is between that woman making that choice and God.

On the flip side, supporting pro-choice tends to be portrayed as supporting killing the baby right up until birth, which I'd say is also an unfair generalization.

I'm not trying to paint all pro-lifers as religious zealots. One could be prolife because it's just what they believe for whatever reason, and that's okay. If that's what you believe, then don't get an abortion, and you are free to not have to associate with those that choose to do so. But there are people that take a hard line and say there should be no exceptions whatsoever.

But that subjects a woman to a year of her life (the impacts to the mother don't stop at birth...) where she is no longer free to make choices about what she does, and not just from a keeping the baby question. What she eats or drinks, the activities she can and can't do, the medicines she can or can't take to treat her medical conditions, etc. She also incurs costs, from clothes to extra medical copays/medications to transportation.

Like you point out, in practice it's messy, and it's hard to draw a line.

One issue is that several states either have laws on the books but not enforced or trigger laws to go into effect to effectively ban abortion as soon as Roe gets repealed, so for many people the court decision will have an a immediate effect.

The problem is the lives of the mother and baby are tied together, and they both affect each other. Sometimes good, sometimes bad. The point life begins is a gray area at best and open to interpretation and context. And since the decision someone else makes to have or not have an abortion doesn't directly affect me, I'd rather not have laws that limit their decisions, even if I don't agree with their decision.

[HeloDude]

3 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

Actually your statement is BS.

You missed my point man.  My point was that 90% (if not more) of Americans only want “Liberty for me but not for thee”.  Meaning that they claim to be for personal freedom (ie abortion, firearms, drugs, etc), but very few people support that personal freedom on all issues. 

[HeloDude]

Oh, there would be more credibility to the left’s argument if they echoed Dave’s argument on abortion:  “If you get to kill them, then men should be able to abandon them (ie not being on the hook financially whatsoever).”

But yeah…not so much.

 

[ViperMan]

@Pooter I wasn't originally responding to you. I was responding to @ClearedHot when he referenced "bible bangers" and "a very draconian ruling based on religion." The other post was in response to @Demonrat who made the same argument.

The bottom line point I was making is that it is a cop out from the left to argue that because a large group of people make a religious argument, the conclusion they reach is false. It's a model example of arguing from false premises. In the form of the argument they made, it's of course valid, but they choose to ignore the actual scientific reality that it is an independent life inside the woman.

The plain matter of fact is that the conclusion they reach is true, but it's easier to dismiss religious arguments than scientific ones.

You are cool with calling it a "woman's choice." To a point, so am I, but only to a point. At some point, it's no longer her choice. At some point, she's bought that merge. But hey, that's life in the city. What I think the world needs to get beyond is this framing that the government is somehow forcing a woman to have a child. That's also a false frame. Nature is forcing her to have the child. The government provides some (limited) outs, but they need to be acted upon early and/or in limited circumstances.

I agree that there is unfair portrayal on both sides as to what the other side believes, but there is no scientific gray area as to when life begins - it's absolutely clear and unequivocal - and that's not a religious viewpoint, it's a scientific one. What constitutes "life" from a philosophical viewpoint, and when it has "value" is a different question where there is gray area. But in that separate context "life", the word, has a different meaning.

[Demonrat]

1 hour ago, ViperMan said:

@Pooter I wasn't originally responding to you. I was responding to @ClearedHot when he referenced "bible bangers" and "a very draconian ruling based on religion." The other post was in response to @Demonrat who made the same argument.

The bottom line point I was making is that it is a cop out from the left to argue that because a large group of people make a religious argument, the conclusion they reach is false. It's a model example of arguing from false premises. In the form of the argument they made, it's of course valid, but they choose to ignore the actual scientific reality that it is an independent life inside the woman.

The plain matter of fact is that the conclusion they reach is true, but it's easier to dismiss religious arguments than scientific ones.

You are cool with calling it a "woman's choice." To a point, so am I, but only to a point. At some point, it's no longer her choice. At some point, she's bought that merge. But hey, that's life in the city. What I think the world needs to get beyond is this framing that the government is somehow forcing a woman to have a child. That's also a false frame. Nature is forcing her to have the child. The government provides some (limited) outs, but they need to be acted upon early and/or in limited circumstances.

I agree that there is unfair portrayal on both sides as to what the other side believes, but there is no scientific gray area as to when life begins - it's absolutely clear and unequivocal - and that's not a religious viewpoint, it's a scientific one. What constitutes "life" from a philosophical viewpoint, and when it has "value" is a different question where there is gray area. But in that separate context "life", the word, has a different meaning.

Ok, let's take the scientific viewpoint that is "clear and unequivocal" and see how that plays out in society. A human being is created at fertilization because it creates human specific tissues, DNA, and whatever else. 6 weeks later my one night stand girl shows me the human being creation test and it says "You have a human being in there according to science!" We are both freaking out because once you have a positive human being creation test you have to go to the doctor within 24 hours to confirm the presence of a new human being.

We go to the doctor and he confirms the brand new human because of the scientific definition. At this point we fill out all of the paperwork, name the 6-week old human (age now starts at conception), and make sure we get a social security card. We aren't married, so the human being creation certificate lists me and the mother as unwed. I am now on the hook for child support if I fail to perform my fatherly duties. If the mother does anything to endanger the new human being while he/she is in the womb, she may face murder charges and I may face criminal charges as well. The mother has insurance, but it doesn't fully cover human creation so we are on the hook for thousands of dollars of fees. Too bad the government doesn't provide some form of healthcare even though they require every woman to birth their newly created human beings. Also, once the human being makes it appearance everybody else doesn't give two s about that baby.

We go home after the doctor's appointment and we are both terrified. We don't want to do anything that could affect the new 6-week old human being in the womb. Some weeks go by and the stress of the situation got to the mother. She ended up drinking alcohol with the human being inside. As the father it is my duty to report the woman to human being protective services. I do so, and she is summarily arrested for endangering the life of a human being. She ends up being placed in a facility for unfit mothers, where she is watched 24/7 due to having a human being in her womb. The government has decided the girl's family and father will foot the entire cost of being in this facility because of their responsibility toward the new human being. 

If you haven't caught on by now, using the scientific definition is still absolute buffoonery. The "scientific definition argument" is just another red herring argument that doesn't take the whole situation into account. Calling a zygote a human being in the eyes of the law due to the scientific definition is asinine and has negative societal implications way beyond abortion. Women will bear a disproportionate amount of responsibility for the life of this "human being," and their personal freedoms will be severely limited while pregnant. That doesn't sound very American to me, and the enforcers have to be the government. I'm sure @ViperMan wants more government intervention. That's probably his dream come true.

[bfargin]

demorat, emotional arguments don't argue/debate well. You don't want religion and now you don't want science.

 

[Guardian]

Ok, let's take the scientific viewpoint…..

Whew…. Very dramatic. Lots of big emotion filled statements. And good job taking your time to set up a nonexistent scenario that no one is asking for and getting all emotional about it.

A lot of cuckoo takes these days about what republicans will supposedly do next if row v wade is overturned.

Chapter 3 democrat playbook. Fear-mongering

Well done!

[Demonrat]

1 hour ago, bfargin said:

demorat, emotional arguments don't argue/debate well. You don't want religion and now you don't want science.

 

 

41 minutes ago, Guardian said:

Whew…. Very dramatic. Lots of big emotion filled statements. And good job taking your time to set up a nonexistent scenario that no one is asking for and getting all emotional about it.

A lot of cuckoo takes these days about what republicans will supposedly do next if row v wade is overturned.

Chapter 3 democrat playbook. Fear-mongering

Well done!

It's an emotional argument meant to describe the absurdity behind calling a fertilized egg a person using a whole-of-society point-of-view beyond religion and science. It accounts for laws and norms that help prevent radical Y'all Qaeda/Q-anon/Handmaid's Tale/Authoritarian/Communist/Far-Left Antifa beliefs that aren't compatible with a modern day America rooted in what's in the Constitution. If a zygote, fetus, or whatever inside the womb is a person, then shouldn't they be afforded ALL of the rights a human being gets according to the law? Why are we picking and choosing what rights a human being fetus gets and doesn't get? For your arguments to work, it either has to be all or nothing. It makes NO logical sense to say "a zygote is a human being," but then not afford it EVERY right a human being has.

Just like Bible Thumpers cherry pick the Bible to fit their arguments, pro-life individuals want to cherry pick the rights of what what they call a human being. "Yeah, that fetus is a human being according to science and religion, but it doesn't get afforded all the rights associated with being a human because it's a fetus. How about we call a fetus 3/5ths of a human?" That argument makes zero sense. Either the fetus is a human being and has full protection of the law, or the fetus is not a human being and has no protection of the law. In the second case, the mother is 100% in control of her body and is the entity that has the protection of the law.

Edited May 5, 2022 by Demonrat

[ViperMan]

6 hours ago, Demonrat said:

Ok, let's take the scientific viewpoint that is "clear and unequivocal" and see how that plays out in society. A human being is created at fertilization because it creates human specific tissues, DNA, and whatever else. 6 weeks later my one night stand girl shows me the human being creation test and it says "You have a human being in there according to science!" We are both freaking out because once you have a positive human being creation test you have to go to the doctor within 24 hours to confirm the presence of a new human being.

We go to the doctor and he confirms the brand new human because of the scientific definition. At this point we fill out all of the paperwork, name the 6-week old human (age now starts at conception), and make sure we get a social security card. We aren't married, so the human being creation certificate lists me and the mother as unwed. I am now on the hook for child support if I fail to perform my fatherly duties. If the mother does anything to endanger the new human being while he/she is in the womb, she may face murder charges and I may face criminal charges as well. The mother has insurance, but it doesn't fully cover human creation so we are on the hook for thousands of dollars of fees. Too bad the government doesn't provide some form of healthcare even though they require every woman to birth their newly created human beings. Also, once the human being makes it appearance everybody else doesn't give two s about that baby.

We go home after the doctor's appointment and we are both terrified. We don't want to do anything that could affect the new 6-week old human being in the womb. Some weeks go by and the stress of the situation got to the mother. She ended up drinking alcohol with the human being inside. As the father it is my duty to report the woman to human being protective services. I do so, and she is summarily arrested for endangering the life of a human being. She ends up being placed in a facility for unfit mothers, where she is watched 24/7 due to having a human being in her womb. The government has decided the girl's family and father will foot the entire cost of being in this facility because of their responsibility toward the new human being. 

If you haven't caught on by now, using the scientific definition is still absolute buffoonery. The "scientific definition argument" is just another red herring argument that doesn't take the whole situation into account. Calling a zygote a human being in the eyes of the law due to the scientific definition is asinine and has negative societal implications way beyond abortion. Women will bear a disproportionate amount of responsibility for the life of this "human being," and their personal freedoms will be severely limited while pregnant. That doesn't sound very American to me, and the enforcers have to be the government. I'm sure @ViperMan wants more government intervention. That's probably his dream come true.

Dude, you just shat out a wall of irrelevant text. Your argument boils down to this: because some bad things might happen in the future to a child, that is my post hoc justification for allowing abortion in order to prevent a bunch of bad things from taking place. In short, your argument is specious, hypothetical, post hoc bull shit.

[Demonrat]

10 hours ago, Demonrat said:

 

It's an emotional argument meant to describe the absurdity behind calling a fertilized egg a person using a whole-of-society point-of-view beyond religion and science. It accounts for laws and norms that help prevent radical Y'all Qaeda/Q-anon/Handmaid's Tale/Authoritarian/Communist/Far-Left Antifa beliefs that aren't compatible with a modern day America rooted in what's in the Constitution. If a zygote, fetus, or whatever inside the womb is a person, then shouldn't they be afforded ALL of the rights a human being gets according to the law? Why are we picking and choosing what rights a human being fetus gets and doesn't get? For your arguments to work, it either has to be all or nothing. It makes NO logical sense to say "a zygote is a human being," but then not afford it EVERY right a human being has.

Just like Bible Thumpers cherry pick the Bible to fit their arguments, pro-life individuals want to cherry pick the rights of what what they call a human being. "Yeah, that fetus is a human being according to science and religion, but it doesn't get afforded all the rights associated with being a human because it's a fetus. How about we call a fetus 3/5ths of a human?" That argument makes zero sense. Either the fetus is a human being and has full protection of the law, or the fetus is not a human being and has no protection of the law. In the second case, the mother is 100% in control of her body and is the entity that has the protection of the law.

 

5 hours ago, ViperMan said:

Dude, you just shat out a wall of irrelevant text. Your argument boils down to this: because some bad things might happen in the future to a child, that is my post hoc justification for allowing abortion in order to prevent a bunch of bad things from taking place. In short, your argument is specious, hypothetical, post hoc bull shit.

You didn’t address my next post that addressed the “wall of irrelevant text”, linking the emotional argument with a logical argument. You cannot call a zygote a human being and not afford it every right a human being has in the eyes of the law. It makes no sense. 

[Lord Ratner]

In this case, if you haven't read the 50ish pages of the actual ruling, you are arguing without context. It's quite clear that many in this thread haven't read the ruling. 

Sure, this might have major political consequences for the Republicans, but I doubt it. Abortion is a popular issue in America precisely because it doesn't actually affect most people. Anyone notice that? The most divisive long-term issues are the ones that aren't a part of daily life?

 

Yes, the abortion activists are going to lose their minds. And yes, some republican women are going to be upset with the ruling. But overwhelmingly those people weren't and aren't going to get an abortion. They are going to buy gas. They are going to watch their 401K and home value plummet. They do have kids in school. What people post on facebook and what they vote for are not the same. 

 

If you believe in the sanctity of the Supreme Court, Roe and Casey had to be overruled. Again, reading Scalia's ruling spells it out clearly. 

 

You want nationwide abortion? Pass a fucking law. 50 years after Roe and the country is still bitterly divided, if that's not an issue best left to the actual machinery of democracy, what is?

 

Since Roe the progressives have dedicated the bulk of their energy to trick-fucking the government into regulating and adjudicating their agenda into reality instead of legislating it into existence. It's wrong, and as someone pointed out, when you force a bunch of unpopular stuff onto the population against their will (as exercised through voting on legislation and electing representatives to write legislation), they tend to react unpredictably and violently. 

 

Roe was an assault on our entire system, and the 50-year experiment proved that it doesn't even work. This is a good ruling. I hope to see the process work as intended once again.

 

Relevant disclaimers:

Personal view: Abortion should only be allowed for cases of rape or dire risk to the mother's health. Human life must be valued at a base level if we are to form any sort of consistent morality to abide by.

Political view: Tie goes to the citizen. Abortion should be legal until either viability (as determined by the medical outcomes in the lowest 25% of the country) or through the second trimester. After that, only dire health risks.

Views: Atheist, somewhere between conservative and libertarian.

Here are some quotes from the ruling, but you need to read the fucking thing. The formatting is a mess.

 

Quote

Women are not without electoral or po- litical power. It is noteworthy that the percentage of women who register to vote andcast ballots is consistently higher than the percentage of men who do s0.% In the last election in November 2020, women, who make up around 51.5% ofthe population ofMississippi, constituted 55.5% of the voters who cast ballots.

 

Quote

Until the latter part of the 20th century, there was no support in American law for a constitutional right to obtain an abortion. Zero. None. No state constitutional provision had recognized such a right. Until a few years before Roe was handed down, no federal or state court had recognized such a right. Nor had any scholarly treatiseof which we are aware. And although law review articles are not reti- cent about advocating new rights, the earlicst article pro- posing a constitutional right to abortion that has come to our attention was published only a few years before Roe. Not only was there no support for such a constitutional right until shortly before Roe, but abortion had long been a erime in every single State. At common law, abortion was criminal in at least some stages of pregnancy and was re- garded as unlawful and could have very serious conse- quences at all stages. American law followed the common law until a wave of statutory restrictions in the 1800s ex- ‘panded criminal liability for abortions. By the timeof the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, three-quarters of the States had made abortion a crime at any stage ofpreg- nancy, and the remaining States would soon follow.

Quote

In sum, although common law authorities differed on the severityofpunishment for abortions committed at different points in pregnancy, none endorsed the practice. Moreover, we are aware of no common law case or authority, and the parties have not pointed to any, that remotely suggests a positive right to procure an abortion at any stage of preg- nancy.

Quote

The inescapable conclusion is that a right to abortion is notdeeplyrootedin the Nation'shistoryand traditions. On the contrary, an unbroken traditionofprohibiting abortion on painofcriminal punishment persisted from the carliest daysofthe commonlaw until 1973. The Court in Roecould have said of abortion exactly what Glucksberg said of as- sisted suicide: “Attitudes toward [abortion] have changed since Bracton, but our laws have consistently condemned, and continue to prohibit, [that practice].” Glucksberg, 521 U.S, at 719.

Quote

Roe found that the Constitution implicitly conferred a right to obtain an abortion, but it failed to ground its deci- sion in text, history,or precedent. It relied on an erroneous historical narrative; it devoted great attention to and pre- sumably relied on matters that have no bearing on the ‘meaning of the Constitution; it disregarded the fundamen- tal difference between the precedents on which it relied and the question before the Court; it concocted an elaborate set of rules, with different restrictions for each trimester of pregnancy, but it did not explain how this veritable code could be teasedoutof anything in the Constitution, the his- tory of abortion laws, prior precedent, or any other cited source; and its most important rule (that States cannot pro- tect fetal life prior to “viability”) was never raised by any soningquicklydrew scathing scholarly criticism, even from supportersofbroad access to abortion. The Caseyplurality, while reaffirmingRoe’s central hold: ing, pointedly refrained from endorsing most of its reason- ing. It revised the textual basis for the abortion right, si- Tently abandoned Roe's erroneous historical narrative, and jettisoned the trimester framework. But it replaced that scheme withan arbitrary“undue burden” testand reliedon an exceptional versionofstare decisis that, asexplained be- Tow, this Court had never before applied and has never in- voked since.

Quote

 Despite Roe's weaknesses, its reach was steadily ex- tended in the years that followed. The Court struck down laws requiring that second-trimester abortions be per- formed only in hospitals, Akron v. Akron Centerfor Repro- ductiveHealth, Inc.,462U. S. 416, 433-139 (1983); that mi- nors obtain parental consent, Planned Parenthood of Central Mo. v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52, 74 (1976); that women give written consentafter being informedofthe sta- tusofthe developingprenatal life and the risksofabortion, Akron, 462U. S., at 442-445; that women waittwenty-four hours for an abortion, id., at 449-451; that a physician de- termine viability in a particular manner, Colautti, 439 U.S, at 890-897; that a physician performing a post-via- bilityabortion use the techniquemostlikely to preserve the life of the fetus, id., at 397-401; and that fotal remains be treated in a humane and sanitary manner, Akron, 162 U.S, at 451-452. Justice Whitecomplained thatthe Court was engagingin “unrestrained imposition of its own extraconstitutional value preferences.” Thornburgh, 476 U. S., at 794 (White, J, dissenting). And the United States as amicus curiae asked the Court to overrule Roe five times in the decade before Planned Parenthood v. Casey, see 505 U. S., at 844 (plurality opinion), and then asked the Court to overrule it once more in Casey itself.

Read it. Seriously. 

[ViperMan]

11 hours ago, Demonrat said:

It's an emotional argument meant to describe the absurdity behind calling a fertilized egg a person using a whole-of-society point-of-view beyond religion and science. It accounts for laws and norms that help prevent radical Y'all Qaeda/Q-anon/Handmaid's Tale/Authoritarian/Communist/Far-Left Antifa beliefs that aren't compatible with a modern day America rooted in what's in the Constitution. If a zygote, fetus, or whatever inside the womb is a person, then shouldn't they be afforded ALL of the rights a human being gets according to the law? Why are we picking and choosing what rights a human being fetus gets and doesn't get? For your arguments to work, it either has to be all or nothing. It makes NO logical sense to say "a zygote is a human being," but then not afford it EVERY right a human being has.

Just like Bible Thumpers cherry pick the Bible to fit their arguments, pro-life individuals want to cherry pick the rights of what what they call a human being. "Yeah, that fetus is a human being according to science and religion, but it doesn't get afforded all the rights associated with being a human because it's a fetus. How about we call a fetus 3/5ths of a human?" That argument makes zero sense. Either the fetus is a human being and has full protection of the law, or the fetus is not a human being and has no protection of the law. In the second case, the mother is 100% in control of her body and is the entity that has the protection of the law.

 

50 minutes ago, Demonrat said:

You didn’t address my next post that addressed the “wall of irrelevant text”, linking the emotional argument with a logical argument. You cannot call a zygote a human being and not afford it every right a human being has in the eyes of the law. It makes no sense. 

Well excuse me! Your argument would be easier to parse if you hadn't attempted to smuggle your point through via a screen play. It was hard to pick through all the actual, literal irrelevant detail in order to figure out what you were communicating.

I think your second post boils down to "a zygote needs to be either a full human being or nothing, in the eyes of the law., lest we be inconsistent." Is that basically right? If so, I think you're hitting on the crux of the issue for most people. I get the "absurdity" of calling a zygote a "human being," I really do. That said, if the political parties in this country make me pick between two extremes and either call a zygote a human being or a 9-mo old baby still in the womb a "clump of cells" or a a "parasite" or a "choice," I'm going with option A, because even though it's "absurd," it's less absurd than all the rest.

[HeloDude]

2 hours ago, Demonrat said:

 

You didn’t address my next post that addressed the “wall of irrelevant text”, linking the emotional argument with a logical argument. You cannot call a zygote a human being and not afford it every right a human being has in the eyes of the law. It makes no sense. 

It’s just an “undocumented life”…

[Pooter]

I think what @Demonrat is trying to say is that legally defining a human being as existing at conception has some very big legal implications that even the most staunch pro lifers haven't fully thought out.  
 

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. 
 

Instead they're more concerned with what Lena Dunham is up to.. and that makes the whole gambit seem very fake, and more like a bid for control to own the libs than a genuine concern for human life. 
 

TL;DR if it's a human life at conception, act like it in all aspects.. not just the politically convenient ones.

Edited May 5, 2022 by Pooter

[busdriver]

15 minutes ago, Pooter said:

it begs the question, why aren't pro lifers __________ But none of that is happening. 

TL;DR if it's a human life at conception, act like it in all aspects.. not just the politically convenient ones.

This is a common error made by just about everyone.  Assuming that everyone thinks and values things the same as they do.  In this case, you're projecting how you would think and behave if you believed that a new person started at conception.

It's also really common in this specific case to not look around at all, and miss that sometimes people do mean what they say. 

So you get this opinion piece from Time of San Diego lamenting that fathers should have to pay from conception if abortion is illegal (this is one example, I've seen plenty).  It is of course filled with snark, implying that the concept is inconceivable. 

The ironic aspect is Utah now requires fathers to foot 50% of the pregnancy medical bills, Arkansas is pushing something similar, North Dakota has a R led push to require child support retroactive back to conception.  An Oklahoma dem pushed a bill to do the same as a sort of thing as a snark move, and then pulled it back.  I assume partly due to the fact that its passage would implicitly set a precedent of person from conception.

Maybe they actually do believe what they say.  And if you offer up your "suggestions" they'd probably agree with them.

[FLEA]

Not really going to wade into this debate but, if you are a pro-choicer, please don't be this ginormous fucking stupid. 

https://www.foxnews.com/media/conservatives-roast-comedy-writer-mourns-miscarriages-delete-account

This infuriates me. My wife had two miscarriages. The second one nearly led to her successful suicide. It took years for her to get over that and she still wakes up with nightmares on occasion about it. 

[bfargin]

In most Asian cultures even your age tracks with conception. So in China, Taiwan, and Korea (that I know of for sure) you're one year old when you're born. When I would ask my school friends how old they were, I was always bummed that I was the youngest kid in the class.

[Pooter]

2 hours ago, busdriver said:

This is a common error made by just about everyone.  Assuming that everyone thinks and values things the same as they do.  In this case, you're projecting how you would think and behave if you believed that a new person started at conception.

It's also really common in this specific case to not look around at all, and miss that sometimes people do mean what they say. 

So you get this opinion piece from Time of San Diego lamenting that fathers should have to pay from conception if abortion is illegal (this is one example, I've seen plenty).  It is of course filled with snark, implying that the concept is inconceivable. 

The ironic aspect is Utah now requires fathers to foot 50% of the pregnancy medical bills, Arkansas is pushing something similar, North Dakota has a R led push to require child support retroactive back to conception.  An Oklahoma dem pushed a bill to do the same as a sort of thing as a snark move, and then pulled it back.  I assume partly due to the fact that its passage would implicitly set a precedent of person from conception.

Maybe they actually do believe what they say.  And if you offer up your "suggestions" they'd probably agree with them.

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. 

[busdriver]

8 minutes 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. 

Then re-read the second half of my post.

Edit:  I'll be more clear.  I think the answer from the religious right would be: "first things first"

Edited May 5, 2022 by busdriver

[El Duderino]

1 minute 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. 

At what point is it not absurd? When should the laws a societal norms be applied?

[Pooter]

37 minutes ago, El Duderino said:

At what point is it not absurd? When should the laws a societal norms be applied?

Honestly not sure. And that's a great debate to have. 

 

39 minutes ago, busdriver said:

Then re-read the second half of my post.

Edit:  I'll be more clear.  I think the answer from the religious right would be: "first things first"

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. 
 

Another note on logical consistency: the people who say gun bans dont stop criminals from getting guns.. advocating for abortion bans 🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️

[Guardian]

I'
 
Another note on logical consistency: the people who say gun bans dont stop criminals from getting guns.. advocating for abortion bans 🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️

I don’t think anyone disagrees with this point. But not allowing abortion saves more lives than it kills.