That's a philosophical paradox but not one that actually plays out in reality. In reality people can distinguish between what is a heap and not a heap even though it's vaguely defined and there is ambiguity. We all know that 100 grains of sand is not a heap and we all know that a truckload of sand is a heap.
then you're gonna like this article I bet The Sorites Paradox, “Life,” and Abiogenesis https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-012-0392-3
But our constitution isn't even based on defining what is alive as it is upon defining what a person is.
the "drawing the line" problem is inescapable when dealing with Roe v. Wade. Althouse just posted this a couple of hours ago, on the Roberts concurrence: June 24, 2022 "The dissent, which would retain the viability line, offers no justification for it either...." Writes Chief Justice Roberts in his concurring opinion, rejecting the viability line without rejecting the right to abortion or finding a new line to replace the old line. The viability line is a relic of a time when we recognized only two state interests warranting regulation of abortion: maternal health and protection of “potential life.” Roe, 410 U. S., at 162–163. That changed with Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U. S. 124 (2007). There, we recognized a broader array of interests, such as drawing “a bright line that clearly distinguishes abortion and infanticide,” maintaining societal ethics, and preserving the integrity of the medical profession. Id., at 157–160. The viability line has nothing to do with advancing such permissible goals. Cf. id., at 171 (Ginsburg, J., dissenting) (Gonzales “blur[red] the line, firmly drawn in Casey, between previability and postviability abortions”).... Assuming that prevention of fetal pain is a legitimate state interest after Gonzales, there seems to be no reason why viability would be relevant to the permissibility of such laws. The same is true of laws designed to “protect[] the integrity and ethics of the medical profession” and restrict procedures likely to “coarsen society” to the “dignity of human life.” Gonzales, 550 U. S., at 157.... Again, it would make little sense to focus on viability when evaluating a law based on these permissible goals. In short, the viability rule was created outside the ordinary course of litigation, is and always has been completely unreasoned, and fails to take account of state interests since recognized as legitimate. It is indeed “telling that other countries almost uniformly eschew” a viability line.... The Court rightly rejects the arbitrary viability rule today. The viability line never made sense to me, and I taught Roe and Casey many times and always invited a students to explain the viability line. I never heard a satisfying explanation, and Roberts is correct, I think, that the dissenting Justices do not offer one. I'm relying on word-searching a document I haven't had time to read carefully, but the closest I come to an attempt at explaining the viability line is at pages 10-11 of the slip opinion: [Casey] retained Roe’s “central holding” that the State could bar abortion only after viability. 505 U. S., at 860 (majority opinion). The viability line, Casey thought, was “more workable” than any other in marking the place where the woman’s liberty interest gave way to a State’s efforts to preserve potential life. That is to say, if you want to draw a line, you won't find a better place for the line. Posted by Ann Althouse at 11:31 AM
Yeah I just disagree that there is an issue with the viability line. There is clearly a difference between a zygote and a 1 day premature baby. The issue is in the middle and there are numerous ways to work around that uncertainty such that you don't have the problems raised above.
Even before Trump was elected I posted my concerns that this would happen. Then you have some people that cheer for that who at the same time want to send birth control to Africa so that they stop reproducing. Pretty f'd up.
but as the Dobbs decision observes, viability in 1973 was pegged at x weeks and today because of science/technology is now x-y weeks. And if you live in a poor location with poor hospital support, viability might be x+z weeks. A poor standard for a "constitutional right."
Regardless, that doesn't mean you get rid of abortion as a right because there are disagreements on what constitutes viability. The idea that a woman who is raped has to take the baby to term isn't because of viability, it is because people want their religious beliefs to be applied to everyone else. This is ultimately what it's about, and the other stuff is ultimately a smoke screen in one direction or the other. There's no reason to say a first trimester fetus is viable.
Because it's not a legal issue but a political one. And I know you'd disagree, but I ultimately believe these justices are acting in bad faith by making a political / religious decision here and manufacturing a legal argument to get around it - whether that's conscious or not is debatable but ultimately this is what I assert has happened.
I do not believe these justices are acting in bad faith. If you read the piece on "interpretive charity" that I posted not too long ago in the "Guidelines" thread, I think there's good reason to accept their writings on face-value as expressing sincerely-held positions.
If I were women, No sexual activity with men until rights are restored. If they get violent, the men go to jail.
Wait. Are they gonna stop me from getting a vasectomy? Ok because I just had my 3rd kid and I cannot have a 4th. I am definitely making an appointment quick.
I am sure they believe they are not. They believe they are acting based on their legal training, but I am asserting that in reality it's b.s. and it's based on their religious and personal values and that has influenced the way they are forming their arguments. Maybe bad faith is the wrong term.
