Roe v. Wade: 42 Years in the Past

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
In Virginia, on the other hand, it appears that Zygotes are already considered “persons”.

Women in Virginia will have to be very, very careful not to have any miscarriages in that state.

One wonders whether the Sheriff’s department will be examining maxi-pads and tampons for evidence of manslaughter.[/quote]

False, and you know it. I’m surprised you left a hole this wide in your post.

Man falls over and dies of a heartattack, we don’t arrest the bacon he ate and cigars he smoked. Come on, lol.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

That’s right. Life begins at conception, and seventy percent of those babies DIE without their mothers ever being aware.

[/quote]

Funny, and informative post.

I do wish I had time to write an op-ed about the absurdity of this here that I’ve quoted, when compared to the {rather astonishing given the “Science”) rate of “unwanted” pregnancies.

My rant would have nothing to do with abortion, but rather philosophy I guess. It’s just one of life’s crazy, crazy things. [/quote]

136 babies die for ever 168 that are conceived.

99.99 percent of every species that ever lived on the planet are now extinct.

Another star the size of our sun explodes every second, and has exploded every second since the beginning of time.

But cheer up. It’s all part of the plan.

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:
Why is it the people most adamant about outlawing abortion are also the most adamant about cutting social services to help the little sprogs when they finally drop out of the womb?

I guess jesus only casts his magical blessings for those under a year old. Then his followers become ardent social darwinists.[/quote]

Perhaps you’d like to take a swing at making an argument that isn’t a raging straw man?[/quote]

How is what I said an informal fallacy? Almost all pro life people are right wing, they also happen to be mainly religious. These same people clearly overwhelmingly vote for people who are for scalling back or removing social services.

You don’t think this is true?[/quote]

For a million reasons that is a strawman.

  1. you committed a major informal fallacy precisely BECAUSE you are generalizing. It is deductively invalid, therefore it is a fallacy. It is not enough to say “this is true in majority, therefore it is true”. That’s patently invalid and you should know better.

  2. There are plenty of pro-life advocates that are not Christian, and plenty more that are not even religious. sub point a) you equate ‘religious’ with ‘Christian’, which is patently inaccurate, and sub point b) you completely ignore the non-religious pro-life advocates, which are substantial.

  3. the pro-life position does not depend on religion for many of its arguments, which you ignore. Some yes, not all.

  4. Beans pointed out some more–being born to poor parents does not justify murder. You have to show that, you cannot assume that, because it is a premise for your very shitty “argument”

  5. you very handily assume that ‘voting for rolling back social services’ is equivalent to ‘murder’ because you implicitly equate them, even though you are not aware you are doing this. Not only do you have to prove this, it is also prima facie FUCKING ABSURD. I’m not going to spend more time on point 5 because it doesn’t deserve to be dignified. You should have known better.
    [/quote]

Even athiest pro-life advocates are arguing for judeo christian cultural morals. I for example am against murder, murder is a social construct. A lion killing another lion is not murder.

I as a product of Christian civilisations society reflect those values to an extent, even though I am an atheist. Difference is I acknowledge them to be constructs and that there is no good or bad as those are relative terms.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

99.99 percent of every species that ever lived on the planet are now extinct.

[/quote]

So… Statistically speaking… Giving two shits about “climate change” is an absurd waste of time…

Awesome, beer’s on me guys. Let’s get wasted

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
In Virginia, on the other hand, it appears that Zygotes are already considered “persons”.

Women in Virginia will have to be very, very careful not to have any miscarriages in that state.

One wonders whether the Sheriff’s department will be examining maxi-pads and tampons for evidence of manslaughter.[/quote]

False, and you know it. I’m surprised you left a hole this wide in your post.

Man falls over and dies of a heartattack, we don’t arrest the bacon he ate and cigars he smoked. Come on, lol.
[/quote]

No, we don’t normally arrest inanimate objects for anything. Were you under the impression that I was suggesting the tampon and maxi-pad might have been the culprits in the heinous zygote-slaughter case?

No, clearly I don’t believe that miscarrying women will be prosecuted.

It was an absurd exaggeration for humorous effect. Which I’m sorry to see seems to have been lost on you.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

It was an absurd exaggeration for humorous effect. Which I’m sorry to see seems to have been lost on you.
[/quote]

Nah, I got it. It was a preemptive strike before mister “I love science, but can’t link anything to support my position based on science, let me post stuff from the bible and bash Christians instead, because I don’t really have an argument” jumped all over it as backing him up.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

I’d rather be a zealot that cares about people than one that vacuums them out.
[/quote]

Bwahahaha. Omg beans it’s either the monday morning talking or that’s one of the funnier one liners I’ve read in a while. I am stealing this.

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:
Your assertion that removing cells that lack consciousness from a host whose body is nescessary for the cells to continue living is the same as shaking a conscious child who can survive outside the womb is so silly. [/quote]

A 1 year old can not survive outside the womb without a, “host,” period.

How is that silly? Why does the location of a person and or a very small variation in time (months) make such a paramount difference in your opinion? [/quote]

Because a woman can have a baby and it can live outside the womb, obviously it needs to be fed but that is not the point, the point is the ability to live outside. A fetus can not live outside the womb period. It relies on biological parasitism (not a negative connotation) to derive nutrients and just to live, expulsion from the womans body would mean it could not survive.[/quote]

A “fetus” can live outside the womb, though. It happens all the time.

Per your definition a 1 year old is also a parasite. Hell, by using your definition, there are 30 year olds that are parasites.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Hell, by using your definition, there are 30 year olds that are parasites. [/quote]

← related to one

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:

To be fair this discussion is not really an issue for me, for many it seems to be a huge thing in their life and a very personal topic, I bear no ill will towards anyone on here but I simply don’t agree.[/quote]

That’s fine, you don’t have to agree. You are required, however, to at least reason soundly when you state your views. Not doing THAT is what frustrates the shit out of me.

  1. “prominent” is a relative and amorphously vague term. There are literally 10s of thousands of VERY legitimate professors who would not count as “prominent” if we are speaking about media impact as the criteria for that label, or Nobel laureate as the criteria, or a dozen other things. The label needs to not be used or to be defined clearly. 2) Not even every legitimate scientific figure agrees with global warming! How do you expect them all to agree with one side of this position?? Not to mention you assume by exclusion that since they ‘do not all agree with the basic tenets of pro life position’ they are therefore all able to support your 'pro-choice position. Neither is true and you are guilty of gross over generalization again. Argue properly.

I don’t care whether the figure is 97% of all legitimate scientists (I hate this number for no other reason than that study was fucking awful methodologicallly) or 50% agree with global warming…the number isn’t 100% and that’s what your criteria is. Your argument is wrong.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
And now we’re talking about flat earth… I’m done. [/quote]

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:
My point was that the poster who claimed to be a religious right wing guy was complaining that religious right wing people are mocked as scientifically illiterate flat earthers, however the bible and the people who believe in it argue against basic scientific facts such as evolution, their book has some pretty questionable things to say about earth being flat. [/quote]

This is, yet another, generalization on your part. There are plenty of people that believe in the bible, but do not believe it literally.

There was a time when scientists believed the Earth was flat.

[quote]
Why would I think someone who denies evolution and believes in the bible and that a woman was created from the rib of a man has any legitimacy to argue about science? [/quote]

Maybe because science has yet to prove the origins of man. Maybe because science has yet to explain where the initial cell in the cell theory came from (a whole in the theory). Maybe because you can be right while also being wrong.

Why would you dismiss what a person has to say because their point of view or beliefs are different than your own?

[quote]
If they believe the story of creation in the bible and deny evolution then how can I take their position on abortion seriously? [/quote]

Because they are two entirely different things.

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:
I just want to point out that the church claims that contraception and abortion are morally the same.[/quote]

First, this is the ROMAN CATHOLIC church. Not the “Church”. There are literally millions of people that don’t agree with the ROMAN CATHOLIC’s stance, so that is an invalid generalization…AGAIN.

Second, this opinion of the Pope’s is massively massively flawed in my view, but he does not equate that they are both “murder”. He equates them as morally wrong (again, although I shouldn’t need to mention this considering my opposition to kneedragger in many previous threads, I DO NOT agree with the Pope’s stance whatsoever). There is a difference, and it is significant.

[quote]pabergin wrote:
Since when is a human not a person? [/quote]

This is actually one of the cruxes of the pro-life/pro-choice debate. It’s one of the primary points under contention.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

For that matter, prove when consciousness begins (please use science). “Consciousness requires a brain,” does a fetus not have a brain? [/quote]

More difficult than you might imagine, as one’s first step is in determining where a “fetus” begins.

The union of sperm and egg is called a zygote. It is a single living human cell, floating in the murk of the fallopian tube, with only a thirty percent chance of ever implanting in the uterine wall.

That’s right. Life begins at conception, and seventy percent of those babies DIE without their mothers ever being aware.

Between conception and implantation, the cell divides and redivides, forming what is variously called a blastula, a blastocyte or a blastosphere. It will not be referred to as an embryo until it implants itself in the wall of the uterus.

Still, it is not out of the woods, so to speak. Even if an embryo implants on the uterine wall it still nearly a fifty percent chance of spontaneously aborting, meaning that up to fifty babies out of a hundred will end up being mistaken for a late–but unusually heavy–menstrual flow.

If an embryo has managed to hang on for a month, its odds of survival now go up to 75%. It is still not considered a fetus, and will not be for another four or five weeks, until the various differentiated cells in its body become functioning systems.

So at around week eight or nine following conception (not all embryos develop at the same rate), we now have a fetus. Is it alive? Of course. Has been from day one. Is it human? Well, duh. Of course it is. It’s not a fish, and it’s not a bird. Every cell in its body will be undeniably human. Is it conscious? Actually, no. Consciousness requires not just a brain (cockroaches have brains) but a cerebrum, which our 11-week old fetus is nowhere near having.

Specifically, it needs a physical substrate of highly differentiated and interconnected nerve cells, called the thalamo-cortical complex, which begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week after conception. Roughly two months later, synchrony of the electroencephalographic (EEG) rhythm across both cortical hemispheres signals the onset of global neuronal integration. Thus, many of the circuit elements necessary for consciousness are in place by the third trimester. Is the fetus now conscious? Actually, no. It is asleep, in deep REM, and won’t wake up until it’s born.

Hope that answered your question. :slight_smile:

[/quote]

I actually asked this question because you successful challenged my thought process on the matter months possibly a year or two ago. I should also thank you for pushing me to think about it in a way I hadn’t before, so thank you.

The above said, I don’t believe because natural deaths occur before and after consciousness we should use that indisputable fact as a reason to kill.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

There was a time when scientists believed the Earth was flat.

[/quote]

It’s only been about 150 years since doctors started washing their hands lol. While we may have come a long way, humans are still pretty much in the “infantile” stage of development…

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
And now we’re talking about flat earth… I’m done. [/quote]

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:

Because they are two entirely different things.

[/quote]

Sure, but if someone believes that a woman was created from a rib without any evidence but also ignores overwhelming evidence for co2 driven climate change, evolution and the mainstream scientific stance on abortion, then what are their critical thinking skills and conformation bias like?

If someone denies the holocaust I probably won’t take their opinion on the third reich, or israel seriously. Those are different things but they all hinge on their world view, the ones above being based on their devout faith, the example just given being based on the core of their world view being anti semitism.

Just like when far left hippies claim we don’t need a military, I tend to not take any of their political theories seriously.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

There was a time when scientists believed the Earth was flat.

[/quote]

It’s only been about 150 years since doctors started washing their hands lol. While we may have come a long way, humans are still pretty much in the “infantile” stage of development… [/quote]

No kidding. I just happened to see an article about the Measles out break (at Disney I think) due to our hippie brethren. 3 steps forward 2 step back…

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

Maybe because science has yet to prove the origins of man.

[/quote]

The truth is out there, Marine.

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:
Your assertion that removing cells that lack consciousness from a host whose body is nescessary for the cells to continue living is the same as shaking a conscious child who can survive outside the womb is so silly. [/quote]

A 1 year old can not survive outside the womb without a, “host,” period.

How is that silly? Why does the location of a person and or a very small variation in time (months) make such a paramount difference in your opinion? [/quote]

Because a woman can have a baby and it can live outside the womb, obviously it needs to be fed but that is not the point, the point is the ability to live outside. A fetus can not live outside the womb period. It relies on biological parasitism (not a negative connotation) to derive nutrients and just to live, expulsion from the womans body would mean it could not survive.[/quote]

Well, I’m not particularly interested in this portion of the thread but I will raise a couple points for you to (seriously) consider:

  1. a fetus will have the ability to live outside the womb very shortly, given the accelerated progress of technology. This is a technological problem of being able to support life beyond the womb, outside of ‘food’. Therefore as technology improves, so will the fetus’s ability to live outside the womb except for food. Therefore your ethical stance is dependent on technology and not ethics for its validity. You can hold this view if you so desire, but you need to support the reasoning for being able to do that. An ethical stance predicated on technology rather than ethical principles is rather unsound in my opinion.

Furthermore, if you are unable to do this for your stance, all points about 1 year olds not being able to live outside the womb are still relevant criticism for your position. Dr. Stanley Fish holds some abominable views on infanticide, but he at least is logically consistent.

  1. I would submit that “parasitism” is inaccurate description. There are some benefits that pregnancy can confer on the ‘host’, so I can contest this position by saying either that it is not parasitism but symbiosis, or that parasitism simply does not apply to this situation, or that it is not sufficient grounds to justify murder. That is another discussion.