Jump to content

Roe v. Wade Potentially Dead


Recommended Posts

42 minutes ago, smac97 said:

First, this sort of sarcasm about weighty matters is not helpful. 

Second, sarcasm is not an argument.

Third, this seems like a strawman.  No reasonable person has said anything like "it's okay" for people to "die ... for the economy."

Thanks,

-Smac

I literally had it said to my face by a relative that getting back to work and real life is worth the risk of some people dying. I was NOT being sarcastic.  
But you can also just google it and you'll find several examples of where my relative got the idea that this was okay. 

Link to comment
40 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Why not? If you care about the life of the person who needs a kidney, why isn't there an obligation to donate a kidney?

Because a kidney is not designed to be made for another body. Though it is certainly within a parent's right to donate said organ, it should never be codified into law that it is an expectation nor should there be a general moral duty to do so. A woman's uterus, however, is designed for the express purpose of nurturing another human - it is it's reason for being. This is the difference IMO that makes the difference. And this is the argument shared by Stephanie Gray on the clip I had shared several posts ago. If you scroll to about the 13 min mark, you can pick the exchange up.  

 

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Analytics said:
Quote

 

I care about both.  

Under the law, however, there is no duty of care, no obligation to donate a kidney.

 

Why not? If you care about the life of the person who needs a kidney, why isn't there an obligation to donate a kidney?

Those are two separate questions.  

I can care about a person's welfare and not owe a legal duty to them.  Surely you can appreciate that?

4 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Saying "because that's the way law has always been" is a copout.

Saying I said "because that's the way law has always been," when I said nothing of the sort, is a copout.

4 minutes ago, Analytics said:
Quote

Point 1: Assumption of the Risk

Yes, there is an assumption of risk. I'll note that you qualified your statement about this with "Absent force, coercion or deceit."

As I have for some years now.  Contrary to your preferred Latin catchprase, my position is not "ad hoc."

4 minutes ago, Analytics said:

In the real world, those things exist in different degrees,

Yes.

4 minutes ago, Analytics said:

and anti-abortion laws don't deal with these extenuating circumstances.

Yes, they do.  Rape is a very common exception to constraints on abortion.  Rape-by-fraud / rape-by-deceit seems to be a very rare thing, but I would nevertheless support legislation creating an exception for it.  Same goes for rape-by-coercion (which I would construe as being something like "Reproductive coercion" described here). 

4 minutes ago, Analytics said:

If a woman was manipulated or lied to when she became pregnant, very few anti-abortionists will grant her the freedom to choose for herself whether she should carry the pregnancy full term.

Again, I think this is a very rare circumstance.

4 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Since you would force somebody to have a baby even when she didn't assume the risk, talking about assumption of risk is an irrelevant distraction.

I reject this characterization. 

You either are not paying attention, or you are deliberately distorting my position.

Again, absent force, coercion or deceit, an unexpected/unwanted pregnancy is a natural and foreseeable consequence of engaging in sexual activity.

You are not addressing this point regarding assumption of the risk.

Assumption of the risk is very relevant.  Again:

Quote

An injury arising from "actions {that} are inherent in the game of basketball" does not give rise to a legal claim.

The risk of injury is part of the game of basketball.  If you want to avoid such risks, don't play the game.  I am not diminishing the seriousness of a knee injury (my father suffered a knee injury in his youth while playing football, and it has adversely affected the entirety of his life since then).  But if such an unintentional - but nevertheless foreseeable - injury were to happen to a player today in Utah, the player would not have legal recourse.  He must cope with the injury as best he can.  

If women (and men) want to avoid the risk of an unwanted pregnancy, they have the option of not "playing the game."  If they do decide to play the game, and if a risk "inherent in the activity" actually comes to pass, then the law may limit what sorts of legal remedies are available to address that actualized risk.

Now that it appears SCOTUS is returning this issue to the states to decide (where it should have been for the last half century), we will see a variety of approaches to addressing this issue.  Some approaches will work better than others.

(Emphasis added.)

You are not addressing this point.

4 minutes ago, Analytics said:
Quote

Point 2: Personhood of the Child as a Material Consideration

We grant birth certificates when a child is born, not when they are conceived. 

Yes.  And yet we also impose constraints on abortion, that is, prior to birth.

We also have laws that criminalize injury to a fetus.  For example, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."   Moreover, "38 states also recognize the fetus or "unborn child" as a crime victim, at least for purposes of homicide or feticide."  See also here:

Quote

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act was strongly opposed by most pro-choice organizations, on grounds that the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision said that the human fetus is not a "person" under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, and that if the fetus were a Fourteenth Amendment "person", then they would have a constitutional right to life[citation needed]. However, the laws of 38 states also recognize the human fetus as the legal victim of homicide (and often, other violent crimes) during the entire period of prenatal development (27 states) or during part of the prenatal period (nine states).[11] Legal challenges to these laws, arguing that they violate Roe v. Wade or other U.S. Supreme Court precedents, have been uniformly rejected by both the federal and the state courts, including the supreme courts of California, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota.

You don't seem to be willing to acknowledge the personhood of the unborn child.  Are you an absolutist in this regard?  Zero personhood until after birth?  Or can you accommodate some measure of personhood in utero?

4 minutes ago, Analytics said:

According to Wikipedia:

In Federal law, the concept of legal personhood is formalized by statute (1 USC §8) to include "every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development." That statute also states that "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being 'born alive' as defined in this section."

It's interesting that you choose to ignore the law on this point.

I did not ignore this statute.  I didn't think of it in the moment.  I have, however, previously addressed it here:

Quote
Quote

I kinda look it it like this: whoever lives inside a woman's body is not under the jurisdiction of the state.

This seems kind of conclusory.  

And it doesn't account for Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which allows for "the jurisdiction of the state" to govern (that is to say, restrict) abortion of a baby "inside a woman's body."

And it also doesn't account for laws which generally do affect a person's body.  Mandatory vaccines come to mind.  Do you likewise oppose these laws?

Also, what are your thoughts about a pregnant woman's "right" to drink during pregnancy?  Use drugs?  Share dirty needles?  

Also, what are your thoughts about the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004?  Are you, as consistency would seem to dictate, opposed to this law?

Also, what are your thoughts about laws that exist in 38 states that "recognize the "unborn child" (the term usually used) or fetus as a homicide victim, and 23 of those states apply this principle throughout the period of pre-natal development?"  Are you, as consistency would seem to dictate, opposed to these laws?

Again, contrary to your suggestion, my position on this issue is not "ad hoc."

4 minutes ago, Analytics said:

In reality, a fetus is alive by the grace of its mother.  That is the reality of the situation.

Not sure what this means.  An unborn child being alive is a function of biology, not "grace."

4 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Once born, the child is recognized as a person.

The child is also recognized as a person before it is born for some purposes.  To quote a guy, it's interesting that you choose to ignore the law on this point.

Even under Roe and Planned Parenthood the government imposed constraints on abortions.  How do you account for that?

4 minutes ago, Analytics said:

That is how the law is, and that is how the law should be.

Looks like the law is about to change, with SCOTUS returning this issue to the state legislatures for them to determine "how the law is."

To quote a guy, "that is how the law should be."  Roe was a pretty horrible decision, as assessment even many of its supporters admit.

4 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Point 3: Constraints on Abortion during Roe

Yes. I find the constraints under Roe to be quite reasonable.

Really?  Why?  

It sounds like we agree that the government can constrain abortion, but we differ as to which branch of government gets to define those constraints (SCOTUS for you, state legislatures for me) and the parameters of those constraints.  Is that a fair characterization?

4 minutes ago, Analytics said:

 

Quote

 

Point 4: Differing Duties of Care

{W}e have never imposed an affirmative duty to donate a kidney.

Conversely, we have always had some constraints on affirmatively killing an unborn child.

 

I agree. There isn't a legal "duty of care" to save the life of somebody who needs a kidney donation.

Okay.  I'm glad we cleared that up.

You seem to also admit that "we have always had some constraints on affirmatively killing an unborn child."  Is that correct?

4 minutes ago, Analytics said:

The fact that people who insist there is a right to life aren't up in arms about the law being this way illustrates the inconsistency of their position. 

If you have a coherent proposal for how a law could be crafted to create a "duty of care" compelling kidney donations, I'm all ears.  Otherwise, this seems like a "Yeahbutwhatabout"-ism.

I think there is a substantial difference between A) a law that prohibits the affirmative act of electively killing an unborn child and B) a law that mandates an affirmative act of donating a kidney.

4 minutes ago, Analytics said:
Quote

 

Point 5: Safe Haven Laws

"Safe haven" laws allowing abandonment of the newborn child, no questions asked, weaken the public policy argument pertaining to women being obligated to spend 18 years raising and paying for the child.  Also, those who truly find elective abortion to be abhorrent should prepare themselves and stand ready to adopt unwanted children abandoned by their birth mothers under such laws.

 

Safe Haven Laws are great, but they don't go far enough.

I think they go about as far as the law can go.

4 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Carrying a baby to term can cause months of disability.

Yes.  That's a risk inherent in pregnancy, which in turn is a risk inherent in participating in sexual activity. 

4 minutes ago, Analytics said:

It can permanently damage her body.  It can even kill her.

There are risks, yes.

But the risk to the life of the child in an abortion is pretty much 100%

4 minutes ago, Analytics said:

And since the people who are "pro life" are the ones most adamant that we shouldn't have universal health care,

CFR.

4 minutes ago, Analytics said:

carrying a baby to term is also very expensive.

Yes.  Again: If women (and men) want to avoid the risk {ETA: and expense} of an unwanted pregnancy, they have the option of not "playing the game."  If they do decide to play the game, and if a risk "inherent in the activity" actually comes to pass, then the law may limit what sorts of legal remedies are available to address that actualized risk.

4 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Because of these considerations, safe haven laws should be expanded so that a woman can have an abortion until the child is viable outside of the womb. No questions asked.

"Until the child is viable" means . . . what?  Are you at all familiar with Roe?  Planned Parenthood v. Casey?

If this is really your position, then do you support or oppose the overturning of Roe?  State legislatures will now have the option of doing what you propose.  

4 minutes ago, Analytics said:
Quote

 

Point 6: Proper Jurisdiction/Oversight

The structure of the Constitution is better supported by leaving this issue to the states rather than to the Nine Enrobed Ones.

 

I don't particularly like "the Nine Enrobed Ones" giving people constitutional rights and then taking them away.

I totally agree with you.  We should look to the Constitution for our rights, and to the states.  The "Nine Enrobed Ones" shouldn't be in the business of fabricating constitutional rights.  What SCOTUS gives, SCOTUS can take away.

I assume you also don't like "the Nine Enrobed Ones" having the power to amend the Constitution with no oversight, no state involvement, etc.?  

4 minutes ago, Analytics said:

The reality of law is messy that way, I suppose. Presuming the Nine Enrobed Ones do take away what is for now a legal constitutional right, the abortion battle won't be over.

I agree.

4 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Nobody is going to say, "We won! It's a states issue. Go home and relax." Instead, they will fight to make abortion illegal on a federal level, and if they were to win that, they'd fight to make it homicide on a federal level and if they win that, they'll fight to make their anti-abortion protection enshrined in the Constitution.

I question whether this will happen.

4 minutes ago, Analytics said:

That is because the pro-life crowd is a useful tool for people who care most about shifting wealth to the rich, and they aren't going to give these tools up.  That's why this issue will never go away. The pro-life crowd won't be content with this being an issue left to the states.

I think most people who are opposed to elective abortion arrive that that position as a matter of morality and ethics.

And I'm not sure how returning abortion to the state legislatures has any relation to "shifting wealth to the rich."  

And I think you don't have a scintilla of evidence to suppor these assertions.

Thank you for addressing the points I have raised.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
30 minutes ago, mtomm said:

I literally had it said to my face by a relative that getting back to work and real life is worth the risk of some people dying. I was NOT being sarcastic.  

It sure came across that way.  Context matters, and you didn't provide any.

30 minutes ago, mtomm said:

But you can also just google it and you'll find several examples of where my relative got the idea that this was okay. 

It was your assertion.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, pogi said:

Constant detached clinical dialogue is nothing but a means to establish common objective ground that we can then build meaning from.   Unfortunately, no one dares admit the objective biological fact that an embryo is a human being, because then they have to face the "humaneness" of it.  I am all happy to get to the humanness of it, but that would require us to acknowledge what is and what is not biologically/objectively human first. 

I wouldn't have thought of your conversation as detached, and definitely not overly clinical.

Also by the way, I have repeatedly and still do acknowledge the humanness of the unborn.

One of the first times this really hit home for me was with a friend. She had been recieving help while also wanting a child. I was feeling vaguely resentful about that. Then, when she told me she was pregnant, I felt an immediate rush of affection for her baby. 

To me it's just so important to listen to the lived experience of people, to be a part of it when we've the opportunity. Even if it's uncomfortable. 

(Not saying this as a tip for you--I think you do this--just as an extension of the topic.)

 

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

I didn't make any assumptions about you or anyone else with my answer.  I just answered with my observation. I am pro-choice for both.  I also am fine with an employer requiring vaccination for employment just as I am fine with some restrictions on abortion. I also believe that people should making an effort to mitigate covid by wearing a mask, getting vaccinated and staying home if sick. I would also support funding free and easily accessible sex education and birth control to minimize unwanted pregnancy.  We all know that none of the time do all of these things work 100%  

(I'm pretty sure you've gotten many "likes" from me on your covid comments in the long covid thread.)
 

If you are pro-choice in relation to Covid, then I was probably not getting many likes from you on the Covid thread in relation to my stance on government mandates for masks, and limited lock-downs, etc.   Pro-choicers thought I was the devil for wanting to restrict their liberties to protect life. 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, mtomm said:

As someone who has faced an unwanted pregnancy at the age of 49 I can tell you under no uncertain terms I understand absolute everything. I've faced this issue straight on and it is not some clinical dialogue to me.  
What I  don't understand is how men who have never had a human grow inside them can lecture women on how they don't understand what they are talking about. We absolutely understand what we are talking about. I'd guess most of us on here responding that women need choices have actually grown and birthed a human.  I also understand the viewpoint of  women default who on the side of the unborn. I can FEEL both sides. 

Is that human enough? 

Holly cow, all I am trying to do is find common objective language that we can communicate to each other with.

I have to say, I get really tired of the women vs men attitude in all of this.   It is not a matter of women vs men...the human beings I am advocating for encompass all sexes, all races, all soceio-economic status, etc. etc. etc.  and I always place the life of the mother above the life of the fetus.  Even where the life of the mother is not at risk, I am still concerned about her welfare and think there needs to be exceptions.

I am not lecturing "women", from my perspective there are men and women on both sides of this issue and I am trying to find common language to build from.  

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Those are two separate questions.  

I can care about a person's welfare and not owe a legal duty to them.  Surely you can appreciate that?

Of course. The question is why do you specifically (and the pro-life crowd in general) believe the fetus is owed a legal duty and the person who needs a kidney is not. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Yes, they do.  Rape is a very common exception to constraints on abortion.  Rape-by-fraud / rape-by-deceit seems to be a very rare thing, but I would nevertheless support legislation creating an exception for it.  Same goes for rape-by-coercion (which I would construe as being something like "Reproductive coercion" described here).

Kudus for being more reasonable than most of the policymakers and pundits on the pro-life side.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

If women (and men) want to avoid the risk of an unwanted pregnancy, they have the option of not "playing the game."  If they do decide to play the game, and if a risk "inherent in the activity" actually comes to pass, then the law may limit what sorts of legal remedies are available to address that actualized risk.

I don't see how B follows from A. If I said, "If somebody wants to avoid getting in a car accident, they have the right to stay away from roads. If they do decide to travel on or near roads and get in an accident," it doesn't necessarily follow that "then the law may limit what sort of legal remedies are available to address that actualized risk."

In a broad sense, "the law" may do whatever it wants to do, but just because it may do something doesn't mean it should.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

You don't seem to be willing to acknowledge the personhood of the unborn child.  Are you an absolutist in this regard?  Zero personhood until after birth?  Or can you accommodate some measure of personhood in utero?

I wouldn't say I'm an absolutist. I just think that the mother has jurisdiction over what happens inside her own body, and that whatever personhood rights a fetus may have, they don't trump the rights of the mother to make her own healthcare choices without the state barging in and insisting that it knows what's best.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Not sure what this means.  An unborn child being alive is a function of biology, not "grace."

What I mean is that without the mother, the fetus is not alive. She has jurisdiction with regards to what happens inside her body. The state does not.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Really?  Why?  

The essay, The Question of Abortion: A Search for Answers by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan articulates the argument. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

It sounds like we agree that the government can constrain abortion, but we differ as to which branch of government gets to define those constraints (SCOTUS for you, state legislatures for me) and the parameters of those constraints.  Is that a fair characterization?

I wouldn't necessarily say I think SCOTUS gets to define those constraints. Otherwise, that's fair.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

You seem to also admit that "we have always had some constraints on affirmatively killing an unborn child."  Is that correct?

I'm not an expert on the history of the law.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I think there is a substantial difference between A) a law that prohibits the affirmative act of electively killing an unborn child and B) a law that mandates an affirmative act of donating a kidney.

Anti-abortion laws are laws that mandate the affirmative action of carrying a pregnancy to full term. Mandating that somebody donate a kidney and mandating that somebody carry a baby to full term are substantially the same--they are both mandating that somebody take affirmative action that entails great pain, risk, and sacrifice so that another may live. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

CFR.

Can you clarify? Are you asking for a reference that conservatives are against universal healthcare, or are you asking for a reference that conservatives are in favor of criminalizing abortion?

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I assume you also don't like "the Nine Enrobed Ones" having the power to amend the Constitution with no oversight, no state involvement, etc.?  

Regardless of the issue, the losers on a SCOTUS issue will likely say the justices are writing the Constitution to suite their own whims.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

And I'm not sure how returning abortion to the state legislatures has any relation to "shifting wealth to the rich."  

And I think you don't have a scintilla of evidence to suppor these assertions.

Your position that this should be delegated to the states seems to contradict your position that fetuses are entitled to full personhood. The Constitution and federal law give certain rights to persons, do they not?

In any case, while there are some people who are against Roe vs. Wade because they don't believe it is in the Constitution but otherwise are fine with women having robust rights to make their own medical decisions, such people are in the minority among the pro-life crowd.

For example:

The Susan B. Anthony List, an anti-abortion political group, is planning a strategy involving state legislatures where it sees room to advance their cause or protect it. The National Right to Life is trying to support its affiliates in every state as it looks to lobby lawmakers. Both groups have been hoping to build support in Congress for a national abortion ban, even if it could take years, just as it did to gain momentum to undo Roe. Many Republicans have repeatedly tried to enact a ban at about 20 weeks, without success....

“If the fetus is a person, then we should protect them with the same homicide laws that protect born persons,” said Bradley Pierce, who helped draft the Louisiana legislation and leads the Foundation to Abolish Abortion. “That’s what equal protection means.” 

See If Roe Is Struck Down, Where Does the Anti-Abortion Movement Go Next? - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

In any case, my point is that when you look at the conservative coalition, you have to ask the question, who benefits? The answer is the ultra rich. They save the most in tax cuts. Their profits increase the most when regulations are reduced. They profit the most when labor rights are reduced. They profit the most when the government increases military spending. They profit the most when the government bails them out because they are too big to fail. They profit the most when healthcare insurance coverage is taken away from the working class.

I'm sure that the people who say they care deeply about criminalizing abortion because they care about babies are sincere. But that doesn't mean they aren't tools who consistently vote against their own self interest.

Edited by Analytics
Link to comment
38 minutes ago, pogi said:

If you are pro-choice in relation to Covid, then I was probably not getting many likes for you on the Covid thread in relation to my stance on government mandates for masks, and limited lock-downs, etc.   Pro-choicers thought I was the devil for wanting to restrict their liberties to protect life. 

I've actually noticed the opposite.  Pro-choice people tend to be liberals, and most liberals seemed to have been in favor of the mask mandates. So the "yes mask mandate" crowd is also the "my body by choice" crowd.

And vice-versa.  The "my body my choice for masks" crowd is also the "anti-choice for abortion" crowd.

Both sides, generally speaking, have hypocritical aspects to them.  But that's probably because the issues on both sides are much more nuanced than the caricatures that are presented by the other side.

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I've actually noticed the opposite.  Pro-choice people tend to be liberals, and most liberals seemed to have been in favor of the mask mandates. So the "yes mask mandate" crowd is also the "my body by choice" crowd.

And vice-versa.  The "my body my choice for masks" crowd is also the "anti-choice for abortion" crowd.

Both sides, generally speaking, have hypocritical aspects to them.  But that's probably because the issues on both sides are much more nuanced than the caricatures that are presented by the other side.

Maybe I wasn't clear but that is exactly my point.  There definitely is more nuance, but when it comes down to the core principles of sacrificing some liberties to protect life, it really is the same argument I have been using for the last two years in relation to Covid.  I am repeating myself almost word for word.  So it is really interesting to see how different people react to the same argument, same principles, and same words in each scenario.    

Link to comment
7 hours ago, bluebell said:

The documentary One Child Nation on Prime is one of the hardest documentaries that I've ever watched.  Mostly because of the number of babies that were forcibly aborted or killed after birth because of the policy.  They did not shy away from showing those practices or explaining them in detail.  

I recommend it to everyone though because I think it's an important history to face (even though it's not our history specifically).

It could be…the implications of a male heavy population in China and India could be global. There is concern that single males may be more likely drawn to nationalism and crime, for instance. Add in greater mobility and less responsibility…But this is a derail, so probably should drop it. :) 

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, pogi said:

Maybe I wasn't clear but that is exactly my point.  There definitely is more nuance, but when it comes down to the core principles of sacrificing some liberties to protect life, it really is the same argument I have been using for the last two years in relation to Covid.  I am repeating myself almost word for word.  So it is really interesting to see how different people react to the same argument, same principles, and same words in each scenario.    

I think it makes sense that some react differently, since the scenarios are different and can be seen in different way depending on personal experience.  

Link to comment
7 hours ago, mtomm said:

When does it become a compelling interest of the state to force her to abort in order to receive treatments in the hopes that she not leave her children motherless? 

Hard decision.  I personally delayed pregnancy 8 years knowing this could result in fewer children (and it did, I have two instead of the expected and desired 4 or 5) because I saw how hard pregnancy and post partum was for me and I wasn’t going to set up a situation where I might be neglecting of my first child for a couple of years when he needed me most. I felt I had a stronger duty towards him than I did any future children. But I also never saw those future children as individuals and I know that is not always the case. I believe that some women may be connected in ways that I was not and so may have a different sense of obligation. But I also know of a few women who just chose the number of kids they wanted before they were even married and insisted on it no matter the situation (a distant relative did this, her kids were sleeping on mattresses on the floor and were overwhelming her and her husband, but because her role model had so many kids, she had to have one more and threatened divorce if her husband didn’t agree.)

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Of course. The question is why do you specifically (and the pro-life crowd in general) believe the fetus is owed a legal duty and the person who needs a kidney is not. 

First, I'm not sure "the pro-life crowd in general" thinks any such thing.

Second, again: I think there is a substantial difference between A) a law that prohibits the affirmative act of electively killing an unborn child and B) a law that mandates an affirmative act of donating a kidney. 

Third, I would also think that most folks believe that a mother owes a duty to her children.  A moral/ethical/biological duty.  I don't think there is much of a corollary relationship/duty between the general public and an individual who needs a kidney.

12 minutes ago, Analytics said:
Quote

Yes, they do.  Rape is a very common exception to constraints on abortion.  Rape-by-fraud / rape-by-deceit seems to be a very rare thing, but I would nevertheless support legislation creating an exception for it.  Same goes for rape-by-coercion (which I would construe as being something like "Reproductive coercion" described here).

Kudus for being more reasonable than most of the policymakers and pundits on the pro-life side.

Okay.

12 minutes ago, Analytics said:
Quote

If women (and men) want to avoid the risk of an unwanted pregnancy, they have the option of not "playing the game."  If they do decide to play the game, and if a risk "inherent in the activity" actually comes to pass, then the law may limit what sorts of legal remedies are available to address that actualized risk.

I don't see how B follows from A.

I'm not sure what you are referring to here.  What are "B" and "A"?

12 minutes ago, Analytics said:

If I said, "If somebody wants to avoid getting in a car accident, they have the right to stay away from roads. If they do decide to travel on or near roads and get in an accident," it doesn't necessarily follow that "then the law may limit what sort of legal remedies are available to address that actualized risk."

Yes, actually, it does follow.  If you assume the risks inherent in driving a car, your legal remedies are not unlimited.  If you get into a fender bender, you do not get to shoot and kill the fellow who hit you.  

12 minutes ago, Analytics said:

In a broad sense, "the law" may do whatever it wants to do, but just because it may do something doesn't mean it should.

Sure.  But in this context, I think the law "should" generally protect the lives of unborn children.

12 minutes ago, Analytics said:
Quote

You don't seem to be willing to acknowledge the personhood of the unborn child.  Are you an absolutist in this regard?  Zero personhood until after birth?  Or can you accommodate some measure of personhood in utero?

I wouldn't say I'm an absolutist. I just think that the mother has jurisdiction over what happens inside her own body, and that whatever personhood rights a fetus may have, they don't trump the rights of the mother to make her own healthcare choices without the state barging in and insisting that it knows what's best.

That sounds pretty absolutist.

Again, do you advocate zero personhood until after birth?  Or can you accommodate some measure of personhood in utero?

12 minutes ago, Analytics said:
Quote
Quote

In reality, a fetus is alive by the grace of its mother.  That is the reality of the situation.

Not sure what this means.  An unborn child being alive is a function of biology, not "grace."

What I mean is that without the mother, the fetus is not alive.

Again, that is a function of biology, not "grace."

12 minutes ago, Analytics said:

She has jurisdiction with regards to what happens inside her body. The state does not.

This is substantially inaccurate.  Under Roe and Planned Parentood v. Casey, the women never had unlimited "jurisdiction over what happens inside her own body," and the government retained "jurisdiction" to some extent. 

"The state" never ceded this jurisdiction.  Instead, Roe and Casey sought to present how much authority/jurisdiction the state could exercise "with regards to what happens insider {a woman's} body."  You are asserting an absolutist statement that is simply not so.  Do you acknowledge this?

12 minutes ago, Analytics said:
Quote

 

Quote

Point 3: Constraints on Abortion during Roe

Yes. I find the constraints under Roe to be quite reasonable.

 

The essay, The Question of Abortion: A Search for Answers by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan articulates the argument. 

Care to sum up the parts you have in mind?

You found the constraints under Roe to be "quite reasonable," but those constraints contradict your assertion that a woman "has jurisdiction with regards to what happens inside her body," and that the state "does not."

12 minutes ago, Analytics said:
Quote

It sounds like we agree that the government can constrain abortion, but we differ as to which branch of government gets to define those constraints (SCOTUS for you, state legislatures for me) and the parameters of those constraints.  Is that a fair characterization?

I wouldn't necessarily say I think SCOTUS gets to define those constraints. Otherwise, that's fair.

I must say that I am confused.  If you agree that "government gets to define those constraints {on abortion}," how do you square that with your statement above that the state "does not" have jurisdiction over "what happens inside {a woman's} body"?

12 minutes ago, Analytics said:
Quote
Quote

 

Quote

Conversely, we have always had some constraints on affirmatively killing an unborn child.

I agree. There isn't a legal "duty of care" to save the life of somebody who needs a kidney donation.

 

You seem to also admit that "we have always had some constraints on affirmatively killing an unborn child."  Is that correct?

I'm not an expert on the history of the law.

I'm not expecting that, and I'm not trying to ensnare you.  I want to understand.  I think the government (specifically, the states) have the legal authority to regulate abortion.  I said "we have always had some constraints on affirmatively killing an unborn child," and you responded with "I agree."  You also state above that you agree that "government gets to define those constraints {on abortion}."  And yet you also assert that "the state does not {have jurisdiction with regards to what happens inside a woman's body}."

So which is it?  Does the state have legal authority to regulate abortion, or not?  What is your position?

12 minutes ago, Analytics said:
Quote

I think there is a substantial difference between A) a law that prohibits the affirmative act of electively killing an unborn child and B) a law that mandates an affirmative act of donating a kidney.

Anti-abortion laws are laws that mandate the affirmative action of carrying a pregnancy to full term.

I don't think so.  Anti-abortion laws constrain actions to stop what will otherwise happen without human intervention.  

12 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Mandating that somebody donate a kidney and mandating that somebody carry a baby to full term are substantially the same

They are not.  There is no duty under the law to donate a kidney.  

Again, if you have a coherent proposal for how a law could be crafted to create a "duty of care" compelling kidney donations, I'm all ears.  Otherwise, this seems like a "Yeahbutwhatabout"-ism. 

12 minutes ago, Analytics said:

--they are both mandating that somebody take affirmative action that entails great pain, risk, and sacrifice so that another may live. 

Nope.  The pregnancy has already happened.  Aborting the child is an "affirmative act," but not aborting the child is not.

12 minutes ago, Analytics said:
Quote

CFR.

Can you clarify? Are you asking for a reference that conservatives are against universal healthcare, or are you asking for a reference that conservatives are in favor of criminalizing abortion?

Evidence, please that "people who are 'pro life' are the ones most adamant that we shouldn't have universal health care."

You may be right, but I'm asking you to substantiate it.

Most folks who have served in the military have had some experience with socialized medicine (I grant that the euphemism "universal health care" sounds nicer).  The VA stinks.  The government is massively inept and wasteful at most of the things it is supposed to do.  Do we really want the same folks running Social Security, the Post Office, etc. to be in charge of health care?  Do we really want the government - which is immune from most lawsuits - to be in charge of health care?

I have no faith in the competency of the federal government to efficiently and effectively and fairly administer the medical care and treatment of American citizens.  

12 minutes ago, Analytics said:
Quote

I assume you also don't like "the Nine Enrobed Ones" having the power to amend the Constitution with no oversight, no state involvement, etc.?  

Regardless of the issue, the losers on a SCOTUS issue will likely say the justices are writing the Constitution to suite their own whims.

That's not answer to my question.  You have no obligation to respond, of course.  But the dodge is noted.

12 minutes ago, Analytics said:
Quote

 

And I'm not sure how returning abortion to the state legislatures has any relation to "shifting wealth to the rich."  

And I think you don't have a scintilla of evidence to suppor these assertions.

 

Your position that this should be delegated to the states

Yes.  That seems to be what the Constitution calls for.

12 minutes ago, Analytics said:

seems to contradict your position that fetuses are entitled to full personhood.

Nope.  I can walk and chew gum at the same time.  I can affirm the personhood of the unborn and believe that abortion is a matter for the states, not the Enrobed Ones.

12 minutes ago, Analytics said:

The Constitution and federal law give certain rights to persons, do they not?

Yes.  And the Constitution delegates areas of authority as between A) the federal government, B) state governments, and C) the people.

12 minutes ago, Analytics said:

In any case, while there are some people who are against Roe vs. Wade because they don't believe it is in the Constitution but otherwise are fine with women having robust rights to make their own medical decisions, such people are in the minority among the pro-life crowd.

I disagree.  "The pro-life crowd" is overwhelmingly indifferent to women's "medical decisions."  The notable exception is when there is another person's life at issue.  

12 minutes ago, Analytics said:

For example:

The Susan B. Anthony List, an anti-abortion political group, is planning a strategy involving state legislatures where it sees room to advance their cause or protect it. The National Right to Life is trying to support its affiliates in every state as it looks to lobby lawmakers. Both groups have been hoping to build support in Congress for a national abortion ban, even if it could take years, just as it did to gain momentum to undo Roe. Many Republicans have repeatedly tried to enact a ban at about 20 weeks, without success....

“If the fetus is a person, then we should protect them with the same homicide laws that protect born persons,” said Bradley Pierce, who helped draft the Louisiana legislation and leads the Foundation to Abolish Abortion. “That’s what equal protection means.” 

See If Roe Is Struck Down, Where Does the Anti-Abortion Movement Go Next? - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

I would be opposed to a "national abortion ban."  Not because I favor abortion, but because I believe our system of laws works best when it accords with the Constitution.  I don't believe Congress has Constitutional authority to regulate abortion.  I believe it is a matter to be left to the states.

That means that I need to accommodate laws that I personally find abhorrent, such as California's prospective nigh-unto-infanticide approach.

12 minutes ago, Analytics said:

In any case, my point is that when you look at the conservative coalition, you have to ask the question, who benefits? 

Meh.  My opposition to abortion is predominantly and overwhelmingly moral, not political.

12 minutes ago, Analytics said:

The answer is the ultra rich.

The political left controls Hollywood and entertainment, most news outlets, most mainstream media, academia, "tech" companies, and on and on.  Most of these folks seem to be benefitting quite a bit from the status quo.

Abortion is not a fiscal issue, though.

12 minutes ago, Analytics said:

They save the most in tax cuts. Their profits increase the most when regulations are reduced.

Reducing the number of abortions will hurt Planned Parenthood.  Hardly a bastion of "the conservative coalition."

12 minutes ago, Analytics said:

They profit the most when labor rights are reduced.

Price of tea in China.  

12 minutes ago, Analytics said:

They profit the most when the government increases military spending.

Price of tea in China.  Again.

12 minutes ago, Analytics said:

They profit the most when the government bails them out because they are too big to fail.

None of these is relevant to the overturning of Roe and returning the regulation of abortion to the states.

12 minutes ago, Analytics said:

They profit the most when healthcare insurance coverage is taken away from the working class.

Oi.  

12 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I'm sure that the people who say they care deeply about criminalizing abortion because they care about babies are sincere. But that doesn't mean they aren't tools who consistently vote against their own self interest.

Nary a scintilla of evidence in any of this.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think it makes sense that some react differently, since the scenarios are different and can be seen in different way depending on personal experience.  

I think what this demonstrates is that we all probably have more in common than we act when it comes down to core principles.    The problem is the spin.  There are always two stories to choose from.   Both Covid and abortion have suffered significant spin.  If we could all agree with the basic facts and information in each case, I think we would more likely than not agree with each other a lot more, but not entirely, as values will have different shades.

I have found the spin to be the poison for both sides.  It keeps us from seeing each other eye to eye.  Hence “The Social Dilemma”. I encourage all to watch it. 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I've actually noticed the opposite.  Pro-choice people tend to be liberals, and most liberals seemed to have been in favor of the mask mandates. So the "yes mask mandate" crowd is also the "my body by choice" crowd.

And vice-versa.  The "my body my choice for masks" crowd is also the "anti-choice for abortion" crowd.

Both sides, generally speaking, have hypocritical aspects to them.  But that's probably because the issues on both sides are much more nuanced than the caricatures that are presented by the other side.

These two things are not comparable. At all!!! Pregnancy involves from one to a select few individuals. A pandemic involves all the people of the world. I work in for the government in public health and for the last couple of years I have been acting as a local epidemiologist, so my view may be skewed a bit. My take will always involve more caution than not, and that goes for both pregnancy and Covid mandates.

I don't really care for the "my body my choice" slogan either way. I will continue to stay out of the Roe vs Wade argument here because, frankly, I doubt much will change either way. A few states will get a bit stricter, but not the "world is falling" that some make it out to be. A few states will get less strict, but not the "world is falling" that some make it out to be. And we will all get along with our lives with the majority of states keeping the status quo.

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, filovirus said:

These two things are not comparable. At all!!! Pregnancy involves from one to a select few individuals. A pandemic involves all the people of the world. I work in for the government in public health and for the last couple of years I have been acting as a local epidemiologist, so my view may be skewed a bit. My take will always involve more caution than not, and that goes for both pregnancy and Covid mandates.

I don't really care for the "my body my choice" slogan either way. I will continue to stay out of the Roe vs Wade argument here because, frankly, I doubt much will change either way. A few states will get a bit stricter, but not the "world is falling" that some make it out to be. A few states will get less strict, but not the "world is falling" that some make it out to be. And we will all get along with our lives with the majority of states keeping the status quo.

I agree they aren't comparable.  That's why I rolled my eyes when I saw my liberal friends trying to be witty sharing memes comparing conservative reactions to covid with their beliefs on abortion on Facebook, and am rolling them again now that my conservative friends are basically doing the exact same thing, just from the opposite point of view.

Link to comment

As fascinating as the biology discussion is are there any comments on protesters entering Our Lady of the Angels Catholic church during services and disrupting them? What about protesting at a Supreme Court justice's home? These things are illegal but not being enforced.

Link to comment
16 hours ago, mtomm said:

I literally had it said to my face by a relative that getting back to work and real life is worth the risk of some people dying. I was NOT being sarcastic.  
But you can also just google it and you'll find several examples of where my relative got the idea that this was okay. 

I actually appreciate any pro-abortion argument that acknowledges the human life in the mother’s womb.  The bodily autonomy argument  doesn’t work when you’re talking to pro-lifers.   They don’t care about the woman’s body. They care about the baby’s body.

Link to comment
19 hours ago, pogi said:

I feel like I am getting whiplash and honestly feel like you are just messing with me now.  But I know that is not your style and personality, so what am I missing here?  Genuinely. 

This is what you just said:

What do you think I am inferring about it?  I am just repeating what you agreed with to clarify if we indeed are on the same page as far as biology goes - without any inferred meaning whatsoever.  That it is a human being.  That is what biology states.  Any meaning that you or others want to place on that is up to you, but that is not the purpose of the taxonomy of biology in relation to humans.   

You literally just said that "neither of us disagree" with the biology and labeling, but only on the "interpretation of its significance".  You then accused me of making inferences as to being equal in rights or meaning etc. which I did not do.  I am simply trying to get you to acknowledge the basic fundamental terminology of human life.  Which has been like pulling teeth.  Just when I feel like we were finally getting somewhere you hit me with this most recent response. 

With the quote that you now appear to be backtracking on and equivocating with, you said "Again, not something I disagree with".  You only disagree with what I "am inferring about it".  I was super duper duper careful to respond in a way to only address the taxonomic labels that biologists apply to human life.  I was making it ONLY about biologicals terms and taxonomic identification.    I was extremely careful to not interpret any significance onto it.  I was only repeating what you already "agreed" with in that the zygote is a human being.  Am I to understand that you actually disagree with that quote, with me, and with the consensus of biology on this subject of human taxonomy and nomenclature - even though you just claimed that we are agreed on the biology?  I am not suggesting any inherent or philosophical meaning on to the term human being at this point.  It is a biological term that distinguishes species type so that we can agree on the biological basics of what we are talking about. 

To call any individual organism an "individual organism" is not an interpretation or application of meaning or value to the entity.  It is simply stating the biological fact that it is a unique individual (single or distinct from mother or father) organism.  Why you are taking issue with this or think it is an "interpretation" of biology which is placing meaning on these terms, is beyond me.  It simply means that it is unique and distinct from all other living human organisms - so as to not confuse it with other types of human life (like a liver or skin cell).    Whatever philosophical meaning you are placing on the word "individual" is on you.  I have been careful not to go there.  The other term is "human being".  Again, whatever meaning you place on that term is on you, that is not the purpose of biology.  Homo sapiens aka human being are biological taxonomy to identify species type.  Are you suggesting that the zygote is not of our species?  Once and for all, is it or is it not a human being?  Because at first you said it was not, then you agreed that it was, now...I have no idea where you stand.    

Color confused.  I feel like you are all over the place here.   

Identifying an organism by its proper biological taxonomy and nomenclature (human being) is NOT "interpreting what that must mean to something..."  I have been careful to avoid applying any philosophical meaning or legal rights to the term.  I am trying VERY HARD to keep it to simple and pure biological terms.  I am keeping to the science.  You are project meaning on those words and are accusing me of inferring things that I have not.  For several pages now, I have been beyond clear that I am trying to simplify the conversation and make it just about biology.  I have done so.  Will you PLEASE join me when you are ready?

It was clear to me that we did not agree on the biological taxonomy and nomenclature of humans at conception.   You made it very clear that I was wrong and that there was not biological consensus.  You then surprise me suggesting that we agree on the biology and that you agree with the quotes I provided suggesting it is a human being.  Now, I have no idea what you agree with.   Individual organism is a biological term.  So is human being.  How is this not biology?  Do we or do we not agree on the biology?

Let me try to be clear one more time. 

What is by no means questionable:
 An enbryo made of a human sperm and egg is a human embryo at conception. It has the specific genetic markers that if tested would distinguish it as homo sapien sapien with code that will bring on a human form and structure if it’s functional and given an adequate environment.

Notice the words I used. These are neutral scientific terms. (ps. Human being is not the correct taxonomy and nomenclature...homo sapien or homo sapien sapen is). This time, I used google scholar to search “human being zygote” I put “being” to weigh the scales toward any scientific research that may have used that term and made the cut off year 2018. I got no use of the phrase "human being." What I got were dry technical reports on human embryos, oocytes, or zygotes. None of them used the term human being in the paper (when I had access) or the abstracts. Not one. Science works to use not just neutral but technical/specific terminology.


The only research papers that came up with the terms “human life,” “human Being,” or something like that were papers exploring bioethics or philosophy. I then tried “biological identity human zygote.” I got even more philosophy/bioethics and randomly 2 amateur papers…one that used many of the same references that seem to be on every last pro-life “scientific” argument. Curious about that, I found an article that decscribed 3 main "camps" in bioethics....namely Functionalism, Gradualism, and  inherent personhood/conceptualism. Another described it as conservative, liberal, and gradualist. (note the first was a little more biased to inherent personhood...the last gave a broader overview).

The first ends like this:

Quote

Both approaches can be argued logically, but underlying each is a very different world view. As Walters has stated, “a thinker’s position on the moral status of human life is profoundly influenced by his or her antecedently held moral values. That is, one’s view of a human and what one selects—or inherits—as criteria for determining the presence of moral status is largely determined by preexisting personal, religious, or philosophical views.”19 Nonetheless, it is important to dialogue on the issues so that we can learn from one another’s perspectives. Given the importance of this topic for human worth, it is crucial to find the best possible answer.

So let me go back one more time to your post. TBH I somehow missed the first quote until you responded with part of it. The second (the purpose and stages of development) is just a layman's/accessible description of basic scientific fact: all adult humans consists of trillions of cells. Each adult human developed from a single cell....aka a fertilized egg. The transformation happened because of development. I can't think of a single human being who would argue against that (although i did notice a paper title that seemed to infer that they might...but I didn't open it so I could be wrong).

The first is a bioethical argument from the conceptualist camp obfuscating the fact that it is a bioethical argument to pretend complete alliance with science. The terms I highlighted in my last post are all terms that are not used in neutral scientific papers. They're all laden with philosophical meaning and argument. This is not simply "scientific fact." Raw/neutral Science does not weigh in on terms like this....heck they seem to even stay away from the phrase "human life"....because all of these are laden with social meaning and are inherently not neutral and/or technical. 

So to recap. If you want to say that a human embryo generally functions to develop into a human infant, I won't disagree. If you want to continue from there to say, Science says a human embryo is therefore a human being, I'll disagree because the term "human being" is not inherently defined by science but is a philosophical term that's defined differently by different schools of thought. 

 

Hopefully that helps your whiplash.

With luv,

BD

 

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

Let me try to be clear one more time. 

What is by no means questionable:
 An enbryo made of a human sperm and egg is a human embryo at conception. It has the specific genetic markers that if tested would distinguish it as homo sapien sapien with code that will bring on a human form and structure if it’s functional and given an adequate environment.

Notice the words I used. These are neutral scientific terms. (ps. Human being is not the correct taxonomy and nomenclature...homo sapien or homo sapien sapen is). This time, I used google scholar to search “human being zygote” I put “being” to weigh the scales toward any scientific research that may have used that term and made the cut off year 2018. I got no use of the phrase "human being." What I got were dry technical reports on human embryos, oocytes, or zygotes. None of them used the term human being in the paper (when I had access) or the abstracts. Not one. Science works to use not just neutral but technical/specific terminology.


The only research papers that came up with the terms “human life,” “human Being,” or something like that were papers exploring bioethics or philosophy. I then tried “biological identity human zygote.” I got even more philosophy/bioethics and randomly 2 amateur papers…one that used many of the same references that seem to be on every last pro-life “scientific” argument. Curious about that, I found an article that decscribed 3 main "camps" in bioethics....namely Functionalism, Gradualism, and  inherent personhood/conceptualism. Another described it as conservative, liberal, and gradualist. (note the first was a little more biased to inherent personhood...the last gave a broader overview).

The first ends like this:

So let me go back one more time to your post. TBH I somehow missed the first quote until you responded with part of it. The second (the purpose and stages of development) is just a layman's/accessible description of basic scientific fact: all adult humans consists of trillions of cells. Each adult human developed from a single cell....aka a fertilized egg. The transformation happened because of development. I can't think of a single human being who would argue against that (although i did notice a paper title that seemed to infer that they might...but I didn't open it so I could be wrong).

The first is a bioethical argument from the conceptualist camp obfuscating the fact that it is a bioethical argument to pretend complete alliance with science. The terms I highlighted in my last post are all terms that are not used in neutral scientific papers. They're all laden with philosophical meaning and argument. This is not simply "scientific fact." Raw/neutral Science does not weigh in on terms like this....heck they seem to even stay away from the phrase "human life"....because all of these are laden with social meaning and are inherently not neutral and/or technical. 

So to recap. If you want to say that a human embryo generally functions to develop into a human infant, I won't disagree. If you want to continue from there to say, Science says a human embryo is therefore a human being, I'll disagree because the term "human being" is not inherently defined by science but is a philosophical term that's defined differently by different schools of thought. 

 

Hopefully that helps your whiplash.

With luv,

BD

 

Thanks for clarifying.  

Every living organism has a common name and a scientific name in biology.   They are used interchangeably and synonymously in biology.  The scientific names are more precise where a common name might refer to several species of "badger" for example.  The scientific name lets us know exactly which badger we are talking about.  We don't have that same problem with humans however, as human beings are the only living species that belong to the genus "Homo".  So the common name and scientific name leads to no ambiguity whatsoever as to what one is referring to and are completely synonymous.    For example, I have a Northern Red Oak tree in my yard that I just planted a couple years ago.  That is the common name for Quercus rubra.  Biologists identify them to be the same thing - there is no distinguishing factor between Norther Red Oak and Querca rubra.  They are the same in the eyes of biology. 

"Human" is the short-hand of "human being", which is the common name of "Homo sapiens".  No biologist would object to referring to the Homo sapiens species in the common name "human being".  I truly do not understand your hang up on this term.  Perhaps it is all of the philosophical meaning that you personally are injecting into it.  I am genuinely confused as to why you are ok with the short-hand common name but not the long-hand common name - neither of which are scientific names, but both of which are synonymous with Homo sapiens.      

I tried to search on google scholar as well, but I can't find how to limit articles by biology journals.  Any help anyone.  I would like to search for any evidence of the long-hand "human being" being the common name for Homo sapiens in a biology journal.  I did however find other biology sources on-line that are not journals which confirm this fact:

Quote

Scientific name:
Homo sapiens

Common name:
human being

https://www.biologyonline.com/dictionary/human

Quote
Quote

Human biology is the branch of biology that focuses on human beings 
https://biologydictionary.net/human-biology/

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#:~:text=In biological terms%2C a human,frees the hands for manipulating

No biologist would distinguish between "a human" and "a human being", or suggest that it is ok to use "human" in biology, but not "human being".  That simply is not a justifiable claim.  Both would be recognized as the common name for Homo sapiens and would use them interchangeably.  

To put it as simple as possible - "Human being" is a type of species in biology, not a developmental milestone as you seem to be suggesting.  That simply is not how the term is used in biology. 

 


 


 


 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
On 5/10/2022 at 2:18 PM, mtomm said:

I literally had it said to my face by a relative that getting back to work and real life is worth the risk of some people dying. I was NOT being sarcastic.  
But you can also just google it and you'll find several examples of where my relative got the idea that this was okay. 

Well, I did find an article where U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen couched abortion in economic terms:

Quote

Sen. Tim Scott gave a powerful response Tuesday to U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen when she claimed women, especially black women, need to abort their unborn babies to succeed.

Scott, a South Carolina Republican, criticized Yellen for being “harsh” and “callous,” pointing out how he became a senator even though his mother raised him in extreme poverty, the Independent Journal Review reports.

“I’ll just simply say that as a guy raised by a black woman in abject poverty, I am thankful to be here as a United States senator,” Scott told Yellen.

On Tuesday, Yellen defended abortion and Roe v. Wade during questioning at a U.S. Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee hearing. The treasury secretary said she believes banning abortion would be “very damaging” to the economy, according to the report.

“I believe that eliminating the right of women to make decisions about when and whether to have children would have very damaging effects on the economy and would set women back decades,” she said.

Yellen said research shows that women who are denied abortions have an increased risk of living in poverty or needing welfare, and she specifically mentioned black women, who have a disproportionately high abortion rate compared to other racial groups, CNN reports.

Scott responded with surprise to the Biden administration official’s argument, saying it’s “harsh” and callous” to claim that killing unborn children is good for the economy.
...
Though abortions kill children, Yellen made the argument that legalized abortion leads to a better environment for children, too.

“Research also shows that it had a favorable impact on the well-being and earnings of children,” she said. “It means that children will grow up in poverty and do worse themselves. This is not harsh. This is the truth.”

But Scott said his own life story is evidence against those claims.

“I’ll just simply say that as a guy raised by a black woman in abject poverty, I am thankful to be here as a United States senator,” he told Yellen.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Well, I did find an article where U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen couched abortion in economic terms:

Thanks,

-Smac

 

ETA: Many people are pro-choice because they understand that when women are faced with an unwanted pregnancy they will do desperate things. The more difficult the situation the more hazardous and risky chances they'll take. 

I heard her remarks and thought the same thing you are thinking. Yeah, it sounds gross. Wouldn't it be great  if the economic fears that cause so many women to consider abortion be diminished? 
Just like the risk of spreading covid could be diminished by wearing masks, social distancing, and getting vaccinated (that so many pro-lifers that I know still continue to mock) which we know would save lives and have economic benefits. 
We can't remove all risk but we certainly can mitigate them. I am not convinced that the pro-lifers appreciate the economic impacts of their stance. Whereas, I very much understand the economic impacts of covid shut-downs and being pro-choice. 

The states with the strictest abortion laws are the suckiest at helping women and children. You can kind of see why the they've received the nickname "pro-birth" instead of being pro-life. 

Generally, states with preemptive abortion bans or laws that greatly restrict abortion access showed the worst rankings.

Edited by mtomm
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...