Supreme court to overturn Roe vs Wade

[Muizer]

The "unborn" (zygote onward) are distinct human beings. Some will construct any number of excuses to deny or obscure that fact, but it doesn't change it.

But is a zygote a member of society? Because that is what matters. Not some ideological view or biological fact.

[Genava]

The "unborn" (zygote onward) are distinct human beings. Some will construct any number of excuses to deny or obscure that fact, but it doesn't change it.

It reminds me of this:

Whenever abortion comes up, I have a question I’ve been asking for ten years now of the ‘Life begins at Conception’ crowd. In ten years, no one has EVER answered it honestly. It’s a simple scenario with two outcomes. No one ever wants to pick one, because the correct answer destroys their argument. And there IS a correct answer, which is why the pro-life crowd hates the question.

Here it is. You’re in a fertility clinic. Why isn’t important. The fire alarm goes off. You run for the exit. As you run down this hallway, you hear a child screaming from behind a door. You throw open the door and find a five-year-old child crying for help. They’re in one corner of the room. In the other corner, you spot a frozen container labeled ‘1000 Viable Human Embryos.’

The smoke is rising. You start to choke. You know you can grab one or the other, but not both before you succumb to smoke inhalation and die, saving no one. Do you A) save the child, or B) save the thousand embryos? There is no ‘C.’ ‘C means you all die.

In a decade of arguing with anti-abortion people about the definition of human life, I have never gotten a single straight A or B answer to this question. And I never will. They will never answer honestly, because we all instinctively understand the right answer is ‘A.’

A human child is worth more than a thousand embryos. Or ten thousand. Or a million. Because they are not the same, not morally, not ethically, not biologically. This question absolutely evicerates [sic] their arguments, and their refusal to answer confirms that they know it to be true.

No one, anywhere, actually believes an embryo is equivalent to a child. That person does not exist. They are lying to you. They are lying to you to try and evoke an emotional response, a paternal response, using false-equivalency.

No one believes life begins at conception. No one believes embryos are babies, or children. Those who cliam [sic] to are trying to manipulate you so they can control women. Don’t let them. Use this question to call them out. Reveal them for what they are. Demand they answer your question, and when they don’t, slap that big ol’ Scarlet P of the Patriarchy on them. The end.

[Cope]

It reminds me of this:

This thought experiment serves only to illustrate the allure of the visceral over the rational. The author's claim that "no one believes life begins at conception" (the overwhelming scientific consensus is that it does) exposes his lack of competence.

[Mithradates]

It reminds me of this:

If you were there and there is no five years old, only the embryos.
Would you save them or would you just leave threm to burn?

[PointOfViewGun]

This thought experiment serves only to illustrate the allure of the visceral over the rational. The author's claim that "no one believes life begins at conception" (the overwhelming scientific consensus is that it does) exposes his lack of competence.

What does the inability to provide a definition for what a human being is expose?

[Prodromos]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/mcconnell...235949202.html

McConnell is claiming a national abortion ban is very possible. I thought the Republicans just wanted to leave it up to the states to decide? Guess not. I hope the Republicans keep this up. A national abortion ban is not only just plain stupid but would extremely unpopular.

There aren't 60 votes in the Senate for a nationwide abortion ban.

McConnell said even if the GOP reclaims the Senate, he would not entertain ditching the 60-threshold rule to pass a national abortion ban, however. "No carve out of the filibuster – period," he said. "For any subject."

Although, federal legislation might not even be necessary. There's an argument gaining steam in abolitionist circles that the 14th Amendment already prohibits abortion.

http://www.harvard-jlpp.com/wp-conte...dock_FINAL.pdf

Protecting Prenatal Persons: Does the Fourteenth Amendment Prohibit Abortion?

Abstract

What should be the legal status of human beings in utero under an originalist interpretation of the Constitution? Other legal thinkers have explored whether a national “right to abortion” can be justified on originalist grounds. Assuming it cannot, and that Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey were wrongly decided, only two other options are available. Should preborn human beings be considered legal “persons” within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, or do states retain unfettered authority to make abortion policy?

The late Justice Scalia famously argued for the latter position and pledged he would strike down a federal ban on abortion. But is this view consistent with the original meaning of the term “person”? Using originalist interpretive methods, this paper argues that preborn human beings are legal “persons” within the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

[Genava]

If you were there and there is no five years old, only the embryos.
Would you save them or would you just leave threm to burn?

I would save a dog instead of saving a box of embryos.

Between protecting any sort of human organ that could be useful for transplantation and a box of embryos, I would choose the human organ.

But yeah if there is nothing else than the embryos, I would probably save them.

Hope it helps to understand my view.

This thought experiment serves only to illustrate the allure of the visceral over the rational. The author's claim that "no one believes life begins at conception" (the overwhelming scientific consensus is that it does) exposes his lack of competence.

Technically life doesn't begin with conception either from a scientific point of view. The embryo is not more or less alive than the sperm and the egg from which it results. That's the view of most scientists.

Defining the beginning of a human life at the moment when the genome is complete in the same cell is not scientifically valid. This is simply a convenient definition based on moral values and a need for simple answers.

[Cope]

Technically life doesn't begin with conception either from a scientific point of view. The embryo is not more or less alive than the sperm and the egg from which it results. That's the view of most scientists.

Gametes are not organisms.

Defining the beginning of a human life at the moment when the genome is complete in the same cell is not scientifically valid. This is simply a convenient definition based on moral values and a need for simple answers.

"95% of all biologists affirmed the biological view that a human's life begins at fertilization (5212 out of 5502)."

[PointOfViewGun]

That beloved study Cope pointlessly cites is not born out of expertise but out of popular opinion. From the get go it lives within an extremely faulty premise. Hence, its highly limited in its scope. The study does not ask biologists a number of statements to find out what they consider to be alive. Only that of a zygote is asked. They are not asked if a sperm is alive. In the end, the study ends up being nothing but a funny play of statistics made by utilizing a very specific scope to convey a particular ideology.

[Genava]

Gametes are not organisms.

So you do agree that life doesn't begin with fertilization, only the fact that it is the first stage of an organism.

Life doesn't arise magically from the fertilization, the zygote is alive because the egg and the sperm are also alive.

The fertilization is only the beginning of an ordened multicellular stage due to the merge of the genetic material from two cells but it is the same for any system resulting from the interaction of smaller systems. Like an ecosystem starts with the interaction of two and more species in a particular environment.

Furthermore, a biggest issue with the use and over-use of the word life in this debate is the contradictory usage of the word for different contexts. We regularly apply the concept of life and lifecycle to non-living objects and even to immaterial concepts. We have the habit to perceive the beginning and the ending of a system with life and death definition, while not really talking about the concept of life and death per se. But actually, defining scientifically the beginning of life is really a difficult question. This is similar to the causality dilemma about the chicken and the egg.

Instead of saying that the fertilization is the beginning of a human life (unproven and incoherent with most definitions of life) we should say that it is the first stage of a human organism, which is more neutral and more coherent.

[Cope]

So you do agree that life doesn't begin with fertilization, only the fact that it is the first stage of an organism.

Life doesn't arise magically from the fertilization, the zygote is alive because the egg and the sperm are also alive.

The fertilization is only the beginning of an ordened multicellular stage due to the merge of the genetic material from two cells but it is the same for any system resulting from the interaction of smaller systems. Like an ecosystem starts with the interaction of two and more species in a particular environment.

Furthermore, a biggest issue with the use and over-use of the word life in this debate is the contradictory usage of the word for different contexts. We regularly apply the concept of life and lifecycle to non-living objects and even to immaterial concepts. We have the habit to perceive the beginning and the ending of a system with life and death definition, while not really talking about the concept of life and death per se. But actually, defining scientifically the beginning of life is really a difficult question. This is similar to the causality dilemma about the chicken and the egg.

Instead of saying that the fertilization is the beginning of a human life (unproven and incoherent with most definitions of life) we should say that it is the first stage of a human organism, which is more neutral and more coherent.

Maybe something is being lost in translation. The indefinite article "a" (used to modify singular nouns) in the phrase "a human life", is used to indicate an individual living system. Thus, the phrase "fertilization is the beginning of a human life" means "fertilization is the beginning of a genetically distinct organism belonging to the homo sapiens species". Likewise, the phrase "life begins at conception" means "a genetically distinct organism belonging to the homo sapiens species begins when m gamete fertilizes f gamete". These phrases should not be taken to mean that other human cells (e.g. gametes) are not living.

In short: we appear to agree.

[Cyclops]

It reminds me of this: (girl and embryo fire story)

While I am a grudgingly pro-abortion, I recognise the layers of ignorance and unfamiliarity in the debate and that I am wrong in many ways.

The example of the little girl and the thousand gametes can be spun as well, its not actually a game breaker. What if the fertility clinic contains the last collection of human embryos, and outside there are the last five sterile but viable host mothers to bear them? The little girl burns, but we grieve her.

This is a question of unfamiliarity and education. The fact the embryos are outside a woman's body is a very new possibility, Put the embryos in mothers and it becomes clear they are worth saving, but its so new that they can exist outside a womb that we have not yet formed a consensus as to their valid personhood. They may or may not have value, depending on circumstance, moral perspective, pragmatic considerations and opinion.

We have as a culture talked over saving the pregnant woman before the old criminal, or the child instead of the adult: there's a strong consensus and even in strongly patriarchal societies like Japan there are cinematic representations of the need to save a baby over an old man however important.

Foetuses independent of a human body are new and seem freakish and like a science experiment, not people. We need to let the feelings about them sink in, and they can't be dismissed with a simple gotcha in my view.

Sadly our cultural consensuses have failed to keep up with technology, and its about to change again. What will we do when some ecoterrorist feminist virally genecodes aged male senators to become pregnant? Will Mitch McConnell take the baby to term? (I'm not saying we they will target him first, just as an example) Will he be allowed to breastfeed his child in the chamber? I need answers!

[Roma_Victrix]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/mcconnell...235949202.html

McConnell is claiming a national abortion ban is very possible. I thought the Republicans just wanted to leave it up to the states to decide? Guess not. I hope the Republicans keep this up. A national abortion ban is not only just plain stupid but would extremely unpopular.

Considering how the vast majority of Democrats support basic abortion rights to be made legal in all or most cases and even roughly 38% of Republicans feel the same way (according to Pew Research Poll), yeah, I'd say the absolutely radical Taliban-like measures by Evangelicals in some southern states like Louisiana to charge people for murder are quite unpopular.

This is more than just a "culture war", this is a legal battle teeing off between entire states should Roe v Wade be overturned by the present SCOTUS.

From CNN: Connecticut governor signs law protecting abortion seekers and providers from out-of-state lawsuits

Sadly our cultural consensuses have failed to keep up with technology, and its about to change again. What will we do when some ecoterrorist feminist virally genecodes aged male senators to become pregnant? Will Mitch McConnell take the baby to term? (I'm not saying we they will target him first, just as an example) Will he be allowed to breastfeed his child in the chamber? I need answers!

Nice.
If that were the case, abortion rights would be secured faster than the Republicans would cut taxes for the wealthy again.

[Cyclops]

If that were the case, abortion rights would be secured faster than the Republicans would cut taxes for the wealthy again.

I'm joking about it but the reality is near.

Smarmy shortarse smartalec lawyers to the contrary, feelings do have a bearing on the facts of the case and the very strong feelings and beliefs of fellow citizens about abortion can't be disregarded, there has to be genuine informed debate. By the same token the strong feelings of so many women who seek abortion (and they prove this by seeking abortions even where they are illegal) can't be waved away either.

[Bande Nere]

Apparently God's will is irrelevant when it comes to viagra or penises grown on arms.

And the US had a bloody Revolution just so some 17th century witch-burning englishman's writings could be interpreted as law of the land by (in)Justice Alito.

[Coughdrop addict]

It reminds me of this:

Unfortunately I believe the average Republican voter is so alien that they would save the embryos and leave the girl to burn without a second thought. To them actual, living people are far less important than embryos.

If given the choice they would save a single embryo and let 5,000 five-year old girls die.

Considering how the vast majority of Democrats support basic abortion rights to be made legal in all or most cases and even roughly 38% of Republicans feel the same way (according to Pew Research Poll), yeah, I'd say the absolutely radical Taliban-like measures by Evangelicals in some southern states like Louisiana to charge people for murder are quite unpopular.

The Republicans don't care because with all of the new gerrymandering, voter suppression, and laws that allow them to throw out Democratic wins by simply alleging fraud, they no longer need a majority of voters on their side to get and maintain power.

Expect federal bans on abortion (with no exceptions whatsoever), gay marriage, homosexuality, contraception, interracial marriage, interracial relationships, atheism, and Islam within the next few years, along with the rich paying no taxes whatsoever of course.

This is more than just a "culture war", this is a legal battle teeing off between entire states should Roe v Wade be overturned by the present SCOTUS.

That's part of the appeal to the Republican voter, to be able to force their beliefs on blue states.

The average Republican voter thinks that the natural default "Real American" (Read: White) mentality is being a fringe backwards-thinking ethnonationalist and fundamentalist, and you only think differently if you're a Communist. They would like nothing better than to force a blue state to jail it's gays and execute women for having abortions.

From CNN: Connecticut governor signs law protecting abortion seekers and providers from out-of-state lawsuits

That will at least buy some time before federal law allows armed gangs of Texas-style women-catchers to cross into blue states hunting for escaped women. Or they might just kidnap any convenient woman a la 12 Years A Slave.

There is some hope though. Many people online are already laying down plans for a prolonged resistance:

-People are buying copies of books like The Diary of Anne Frank, The Handmaid's Tale, Narrative of The Life of Frederick Douglass, as well as books on slavery and the holocaust along with books critical of Christianity and the Republican Party, and hiding them away for when they are banned and we need to pass them to the younger generations in secret.

-There is talk of forming a new Underground Railroad to smuggle fugitive women out of red states and into Canada. Hopefully it will be in place before women lose the right to travel across state lines.

[Sir Adrian]

Technically life doesn't begin with conception either from a scientific point of view. The embryo is not more or less alive than the sperm and the egg from which it results. That's the view of most scientists.

Defining the beginning of a human life at the moment when the genome is complete in the same cell is not scientifically valid. This is simply a convenient definition based on moral values and a need for simple answers.

Actually most scientists agree that life beings at fertilization or at the very least at the first heartbeat, which is 6 weeks into the pregnancy. Sperm and eggs are alive. They are not organisms from a scientific point of view but they are alive.

That beloved study Cope pointlessly cites is not born out of expertise but out of popular opinion. From the get go it lives within an extremely faulty premise. Hence, its highly limited in its scope. The study does not ask biologists a number of statements to find out what they consider to be alive. Only that of a zygote is asked. They are not asked if a sperm is alive. In the end, the study ends up being nothing but a funny play of statistics made by utilizing a very specific scope to convey a particular ideology.

Got a source for this?

[chilon]

Gametes are not organisms.



"95% of all biologists affirmed the biological view that a human's life begins at fertilization (5212 out of 5502)."

Actually most scientists agree that life beings at fertilization or at the very least at the first heartbeat, which is 6 weeks into the pregnancy. Sperm and eggs are alive. They are not organisms from a scientific point of view but they are alive.



Got a source for this?

So if you actually believe this, do you support banning all abortions Federally with no exceptions? Do you support charging anyone receiving an abortion now or in the past with murder? Do you support the state investigating every miscarriage or medical emergency during a pregnancy like El Salvador? Do you support woman receiving state sponsored welfare and food stamps to begin the moment of fertilization? Woman should be able to claim dependents for earned income credit on taxes at the moment of conception?

[Cope]

So if you actually believe this, do you support banning all abortions Federally with no exceptions?

There should be exemptions for medical emergencies and certain cases of abuse and/or serious disability.

Do you support charging anyone receiving an abortion now or in the past with murder?

Mens rea has to be taken into consideration. It would be generally unreasonable to treat ordinary Americans who terminate their children as capital offenders while so many powerful institutions remain committed to the practice. In general, criminal sanctions should be applied to providers. As for historic abortions, ex post facto "justice" should not apply.

Do you support the state investigating every miscarriage or medical emergency during a pregnancy like El Salvador?

The state should only investigate if it has a reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred.

Do you support woman receiving state sponsored welfare and food stamps to begin the moment of fertilization? Woman should be able to claim dependents for earned income credit on taxes at the moment of conception?

In utero persons should be included with the welfare structure.

[PointOfViewGun]

If you truly believe that terminating an embryo amounts to murder than there shouldn't be an exception. Any other criteria is practically arbitrary if you think terminating an embryo amounts to murder.