What overturning Roe v. Wade could mean for birth control access, maternal care - by Dia
Starker on 12/6/2022 at 14:09
Nothing quite says small government and individual liberty like state-forced pregnancy.
Tocky on 12/6/2022 at 16:55
Quote Posted by Draxil
Emotional tirade? Please.
Let's step through this logically:
1) Every embryo or fetus or human starts off as a zygote. Zygotes are living--this is a fact.
2) Zygotes are human life. Again, this is a statement of fact. Embryologists define conception as the start of human life. What makes a zygote different than a cancer cell, a skin cell, a spermatozoa or an ovum is that it contains the complete genetic information and instruction to develop into a complete and mature form of the species, if nature and man allows. Analogously, a skin cell or a spermatozoa are the 1x2 lego blocks that are part of a 37 trillion piece LEGO Death Star, so spare me Monty Python's
Every Sperm is Sacred. English contains different nouns for different levels of development; a "tadpole" and a "frog" are the same species. Similiarly, "man", "child", "infant", "fetus" and "embryo" are different nouns for the same creature at different stages of development. "Zygote" is the earliest of those phases, but YOU were determined at the time that your father's sperm merged with your mother's egg--your hair color, texture, and pattern, your eye color, the shape of your nose--all "set" at that time. A zygote has being, and is human. It is a human being, a member of the human species, an individual belonging to the human race, if you will.
3) And yes, it is an individual. It is genetically different than the mother that conceived it. It is treated as an individual medically in utero
all the time. Rh factor mismatch between mother and child is potentially fatal to the child, and has to be treated to prevent serious injury or malformation. Drugs are categorized according to pregnancy risk, because what might be fine for the mother isn't always fine for the child. It is two persons inhabiting the same space. It is even treated as a legal entity in some areas of the law--it is perfectly legal to leave your estate to an unborn child and exclude the mother (dickish, but legal). Punching a pregnant mother and causing an abortion is treated as murder, as it should be.
4) "Person" is where we differ. "Human being" and "person" are interchangeable, in my book. All human beings are persons, all persons are human beings. All human beings deserve human rights. That's not the case for you or pro-choice advocates--for you all persons are human beings, but not all human beings are persons and so are not deserving of the most basic rights or considerations. Hence my not-inaccurate statement that it's not a matter of "whether" you draw a line depriving some human beings of rights, it's "where" you draw that line. Or "when", more accurately. Yes, that is fucked up. Yes, that has been the justification for slavery and genocide. Yes, that is the beginning of a slippery slope, and evidence supports the fact that societies are slipping down that slope more and more rapidly. Google involuntary or non-voluntary euthanasia and how common it has become in some European countries. Or Canada. I'm quaint--I still call it "murder". Google Kermit Gosnell if you're bored.
So, "what is a person?" My answer: a human being. Your answer: whatever the mother wants it to be. You support women's rights? Great. What about the 500,000 girls killed by abortion last year? Where were you when their rights were being violated?
You call it a case of good and evil. Your side being good of course. You liken it to murder. That is being emotional. Your last sentence is dripping in emotion and no thought. 500,000 potential girls or any number do not add up to one actual girl. There is no logic in what you say. It's like you are reading a script that you have never given thought to.
Individual, person, human, it is not yet. Having two sets of gene input do not make it so. The fact doctors warn about drugs that could harm a fetus that someone intends to carry to term means not one damn. What it is is a developing embryo. Left alone it will develop into an individual, person, human EVENTUALLY. But it is not in the early stages. Headed there? Yes. There? No. Hell, that's where the term abortion comes from. Apollo 13 was going for a moon landing. The mission was aborted. A person has begun to be developed in a womb. It is not there yet when aborted.
And my answer is not "whatever the mother wants to call a human being" it's what science does and since you think a fertilized egg is a human then I have no respect for your view. Certainly no respect when you lie about what my answer is so that you can fight a straw man. I've been speaking of science and you of emotion, the sort that lifers deal in to tweak an emotional response because science is against their emotional view and it's all that they have.
RippedPhreak on 12/6/2022 at 17:00
Quote Posted by Starker
Nothing quite says small government and individual liberty like state-forced pregnancy.
The Right is slowly starting to understand that small government and individual liberty are outdated concepts. Even Nicker mocked these ideas above.
Nicker on 13/6/2022 at 04:48
Quote:
The Right is slowly starting to understand that small government and individual liberty are outdated concepts. Even Nicker mocked these ideas above.
I did? That's news to me.
RippedPhreak on 13/6/2022 at 14:29
This means you understand small government is an absurd idea at this point, and you're mocking it.
Nicker on 13/6/2022 at 18:34
No. I understand the hypocrisy and ignorance of people who reflexively demand small government when they really mean, reduce government that imposes restrictions on my life choices while strictly regulating the choices of others, especially when it has to do with choices which are NONE OF MY FUCKING BUSINESS and don't actually affect me.
Hope that clears up my position on smoll gubmint.
SD on 15/6/2022 at 23:47
As one of my favourite sayings goes, for conservatives small government means shrinking it until it's small enough to fit in the bedroom.
Pyrian on 24/6/2022 at 18:37
Welp.
Jason Moyer on 24/6/2022 at 20:37
Yep. Looking forward to the forthcoming bans on gay marriage and birth control.
Vae on 24/6/2022 at 20:43
It is possible to be in favor of a woman's right to choose while also realizing Roe vs Wade was incapable of being defended under any real scrutiny. Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg alluded to this.
The Constitutional process wins.
