Jump to content

Roe v. Wade Potentially Dead


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I am confused. So are you for or against me pumping Joker gas into the court’s ventilation system?

Go you Gaseous Clay. To be sure tho, I'd stage Pipe Full O'Fun Kit #7 at every exit.

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
51 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  I am not saying we should ignore the margins, just that we not legislate from there.  I think the legislatures should pass laws of general application that pertain to elective abortions generally, and also include exceptions for "in the margins" circumstances (rape, incest, life of the mother).

Thanks,

-Smac

And how does that look different than legislating from the margins?  Because it often comes across to me as ‘we don’t need to talk about the margins when making law’ and that looks like ignoring them.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Calm said:
Quote

Yes.  I am not saying we should ignore the margins, just that we not legislate from there.  I think the legislatures should pass laws of general application that pertain to elective abortions generally, and also include exceptions for "in the margins" circumstances (rape, incest, life of the mother).

And how does that look different than legislating from the margins?  

Well, look at some of the rhetoric that is so often used.  Pro-abortion folks point to the "margins" (justifying abortion in the case of rape, incest, life of the mother) and then extrapolate to justify abortion in any circumstance.  They start from the margins and legislate from there.

What I am saying is that we do not start at the margins, but instead at the "middle."  The vast majority of elective abortions are, well, elective.  Matters of convenience and preference and such.  Legislation would be based on these, with exceptions for the extreme and rare circumstances noted above (rape, incest, life of the mother).

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

Because it often comes across to me as ‘we don’t need to talk about the margins when making law’ and that looks like ignoring them.

I'm not sure what you mean here.  A law that creates a general rule (prohibiting elective abortions) and provides for exceptions (rape, incest, life of the mother) is not "ignoring" the margins.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
5 hours ago, pogi said:

I am not talking about genetic code.  The zygote is much more than that.  It is a live, living human organism.  This really isn't argued in biology.   

In biology, there is no such thing as a living entity called a human becoming.  What species is it, exactly?  Biology (the field responsible for identifying species and living organism) has been consistent with when human life begins.  The zygote is not a "genetic code", it is a living human organism.   We are all the same living species and organisms of homeostasis.   Anything else is values based rather than biology based. 

We're going in circles here, pogi. I at no point said a human zygote isn't human. I said that it's not enough to be considered a human being. It's one of those necessary, but not sufficient things. In order to be a human being, it's necessary to at some point have been a zygote. But simply being a zygote is arguably not developmentally sufficient to be a human being.  What it means to be a human being is not just a biology question but a philosophical one. 

I'm not going to respond to all the quotes below. But I will a few. 

5 hours ago, pogi said:

"The American College of Pediatricians concurs with the body of scientific evidence that human life begins at conception - fertilization…. Scientific and medical discoveries over the past three decades have only verified and solidified this age-old truth. At the completion of the process of fertilization, the human creature emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The Mission of the American College of Pediatricians is to enable all children to reach their optimal physical and emotional health and well-being from the moment of conception." - When Human Life Begins, American College of Pediatricians, March 2004

 

This one, I looked up the source. The group is a conservatist activist group with a membership of somewhere around 500 members who are described as "over 500 physicians and other healthcare professionals". Compare that to the AAP, which has over 67,000 members. They're also notoriously anti-gay and dabble in anti-vax things too. Not exactly a solid scientific, let alone objective source. 

5 hours ago, pogi said:


"An individual human life begins at conception when a sperm cell from the father fuses with an egg cell from the mother, to form a new cell, the zygote, the first embryonic stage. The zygote grows and divides into two daughter cells, each of which grows and divides into two grand-daughter cells, and this cell growth/division process continues on, over and over again.  The zygote is the start of a biological continuum that automatically grows and develops, passing gradually and sequentially through the stages we call foetus, baby, child, adult, old person and ending eventually in death. The full genetic instructions to guide the development of the continuum, in interaction with its environment, are present in the zygote. Every stage along the continuum is biologically human and each point along the continuum has the full human properties appropriate to that point."
Dr. William Reville, University College Cork, Ireland. Quote from a letter to the Irish Independent.

OP-ed from a single doc does not make a scientific absolute. 

5 hours ago, pogi said:


"Development begins at fertilization when a sperm fuses with an ovum to form a zygote; this cell is the beginning of a new human being."
Moore, Keith L., The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, page 12, W.B. Saunders Co., 2003

"In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and a new life will have begun."
Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., 1974

"A new individual is created when the elements of a potent sperm merge with those of a fertile ovum."
Encyclopedia Britannica, "Pregnancy," page 968, 15th Edition, Chicago 1974
""Although life is a continuous process, fertilization (which, incidentally, is not a 'moment') is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte."
Ronan O'Rahilly and Fabiola Müller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.

In this I'm noticing the dates. This actually shows how scientific language changes overtime to add greater clarity to most recent research and what we do and don't know. All of these are 20 or 50 years old. That's ancient in scientific research terms. I doubt any of these books are actively used, at least in the editions they're currently being quoted from. It's also making me wonder how has language further been honed to carify scientific knowledge and lack thereof. Neither of the 2000's I disagree. What isn't stated is if this initial start to development is developed enough to be considered a human being. 

4 hours ago, pogi said:

Peer-reviewed journals in the biological and life sciences literature have published articles that represent the biological view that a human’s life begins at fertilization (“the fertilization view”). As those statements are typically offered without explanation or citation, the fertilization view seems to be uncontested by the editors, reviewers, and authors who contribute to scientific journals. However, Americans are split on whether the fertilization view is a “philosophical or religious belief” (45%) or a “biological and scientific fact” (46%), and only 38% of Americans view fertilization as the starting point of a human’s life. In the two studies that explored experts’ views on the matter, the fertilization view was the most popular perspective held by public health and IVF professionals.

Since a recent study suggested that 80% of Americans view biologists as the group most qualified to determine when a human’s life begins, experts in biology were surveyed to provide a new perspective to the literature on experts’ views on this matter. Biologists from 1,058 academic institutions around the world assessed survey items on when a human’s life begins and, overall, 96% (5337 out of 5577) affirmed the fertilization view.

The founding principles of the field Science Communication suggest that scientists have an ethical and professional obligation to inform Americans, as well as people around the world, about scientific developments so members of the public can be empowered to make life decisions that are consistent with the best information available. Given that perspective—and a recent study’s finding that a majority of Americans believe they deserve to know when a human’s life begins in order to make informed reproductive decisions—science communicators should work to increase the level of science awareness on the fertilization view, as it stands alone as the leading biological perspective on when a human’s life begins.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3973608

Also of interest to note that:

So, this opinion clearly is not a politically biased one and not persuaded by values.  

The I gave you a few pages back, addressed this and pointed that the way they came to their figures was extremely poor:

Quote

The most recent high-profile example of this claim is in that amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court in the Mississippi case.

The brief, coordinated by a University of Chicago graduate student in comparative human development, Steven Andrew Jacobs, is based on a problematic piece of research Jacobs conducted. He now seeks to enter it into the public record to influence U.S. law.

First, Jacobs carried out a survey, supposedly representative of all Americans, by seeking potential participants on the Amazon Mechanical Turk crowdsourcing marketplace and accepting all 2,979 respondents who agreed to participate. He found that most of these respondents trust biologists over others – including religious leaders, voters, philosophers and Supreme Court justices – to determine when human life begins.

Then, he sent 62,469 biologists who could be identified from institutional faculty and researcher lists a separate survey, offering several options for when, biologically, human life might begin. He got 5,502 responses; 95% of those self-selected respondents said that life began at fertilization, when a sperm and egg merge to form a single-celled zygote.

That result is not a proper survey method and does not carry any statistical or scientific weight. It is like asking 100 people about their favorite sport, finding out that only the 37 football fans bothered to answer, and declaring that 100% of Americans love football.

In the end, just 70 of those 60,000-plus biologists supported Jacobs’ legal argument enough to sign the amicus brief, which makes a companion argument to the main case. That may well be because there is neither scientific consensus on the matter of when human life actually begins nor agreement that it is a question that biologists can answer using their science.

But again, I don't disagree that human life begins at conception. I disagree that that is sufficient to constitute a human being. All of this is still proving my main problem with pro-life arguments....it's cherry picking science to fit an ideological assumption. 

 

With luv,

BD

Link to comment
On 5/4/2022 at 9:47 AM, Ryan Dahle said:

Probably the best thing we can do is understand why the problem exists, why it is not something that debate alone will solve, why each side has justifiable arguments if their intuitions are correct, and why we should do everything we can to not dehumanize the opposition and cause even more controversy than is needed. 

Fiery rhetoric that paints the opposition as baby killers or women oppressors isn't helping. 

I wanted to revise my previous responses to this post, and it has become clearer to me that IMO the best solution to the rhetoric is for states to enact their own laws and keep the Feds out of it.

That puts the mom in a cultural context within which she probably has been raised, and it seems to me that that may influence more moms to better understand that abortion is a serious decision not to be taken just for birth control.

Of course ideally the best guidelines, imo, for state legislation would exactly fit church standards, but that is a fantasy. I live in Los Angeles

I think if all your friends get abortions for birth control you might be more influenced to do so, and vice versa.

At least there may be islands where abortion is less acceptable.

We must be free to choose our own morality, yes it's true, except in areas which oppose human rights to not be molested by others, and I believe the baby's right to live and progress is more important than a mother's and father's decision to have irresponsible sex.

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

We're going in circles here, pogi. I at no point said a human zygote isn't human. I said that it's not enough to be considered a human being. It's one of those necessary, but not sufficient things. In order to be a human being, it's necessary to at some point have been a zygote. But simply being a zygote is arguably not developmentally sufficient to be a human being.  What it means to be a human being is not just a biology question but a philosophical one.   I'm not going to respond to all the quotes below. But I will a few. 

This one, I looked up the source. The group is a conservatist activist group with a membership of somewhere around 500 members who are described as "over 500 physicians and other healthcare professionals". Compare that to the AAP, which has over 67,000 members. They're also notoriously anti-gay and dabble in anti-vax things too. Not exactly a solid scientific, let alone objective source. 

OP-ed from a single doc does not make a scientific absolute. 

In this I'm noticing the dates. This actually shows how scientific language changes overtime to add greater clarity to most recent research and what we do and don't know. All of these are 20 or 50 years old. That's ancient in scientific research terms. I doubt any of these books are actively used, at least in the editions they're currently being quoted from. It's also making me wonder how has language further been honed to carify scientific knowledge and lack thereof. Neither of the 2000's I disagree. What isn't stated is if this initial start to development is developed enough to be considered a human being. 

The I gave you a few pages back, addressed this and pointed that the way they came to their figures was extremely poor:

But again, I don't disagree that human life begins at conception. I disagree that that is sufficient to constitute a human being. All of this is still proving my main problem with pro-life arguments....it's cherry picking science to fit an ideological assumption. 

 

With luv,

BD

To help you understand that I am not outside of biological consensus on this issue, I am going to have to ask for a CFR for any biology paper in a peer reviewed scientific journal that distinguishes humans from human beings.  If you can find one that identifies an organism called a "human becoming" (which implies they are not yet human BTW) then you get bonus points.   If you ask pretty much any biologist if all humans are human beings, they are going to look at you weird for even asking.  If one is fully human then how are they not a human being, but only a human becoming?  I am not the one cherry picking here.  It is pro-choices who are neglecting biological nomenclature to fit their ideological assumptions - because they don't want to admit that they are actually killing human-beings.   These ideas have no basis in biology - and that is my problem with pro-choice arguments such as yours.  It simply is not consistent with biological consensus.  

You say that these humans are not human beings, as if this is a given in biology.  Well, there should be biological equivalents in nature for such distinctions.  We are animals just like every other animal.  Where do we see equivalent distinctions in biological nomenclature in nature?   I bet if you ask just about any biologist when a chimpanzee's life begins, they will say "at fertilization".   It is not a chimpanzee becoming.  No distinction.   There is no part in biology that identifies such developmental stages or distinguishes between the two.   The moment that humans come into "being" is at fertilization.  Period.  Hence "human being".  If it is being a human, then how is it not a human being?  This attempt to make them 'other' in order to make it more palatable is what bothers me.  Again, this has no place in biology.  They are fully Homo sapien, aka, human, aka human being.   They are not 'other'. 

Quote

In biological terms, a human being, or human, is any member of the mammalian species Homo sapiens

https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/human_being

I think you would be extremely pressed to find a biologist in the world who disagrees with the above statement.  Again, I am not the one cherry picking. 

Again:

Quote

 

Peer-reviewed journals in the biological and life sciences literature have published articles that represent the biological view that a human’s life begins at fertilization (“the fertilization view”). As those statements are typically offered without explanation or citation, the fertilization view seems to be uncontested by the editors, reviewers, and authors who contribute to scientific journals. However, Americans are split on whether the fertilization view is a “philosophical or religious belief” (45%) or a “biological and scientific fact” (46%), and only 38% of Americans view fertilization as the starting point of a human’s life. In the two studies that explored experts’ views on the matter, the fertilization view was the most popular perspective held by public health and IVF professionals.

Since a recent study suggested that 80% of Americans view biologists as the group most qualified to determine when a human’s life begins, experts in biology were surveyed to provide a new perspective to the literature on experts’ views on this matter. Biologists from 1,058 academic institutions around the world assessed survey items on when a human’s life begins and, overall, 96% (5337 out of 5577) affirmed the fertilization view.

The founding principles of the field Science Communication suggest that scientists have an ethical and professional obligation to inform Americans, as well as people around the world, about scientific developments so members of the public can be empowered to make life decisions that are consistent with the best information available. Given that perspective—and a recent study’s finding that a majority of Americans believe they deserve to know when a human’s life begins in order to make informed reproductive decisions—science communicators should work to increase the level of science awareness on the fertilization view, as it stands alone as the leading biological perspective on when a human’s life begins.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3973608

 

 

Also of interest to note that:

  Quote

The majority of the sample identified as liberal (89%), pro-choice (85%) and non-religious (63%).

So, this opinion clearly is not a politically biased one and not persuaded by values.  

If you are not willing to acknowledge biological consensus on this subject, than I guess we have nothing more to discuss.  

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
21 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

In this I'm noticing the dates. This actually shows how scientific language changes overtime to add greater clarity to most recent research and what we do and don't know.

I would use the words "culturally construct" instead of "know".

That to me is the issue. Science has little to do with it.

Link to comment

Is whether you had an abortion still one of the questions on a baptismal interview?  

For those of you who see criminalization of abortion as immoral, is there any case in which you think abortion should be illegal? 

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

My daughter’s fertility clinic in Texas just informed her that, according to Texas’ “trigger” law, not using all of her frozen embryos may be considered a felony. Whatever your stance on abortion, these no abortions/no exceptions laws are insane. Yet that’s where we are. 

Omg, my daughter has frozen embryos here in Texas. That’s crazy. I need to research that. 

Edited by Peacefully
Link to comment
3 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

My daughter’s fertility clinic in Texas just informed her that, according to Texas’ “trigger” law, not using all of her frozen embryos may be considered a felony. Whatever your stance on abortion, these no abortions/no exceptions laws are insane. Yet that’s where we are. 

I predict A) nobody will be prosecuted, let alone convicted, under the Texas law for unused frozen embryos, and B) Texas will, if necessary, amend the statute to address this issue.

The statute is not etched in stone.  It can be amended to address oversights and flaws.  Happens all the time.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I predict A) nobody will be prosecuted, let alone convicted, under the Texas law for unused frozen embryos, and B) Texas will, if necessary, amend the statute to address this issue.

The statute is not etched in stone.  It can be amended to address oversights and flaws.  Happens all the time.

Thanks,

-Smac

I don’t think you have a good grasp of Texas politics. 

Either way, it’s bizarre that we have to hope that politicians don’t really mean it when they pass the laws they’ve been campaigning on for decades. 

The other day I heard the author of Oklahoma’s law banning all abortions, no exceptions, say that the legislature there was happy with the law as written and would not consider any changes. Do you honestly think these people don’t mean what they say?

Edited by jkwilliams
Link to comment
34 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I don’t think you have a good grasp of Texas politics. 

We'll see, I suppose.

34 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Either way, it’s bizarre that we have to hope that politicians don’t really mean it when they pass the laws they’ve been campaigning on for decades. 

California is likely going to pass a bill into law that may very well legalize infanticide.  Both sides of this issue can make mistakes in legislation.

34 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

The other day I heard the author of Oklahoma’s law banning all abortions, no exceptions, say that the legislature there was happy with the law as written and would not consider any changes. Do you honestly think these people don’t mean what they say?

One legislator's say-so is not the end of the discussion.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
4 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

My daughter’s fertility clinic in Texas just informed her that, according to Texas’ “trigger” law, not using all of her frozen embryos may be considered a felony. Whatever your stance on abortion, these no abortions/no exceptions laws are insane. Yet that’s where we are. 

I agree. 

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, mtomm said:

So we want to make it more difficult to prevent pregnancy. Who keeps saying that these things are off the table?

So they don’t want anyone having sex unless they approve, lol.

Yes, I know it is an exaggeration, but did he explain what the issue was with IUDs?  Killing sperm is murder?

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Calm said:

So they don’t want anyone having sex unless they approve, lol.

Yes, I know it is an exaggeration, but did he explain what the issue was with IUDs?  Killing sperm is murder?

To be fair I have not listened to the audio attached yet (I'm visiting my mother-in-law) but I will report back anything interesting. 🙂

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, mtomm said:

So we want to make it more difficult to prevent pregnancy. Who keeps saying that these things are off the table?

Screenshot_20220507-184952_Plume.jpg

So he’s against abortion and birth control and thinks both should e illegal. 🙄

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
36 minutes ago, mtomm said:

To be fair I have not listened to the audio attached yet (I'm visiting my mother-in-law) but I will report back anything interesting. 🙂

Little more from here, looks like not using IUDs as emergency contraception and health concerns (and yet where is the prenatal care of so concerned about Mom’s health?), but not sure how they could tell for sure. 

Quote

In a Saturday interview, Crane clarified that he supports contraception, including IUDs, and would not support hearings banning contraception generally. Instead, he said that he has heard of safety concerns with emergency contraceptives, like Plan B, and abortion pills, and would therefore be willing to hold hearings about them.

Crane said that there have been reports of “complications” caused by morning-after pills and of abortion pills causing “health concerns for the mom,” despite years of research showing the safety of bothmedications.. .

“I would entertain a hearing to get the information out there and determine whether these rumors are founded,” Crane said, noting that he had heard there can be “complications with those pills.”

“One of the ways that you’re able to get information and process that information and get to the truth of the matter is by having a public hearing,” he said

Why a hearing rather than just do some basic research himself or a staffer?  What a waste of taxpayers money. Simply photo op posing, imo 

Besides expulsion and failure, the next most common risk of IUDs is uterine perforation at .1%. Preeclampsia, a complication of pregnancy happens in 4% of US pregnancies, many times with no obvious symptoms…prenatal care is highly important in lowering risks for this complication. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I predict A) nobody will be prosecuted, let alone convicted, under the Texas law for unused frozen embryos, and B) Texas will, if necessary, amend the statute to address this issue.

The statute is not etched in stone.  It can be amended to address oversights and flaws.  Happens all the time.

Thanks,

-Smac

I don’t think you realize how far to the right The powers that be in Texas have moved. 

Link to comment
38 minutes ago, Calm said:

Little more from here, looks like not using IUDs as emergency contraception and health concerns (and yet where is the prenatal care of so concerned about Mom’s health?), but not sure how they could tell for sure. 

Why a hearing rather than just do some basic research himself or a staffer?  What a waste of taxpayers money. Simply photo op posing, imo 

Besides expulsion and failure, the next most common risk of IUDs is uterine perforation at .1%. Preeclampsia, a complication of pregnancy happens in 4% of US pregnancies, many times with no obvious symptoms…prenatal care is highly important in lowering risks for this complication. 

I thought we had a whole government agency of scientists, researchers, and medical professionals to do due diligence on the safety of our medications but apparently state legislators are the ones who really should be doing it. 

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, mtomm said:

I thought we had a whole government agency of scientists, researchers, and medical professionals to do due diligence on the safety of our medications but apparently state legislators are the ones who really should be doing it. 

Even though they approach don’t know much about it according to themselves. 

Link to comment
On 5/6/2022 at 4:16 PM, Nofear said:

The Church does not take a position about when life begins. That no ordinances are done does not preclude the possibility that ordinances will be needed in the future or that other aspects of divine law are brought to bear that we don't know about. My sister-in-law held a funeral for a stillborn child of hers. The Church did not forbid it. Maybe it was unnecessary as far as potential child was concerned; maybe it was just for the mother. We don't know.

 

Baptisms aren't required for children who die before age 8 in our theology, and although I'm aware of a number of such cases done by proxy for dead people, I don't know that they are actually needed anyway.   So there is nothing at all inconsistent with stillborn children not having temple ordinances done, even if they are and will be resurrected having fulfilled the measure of creation.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, bluebell said:

So he’s against abortion and birth control and thinks both should e illegal. 🙄

If Row v wade goes down, then the flood gates will open and all kinds privacy and personal rights will be rolled back. Handmaid's tale is starting to look more and more like a possibility.

This is a informative article in the SLTrib that touches on what we can expect:

Quote

Letter: As long as “religious” men dominate, the push to control women’s bodies will continue

https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/letters/2022/05/05/letter-long-religious-men/

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...