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

[jamil]

So it can be a person/have rights or not based on location? The reason I ask is because viability is going to vary, let's say a rural hospital in Appalachia or Children's national in D.C.


You say the potential for what it will become, the same can be said about an infant. They are not fully developed, including the brain which doesn't become fully developed until what sometime in the 20s?

Non religious argument for life at conception. As soon as the sperm and egg join a new living individual is formed. You can argue viability or completeness, but a newborn is not complete nor is is capable of surviving on it's own. Same as that zygote.

What gives that fertilized egg rights? Is it just the DNA encoding? I think claiming it is, is just as subjective as any claim. It does not follow.

 

[jamil]

If the test is "being able to survive on it's own", there's gonna be a LOT of Leftist (capital L) that can be aborted.

It could be said that a Leftist is not viable, but has potential to be viable, if sense could be driven into it.

 

[Cameramonkey]

I think you're kind of missing my point with this. You're not defining a viable person, you're defining a viable fetus. And yeah, it does matter.

There's so many exceptions and ways to twist this, I don't think it's a solid foundation.

Think about it like you were trying to explain to a computer what a viable person was, and all the context necessary for the computer to understand what you're thinking. And also remember if you slip up the slightest bit, the computer might commit genocide.

I think it's important to have very precise definitions that can't be interpreted to mean something you don't want, when it comes to matters of literal life and death.

Im just explaining what the currently held as the go/no go mark used by many in the discussion since some asked when is the cutoff, and when its OK/not OK to suck it out. That is all.

 

[jamil]

I think you're kind of missing my point with this. You're not defining a viable person, you're defining a viable fetus. And yeah, it does matter.

There's so many exceptions and ways to twist this, I don't think it's a solid foundation.

Honestly I don't think any belief on this has a solid, objective foundation, which is why I think the best level to handle the question is not by a central government. Probably at the state level is the right place, and people will just have to agree to disagree with each other. What we all believe is largely dependent on our worldview.

Think about it like you were trying to explain to a computer what a viable person was, and all the context necessary for the computer to understand what you're thinking. And also remember if you slip up the slightest bit, the computer might commit genocide.

I think it's important to have very precise definitions that can't be interpreted to mean something you don't want, when it comes to matters of literal life and death.

Even with the most precise definition there will be people who interpret it differently. People aren't computers. The computer faithfully executes the code programmers write. Bugs never happen because the computer misunderstood the programmer. What is written isn't always what is required because people don't understand the same words the same way. It really is a process to reconcile expectations of requirements. Whatever laws you write today, they'll be misapplied or misconstrued tomorrow.

 

[Twangbanger]

"Mr. Republican Legislative Candidate, if one of your constituents sitting in the audience tonight found out their daughter was raped and impregnated, do you believe she and her parents should be able to decide - for themselves - if she can receive an abortion in your state?"

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

"Mr. Republican Legislative Candidate, if one of your constituents sitting in the audience tonight found out their daughter was raped and impregnated, do you believe she and her parents should be able to decide - for themselves - if she can receive an abortion in your state?"

I do not support the death penalty for innocent persons for the crimes of their fathers. I do support the death penalty for convicted rapists.

Your justice will not be achieved by killing an innocent person.

 

[Magyars]

 

[Shadow01]

38 states have fetal homicide laws. Those laws at minimum should be applied to an act with intent such as abortion.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Well, the thought that the questions were not in good faith did come to mind, but I'm assuming they're sincere.

I apologize; I was too snarky in some of my earlier replies. Thank you for being willing to continue the discussion with me.

So I could ask the same as a question. What makes conception the morally objective point where abortion should be abolished? Do not give any religious moral reasoning for your answer.

Basically, it's the same as a I stated above: for society to function we need a definition of human "life" ("life" meaning not just a scientifically "living" organism, but a human life with equal rights) that does not rely on squishy, subjective criteria that are liable to change based on medical technology, or depending on the voting populace's current mood. There is no point after conception that fits the bill.

Well. Hold on there. Some Christians believe in preexistence theory, in which the soul comes before conception. From a purely secular standpoint, the question of when "life" begins is murky. It would totally depend on how you define life. As it pertains to the morality of Abortion, that definition has to involve an answer to the question, when should rights confer to the unborn that override the mother's.

Okay, I think this is bringing us to another point I'd missed in what you've stated.

Pretend for a moment that we were like fish, that females laid eggs outside their bodies, than the males fertilized them, and then they developed outside of the mother's womb. In that scenario, would you think it reasonable to say that "life" (ie, human rights) begin at fertilization?

I ask this hypothetical because up until now I'd been assuming that you believe that conception is not a rational (from a secular point of view) point for "life" (ie, human rights) to begin because the zygote, at conception, does not meet certain criteria (such as sentience, etc) and/or is too simple a life form for a reasonable person to think it should have human rights. But is it not so much that, and more a concern for the rights of the mother?

In other words, would it be (at least somewhat) accurate to describe your thinking (from a purely secular standpoint) as more along the lines of "A zygote may have some sort of rights, but the right to life comes gradually as the fetus develops, and doesn't become absolute/inviolable until he/she reaches a certain point of complexity/'humanness'"?

I don't know if "because we don't know any better, might as well call it at conception."

Well, from my perspective it's not "might as well call it at conception" rather, it's "we have to call it at conception, because there's no other workable definition of when human rights begin.

Well then that doesn't take into consideration the rights of the mother. And this is a problem with both sides of the argument. The Right doesn't seem to regard the rights of the mother at all, because, you know, she agreed to do the deed, so she already made her "choice". That's a very reductive argument. It's not as simple as that. On the other side, the left doesn't seem to regard the rights of the unborn. Would be good if both sides would regard both party's rights at least a little. But they can't, and that also has a lot to do with both coming from either religious or ideological worldviews.

I guess I need to better understand the answer to my question above before giving a good answer to this part, but for now, I'll just say that I agree that it's a poor argument to disregard the rights of the mother because she "already made her choice" or something like that, so we at least agree on that.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I think jamil may have met his match in wordiness.

 

[Leadeye]

When I see stuff like this it looks like more evidence of the planning,timing , and money behind these movements. Somebody had to get the idea and run off the costumes rather quickly considering the amount of time involved. It would be interesting to see where the capes and hats were made and who paid.

 

[Leadeye]

I've never expressed much interest in the abortion question, It always seemed to me to be something that could be settled by a ballot. That's probably too simple, but as much time, money, and emotion as the issue has cost over the years, it seems a waste.

 

[Cameramonkey]

When I see stuff like this it looks like more evidence of the planning,timing , and money behind these movements. Somebody had to get the idea and run off the costumes rather quickly considering the amount of time involved. It would be interesting to see where the capes and hats were made and who paid.

They have been pulling these stunts for a while. The costumes were already made and in use, just not getting the press like they are now. Ive seen them before in MUCH smaller protests.

 

[maxipum]

When I see stuff like this it looks like more evidence of the planning,timing , and money behind these movements. Somebody had to get the idea and run off the costumes rather quickly considering the amount of time involved. It would be interesting to see where the capes and hats were made and who paid.

Come on now, you’re not supposed to look behind the curtain.

 

[Leadeye]

They have been pulling these stunts for a while. The costumes were already made and in use, just not getting the press like they are now. Ive seen them before in MUCH smaller protests.

Thanks, I don't watch the news much so I've never seen them.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I think jamil may have met his match in wordiness.

My attention span is too short to read much less wri...........

 

[Cameramonkey]

I apologize; I was too snarky in some of my earlier replies. Thank you for being willing to continue the discussion with me.

Basically, it's the same as a I stated above: for society to function we need a definition of human "life" ("life" meaning not just a scientifically "living" organism, but a human life with equal rights) that does not rely on squishy, subjective criteria that are liable to change based on medical technology, or depending on the voting populace's current mood. There is no point after conception that fits the bill.

This IS something we have to consider. Since one of the standards in practice is viability, as technology improves, so will the ability for a fetus to be kept alive. And the justification for abortion is that "It wouldnt have survived anyway".

I wouldnt put it past somebody to be researching how to grow humans in a lab. Mom killed in a car accident at 18 weeks? Transfer the fetus to this machine and it will provide what is needed for it to grow into a viable baby. Kinda like the Matrix.

 

[KG1]

My attention span is too short to read much less wri...........

All the wordiness makes reading comprehension more difficult creating the need for more wordiness for clarification. Hang on a minute. I lost my train of thought......brb

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

All the wordiness makes reading comprehension more difficult creating the need for more wordiness for clarification. Hang on a minute. I lost my train of thought......brb

TL;DR

 

[KG1]

All the wordiness makes reading comprehension more difficult creating the need for more wordiness for clarification. Hang on a minute. I lost my train of thought......brb

TL;DR

If you don't read it then you will never comprehend what I'm trying to say.