U.S. Supreme Court set to overturn Roe v. Wade abortion rights decision

[Deleted member 559230]

I think the liberals in this thread should contact Britney Spears and tell her that the baby she just lost wasn't actually a baby.

"It is with our deepest sadness we have to announce that we have lost our miracle baby early in the pregnancy,” the couple shared in their statement. “This is a devastating time for any parent. Perhaps we should have waiting to announce until we were further along, however, we were overly excited to share the good news. Our love for each other is our strength. We will continue trying to expand our beautiful family. We are grateful for all of your support. We kindly ask for privacy during this difficult moment."

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/britney-spears-says-she-had-220000984.html

 

[tabzer]

that's more of a personal opinion and not based on a deeper understanding of genetics and how the whole thing works. which is fine, but you shouldn't just dismiss those who dig deeper because it's "inconvenient" for you to do so.

Can you expound on what a deeper understanding of genetics reveals? You are hinting at something but not coming out with it. Are you trying to be coy?

 

[tabzer]

I think the liberals in this thread should contact Britney Spears and tell her that the baby she just lost wasn't actually a baby.

Read the room dude. Nobody want's to do that even if it was an abortion.

People say a lot of crazy shit, and a lot of it is because "the end justifies the means".

When people like @osaka35 can't feel safe enough to say what she is actually thinking, we know we are in a crisis.

 

[Dakitten]

You've talked about your pregnancies and posed yourself as some sort of authority on the subject. To a degree you are right. But at the same time, you aren't every woman. I'm not "taking digs" at you based on gender. I'm responding to a very personalized way of how you project yourself. You aren't my queen bee, so pardon me for not giving you the "empathy" you act entitled to.

I get that you are probably angry most of the time, and being irrational and spiteful is your way of dealing with it, but have you considered that it is a medical condition? Maybe it's self-induced? Are you on birth control? I don't know for sure, but I heard a curious claim that by being on birth control, your body emulates a feeling akin to constant miscarriage, and is worse than a hypothetical 24/7 menstruation cycle. Can you confirm? Try a diary.

You're absolutely right. These remarks have nothing to do with my gender. How could I have gotten confused. And insinuating that I'm in constant misery and rage due to a mental disorder OR gender specific medication? Darn, I really fudged this one up. /sarcasm

This is why you're a troll and a jerk, comrade. You're trying to play nice after the fact, but it speaks volumes to the quality of your character. Also, everyone deserves empathy, you'll never understand anyone else without it. Nobody has a right to it, I can't demand you try to consider the feelings and mindset of those you disagree with, and that is again why I'm not arguing for your sake. Sympathy on the other hand is something that is quite up to circumstance and individuals, like how if you were to post about going to a pro choice rally to protest got you punched in the face you might not find a lot of sympathy.

Lastly I'm totally your queen bee, you respond to me with a lightning quickness and with gusto. Don't be ashamed.

I made a literal reference to what the transliterated word is, and provided the definition. Both are a matter of
public record. You are free to check yourself.

I don't know why you make it sound like a big deal. I saw your definition and justification, and it is completely irrelevant to the discussion here. Who cares how the word got its start? Beliefs on breath are still just as esoteric.

Are you projecting or are you recommending a reading list? Does poetry or philosophical musings cancel out the existence of the subject matter (or source material)?

Plato is the oldest and most famous proponent of breath and life concepts I can think of. Might be wrong assuming your source, but it is mysticism held aloft as science and philosophy in its time much the same as your proposal of your terms today.

So as long as someone has direct knowledge about abortion, they are in a "better" position to deny a woman to their "rights for an abortion"? Does it have to be a woman too? Interesting how this works.

It does help to have a better understand of something to experience it yourself. Any experience you can have on a topic makes you more capable to understand it and make decisions about it, that is pretty common sense. Having more women being pro-forced conceptions would add more credibility to the issue to be sure!

Also before you even start, yes I know there is a woman supreme court justice who is pro repeal of Roe. She also is the most unqualified member of the bench and deserves no sympathy for the many more women protesting in front of her house. I empathize with her position, though. Growing up under bible thumpers and being married to one is rough, and it takes a strength of character not everyone has to buck the trends surrounding one's life. She deserves the protests, though. See how that works?

Thanks, I know.

Doesn't take much to wag your tail, does it?

I do acknowledge that the government is disproportionately a bigger part of the picture, which is probably why we should be more interested in how we behave as a society. "People first." However, what you are responding to was that I was more interested in how we behave as a society than government guarantees. Does your government's track record of keeping its guarantees make you more confident in them? Are they more important or "real" than your actual experience?

Um... you ever endure a hardship? Governments usually have programs in place to help with homelessness, joblessness, and victims of many kinds of abuse. Hell yes it makes me more confident in a government when they actively address issues and take record of how often things happen and how well their responses mend the issues! Why wouldn't it? As someone who has worked in and around government a fair bit, helping those in need and providing them with positive experiences is kinda what gives me drive. People needing help is real, governments providing aid is real, government not providing enough presently is real but that is where policy can come in... like helping women get abortions when it might permanently impact their lives in ways they can't handle even if it isn't federally protected and some states ban it! Bam, full circle!

Nice cope. I'm no more the "other side" than you are. Maybe you are hurting your own interest. We are all here for our own interests, and sometimes the points you want to focus on are kind of irrelevant to the points I want to make. If you think you are better than me, just say it out loud. I think some arguments here are plain shit and disrespectful. Some analogies are crafted to bypass the discomfort of being direct about that. I will always try my best to give you the respect you demonstrate. It would be offensive if I gave you something different, no?

See my first part of this reply. You're obviously insincere as hell and needlessly disrespectful/offensive. You're absolutely the other side so long as you continue to troll here and hand wave the anger and justification for female bodily care being without federal protection. I don't believe I'm some kind of arbiter of perfect facts and logic, and I've never proclaimed myself your superior, but if you're feeling insecure I do encourage you to take some time off the thread and to reevaluate some of your choices. Never too late to get introspective, comrade!

Thanks for having my back, comrade.

You're welcome insofar as I can acknowledge when someone on the left is getting out of hand, but you're still exacerbating the problem and instigating more posts of the same caliber by not understanding why Stone was so irate... or more likely, understanding it and getting some level of perverse joy out of his anger. Again, you do yourself no favors by taking the role of Edgemaster Trollington on one hand while trying to pretend to be seriously debating shortly afterwards.

 

[osaka35]

Can you expound on what a deeper understanding of genetics reveals? You are hinting at something but not coming out with it. Are you trying to be coy?

Oh, sorry, I just meant the thing I'd said earlier. Without giving an actual course on the details, i'll simplify it so folks with no experience in genetics aren't left out: an embryo is a blueprint for a human, not an actual human itself.

While the host body is giving the raw materials needed to convert the blueprints into an actual human, it's important to note the embryo can't really be distinguished between other life forms embryos at the same stage, especially those closer to us on the evolutionary chain. the "human" characteristics come much later, with the most important part, the brain, only starting to develop around the third trimester. Using the same analogy, the third trimester is when they start building the actual building, where the first two trimesters were about putting in the foundation and wiring, the things every building will have and use.

 

[Xzi]

I think the liberals in this thread should contact Britney Spears and tell her that the baby she just lost wasn't actually a baby.

"It is with our deepest sadness we have to announce that we have lost our miracle baby early in the pregnancy,” the couple shared in their statement. “This is a devastating time for any parent. Perhaps we should have waiting to announce until we were further along, however, we were overly excited to share the good news. Our love for each other is our strength. We will continue trying to expand our beautiful family. We are grateful for all of your support. We kindly ask for privacy during this difficult moment."

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/britney-spears-says-she-had-220000984.html

You realize red states have tried to prosecute women who had miscarriages, right? And you're trying to appeal to compassion from the "pro-life" side? Lol.

 

[tabzer]

Oh, sorry, I just meant the thing I'd said earlier. Without giving an actual course on the details, i'll simplify it so folks with no experience in genetics aren't left out: an embryo is a blueprint for a human, not an actual human itself.

While the host body is giving the raw materials needed to convert the blueprints into an actual human, it's important to note the embryo can't really be distinguished between other life forms embryos at the same stage, especially those closer to us on the evolutionary chain. the "human" characteristics come much later, with the most important part, the brain, only starting to develop around the third trimester. Using the same analogy, the third trimester is when they start building the actual building, where the first two trimesters were about putting in the foundation and wiring, the things every building will have and use.

I don't really see that as being scientifically accurate. The embryo has it's own DNA and its genetics are unique to its development. Visually, the differences don't come out until much later. As you said, it's blueprint. However, at the embryonic stage, it has already been established. I mean, I get that it looks like a fish, but I don't think that suggests that it could be a fish.

 

[Dakitten]

You realize red states have tried to prosecute women who had miscarriages, right? And you're trying to appeal to compassion from the "pro-life" side? Lol.

I suppose wildly aggressive statements lead to wildly aggressive responses. We're all folks of the same make and model, and I believe the best way to defeat right-wing agendas is for the left to actively educate and better the lives of their constituents as much as possible rather than mark them for abandonment. Ignorance and hate are core parts of humanity that have to be addressed and mitigated over the course of a life, and positive guidance will lead to a more enlightened people that don't need to push the misfortune of others as reason to perpetuate suffering.

Brittany's whole life has been a public spectacle of pain and suffering, and we do her a disservice in continuing to reinforce her self destructive tendencies when giving into her attention seeking. In short, I believe a wise man once stated...

 

[Deleted member 559230]

Read the room dude. Nobody want's to do that even if it was an abortion.

People say a lot of crazy shit, and a lot of it is because "the end justifies the means".

When people like @osaka35 can't feel safe enough to say what she is actually thinking, we know we are in a crisis.

I was making a point. I know no one in their right mind would actually contact her. However, she clearly states that she lost her "baby" and according to Liberals it wasn't a baby. She must be confused about that, eh?

 

[osaka35]

I don't really see that as being scientifically accurate. The embryo has it's own DNA and its genetics are unique to its development. Visually, the differences don't come out until much later. As you said, it's blueprint. However, at the embryonic stage, it has already been established. I mean, I get that it looks like a fish, but I don't think that suggests that it could be a fish.

nah, genetics are altered throughout the process. Depending on the resources and environment given by the host, and some random chance, some genes are switch on or off, are altered in some ways, etc. and yes, the final results usually follow the blueprints, but blueprints are altered as construction continues.

You also have fully formed stem cells just chilling in your neck. It is perfectly plausible in the future to force these cells to develop and become a new person. Does this mean you have several human lives just chilling in your neck?

I was making a point. I know no one in their right mind would actually contact her. However, she clearly states that she lost her "baby" and according to Liberals it wasn't a baby. She must be confused about that, eh?

She wanted a child. a baby. She lost it. Pedantics won't make this a winning argument; it's tragic because it's tragic to her. Some women abort and it's no big deal. Some women abort and it's a huge deal. It is a personal choice, and it should stay that way. When women aren't given a choice, it's a tragedy.

 

[tabzer]

nah, genetics are altered throughout the process. Depending on the resources and environment given by the host, and some random chance, some genes are switch on or off, are altered in some ways, etc. and yes, the final results usually follow the blueprints, but blueprints are altered as construction continues.

You also have fully formed stem cells just chilling in your neck. It is perfectly plausible in the future to force these cells to develop and become a new person. Does this mean you have several human lives just chilling in your neck?

I suppose it is possible I have a whole civilization that I need to protect.

 

[tabzer]

You're absolutely right. These remarks have nothing to do with my gender. How could I have gotten confused. And insinuating that I'm in constant misery and rage due to a mental disorder OR gender specific medication? Darn, I really fudged this one up. /sarcasm

This is why you're a troll and a jerk, comrade. You're trying to play nice after the fact, but it speaks volumes to the quality of your character. Also, everyone deserves empathy, you'll never understand anyone else without it. Nobody has a right to it, I can't demand you try to consider the feelings and mindset of those you disagree with, and that is again why I'm not arguing for your sake. Sympathy on the other hand is something that is quite up to circumstance and individuals, like how if you were to post about going to a pro choice rally to protest got you punched in the face you might not find a lot of sympathy.

Lastly I'm totally your queen bee, you respond to me with a lightning quickness and with gusto. Don't be ashamed.

Don't get me wrong. Not everything I say is "based on your gender". Your gender is definitely considered as you made it a point. You receive empathy every time I talk to you. It's just not the quality you are seeking. Sorry?

I don't know why you make it sound like a big deal. I saw your definition and justification, and it is completely irrelevant to the discussion here. Who cares how the word got its start? Beliefs on breath are still just as esoteric.

If it's not a big deal, you would have taken it for what it's worth. I already told you why I introduced the concept, but if you feel that being condescending and dismissive is a greater endeavor, then good for you I guess.

Plato is the oldest and most famous proponent of breath and life concepts I can think of. Might be wrong assuming your source, but it is mysticism held aloft as science and philosophy in its time much the same as your proposal of your terms today.

Plato didn't invent the concept of the soul as he didn't invent the concept of stars and planets. If he talked about them, would you deny the existence of them? I'm trying hard, but you are too stubborn.

It does help to have a better understand of something to experience it yourself. Any experience you can have on a topic makes you more capable to understand it and make decisions about it, that is pretty common sense. Having more women being pro-forced conceptions would add more credibility to the issue to be sure!

Also before you even start, yes I know there is a woman supreme court justice who is pro repeal of Roe. She also is the most unqualified member of the bench and deserves no sympathy for the many more women protesting in front of her house. I empathize with her position, though. Growing up under bible thumpers and being married to one is rough, and it takes a strength of character not everyone has to buck the trends surrounding one's life. She deserves the protests, though. See how that works?

Part of what you said is something that I agree with. That was both surprising but also completely off topic. My concern was if you think that the "right to abortion" is flexible.

Doesn't take much to wag your tail, does it?

Nope. I can even do that by myself. Do you want to watch?

Um... you ever endure a hardship? Governments usually have programs in place to help with homelessness, joblessness, and victims of many kinds of abuse. Hell yes it makes me more confident in a government when they actively address issues and take record of how often things happen and how well their responses mend the issues! Why wouldn't it? As someone who has worked in and around government a fair bit, helping those in need and providing them with positive experiences is kinda what gives me drive. People needing help is real, governments providing aid is real, government not providing enough presently is real but that is where policy can come in... like helping women get abortions when it might permanently impact their lives in ways they can't handle even if it isn't federally protected and some states ban it! Bam, full circle!

Thanks. I never worked in government, so I didn't understand this frame of mind you were coming from. You help women get abortions when it might permanently impact their lives in ways in ways that they can't handle...? What? I don't understand what you are trying to say there. It sounds like that you are helping women ruin their lives, to the untrained eye. I suspect it is different from that.

As for me, someone who isn't indoctrinated into the government's mental framework, I work, and pay taxes. My taxes are supposedly used for great things, like government spending that I cannot begin to comprehend. I get promised a lot of things by politicians every election cycle. Those things don't happen. Maybe a lot is happening behind the scenes, but I'm still unsure about this democracy thing you guys keep bringing up.

See my first part of this reply. You're obviously insincere as hell and needlessly disrespectful/offensive. You're absolutely the other side so long as you continue to troll here and hand wave the anger and justification for female bodily care being without federal protection. I don't believe I'm some kind of arbiter of perfect facts and logic, and I've never proclaimed myself your superior, but if you're feeling insecure I do encourage you to take some time off the thread and to reevaluate some of your choices. Never too late to get introspective, comrade!

I get that you are angry about that, but this is just one of those situations where you are caught in a contradiction. The same government that cares about people and helps you give abortions to people, just reversed a decision that makes you feel devalued, seemingly out of nowhere. I don't like that! You shouldn't like that. But... you want me to support the government and be supportive about your anger about the same government. Excuse me, but what the heck?

You're welcome insofar as I can acknowledge when someone on the left is getting out of hand, but you're still exacerbating the problem and instigating more posts of the same caliber by not understanding why Stone was so irate... or more likely, understanding it and getting some level of perverse joy out of his anger. Again, you do yourself no favors by taking the role of Edgemaster Trollington on one hand while trying to pretend to be seriously debating shortly afterwards.

He seemed pretty happy to me.

 

[Xerokard]

Life is precious and should not be thrown away

 

[Foxi4]

that's more of a personal opinion and not based on a deeper understanding of genetics and how the whole thing works. which is fine, but you shouldn't just dismiss those who dig deeper because it's "inconvenient" for you to do so.

There’s really nothing to dig deeper into - it’s science. Either an organism is human or it’s not. The whole sentience debate is a red herring - being a fetus is a temporary state. What’s convenient is to say that a human is non-human to feel better about killing it. I don’t judge - I don’t particularly care what women to with their pregnancies before the fetus gains even a modest degree of sentience (which, if I recall, normally starts in the third trimester, when we observe rapid growth of neurons, though the sentience part is hard to measure). That being said, I’m not going to misrepresent what the fetus is in order to feel morally justified about ending its life. Don’t mistake my capacity to separate the core issue from the minutiae with ignorance - I’m well-aware of the details, I just don’t find them relevant. A human is a human at every stage of development, so the only remaining question is whether we care about its life or not, to what degree, and when are we willing to start protecting it. Again, I’m not entirely opposed to the concept of abortion - I just don’t like sugarcoating the issue. I can imagine it being permissible, with some reasonable guidelines based on the timeline of development, but again, that’s detail - what’s the point of discussing details if we can’t even agree on what the core issue is?

 

[Dakitten]

Don't get me wrong. Not everything I say is "based on your gender". Your gender is definitely considered as you made it a point. You receive empathy every time I talk to you. It's just not the quality you are seeking. Sorry?

You ought to be. Not joking, you're absolutely failing at this, and it is pathetic. I also never said EVERYTHING is based on my gender, just your insults quoted above... As it clearly was based on my gender. Do better, if just for your own sake.

If it's not a big deal, you would have taken it for what it's worth. I already told you why I introduced the concept, but if you feel that being condescending and dismissive is a greater endeavor, then good for you I guess.

I haven't taken it as a big deal, I waved it away because it doesn't hold any water. The soul is esoteric even if you try to define it as something related to a physical observation.

Plato didn't invent the concept of the soul as he didn't invent the concept of stars and planets. If he talked about them, would you deny the existence of them? I'm trying hard, but you are too stubborn.

He didn't and I didn't claim he invented the concept of a soul, just that he is the earliest individual I can recall who talked about the soul being related to breath and life specifically. I even said I might have been wrong assuming he was a source for your ramblings. I'm trying hard to work with you here, but you are too stubborn.

Part of what you said is something that I agree with. That was both surprising but also completely off topic. My concern was if you think that the "right to abortion" is flexible.

It isn't "flexible", it should be an absolute. A woman should be able to choose if her body is going to go through with the process of producing a life after considering how it might impact theirs, and medical providers should not have to worry about reprocussions from demagogues and their congregations. I thought I was pretty straight forward with this, but if not, here we go.

Nope. I can even do that by myself. Do you want to watch?

I'd rather not.

Thanks. I never worked in government, so I didn't understand this frame of mind you were coming from. You help women get abortions when it might permanently impact their lives in ways in ways that they can't handle...? What? I don't understand what you are trying to say there. It sounds like that you are helping women ruin their lives, to the untrained eye. I suspect it is different from that.

As for me, someone who isn't indoctrinated into the government's mental framework, I work, and pay taxes. My taxes are supposedly used for great things, like government spending that I cannot begin to comprehend. I get promised a lot of things by politicians every election cycle. Those things don't happen. Maybe a lot is happening behind the scenes, but I'm still unsure about this democracy thing you guys keep bringing up.

So... in summary, you don't know what you're talking about, don't have any experience with it, have heard some things about it that didn't pan out the way you'd like, and take pride in remaining an outsider judging it from a place of privilege... hey, progress, this is a mirror of your stance on abortion!

Seriously, government is not a beast that roams the lands feasting on baby flesh and plotting world genocide. It is an apparatus of society to accomplish agendas, and while there are obvious cases of corruption and misuse, it is still just people. I know earlier education was brought up as an elitist indoctrination thing, but it isn't like government was grooming me from my infancy to become a nurse, soldier, teacher, etc. I chose those jobs as an adult out of a love for public service and bettering communities any was I could. I worked for Netflix and Tesla at one point too, but that doesn't make me a brainwashed capitalist.

Don't demonize the things you don't know anything about, comrade. Your ignorance is making you a menace.

I get that you are angry about that, but this is just one of those situations where you are caught in a contradiction. The same government that cares about people and helps you give abortions to people, just reversed a decision that makes you feel devalued, seemingly out of nowhere. I don't like that! You shouldn't like that. But... you want me to support the government and be supportive about your anger about the same government. Excuse me, but what the heck?

I actually don't work with any service that particularly aids women needing abortions? Also, governments don't always work with the will of the people in mind, particularly when there is corruption, but that doesn't mean one should abandon the government. If that was the case, I'd be out in the streets with a shotgun burning down buildings and calling for revolution. This sometimes needs to happen when governments get too corrupt, but they're always replaced with new governments designed to be less susceptible to future corruption. If you personally want to lead the call to revolution, though... more power to ya. I'm not ready to join that fight, but I'll at least hear you out if you display real effort!

TLDR version: No contradiction except the one you make up for yourself.

He seemed pretty happy to me.

Nice use of sarcasm. Again, you're obviously being a jerk.

There’s really nothing to dig deeper into - it’s science. Either an organism is human or it’s not. The whole sentience debate is a red herring - being a fetus is a temporary state. What’s convenient is to say that a human is non-human to feel better about killing it. I don’t judge - I don’t particularly care what women to with their pregnancies before the fetus gains even a modest degree of sentience (which, if I recall, normally starts in the third trimester). That being said, I’m not going to misrepresent what the fetus is in order to feel morally justified about ending its life.

I hesitate to take this whole shtick on from yet another individual who takes pride in triggering and trolling, but no scientist worth their salt calls fetuses, zygotes, embryos, or egg cells human beings because they aren't. They are things with the potential to become human beings, assuming conditions are optimal and work out that way. Sorry you think that a fetus was a person, but please don't accuse active women trying to live their lives and provide for themselves having miscariages of reckless endangerment or accidental manslaughter while you're stuck in this peculiar mindset that just so happens to not impact your own bodily autonomy in any way.

 

[Creamu]

I enjoy the chemistry between the both of you.

 

[Foxi4]

I hesitate to take this whole shtick on from yet another individual who takes pride in triggering and trolling, but no scientist worth their salt calls fetuses, zygotes, embryos, or egg cells human beings because they aren't. They are things with the potential to become human beings, assuming conditions are optimal and work out that way. Sorry you think that a fetus was a person, but please don't accuse active women trying to live their lives and provide for themselves having miscariages of reckless endangerment or accidental manslaughter while you're stuck in this peculiar mindset that just so happens to not impact your own bodily autonomy in any way.

Every scientist on the planet calls humans humans. A fetus is an early stage of development of offspring, immediately following insemination and the embryonic stage. Any person who doesn’t call it human is intellectually dishonest - it’s a living being with a complete and unique human DNA sequence. At no point in its development is a human fetus a dog, a cat, a seal or any other species - it’s human. What you’re trying to say is that it’s not conscious, or sentient, and we generally consider those to be traits of personhood. That’s not what I was discussing - I said that it’s human, and it is, there’s no debate about that.

EDIT: Let’s put it this way, since the point seems to be flying over people’s heads. Let’s say there’s a brain dead patient in a hospital bed kept alive by machinery alone. Their brain is completely scrambled, there is no chance of recovery. For all intents and purposes, you could argue that this patient is not a “person” anymore because the part that makes them one was completely destroyed. They’re non-sentient. However, if you take a sample of their blood and analyse it, you will find that they are human - they can’t be anything else, they didn’t stop being human when their brain was damaged beyond repair. The same applies to a fetus at early stages of development - fetuses are human, and arguing otherwise is silly. There’s a point at which we’re okay with ending those lives, but we can’t disagree on whether they’re human or not from the perspective of biology - they’re demonstrably human.

 

[Creamu]

Every scientist on the planet calls humans humans. A fetus is an early stage of development of offspring, immediately following insemination and the embryonic stage. Any person who doesn’t call it human is intellectually dishonest - it’s a living being with a complete and unique human DNA sequence. At no point in its development is a human fetus a dog, a cat, a seal or any other species - it’s human.

I want to counter this notion a little bit. Throughout history we can see examples of humans dehumanizing other humans. To believe this has completly stopped in the realm of science might be overly optimistic.

 

[osaka35]

There’s really nothing to dig deeper into - it’s science. Either an organism is human or it’s not. The whole sentience debate is a red herring - being a fetus is a temporary state. What’s convenient is to say that a human is non-human to feel better about killing it. I don’t judge - I don’t particularly care what women to with their pregnancies before the fetus gains even a modest degree of sentience (which, if I recall, normally starts in the third trimester, when we observe rapid growth of neurons, though the sentience part is hard to measure). That being said, I’m not going to misrepresent what the fetus is in order to feel morally justified about ending its life. Don’t mistake my capacity to separate the core issue from the minutiae with ignorance - I’m well-aware of the details, I just don’t find them relevant. A human is a human at every stage of development, so the only remaining question is whether we care about its life or not, to what degree, and when are we willing to start protecting it. Again, I’m not entirely opposed to the concept of abortion - I just don’t like sugarcoating the issue. I can imagine it being permissible, with some reasonable guidelines based on the timeline of development, but again, that’s detail - what’s the point of discussing details if we can’t even agree on what the core issue is?

I'd probably say it's much closer to not being an organism at the beginning, but in reality that's a false dilemma. because otherwise, all the stem cells in your body would need protection as well. And women who lose their pregnancies should be arrested pending an investigation on murder, which is an actual insane thing some states are trying to implement.

Yes. it's human DNA. but so are eggs and sperm and stem cells. Biology is rarely ever so clear-cut or easily defined. Biology is weird, imprecise, and changes in inconsistent and nebulous ways. That's not "sugar-coating it", that's just the tedious reality.

Though i agree on the fact that even IF it was a human life at conception (which is not the case), it still comes down to a matter of how much autonomy can you steal from one person to ensure the life of another?

You can blame religion as for why discussing the details becomes the main conversation rather than the one about rights. religious dogma is not so good about supporting human rights.

 

[Foxi4]

I want to counter this notion a little bit. Throughout history we can see examples of humans dehumanizing other humans. To believe this has completly stopped in the realm of science might be overly optimistic.

Added a bit of an edit to clarify the position. It’s absolutely true that humans have the capacity to dehumanise their kin for various purposes. Science *should* be considered with data - any science based on feeling can be discarded. I know for a fact that if I take a blood sample of a fetus to a lab and ask a technician to analyse it and tell me what species it’s from, they will tell me it’s human blood. That *should* be the end of the debate. The debate over personhood is more complicated, it’s part ideology and part brain development, with the latter part being murky, since the existence of a functioning brain doesn’t automatically denote sentience or personhood. Are patients in a vegetative state persons? They are now, because we’re compassionate creatures, but are they really? It depends on what the brain is doing. We can’t communicate, of course, which makes things hard to quantify. We’d have to look at what parts of the brain are active, but even then we don’t know if we’re looking at thoughts or white noise. It’s complex - determining the species is not.

I'd probably say it's much closer to not being an organism at the beginning, but in reality that's a false dilemma. because otherwise, all the stem cells in your body would need protection as well. And women who lose their pregnancies should be arrested pending an investigation on murder, which is an actual insane thing some states are trying to implement.

Yes. it's human DNA. but so are eggs and sperm and stem cells. Biology is rarely ever so clear-cut or easily defined. Biology is weird, imprecise, and changes in inconsistent and nebulous ways. That's not "sugar-coating it", that's just the tedious reality.

Though i agree on the fact that even IF it was a human life at conception (which is not the case), it still comes down to a matter of how much autonomy can you steal from one person to ensure the life of another?

You can blame religion as for why discussing the details becomes the main conversation rather than the one about rights. religious dogma is not so good about supporting human rights.

I disagree - I wouldn’t consider a stem cell a separate human being, it’s a small part of the whole. Your skin is a part of you, but you are not your skin - you’re a much larger set of parts. Things get even more fun if we look at things from the Theseus’ Ship perspective, but that’s a different discussion. My point of contention is the dehumanisation of the fetus - it’s dishonest. It’s more honest to call it a human because it is in fact human, and given time, it would develop further into a child. That’s not the problem - the problem is whether we want that to happen, and at which point do we cross the line when it should no longer be permissible, if such a line exists. Some fanatics say that even a morning after pill is not permissible - that’s ridiculous, a fertilised egg has no chance at further development without nesting, even if it is human, and they’re often discarded by a woman’s body anyway. Not every fertilised egg gets to grow. On the flip side, fanatics on the other side are okay with abortion all the way up to 5 minutes before birth, when the child is fully formed. That’s equally ridiculous, and no different than infanticide. There’s a point between those two extremes that the lion’s share of society can agree on, it’s just a matter of finding that point. Scientifically speaking, the most agreeable point is before rapid brain development begins, as it’s hard to argue personhood with no brain. That’s the correct track, I think.