Roe v. Wade Potentially Dead

[pogi]

26 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't think anything short of a nationwide disaster will be able to unify us again.

You mean like COVID?  

[bluebell]

7 hours ago, Analytics said:

 

My point is that if we concede that it is morally acceptable for society to give a rape survivor the choice of whether or not to carry to term a baby from a rape, we are conceding that the rights of embryos and fetuses are different than the rights of biologically self-sufficient human beings. If a rape survivor may legally abort a pregnancy because carrying it to term would be detrimental to her own wellbeing, why shouldn't other women have the same choice if they determine that carrying to term other pregnancies would be detrimental to their wellbeing? 

As I've said before, I agree that the rights of embryos and fetuses are different than the rights of pregnant women.  But that doesn't mean that I believe that embryos and fetuses should have no rights.  

Though issues of "biologically self-sufficient" as some kind of measuring stick for who has the right to live is incredibly problematic to me.  There are babies born prematurely who can live outside of the womb with the help of modern medicine, but who can still be legally aborted in most states.  There are babies who can live outside of the womb without any medical intervention who can still legally be aborted in some states (which is pretty horrific if you let that sink in long enough).

So unless we want to argue that a woman should be able to legally kill any baby born or unborn, as long as it can't survive without the help of modern medicine, that's not a good place to draw the line in the sand.

As to the bold, my personal answer is because the raped woman is not pregnant to do any irresponsibility on her part.  While many other pregnant women who seek an abortion are wanting one specifically because they (likely along with a man but not always) were irresponsible with sex. 

For me, that's why they should be treated differently.

 

Edited May 10, 2022 by bluebell

[bluebell]

Just now, pogi said:

You mean like COVID?  

Actually no.  That was not nearly extreme enough.  It would have to be something much much worse.

[pogi]

28 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Actually no.  That was not nearly extreme enough.  It would have to be something much much worse.

That is a terribly sobering thought considering that we just surpassed 1 million deaths in the US.  

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

That makes 911 look like a sneeze. 

I think, hope, pray that we can be unified under less extreme conditions so long as we all actually believe in the severity of the threat and proper course of action to address the threat.  I just think that we have reached a level of  manipulation of information for political purposes and power that any disaster is at high risk of being twisted into two conflicting truths.  Our realities are getting further and further apart, by design. 

Edited May 9, 2022 by pogi

[Durangout]

 

[mtomm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Okay.

These are matters of biology, not the Equal Protection Clause.

The EP Clause

How is this law implicated?  As a preliminary matter, are a biological male and a biological female similarly situated vis-à-vis pregnancy?  It seems not since men cannot get pregnant.  So if they are not "similarly situated," how is the Equal Protection Clause implicated?

What are your thoughts about the father of the unborn child being disadvantaged because of his sex?  The child is his, but he has essentially no say in whether it is carried to term or not.  If the mother wishes to abort, there's nothing he can do about it.  And if she wants to carry the child to term and give birth, he's on the hook for child support.

In the end, I don't think the father and the mother are "similarly situated" for the purposes of the Equal Protection Clause.  Do you disagree?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

My understanding is that the equal protection clause aims to protect the states from imposing laws on people that have the effect of making one group inferior to another. Laws that restrict access to abortion have that impact.  Men and women are similarly situated because they both have at least some control over their own reproduction. But there are laws that which deprive only women of reproductive control that only they can use (abortion). Men and women are only different in their reproductive control when you remove options from the woman. 
Equal protection seeks to make right a disadvantage. And I think we all know who has the disadvantage because of pregnancy. The fact that pregnancy is a protected by federal law infers it as a disadvantage.

I have thoughts about father's rights but I'm an not sure how to address them fairly, I haven't researched it at all. And for clarification I do believe that the state does have some interest in regulating abortion to some extent, especially at the point of viability. In other words, I think that the Church's exceptions (rape, incest, life and health of the mother, health of the fetus) should all be in the law. But the easiest and most efficient way to assure that those exceptions are not infringed on is to keep abortion legal up to the the somewhat squishy time of viability. BUT even with that caveat I'm still worried that women are asked to carry to term children with life-ending abnormalities and are asked to unnecessarily risk their own lives.  Of course, life will never be fair but it's not right to pretend and ignore the fact that women carry the greater burden. (Not saying YOU do that.)

Oftentimes, when those who are pro-choice focus on the argument of keeping abortion legal they are accused of not caring about the unborn life that is also impacted. I do believe those people exist, of course, but not those participating in this discussion on this board.  I come across as very harsh in my defense of women but only because there are plenty here in defense of the fetus. 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, mtomm said:

My understanding is that the equal protection clause aims to protect the states from imposing laws on people that have the effect of making one group inferior to another. Laws that restrict access to abortion have that impact.  

There is also equal protection for the unborn to consider.  Having no restrictions on access to abortion makes "one group [the unborn] inferior to another".  This scenario includes more than just the father and the mother, so while you may be right that most pro-chiocer's do care about the life of the unborn and how it is impacted, they frequently forget to include him/her in the discussion, focusing solely on the mother, and rarely the father.  It is often turned into a women vs men battle and neglect to include the child.   

1 hour ago, mtomm said:

But the easiest and most efficient way to assure that those exceptions are not infringed on is to keep abortion legal up to the the somewhat squishy time of viability. BUT even with that caveat I'm still worried that women are asked to carry to term children with life-ending abnormalities and are asked to unnecessarily risk their own lives.  Of course, life will never be fair but it's not right to pretend and ignore the fact that women carry the greater burden. (Not saying YOU do that.)

I'm not sure why it would make it any more easy or efficient to extend abortions to the age of viability which is around 24 weeks - while heart beat and nervous system develop around 6 weeks and it has fingers and toes by 11 weeks, and can see light at 14 weeks.  I think those things are more important than ease or efficiency anyway.   If we have legal parameters for exceptions, I don't see why they would be infringed upon.  I think it would be MUCH easier and more efficient to convince conservative legislators to allow for exceptions than to draw a line at viability.    

1 hour ago, mtomm said:

 I come across as very harsh in my defense of women but only because there are plenty here in defense of the fetus. 

I think there are more here in defense of the woman, to be honest.  This is true for national statistics too, and becoming more and more true every year. 

  

 

Edited May 9, 2022 by pogi

[smac97]

6 hours ago, mtomm said:

My understanding is that the equal protection clause aims to protect the states from imposing laws on people that have the effect of making one group inferior to another. Laws that restrict access to abortion have that impact. 

That's not a very accurate recitation of the Equal Protection Clause.

6 hours ago, mtomm said:

Men and women are similarly situated because they both have at least some control over their own reproduction.

Men and women are nowhere near similarly situated as to pregnancy.

6 hours ago, mtomm said:

But there are laws that which deprive only women of reproductive control that only they can use (abortion).

But not because men are "similarly situated" with women.  Women can carry a child.  Men cannot.

6 hours ago, mtomm said:

Men and women are only different in their reproductive control when you remove options from the woman. 

That is patently incorrect.  A man cannot carry a child, a woman can.  This is a function of biology, which you are studiously avoiding to shore up a flawed rhetorical argument.  It doesn't work.

6 hours ago, mtomm said:

Equal protection seeks to make right a disadvantage. And I think we all know who has the disadvantage because of pregnancy. The fact that pregnancy is a protected by federal law infers it as a disadvantage.

May I ask where you are getting this?  Are you quoting/paraphrasing something?  Or is this your personal opinion.

6 hours ago, mtomm said:

I have thoughts about father's rights but I'm an not sure how to address them fairly, I haven't researched it at all.

You are making my point here.  Father's rights are different because a male cannot carry a child, and so is not "similarly situated" with the woman.

6 hours ago, mtomm said:

And for clarification I do believe that the state does have some interest in regulating abortion to some extent, especially at the point of viability.

I agree.  The issue, then, is the degree of that interest, and which part of "the state" gets to state it and protect it.  From my perspective, regulating abortion should be within the province of the state legislature.  The forthcoming SCOTUS decision will likely make that happen.  And the "regulating abortion to some extent" should, in my view, be fairly extensive insofar as the life of the child is at stake.  

6 hours ago, mtomm said:

In other words, I think that the Church's exceptions (rape, incest, life and health of the mother, health of the fetus) should all be in the law.

Okay.

6 hours ago, mtomm said:

But the easiest and most efficient way to assure that those exceptions are not infringed on is to keep abortion legal up to the the somewhat squishy time of viability.

With respect, I disagree.  I think the most efficient way to keep those exceptions is to define them well, and also to provide resources (education, affordable contraception, Safe Haven laws, etc.).

6 hours ago, mtomm said:

BUT even with that caveat I'm still worried that women are asked to carry to term children with life-ending abnormalities and are asked to unnecessarily risk their own lives. 

Not sure what you mean by "life-ending abnormalities."

6 hours ago, mtomm said:

Of course, life will never be fair but it's not right to pretend and ignore the fact that women carry the greater burden. (Not saying YOU do that.)

Men carry plenty of burdens "greater" than women.  

6 hours ago, mtomm said:

Oftentimes, when those who are pro-choice focus on the argument of keeping abortion legal they are accused of not caring about the unborn life that is also impacted.

Well, the crux of that position involves the elective killing of unborn children.  Kinda hard to square the advocacy of such elective killings with "caring about the unborn."

6 hours ago, mtomm said:

I do believe those people exist, of course, but not those participating in this discussion on this board.  I come across as very harsh in my defense of women but only because there are plenty here in defense of the fetus. 

About half of those fetuses are female.  And in many places in the world a significantly disproportionate number of aborted children are girls.  And very large numbers of women are broadly "pro life."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 10, 2022 by smac97

[Calm]

11 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

We don’t deny treatment for STDs, accidents due to reckless driving, and any number of self-inflicted conditions. 

What mitigation examples can you think of that impact in a life or death way someone else besides the individual making the choice?  (This does not mean to mean mitigation/abortion should never occur, just looking for a closer parallel).

added:  no need to respond if you don’t want to as I think it discussed sufficiently 

Edited May 10, 2022 by Calm

[BlueDreams]

10 hours ago, pogi said:

You are right, I am not really happy with your sources.  None of them are from a peer reviewed journal of biology as I asked.   I have already shown that peer reviewed literature in journals of biology identifies fertilization as the beginning of life for a human being.  I am yet to see any legitimate biology source which contradicts it.  From the beginning, I have made this about biological understanding and literature.  Most Americans agree that biology (the study of life) is the most qualified field to identify when a human being's life begins.  No other science is fully dedicated to the study of life like biology is.  You are trying to introduce "law" and "philosophy" etc. to murky up the waters, but this in no way proves that there is not consensus in biology - which is my point that you are refuting without evidence.  Law and philosophy are not even sciences. let alone biology.  They don't get to decide what the consensus is in biology.  I am talking about biological science.  I will also note that after getting after me for "cherry picking" from an older source, you yourself provide a source around 30 years old - and it wasn't even a biology source.   So, I have a hard time accepting the accusation that I am cherry picking and that there isn't consensus in biology, when you have failed to provide any evidence that I am wrong from a biological source and instead try to change the subject to other fields that are not even science. 

I have shown that there is indeed consensus in biology.  Your rebuttal that we should question if the "significance and definition of life are the same for both researcher and scientists that answered" is a moot point.  It doesn't matter what their definition of life is.  The point is that they nearly all agree, regardless of their definition, that it begins at fertilization - aka consensus.   Fertilization qualifies under their collective definitions of life as the beginning of it.   I am kind of surprised that you are now arguing about the word "life", when you have already agreed that human life begins at fertilization, but that it is not yet fully a human being.  I think the problem is that you are confusing a fully developed human, with being fully human.  There is no point in the life of a human where it changes species or entity, it simply changes form through stages of development - it is the same entity of life, with the same biological nomenclature, throughout development.  Significance of life was not part of the question or point I was making, nor did it have any part in the study.  So to try and dismiss the fact that there is biological consensus as to when a human life begins based on their understanding of "significance" of life is a diversion and a moot point in relation to consensus of when a human being begins life.  

I don't want to go around in circles either, but until we can agree on what a human being is, it seems pointless to discuss anything else until we have that foundation to build on.   As a consensus of biologists agree that a zygote is a human being, as evidenced by biological literature and peer reviewed journals and through research of biological opinion on the matter (of which I have seen no rebuttal for from a source of biology, and preferably a peer reviewed journal of biology), it seems wise to accept the science of life as the building blocks of this discussion and go from there.  We can discuss the philosophy of life, but that is not the science of it. We can discuss law, but that is not the science of life.  We can discuss all sorts of angles that deserve to be discussed, but until we agree on the biology of life, again, it all seems pointless.  We will be speaking past each other and not using the same language.  

You gave a single “peer-reviewed source” and that was not from one focused on issues of law and medicine. From a man who has obvious biases in interpreting his own data. The rest are from old text books and another from a questionable source. Your own sources don’t fit what you ask. I’m not really willing to live up to a standard your own sources don’t reach. I would love to give a more recent one, but this has been an issue that seems to go fairly quiet around 15-20 years ago (the latest source I could find). After that, in each search I’m looking through, it’s moved to more technical ethical issues with abortion of some kind as an inferred practice.

 

Here's the problem I have with this CFR parameters….I’m going to make an analogy. Let’s say you have an atheist and a theist. The atheist states “Science has proven that evolution created life, thus proving that God didn’t create the earth and isn’t a true concept.” The theist says “I believe in evolution as a potential tool of God’s creation and that science doesn’t say whether or not God exists.” The atheist then says “you don’t believe in evolution because you believe in God.” The theist says, “I have no qualms with evolution, I just believe God created us in some fashion.” The atheist then says “CFR, prove via scientific literature that God exists and created the heavens.” The theist scratches their head and says “But that’s not what science does. It’s just using data to make a basic observation of how this temporal earth has worked….the existence of God is more a personal/theological inquiry…. But here’s some textbooks and such basically saying that much.” The atheist then says “This is unscientific.” The theist says “that’s kinda the point.”  

This is how I’m seeing our conversation over the last several pages. Your logic is basically this

“Human life begins at conception. Life is the same as being a person/human being. Therefore we need to protect human beings at all costs and give near equal protections under the law.” (the bold is an unprovable theory based on a singular fact)

I’m saying “Human life begins at conception. Being alive is likely not the same a being a person/human being, though this is a philosophical question and thus can’t be really proven or disproven. Many can and have take the same knowledge and apply it to make a different assertion about what it means to be a human being. Either way there are other issues that must be weighed in this gray area that being both too restrictive and too loose have serious complications that need to be addressed and can’t be ignored….particularly for the fact that women, whose personhood is not in question, will carry the greatest cost to any of our social decisions.”

At which point I’m met with “we can’t go anywhere near that concern until you recognize that my theory is true and thus my practical expectations around this are the best course”

 Do you see a problem with this? Cuz I sure do.

 

With luv,

BD

Edited May 10, 2022 by BlueDreams

[bsjkki]

Just read a tweet from someone who read the Alito opinion. How many have actually read it? 
 

The Alito opinion does not argue the rightness or wrongness of abortion. It is a legal opinion on the constitutionality of the case. 
 

Anyone able to refute his legal points?

Edited May 10, 2022 by bsjkki

[pogi]

3 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

You gave a single “peer-reviewed source” and that was not from one focused on issues of law and medicine. From a man who has obvious biases in interpreting his own data. The rest are from old text books and another from a questionable source. Your own sources don’t fit what you ask. I’m not really willing to live up to a standard your own sources don’t reach. I would love to give a more recent one, but this has been an issue that seems to go fairly quiet around 15-20 years ago (the latest source I could find). After that, in each search I’m looking through, it’s moved to more technical ethical issues with abortion of some kind as an inferred practice.

Perhaps your problem is that you are searching for abortion arguments rather than biological questions of human life. 

3 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

 

Here's the problem I have with this CFR parameters….I’m going to make an analogy. Let’s say you have an atheist and a theist. The atheist states “Science has proven that evolution created life, thus proving that God didn’t create the earth and isn’t a true concept.” The theist says “I believe in evolution as a potential tool of God’s creation and that science doesn’t say whether or not God exists.” The atheist then says “you don’t believe in evolution because you believe in God.” The theist says, “I have no qualms with evolution, I just believe God created us in some fashion.” The atheist then says “CFR, prove via scientific literature that God exists and created the heavens.” The theist scratches their head and says “But that’s not what science does. It’s just using data to make a basic observation of how this temporal earth has worked….the existence of God is more a personal/theological inquiry…. But here’s some textbooks and such basically saying that much.” The atheist then says “This is unscientific.” The theist says “that’s kinda the point.”  

Ummm....what?  I am asking for a reference to your claim that "a human" is distinguished from "a human being" in biology.   It is synonymous nomenclature in biology.  I have already demonstrated that with reference.  You have provided me nothing to refute it.  

3 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

This is how I’m seeing our conversation over the last several pages. Your logic is basically this

“Human life begins at conception. Life is the same as being a person/human being. Therefore we need to protect human beings at all costs and give near equal protections under the law.” (the bold is an unprovable theory based on a singular fact)

Nope.  That is not my logic.  "Life" is not equivalent to being a person/human being/Homo sapiens.  All cells are alive, not all cells are a humans/human beings/Homo sapiens.  My liver cells are not humans/human beings/homo sapiens, for example.  A zygote, on the other hand, is unquestionably identified in biological nomenclature as an individual living organism of the class Homo sapiens aka human being aka human.  It is not a living cell that belongs to an organism, but an independent living organism.  A zygote is the first stage of that independent living human organisms development.  

3 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I’m saying “Human life begins at conception. Being alive is likely not the same a being a person/human being, though this is a philosophical question and thus can’t be really proven or disproven.

"Human being" aka "Homo sapiens" is a matter of the human taxonomy of biology and biological nomenclature.  Biology is the science of life.  Philosophy is not a science.  It can be proven that a zygote is an individual Homo sapiens in biology when that is how biology identifies it and categorizes it in human taxonomy.  It is their scientific task to classify these things. This is not a trick question.     

3 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Many can and have take the same knowledge and apply it to make a different assertion about what it means to be a human being. Either way there are other issues that must be weighed in this gray area that being both too restrictive and too loose have serious complications that need to be addressed and can’t be ignored

Again, you are diverting from the biological question of human taxonomy.  Yes, law and philosophy can apply whatever meaning they want, but those are not the sciences that classify types of life and species, and organisms.  That belongs to biology.  

3 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

….particularly for the fact that women, whose personhood is not in question, will carry the greatest cost to any of our social decisions.”

At which point I’m met with “we can’t go anywhere near that concern until you recognize that my theory is true and thus my practical expectations around this are the best course”

 Do you see a problem with this? Cuz I sure do.

Please don't quote me saying things I never said or even came close to implying.  This is not a fair representation of my argument, and I don't think it was said in good faith.  I only suggested that until we are using the same language, we are going to talk past each other.  Until we can agree on what we are even talking about, and thus what is at stake, anything else seems futile.  There is no foundation to build on. 

Another voice which confirms the uncontested conclusion of biological peer reviewed publications:

Quote

 

The conclusion that human life begins at sperm-egg fusion is uncontested, objective, based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other and on ample scientific evidence (thousands of independent, peer-reviewed publications). Moreover, it is entirely independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life or of human embryos. Indeed, this definition does not directly address the central ethical question surrounding the embryo: What value ought society place on human life at the earliest stages of development?  A neutral examination of the evidence merely establishes the onset of a new human life at a scientifically well-defined “moment of conception,” a conclusion that unequivocally indicates that human embryos from the one-cell stage forward are indeed living individuals of the human species; i.e., human beings.

 

*Dr. Condic is Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Adjunct Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Utah School of Medicine.  She is also Director of Human Embryology instruction for the Medical School and of Human Neuroanatomy for the Dental School.

 

This from Georgia tech biological sciences:

 

Quote

 

The purpose and stages of development

Your body consist of over 30 trillion cells, but you began as a single cell: a fertilized egg, or zygote. How did you become the large, organized multicellular individual that you are today? Development!

https://organismalbio.biosci.gatech.edu/growth-and-reproduction/animal-development-i/

 

 

 

Edited May 10, 2022 by pogi

[BlueDreams]

54 minutes ago, pogi said:

Perhaps your problem is that you are searching for abortion arguments rather than biological questions of human life. 

Ummm....what?  I am asking for a reference to your claim that "a human" is distinguished from "a human being" in biology.   It is synonymous nomenclature in biology.  I have already demonstrated that with reference.  You have provided me nothing to refute it.  

And i'm saying that's not what I'm saying. I'm not talking about biology. The biology I don't have a single problem with. The interpretation of said biology is the disagreement. 

 

54 minutes ago, pogi said:

Nope.  That is not my logic.  "Life" is not equivalent to being a person/human being/Homo sapiens.

 

Meant to have said "human life..." Well if we're going that much into semantics "recently conceived, undifferentiated, and non-implanted unborn human life." The rest is, again, not something I disagree with on the science....just your interpretation of what that science then must mean (thus the analogy)  

54 minutes ago, pogi said:

Again, you are diverting from the biological question of human taxonomy.  Yes, law and philosophy can apply whatever meaning they want, but those are not the sciences that classify types of life and species, and organisms.  That belongs to biology.  

Because the diversion is necessary when one moves from basic labeling of a biological process to interpreting what that must mean to something that is not simply a biological question: what is sufficient to be considered fully human (stated in the sociological/philosophical/legal context)....and then again a full human with certain rights and protections under the law.  

54 minutes ago, pogi said:

Please don't quote me saying things I never said or even came close to implying.  This is not a fair representation of my argument, and I don't think it was said in good faith.  I only suggested that until we are using the same language, we are going to talk past each other.  Until we can agree on what we are even talking about, and thus what is at stake, anything else seems futile.  There is no foundation to build on. 

Then please, simplify it...give it your own formatting of logical progress, because this weird back and forth on "science" that neither of us disagree on beyond our interpretation of its significance is getting frustrating at this point.  

54 minutes ago, pogi said:

Another voice which confirms the uncontested conclusion of biological peer reviewed publications:

This from Georgia tech biological sciences:

Again, not something I disagree with (though this is hardly a peer-review journal). I disagree what you're inferring about it. A belief in this human life as equal (or at least near-equal) to a baby is where things fall apart for me. Pointing to this does not immediately assert this belief.  I'm not exactly sure how many times you want me to repeat that. 

 

With luv,

BD

[Meadowchik]

In view of the current political conflict, missed miscarriages alone should make every single one of us fear for our loved ones who might become pregnant.

They are not uncommon, and when the baby has died but the body is not releasing it naturally, the woman can experience extreme pain, permanent injury, and even death.

With any abortion restrictions, this woman will have to submit to questions designed to help the doctor adhere to law. She will have to ask for care from a doctor who is at minimum at major professional risk if he treats her and the state bureaucracy doesn't allow for his treatment.

In the past, women with missed miscarriages have at times already been turned away to have to then go suffer in pain at home, or worse. Without federal protections, we can expect it to get worse.

America is creating a nightmare for women and girls. What a terrible legacy.

Unless they chose to make it so, another person's pregnancy is NONE OF OUR BUSINESS.

Edited May 10, 2022 by Meadowchik

[Nofear]

Nice NY Times oped.  https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/06/opinion/roe-supreme-court.html
He's pro-choice but he's also open minded enough to not feel the need to villainize those who don't share his opinion.

Quote

As sociologist Ilana Redstone notes, “when we fail to recognize the moral legitimacy of a range of positions on controversial topics, disagreements about these issues inevitably become judgments about other people’s character.”

 

[pogi]

9 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

And i'm saying that's not what I'm saying. I'm not talking about biology. The biology I don't have a single problem with. The interpretation of said biology is the disagreement. 

 

Meant to have said "human life..." Well if we're going that much into semantics "recently conceived, undifferentiated, and non-implanted unborn human life." The rest is, again, not something I disagree with on the science....just your interpretation of what that science then must mean (thus the analogy)  

Because the diversion is necessary when one moves from basic labeling of a biological process to interpreting what that must mean to something that is not simply a biological question: what is sufficient to be considered fully human (stated in the sociological/philosophical/legal context)....and then again a full human with certain rights and protections under the law.  

Then please, simplify it...give it your own formatting of logical progress, because this weird back and forth on "science" that neither of us disagree on beyond our interpretation of its significance is getting frustrating at this point.  

Again, not something I disagree with (though this is hardly a peer-review journal). I disagree what you're inferring about it. A belief in this human life as equal (or at least near-equal) to a baby is where things fall apart for me. Pointing to this does not immediately assert this belief.  I'm not exactly sure how many times you want me to repeat that. 

 

With luv,

BD

This certainly wasn't the response I was expecting to wake up to.  It appears that we might actually be making some headway.   But before I celebrate our victory, I just need to make sure that I am crystal clear as to your position on biology.  You say that you do not disagree with the following statement that I quoted, I just want to very that you do indeed agree that a zygote is an individual Homo sapiens, undifferentiated yet totipotent organism and thus a living human being:

Quote

 A neutral examination of the evidence merely establishes the onset of a new human life at a scientifically well-defined “moment of conception,” a conclusion that unequivocally indicates that human embryos from the one-cell stage forward are indeed living individuals of the human species; i.e., human beings.

Are we in agreement on this point then?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

You say that you do not disagree with the following statement that I quoted,

Where does your statement allow for multiples? Wouldn’t it be better stated that at conception it is the start of multiple human beings? If we actually allowed science to experiment, it’s possible there would be no limit to the number of human individuals who could trace their human lives back to a single embryo, no?

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, pogi said:

Are we in agreement on this point then?

I am wondering, I am not sure if importance or value are the correct terms because they have nuances I don’t want to apply…but can we (you and me, not sure if Bluedreams cares to get involved in this side question) agree that if there is no personal relationship to newly developed “Homo Sapiens” and they are as far as known healthy (meaning there could be unknown genetic defects), there is still a difference of perception of the need to protect different aged Homo sapiens meaning if someone had to choose which to save, they would not choose randomly, but would most likely choose to save a two day old baby over a 22 week fetus and that before a two month old embryo, which would most likely be saved before a five day old blastocyst….think of this as a highly unlikely future scenario where there are portable incubators for developing babies from conception to when they are put in parents’ arms to go home, so the Good Samaritan doesn’t have to worry that they would die in transporting any more than they would die in normal development, as even in the unlikely future there are still ‘miscarriages’ and unpredictable mechanical failures (to substitute in this scenario for today’s prenatal issues, thus a two day old is more likely to survive to 5 years old than a 22 week old fetus, which will survive longer than a two month old embryo and a blastocyst has the lowest survival till 5 years old stat).  
 

PS:  I don’t plan on getting involved in a long discussion on this, hopefully this is written as a straightforward, if long question that when answered will confirm or remove one of my assumptions about your (Pogi’s) POV.  Perhaps one post clarifying if needed if not much confusion, but if there is I will drop it to not derail other conversations.

Edited May 10, 2022 by Calm

[mtomm]

16 hours ago, pogi said:

There is also equal protection for the unborn to consider.  Having no restrictions on access to abortion makes "one group [the unborn] inferior to another".  This scenario includes more than just the father and the mother, so while you may be right that most pro-choicer's do care about the life of the unborn and how it is impacted, they frequently forget to include him/her in the discussion, focusing solely on the mother, and rarely the father.  It is often turned into a women vs men battle and neglect to include the child.   

I'm not sure why it would make it any more easy or efficient to extend abortions to the age of viability which is around 24 weeks - while heart beat and nervous system develop around 6 weeks and it has fingers and toes by 11 weeks, and can see light at 14 weeks.  I think those things are more important than ease or efficiency anyway.   If we have legal parameters for exceptions, I don't see why they would be infringed upon.  I think it would be MUCH easier and more efficient to convince conservative legislators to allow for exceptions than to draw a line at viability.    

I think there are more here in defense of the woman, to be honest.  This is true for national statistics too, and becoming more and more true every year. 

  

 

 

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

About half of those fetuses are female.  And in many places in the world a significantly disproportionate number of aborted children are girls.  And very large numbers of women are broadly "pro life."

You want to take away reproductive rights from the women who actually bear the children and give it to the state. What happens they don't regulate it the way you want? 
Men currently aren't allowed to force a woman to abort but I suppose that could change in the interest of a man's rights. 
Seems that in many places in the world they've been fine with forced abortion. 

 

Edited May 10, 2022 by mtomm

[Calm]

On 5/10/2022 at 8:50 AM, mtomm said:

You want to take away reproductive rights from the women who actually bear the children and give it to the state. What happens they don't regulate it the way you want? 

One Child Policy program in China worked well to protest the children.   
 

(that was supposed to be a sarcastic “protect”, but auto correct decided it would play better as “protest” and I can’t say it’s wrong)

Edited May 11, 2022 by Calm

[BlueDreams]

On 5/8/2022 at 9:23 AM, bluebell said:

That article was hard, but not in a way that it felt like the author hoped it would be. 

Starting off by illustrating all the children that would have benefitted from never being born is an incredibly precarious position, because when you explain how it would have been better for a developmentally disabled child to have had their lives ended in the womb there is no reason that the same isn't still true outside of the womb.  And that's how we got historical policies of euthanasia for the developmentally disabled in some countries.

This idea, which the author seemed to perpetuate, that there is no value in life if one is disabled is alarming.  

The author also threw all of the women under the bus who would not have chosen abortion after finding out their child would be born disabled, by implying that the only reason the children in the article were allowed to live was because of anti-abortion laws, and that those who forced their birth are cruel.

I agree that old male politicians need to stop seeing themselves as the guardians of fertility, pregnancy, and birth practices and policies.  They've got no qualifications for that role and that's why we get such dumb extreme stuff. 

But writing an article about actual children who would make the world a better place by not existing is not an argument against the old male politicians.  It just sounds like extremism from the other side of the isle.

I had a ton of mixed feelings about @sunstoned’s article. But on multiple ends. cuz I’m wushu washy like that I guess 😅

 

On the patriarchy end I found it too oversimplified. Don’t get me wrong, there are a lot of old men getting to make laws effecting women’s bodies with a gross amount of misunderstanding about women’s bodies and/or pregnancy. But it’s not the total picture. There is still a large minority of women who support and vote for said policies. I wish there was less a simplified “men ruling over women” narrative and more a “men and women maintains a culture that ends up subjugating women’s issues and needs.” For example I tie the glorification of mothers who sacrifice just about everything, including their own health, sanity, and sense of personhood or being to rear children in this world just as much a part of the problem. And I’ve seen that culturally enforced by both genders…but probably a little more women. 
 

On the other end, I think the article’s use of already living cases choppy. I actually somewhat agree with the sentiment.  On the low scale we had family friend when I was younger who were devoutly catholic. She struggled with infertility and ended up doing IVF. They had 9 living kids because they believed it a sin to not give all the embryos a chance. Including multiple multiples and one severely special needs daughter. I was still struck by how apparent their marriage was strained under the stress that this was causing in their life…they used to be a very close couple. I found myself wondering if this belief was worth the slow burn risk of breaking up their marriage. Not that I would want them to “choose” now very present children. But that before there were born children - just embryos in a Petri dish - there could have been the capacity to assess whether they really had the capacity to take on one more child. But this belief had kept them from assessing/taking in account other factors that were also really important if not equally so. 
 

On the other end, there was a reason I likely had more cases that i found “justifiable” in the article you posted. A big one was all cases that hinted strongly of physical abuse in their current relationship. Pregnancy places women at greater risk in abusive relationships. They’re more likely to feel “trapped” and stay longer than they would have, unable to afford their exit plan. More likely to sustain injuries that are life threatening. To me, being pregnant in an abusive relationship is just as high risk as any physical ailment that can afflict pregnant women. 
And on top of that, I do find myself thinking what will happen if a child is brought into certain situations. I was in a lecture yesterday that noted a surprisingly high correlation in disregulated emotional behavior when a parent has BPD (around 80%). They described that in these children, being exposed to the “love hormone” leaves them extremely anxiously in studies. It struck home since my own mother likely has mild BPD. I to some degree know what it feels like to have love/connection be extremely uncomfortable. My family on the pain-Olympics didn’t have it super bad. But I’ve watched more than once the uphill slog of those who did. I say the difference between trauma as an adult v as a child is by its nature. Adult trauma in a person is like having a broken pot and child trauma is like having something wrong with the clay. And a lot of that shows up in an increase in both emotion and physical disorders that haunt them throughout their life.

in my heart, however horrifying it is, there are experiences I really believe aren’t worth having. They happen because we live in a corrupt world, not because God specifically wants them for us. I strongly get why God might send a flood to destroy a particularly wicked generation. There are things that get so bad and so corrupt that a person ends up just existing…surviving…and rarely really  thriving. And it often takes generations to fully heal the mess of the trauma…if it heals. So there is a part of me who thinks, if bringing a baby into a situation that isn’t just not ideal but is very likely to lead to an existence that is more survival than living/growing, i see the potential value in hedging ones bets. On waiting to bring a life when circumstances are better. I did it preemptively…and still do. There was literally no temptation to have sex pre-finding my husband because of the burden i felt from my mom’s decisions…and later in the knowledge of how my other gma felt trapped in a piss poor relationship because she had so many kids and no adult work experience to support them. It left me cautious and careful to heal as much as possible first, well aware that a healthy relationship was most likely out of grasp if I was not myself healthy. But i get why it may not happen that way. That mine’s the other side of the coin to the damage left in ugly family situations. The other end is people permanently reacting, getting into bad situations, struggling, struggling some more, and carrying the burden of trauma inadvertently on their children.

this is turning longer than i expected. I’m trying to explain this mindset that I have that one may find disturbing but is bred from the difficult experience i have to help slow and heal both inside myself and then for my job. This web of pain that can be stopped, but isn’t easy to do and is a fragile work. You mix that with not seeing an embryo as the same as a baby, but a child in creation, one with life but not truly/meaningfully experiencing life. And ironically it’s this same impulse to protect/heal at all costs for the future generation that draws out of me the understanding that sometimes the best option may indeed be to make sure certain experiences don’t come. Not that a person already here should end, just that if that person’s current experience could have been avoided, it may have been best to do so. 
 

with luv, 

BD 

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, mtomm said:

You want to take away reproductive rights from the women who actually bear the children and give it to the state.

I want the state to protect children from being electively killed.

And I don't know what you mean by "give {reproductive rights} to the state."  

This alarmism is a bit weird.  The government has always regulated abortion.  It has simply been a matter of which part of the government (the federal judiciary versus the state legislatures) and the metrics by which abortion is regulated.

20 minutes ago, mtomm said:

What happens they don't regulate it the way you want? 

Work within the system to improve things.

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

58 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Where does your statement allow for multiples? Wouldn’t it be better stated that at conception it is the start of multiple human beings?

Where does it disallow for multiples?  Fertilization is not the start of multiple human beings.  It is the genesis of one single individual living organism of the species Homo sapiens.   There are  rare cases of splitting in the first week and self-replicating.   The point of splitting would technically be "the start of multiple human beings" - that is the point of genesis of a new human being - making two.  That is no different from how other organisms divide and self-replicate.  Biologists don't consider one individual  organism to be multiple until they split.  

[BlueDreams]

58 minutes ago, pogi said:

This certainly wasn't the response I was expecting to wake up to.  It appears that we might actually be making some headway.   But before I celebrate our victory, I just need to make sure that I am crystal clear as to your position on biology.  You say that you do not disagree with the following statement that I quoted, I just want to very that you do indeed agree that a zygote is the beginning point to getting to an individual Homo sapiens, undifferentiated yet totipotent organism and thus a living human being:

Zygotes still can split into multiple individuals to form to create no individual. It's not accurate to say they are an individual in my head without some means to acknowledge that the individualization, even on the degree of simply biological distinction, isn't fully complete. 

58 minutes ago, pogi said:

59 minutes ago, pogi said:

A neutral examination of the evidence merely establishes the onset of a new human life at a scientifically well-defined “moment of conception,” a conclusion that unequivocally indicates that human embryos from the one-cell stage forward are indeed living individuals of the human species; i.e., human beings.

Are we in agreement on this point then?

These parts are interpretations of the science in accordance to one's personal beliefs about what a living individual human being means....in this case as only a distinct biological entity of living cells. Just because the person writing it assumes neutrality does not make the analysis suddenly neutral. This person is making an argument with science. Arguments are interpretations of scientific data. This is my problem and has been from the beginning. Not the data...the interpretation of the data into socially derived terms. Just as I would an athiest insisting that science proves there's no god. That is an interpretation of the data...not the data itself. 

With luv,

BD 

[Analytics]

19 hours ago, pogi said:

Some claim that their kidney donation was a moral choice.  It was not a legal choice though.  We don't imprison people for not donating a kidney, we do imprison people for killing innocent life....

Don't equivocate on the word "innocent life." As it now stands, we don't imprison people for having an abortion, either.

19 hours ago, pogi said:

Embryos in no way have a "terminal condition".  In medical terminology a "condition" is a disease.  Embryos are in a healthy state of homeostasis in every way and only require the proper environment to survive - not much different from newborns in that regard. 

There are several critical differences between an embryo and a newborn. One of them is that while just about any adult or group of adults can care for a newborn, the mother is the one and only person who is capable of taking care of the embryo.

19 hours ago, pogi said:

To suggest that fetus has no right to be in the womb of its mother - doesn't that just sound like we are getting kind of absurd here?  It has a God given right by nature to be there.  

No, "God" doesn't give the fetus the right to be there. The mother does. Whether or not the fetus has the right to be in her body is her choice.