Leaked/breaking:Roe v. Wade expected to be overturned

[Ark]

I wonder if some of this is hyperbole kinda like Jim Lucas' draft bill requiring a 1st amendment license? you know, created to make a point but not actually designed/intended to be implemented.

Congress critters are fundamentally stupid people and propose a constant stream of stupid nonsense that never goes anywhere.

Note also the equivocation between US congresspeople and complete nobodies at state level.

 

[Route 45]

I wonder if some of this is hyperbole kinda like Jim Lucas' draft bill requiring a 1st amendment license? you know, created to make a point but not actually designed/intended to be implemented.

Why would GOP candidates and sitting lawmakers draft bills to mock the position of a sizeable portion of their base? The Jim Lucas bill was drafted to make a point about licensing rights, to make a point about licensing 2nd Amendment rights. This aligns with their base.

 

[Route 45]

Congress critters are fundamentally stupid people and propose a constant stream of stupid nonsense that never goes anywhere.

Note also the equivocation between US congresspeople and complete nobodies at state level.

McConnell and Blackburn are hardly nobodies in the GOP. That's 2 out of 3, which isn't bad according to Meatloaf.

The one Arizona GOP state lawmaker may be a nobody, but he can grab headlines for the GOP the same as the main players.

 

[printcraft]

I think it’s fair to call out that behavior. But without the emotion that equal contempt would conjur.

The choice always exists merely to ignore such hostility. Some things are posted purely to cause an emotional response. Why give it?

 

[BigRed]

View attachment 199576

 

[jamil]

Such a statement can only be believed when one ignores basic, scientific fact as taught in high school freshman biology class. "Sentience" is not a requirement for the scientific definition of "life". "Personhood" is a non-scientific construct. The two-celled zygote is living. It meets the biological definition of life. The two-celled zygote is a human being. It meets the genetic definition of "human being". Genetically (and physiologically), the developing human life is distinct from the life/body of the mother.

I put “life” in quotes for a reason. We’re not arguing about whether two-celled zygote's is living. No one on any of the sides contests that. Or that the dna is distinct from the Mother's. What's at issue is whether the two-celled zygote has equal rights to a human being separated from the umbilical cord. That seems to be the extent of the distance between the two extremes. So let's keep it where the contention is. And that discussion is not about science.

So, at what point does a human within the development cycle have the same rights as a person on the other side of birth? That's the question everyone has at odds. There are diverse opinions but we can use 3 pigeonholes that the factions reasonable fit into, at least those who have thought out opinions on it.

One is primarily right-wing religious people, who assert that the two-celled Zigote has equal rights. Claiming that this is based on science does not make it "scientific" because the discussion of rights doesn't really fit into science, though science could be used to help justify an position. It can't be reliant on science. So for you, why should a two-celled zygote have the same rights as a developed infant outside the womb? Are they really, for all moral purposes, equal? Does your belief that it has a soul have anything to do with your viewpoint? Is your viewpoint really, purely, scientific? Does religion not inform any of it? I have a hard time believing that.

On the other extreme is the opinion that as long as its dependent on its mother, if they concede that "it" has any rights at all, at any point in the pregnancy, they don't override the Mother's right to choose. That if it is an unwanted pregnancy, the unborn is essentially an "intruder", and the mother has a right to be rid of it. Obviously that's not based in science either. It's based on an ideological belief that the mother's right supersedes any right the unborn might have.

And the last is the position that, during pregnancy, there is a point where the unborn has rights equal to a born human. I call that "sentience", more as a placeholder. As a basis for what equalizes rights is no more or less scientific than the other two positions. It's a moral position just as the others are. We all might use science to try to justify the point at which we confer equal rights on a new human life, wither at conception, at cutting the cord, or somewhere in between. But there is still not a scientific answer because it's a moral question and not a scientific one. And I've never claimed it as any more than that.

So for the religious argument for the moral answer, you have to attached some sacredness to your conception of "life" (again in quotes) to justify conferring equal rights at the point you do. To secular minded scientists, a two-celled zygote is alive. It's distinct from the mother. Yet there is no scientific reason to confer equal rights to it. That's a subjective call. And whether you're religious, especially of certain religions, or not, is a very good predictor of where you're going to fall on this question. One could say it's deterministic.

And frankly I don’t think it hurts your argument to admit the religious concepts that make you believe what you do. So what? You'll find ideologically possessed atheists who twist their panties up that you're "ending women's rights" over dogma. But for their own idealistic, unscientific reasons, they don't consider the rights of the unborn. Like I've said all along, it is no worse than the dogma which asserts that aborting babies all the way up to snipping the umbilical cord is "women's rights."

 

[AndreusMaximus]

I put “life” in quotes for a reason. We’re not arguing about whether two-celled zygote's is living. No one on any of the sides contests that. Or that the dna is distinct from the Mother's. What's at issue is whether the two-celled zygote has equal rights to a human being separated from the umbilical cord. That seems to be the extent of the distance between the two extremes. So let's keep it where the contention is. And that discussion is not about science.

So, at what point does a human within the development cycle have the same rights as a person on the other side of birth? That's the question everyone has at odds. There are diverse opinions but we can use 3 pigeonholes that the factions reasonable fit into, at least those who have thought out opinions on it.

One is primarily right-wing religious people, who assert that the two-celled Zigote has equal rights. Claiming that this is based on science does not make it "scientific" because the discussion of rights doesn't really fit into science, though science could be used to help justify an position. It can't be reliant on science. So for you, why should a two-celled zygote have the same rights as a developed infant outside the womb? Are they really, for all moral purposes, equal? Does your belief that it has a soul have anything to do with your viewpoint? Is your viewpoint really, purely, scientific? Does religion not inform any of it? I have a hard time believing that.

On the other extreme is the opinion that as long as its dependent on its mother, if they concede that "it" has any rights at all, at any point in the pregnancy, they don't override the Mother's right to choose. That if it is an unwanted pregnancy, the unborn is essentially an "intruder", and the mother has a right to be rid of it. Obviously that's not based in science either. It's based on an ideological belief that the mother's right supersedes any right the unborn might have.

And the last is the position that, during pregnancy, there is a point where the unborn has rights equal to a born human. I call that "sentience", more as a placeholder. As a basis for what equalizes rights is no more or less scientific than the other two positions. It's a moral position just as the others are. We all might use science to try to justify the point at which we confer equal rights on a new human life, wither at conception, at cutting the cord, or somewhere in between. But there is still not a scientific answer because it's a moral question and not a scientific one. And I've never claimed it as any more than that.

So for the religious argument for the moral answer, you have to attached some sacredness to your conception of "life" (again in quotes) to justify conferring equal rights at the point you do. To secular minded scientists, a two-celled zygote is alive. It's distinct from the mother. Yet there is no scientific reason to confer equal rights to it. That's a subjective call. And whether you're religious, especially of certain religions, or not, is a very good predictor of where you're going to fall on this question. One could say it's deterministic.

And frankly I don’t think it hurts your argument to admit the religious concepts that make you believe what you do. So what? You'll find ideologically possessed atheists who twist their panties up that you're "ending women's rights" over dogma. But for their own idealistic, unscientific reasons, they don't consider the rights of the unborn. Like I've said all along, it is no worse than the dogma which asserts that aborting babies all the way up to snipping the umbilical cord is "women's rights."

Okay, sounds like you're backpedaling now, but maybe I just misinterpreted your earlier comments.

If you're saying that the question of human rights, and which humans have which rights, is not really a scientific one (though, as you mentioned, it can be informed by science in some aspects) fine, I agree with that.

If you're saying that religious people are more likely to believe that a one- or two-celled zygote has a right to life than an atheist is, fine, I agree with that.

But this is a far cry from your earlier claim that there is no reasonable secular argument for granting human rights from conception.

 

[DadSmith]

Some consider human life equal to or less than an animals. To them abortion is not a big deal. To those who view human life as precious its a big deal.

 

[Route 45]

Some consider human life equal to or less than an animals. To them abortion is not a big deal. To those who view human life as precious its a big deal.

I wonder what the correlation is on INGO between those who are "pro-life" and those who have posted that we should "glass" the Middle East. I suppose some human life is more equal than others.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

I wonder what the correlation is on INGO between those who are "pro-life" and those who have posted that we should "glass" the Middle East. I suppose some human life is more equal than others.

Damn dude, save some strawmans for the other rabid atheists.

 

[jamil]

Though I haven't replied to this thread for a few pages, I've been reading a lot of the responses, and I think this is like the sixth or so post in which you've tried to explain why you think there's no secular argument against abortion pre-sentience, and your reasoning become more murky to me with each post. Just to clarify, do you also believe that there is no objective reason, from a secular standpoint, to award equal rights to people in a vegetative state?

For the purposes of discussion I use the term "sentience" as a placeholder for that point at which there is a consensus on when it is immoral to end a pregnancy. The "pro-life" side says that at no point after conception is it moral to abort. So then it becomes consensus at the point where most people agree that it's immoral. I think most states average around 24-28 months. I think I've made that point in several other discussions about the a-word.

The "vegetative state" brings us right up to the point where things become truly murky. But I think you're overstating it. Is there a point where a person born in a vegatative state is as simple as a two-celled zygote? We are talking about applying the same rights to such, as the mother, or to a baby on the other side of birth. My contention is that there is a point such that there exists only a religious argument, such as the the concept of a soul, for why equal rights should be conferred at conception. It's not a scientific argument. In fact, as I've said, none of this is based on science, really. It is all about moral justification for each position. I'm not even advocating that "sentience" is that point. It's a word just to define a point we can be sure exists, but are not sure where.

What's wrong with the following argument, which makes no reference to religion?

1) Meaningful laws must be capable of being enforced based on objective criteria
2) There are no objective criteria for determining if a human life has sentience
3) Therefore, any meaningful law that protects human life must not be based on the concept of sentience
4) Human life can be easily defined using objective, scientific criteria
5) Therefore, in makes sense to protect ALL human life

In other words, even if you believe that some certain human lives are not worth protecting under the law (from a secular standpoint) it makes more sense to continue protecting those lives, than to open the door to having which human lives are or are not worth protecting be determined by subjective, squishy criteria like "sentience."

Do you want a logical critique or a philosophical critique? I mean, if I have time I'll do either.

 

[jamil]

First: life is defined scientifically. Why do the non-religious keep bringing in religious belief? Perhaps because it is a straw man erected for demolishing, since objective science is abundantly clear regarding the definition of life?

Similarly, "to kill any human living cell" is also a straw man. Surely, one can argue from a position of sincerity, rather than conflate a human cell with the entire human being?

That's ridiculous. You define "life" technically, and then insist that the technical definition you gave logically concludes with rights equally applies, as if a two-celled zygote is equal in every objectively relevant way to a human being after development from the womb. What justification do you have to apply the rights. Again, we're not arguing about the scientific definition of life. We're arguing about the moral definition of "life" insofar as when equal rights should confer. The straw argument isn't mine.

I don't accuse you of insincerity. Not everyone who disagrees with you is insincere. So I'd appreciate if you'd afford me the same courtesy I give you.

 

[bwframe]

 

[Hatin Since 87]

View attachment 199593
View attachment 199595

Insurrection!!!


Abortion issue aside, wasn’t anything not explicitly outlined in the constitution to be left to the states? Why is this even a debate?



I do love seeing libs get owned, so it has been a nice couple weeks

 

[jamil]

There you go again. Do you really believe that no atheist can find objective, reasonable grounds for NOT condemning a child to death for the crime of his/her father? I'm not exactly pro-atheist by any stretch, but even I wouldn't accuse them of that.

Maybe I'm reading you all wrong here, but this is really coming across weird to me...

You've couched this as condemning a child to death for the sins of the father? Why would you think that an atheist would even think in those terms? The point is, is there a moral difference at conception versus some other point in the pregnancy? I think most objective atheists would say yeah, probably. Religious people, in a deterministic way, say no, there's not.

 

[jamil]

View attachment 199593
View attachment 199595

It's kinda hard for the progressives to complain at abortion clinic bombings when they're doing this ****.

 

[spencer rifle]

How about a medical definition: if there's a heartbeat and brain waves, it's a live human.

Or a legal definition: if the zygote/fetus is to be sentenced to death, there should be a court hearing. Just getting the legal system to respond would take longer that 9 months by natural processes, so the situation would resolve itself (unless you are for very late-term or post-birth abortion).

Please don't call me an agent provocateur!

 

[jamil]

Insurrection!!!


Abortion issue aside, wasn’t anything not explicitly outlined in the constitution to be left to the states? Why is this even a debate?



I do love seeing libs get owned, so it has been a nice couple weeks

It should absolutely be a state issue to resolve. People are all over the place on this. I think laws require a consensus agreement. There is not one on this topic. Each state should decide it for themselves what they want their laws to be. And if you don't like it, there is a choice.

 

[BigRed]

wasn’t anything not explicitly outlined in the constitution to be left to the states?

Yep....but centralizers and commie scum sucking **** suckers have been shredding it.

There's always secession!

 

[jamil]

How about a medical definition: if there's a heartbeat and brain waves, it's a live human.

Or a legal definition: if the zygote/fetus is to be sentenced to death, there should be a court hearing. Just getting the legal system to respond would take longer that 9 months by natural processes, so the situation would resolve itself (unless you are for very late-term or post-birth abortion).

Please don't call me an agent provocateur!

I think possibly heartbeat/brain waves, is an objective point. Whether one can appoint an objective justification for that being the point where it's either moral or immoral is still subjective. It really does belong in the statehouse, not the US houses of congress.