Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, eliminating constitutional right to abortion

Exactly. And I laid this out in a factual manner pretty clearly. The whole “well we couldn’t save those zygotes anyways!!” Doesn’t count…because we can. We choose not to because it would be ****ing silly

the reason I did it over so many posts is this argument is known to the people that actually work on this stuff day in and day out, and when you take the facts with a simple logical stance none of the life begins at conception crowd even believe their own hoopla. It is how I would approach a flat earther

 

There can not be enough attention brought to the fact that Trump will only appoint Federalist Society judges if he serves a second term. No matter what Trumps says on the campaign trail, Trump has to appease his base and deep pocketed donors. I can easily see Trump saying out one side of his mouth that he supports a nation 15 week abortion ban (a bill which will never see the POTUS desk) and out the other side of his mouth that he will only nominate hard right, pro-life judges at all levels of the federal courts (which he would 100+ times in four years).

Even if Trump get pressed on this issue in the general election cycle, perhaps at a debate with Sleepy Joe, I strongly suspect that Trump would take no responsibility for the judges he nominated and blame the Federalist Society.

 

You get the feeling that Ann Coulter might even think twice before voting for a R due to their brain dead stance on abortion.

 

Yeah, he's definitely an extremist. The fact that this state puts people like that in such a position of power shows how twisted and dangerous the current GOP is.

 

Right, it would be great if no one ever had to die, certainly not without experiencing the joys of a full life.

Incorrect, as I have already pointed out repeatedly and you have not once addressed, that is not the standard we apply to human behavior. We can eliminate drunk driving deaths if we get rid of cars and everyone is limited to walking. We do not do so. This is not because we think it is good that people are killed by drunk drivers. It certainly isn't because we think the bodies destroyed by drunk drivers are not living humans. We just do not require that every possible action must be taken in order to ameliorate every possible risk to life. We allow people to consume alcohol. We allow people to drive cars. We allow people to leave the house. This combination of behaviors results in thousands of deaths each year. We do disallow drunk driving specifically, because we have decided that it crosses the boundary from acceptable behavior of the average reasonable person into negligence. We have not decided that women existing in any but the optimum lifestyle to produce offspring crosses that boundary.

There is a spectrum of human culpability that has several distinct landmarks along the way from complete innocence through negligence, gross negligence, knowing, intentional, and ultimately malicious. Everything on the innocent side of negligence acceptable human behavior.

Except the objective metric of a new human DNA blueprint that, conditions permitting will gestate into a born infant and eventually an adult human being. That objective metric is met by life beginning at conception.

We treat people for cancer all the time to prevent the person from dying. The cancer is not a person.

I am not agreeing with you. A zygote is a life. If it is a healthy zygote, with the full DNA of a new human being, it is a human life. If it is a zygote with damaged DNA that resulted from a sperm cell joining with an egg with no nucleus, it isn't. You have said you disagree with my definition of life, but have not provided one of your own. You give no reason that what starts as a healthy zygote and becomes a cancer was a non life that didn't become cancer but retroactively started as a cancer, you are just claiming it by proclamation.

I would also point out that all of this is entirely meaningless to the issue of abortion, because by the time you know you are pregnant and are seeking an abortion, all of these stages are long in the past. It only really has relevance in the areas of the morality of IVF as currently practiced and the use of certain contraceptives that work by interrupting implantation rather than fertilization.

 

Alright first off ---stop right there. We are not debating human behavior or philosophical quandaries. I will not debate something that can't be proven by objective measures aka "when do you think life starts"? We are debating you feeling a zygote constitutes a living being and your decision to arbitrarily characterize a movement of nucleotides (which again viruses do too and are constituted as non-living) as a process that governs "life". I am not trying to debate you on "how wrong negligence" is. Heck, you can take that if you want, it still doesn't change the fact that right now you think killing a zygote through abortion is murder and failing to provide the zygote with adequate support is manslaughter or negligence, call it whatever you want. If you truly believed it, giving someone a harmless prenatal vitamin that costs pennies would save far more zygotes than trying to ban abortions. You simply can't get behind it outside of a philosophical stance because you acknowledge that it is silly.

Again, simple scientific facts with logic you yourself use, over multiple posts still remains standing and is impossible for you to disprove. Because I can't tell you when life begins doesn't prevent me from telling you that it in fact doesn't exist when I shoot my load or when it sometimes makes a zygote.

We are discussing logical reasoning on the order of a = b = c on grounds you yourself are setting in combination with scientifically proven standards. I don't care about human behavior or what people feel.

You can't argue with any of it and you won't be able to. You must think IVF is evil too, are you looking to ban that as well? a frozen embryo that might be destroyed...

There are hard arguments in the D&D that aren't clear, this one is, sorry bud. I am happy to keep going but peripheral posters have caught on at this point too, you are arguing to argue. No number quantification of human behavior or what ever you want to sidetrack into is going to save you from your logical fallacy here

 

If you combine all the ingredients from the box in a bowl. it's still not a cake until you cook it. Fact

When the sperm fertilizes the egg, its still not a life until the Mother's body accepts it and nourishes it. Fact

Now that the facts are out of the way... My Opinion - until there is the presence of brain activity AND a heart beat, AND the fetus is able to be viable outside the womb (exactly the opposite of the clinical definition of death) then it's not a Human Life.

 

Can a pregnant women tell her happy go lucky zygote to either pay rent or its little sentient ass needs to get out?

Can a pregnant women go to the ER at 24 weeks (aka viability), have a c-section and let the state figure the rest out?

When can we get the father to start paying for stuff?

If a women gets charged with murdered, why is not the father charged as an accomplice?

 

As far as i can Google, all states still allow in vitro fertilization.

So many little one celled babies headed for the trash heap.

Not even recycled as stem cells or a boost in a cocktail blender

 

It does, and you are all over the map, making up stuff and are not logical. I initially thought you would have some reasonable and logical argument, but clearly that's no longer the case. You can have the last word.

1. There are no laws that treat zealots or a fetus as a 2-year-old child.
2. There are some State laws that don't allow abortion after a certain stage but still allow it for the mother's health, including both physical and mental health.
3. The exception to #2 is not for reasons of 'self-defense' (that's your la-la land made-up stuff), but simply because it's recognized that the fetus, whatever you feel it is, is never a 2-year-old and can be sacrificed for the well-being of the woman.

 

I'm coming around to this. Flat Earthers cannot be reasoned with, and their logic is hilarious, but they don't recognize it. A waste of time to engage.

 

Not the state of the Church, and so, you can expect there will be attempts to ban birth control and fertility treatments.

 

There will be but the politicians will hand wring it until it's a yes or no issue

 

If you are not willing to provide a definition of life, but insist my definition of life is wrong without providing and reason why it is wrong by definition (your argument being, but sometimes cancer), then I agree that the whole debate is pointless.

What scientific facts? What logic? You have not addressed a single point, you just keep saying sometimes egg meeting sperm = bad. No one is arguing against that point.

You are not discussing logical reasoning at all.

I think IVF is evil as presently done, because of all the destroyed embryos.

There is no logical fallacy.

1. There are laws that treat all unborn children as people. They are laws that make killing pregnant women a double homicide. They don't specifically consider them a two-year-old, they just consider them a second murder victim.
2. I have never said there are not.
3. The exception to protect the life/health of the mother is literally self-defense. Self-defense is defending oneself from harm, or protecting one's life/health. That is just what those words mean.

 

Again, because the “life begins at conception” crowd are believing in fairy tales and we don’t want to hurt their feelings

freedom of speech and freedom to be ignorant are a core tenant that I will fight to preserve, so if anyone wants to believe that a zygote or frozen embryo sitting next to Walt Disney in the freezer is equivalent to a 2 year old, they can but it’s stupid and wrong

The whole 8 weeks thing and so on may for some folks be up for debate but that’s also trillions of divisions later, arguing for a single (combined) cell makes the argument so extreme that it’s pretty easy to refute