Supreme Court upholds Texas Abortion Ban after 6-weeks of pregnancy.

[Lord Thesaurian]

You are once again intentionally conflating the biological concept of "life" with that of sapience and personhood. A bacteria is alive, but no one gives a

if we're killing them. A just fertilized egg's "life" is as valuable as any bacteria - which is to say not at all. Saying "oh well it's technically alive innit?!" isn't the "gotcha" that you seem to think it is.

The fact that “a human life” begins at fertilization is separate from subsequent ethical considerations, nevertheless it is the only reasonable premise of those considerations in any case. Comparing human life to bacteria merely illustrates my point further. Euthanasia, the practice of ending human life based on certain moral justifications, has been acceptable and commonplace in various cultures over the centuries, and people can call human lives whatever they want to make themselves feel better about ending them. I justify ending human life all the time; “terrorists, violent criminals, evil s, etc.”. I don’t think anyone would characterize human lives in the womb that way though.

Every period is a negligent manslaughter! Every nocturnal emission is mass murder!

Menstrual blood and ejaculate aren’t human lives though, so no.

[Heathen Hammer]

The funniest part is that liberals that cry about this law, were applauding blue states issuing their own laws that regulate private individual medical decisions, and were smug about it. Evidently, judging by the meltdown, liberal cultists are not smug anymore. Could it be that allowing state intervention in citizen's personal medical decisions could be a bad idea? I hope Republicans double-down on this. I think GOP finally learned valuable lesson that the only way to deal with corrupt globalist neoliberal cult is to feed it its own medicine via using state power against it. I hope the next step would be to equate progressives to terrorists.

[PointOfViewGun]

The funniest part is that liberals that cry about this law, were applauding blue states issuing their own laws that regulate private individual medical decisions, and were smug about it. Evidently, judging by the meltdown, liberal cultists are not smug anymore. Could it be that allowing state intervention in citizen's personal medical decisions could be a bad idea? I hope Republicans double-down on this. I think GOP finally learned valuable lesson that the only way to deal with corrupt globalist neoliberal cult is to feed it its own medicine via using state power against it. I hope the next step would be to equate progressives to terrorists.

When a woman gets an abortion another woman's unborn baby is not effected. You understand that concept?

[Heathen Hammer]

When a woman gets an abortion another woman's unborn baby is not effected. You understand that concept?

I don't think you even read the post you quoted and your, um, reply doesn't seem to relate to this thread's topic.
Again, blame liberal cultists in blue states for creating a precedent where state has a say in individual's personal medical decisions.

[PointOfViewGun]

I don't think you even read the post you quoted and your, um, reply doesn't seem to relate to this thread's topic.
Again, blame liberal cultists in blue states for creating a precedent where state has a say in individual's personal medical decisions.

You seriously don't realize what a sour response that was and that it only serves up to create the sense that you have nothing intelligent to counter it with? The concepts you're waving around do not work the way you need them to have your statements remain coherent. It's natural that someone points out the glaring failures in your use of them.

[Vanoi]

I don't think you even read the post you quoted and your, um, reply doesn't seem to relate to this thread's topic.
Again, blame liberal cultists in blue states for creating a precedent where state has a say in individual's personal medical decisions.

States have always had control over individual's medical decisions in some form. The precedent wasn't recently created.

The only way this issue will be resolved is when a case is brought to court.

[Heathen Hammer]

You seriously don't realize what a sour response that was and that it only serves up to create the sense that you have nothing intelligent to counter it with? The concepts you're waving around do not work the way you need them to have your statements remain coherent. It's natural that someone points out the glaring failures in your use of them.

Um, your comment was a random phrase that had nothing to do with my post or the topic of this thread, and this post is literally saying nothing of substance. Perhaps you should look up meaning of terms you use before projecting that on others?

[PointOfViewGun]

Um, your comment was a random phrase that had nothing to do with my post or the topic of this thread, and this post is literally saying nothing of substance. Perhaps you should look up meaning of terms you use before projecting that on others?

You seriously do not understand how an abortion has no effect on someone else's unborn baby?

[Gaidin]

I look forward to the eventual raising numbers of back-alley and coat hanger abortions that cause health problems in Texas's already staggeringly poor healthcare system.

If it goes anything like their power grid...or just like abortions before Roe... This is going to be entertaining.

[Lord Thesaurian]

People kill themselves in all kinds of painful and unsafe ways because of the ban on euthanasia. SCOTUS got around the inherent contradiction between deciding the right to privacy and freedom from government interference applies to abortion but not euthanasia by unilaterally deciding some human lives are not legally people. It’s a troubling precedent, to say the least.

[chriscase]

Since this discussion has become increasingly tense, all participants must post in strict conformance to the Mudpit Rules.

As a reminder:

Relevant Portions of the Mudpit Rules

1) Debate in good faith and respect other members. Elaborate and further develop your arguments whilst trying to respond to other members' arguments. Do not continue to repeat the same arguments.

2) Address the argument, do not attack the person. Debates should be as detached and impersonal as possible. Do not post in such a manner that would elicit a strong, emotional response if possible. Your argument should be phrased in such a way that minimizes the ability to misread the post.

3) Try to back up your arguments with evidence and sources where appropriate. Any statistics used in your posts should be sourced.

...

8) In the event that a member begins to post disruptive and inflammatory arguments against other members of any political orientation, religion, or nationality, a moderator may enforce a one day forumban on this member in order to facilitate an effective cool down period in the instance that a single member is the sole instigator of any overtly hostile action.
...

Inflammatory posts and posts that are deemed likely to derail the discussion will be removed.

[Gaidin]

People kill themselves in all kinds of painful and unsafe ways because of the ban on euthanasia. SCOTUS got around the inherent contradiction between deciding the right to privacy and freedom from government interference applies to abortion but not euthanasia by unilaterally deciding some human lives are not legally people. It’s a troubling precedent, to say the least.

What you've typed is not the real issue. The real issue is that nobody in this thread has asked the truly implied question of Texas's law. If a fetus is a person at 6 week's pregnant is that when the child support starts? Is that also when you can't deport the mother because she's carrying a US citizen? Can the mother insure a 6 week fetus with life insurance and collect if a miscarriage occurs for a legitimate medical reason?

Just figuring if Texas, and possibly other states, goes here, we should go all in.

[Lord Thesaurian]

What you've typed is not the real issue. The real issue is that nobody in this thread has asked the truly implied question of Texas's law. If a fetus is a person at 6 week's pregnant is that when the child support starts? Is that also when you can't deport the mother because she's carrying a US citizen? Can the mother insure a 6 week fetus with life insurance and collect if a miscarriage occurs for a legitimate medical reason?

Just figuring if Texas, and possibly other states, goes here, we should go all in.

Uh huh. I saw the meme. Being born, as opposed to unborn, in the US would not be impacted by the nature of legal personhood, since the Fourteenth Amendment literally says “persons born in the United States.” If you want to press the child support and insurance issue, be my guest. It’s obviously just a facetious “gotcha” though, so hardy har har.

[Akar]

Bacteria are not human beings; there is no imminent expectation that bacteria will develop humanity or "personhood".

Neither is a freshly fertilized egg. Nor does every fertilized egg have an imminent expectation of developing humanity.

The fact that “a human life” begins at fertilization

That is not a fact, no matter how many times you try to claim that it does.

by unilaterally deciding some human lives are not legally people.

I'll take "proof you don't understand Roe v Wade or Griswold v Connecticut" for 500, Alex.

[Lord Thesaurian]

That is not a fact, no matter how many times you try to claim that it does.

It’s a fact, based on “a large and robust scientific consensus on the biological view” as cited. The science denialism of your assertion is as irrelevant as it is unsurprising.

[Akar]

(Citation needed)

Is destroying a collection of amino acids that might eventually become a human in a few billion years also murder?

[antaeus]

Wait... what?

Are we whataboutering amino acids now?

I get it that you're arguing about potential here and trying to be reductive... but I think the only argument needed is to define at what point after intercourse does a person become a person. Some say the moment a sperm and egg combine, others say when that person becomes independently viable without a mother. The rest are somewhere in-between. All definitions have some degree of supporting logic.

There is enough supporting logic in the discussion for most perspectives that it can be a debate. And because it is a part of the collection of cognitive bias issues that we hold, it is not a debate that can be solved without understanding and acceptance of other's perspectives, and heaven forbid, compromise.

[Akar]

You should know better than to use the "c" word (compromise) here in the mudpit.

Obviously my point about amino acids is facetious and serves only to highlight how reductive and absurd it is to argue that you're killing a human when you destroy a freshly fertilized egg.

In my opinion, the benchmark of independent viability is the only one that isn't predicated on the ridiculous religious notion that all abortion is akin to murder.

[swabian]

It wasn't amino acids it was nucleic acids.

There is enough supporting logic in the discussion for most perspectives that it can be a debate. And because it is a part of the collection of cognitive bias issues that we hold, it is not a debate that can be solved without understanding and acceptance of other's perspectives, and heaven forbid, compromise.

Mhm, compromise is probably the very expression of human progress from when we were hunter gatherers who would preemptively attack and drive away a neighboring tribe over a valuable source of water. Chimpanzees are the same brutal killers who would also patrol borders and kill all males in an enemy tribe in order to take over the females and the resources.

There still is no god, life doesn't make any higher cosmic sense (doesn't mean you can't enjoy it, though) and facts are still facts. There is no way to negotiate the plain and obvious truth over social desires to have compromises and a fundamental understanding about what really constitutes our role in the environment we're living in.

[Cope]

Wait... what?

Are we whataboutering amino acids now?

I get it that you're arguing about potential here and trying to be reductive... but I think the only argument needed is to define at what point after intercourse does a person become a person. Some say the moment a sperm and egg combine, others say when that person becomes independently viable without a mother. The rest are somewhere in-between. All definitions have some degree of supporting logic.

There is enough supporting logic in the discussion for most perspectives that it can be a debate. And because it is a part of the collection of cognitive bias issues that we hold, it is not a debate that can be solved without understanding and acceptance of other's perspectives, and heaven forbid, compromise.

We're still at the stage where it is being denied that zygotes created from human gametes are homo sapiens. The rejection of the embryo's humanity (though scientifically illiterate) forms the basis for justifying its liquidation. Those familiar with history will recognize that this sub-humanization process is not particularly original.