Roe v. Wade Overturned June 24, 2022

Two hot topics for the price of one

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Diogenes
Guru
Posts: 1304
Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
Location: Washington
Has thanked: 862 times
Been thanked: 1265 times

Roe v. Wade Overturned June 24, 2022

Post #1

Post by Diogenes »

Roe v. Wade has been overturned today.
This subtopic specifically does not invite debate on the prohibition of abortion.

The question for debate is whether this sweeping decision allowing the States to outlaw abortion will lead to civil unrest and disrespect for the Court. My guess is, it will do both and will lead to women traveling from their homes in the South and much of the heartland of the United States to States that protect the 'right' for 50 years.

The 'abortion pill' will be banned in many States and the 'pro-choice' advocates will try to get the pill into those States where it will be a felony to possess it. I can envision armed militias at borders and around airports.
When the 18th Amendment prohibited Alcohol in 1919 it produced a new, illegal industry and related violence that lead to the passage of the 21st Amendment in 1933, repealing that Amendment.
___________________________________

Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves

— Confucius

User avatar
Jose Fly
Guru
Posts: 1462
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
Location: Out west somewhere
Has thanked: 337 times
Been thanked: 906 times

Re: Roe v. Wade Overturned June 24, 2022

Post #51

Post by Jose Fly »

Inquirer wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 12:37 pm
Jose Fly wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 12:16 pm
Inquirer wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 5:59 pm
Jose Fly wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 4:09 pm
Inquirer wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 1:23 pm I simply brought a much more insidious example of this into the discussion
None of what you posted had anything to do with the recent SCOTUS decisions.
to put the silliness about the coach praying into perspective.
It's not just that they ruled in favor of the coach. As I explained, it's that in doing so they overturned Lemon v Kurtzman and the Lemon Test that resulted, and replaced it with a standard that's basically a pathway towards government promotion of Christianity, but not any other religions. That's going to have implications far beyond the Kennedy case.
But I guess you'd be fine with government's promoting atheism!
Why would you think that?
Because you've never expressed disapproval over the promotion of atheism, not that I can recall anyway.
Huh? When has that ever even come up?
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9342
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 883 times
Been thanked: 1240 times

Re: Roe v. Wade Overturned June 24, 2022

Post #52

Post by Clownboat »

RightReason wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 1:43 pm I oppose abortion because we are talking about a human being. Human beings should have the right to life simply for being human beings. Abortion is believing one human being can decide if another innocent human being can be killed simply because that person finds him/her inconvenient. GROSS!
I reject your opposition due to the fact that what we abort has less value than an actual child.
We cannot treat them as equal, because they are not equal. You ignore this it seems in favor of pretending we abort human beings. This is nothing more than an emotional argument from where I sit.

I do hate the idea of abortions though, but your emotional arguments fail to address that the value of a fetus for example is less than that of a baby.

Thinking about abortion logically and not emotionally will help, but I get it, as it is an extremely emotional topic for many.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

User avatar
historia
Prodigy
Posts: 2603
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 6:41 pm
Has thanked: 221 times
Been thanked: 320 times

Re: Roe v. Wade Overturned June 24, 2022

Post #53

Post by historia »

Inquirer wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 12:35 pm
The Didache also instructs Christians to pray the Lord's prayer three times a day, do you know of many Christians that actually regard that as necessary? Is it a sin to not do this? If this represents sacred tradition why has it been ignored?
It hasn't been ignored. What the Didache is describing here is just an early form of what Christians today call the Liturgy of the Hours or the Divine Office.

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with your initial question, though.

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1569
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 16 times

Re: Roe v. Wade Overturned June 24, 2022

Post #54

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to Inquirer in post #47]
Yet you'll be very hard pressed to see a flag or bumper sticker disparaging Trump in that way, people don't want to risk being shot.
Well, as long as we are just flinging stereotypes . . . You’d be hard pressed to find any liberal or Democrat who flies a flag period. Everyone in my neighborhood who flies the American flag is a conservative or Republican and recognizes our country has flaws, but it is still the best country to live in. And if you really want to continue this stereotyped conversation you started, I might say Democrats are usually found burning the flag.
And expect not to be bombed in our homes or kindergartens or hospitals by other people's mothers.
Of course not, but like I said those are horrible actions of some disturbed individuals that we actually have laws against because we recognize the tragedy of such behavior. We also recognize the tragedy of anyone who would purposely and deliberately kill the unborn in the womb. And just like your example, it shouldn’t be permitted. We shouldn’t just shrug and say, “Well, people die in all sorts of ways already, what’s another senseless violent attack!”
The fact is we are all willing for lives to be lost for the pursuit of certain goals.
Uuummm . . . no. Most of us recognize when the line is being crossed. Most of us are not willing to say little children can be purposely destroyed if it helps us get ahead.
If one cared about the children killed in car crashes or reckless use of guns then one would take immediate steps to eliminate cars and guns.
Which is precisely why driving without car seats and seat belts are against the law. It’s why you have to be a certain age to drive and pass an exam before getting behind a wheel. It’s why there are rules of the road. It’s why there are so many gun laws and regulations. Because we do care about children killed in car crashes and from guns. We do what we can to prevent such tragedies. We do not say, you don’t have to use car seats or drive within the speed limit if you see your child as an inconvenience.
Each of us has our own view of what is right and wrong, it is always relative, there is not absolute definition other than one defined or enforced by humans
Nope. That is illogical. We couldn’t even have any of the conversations on this forum if people did not believe right and wrong exist and can be known.

So therefore - by your own reasoning - there must be an external standard being represented by those who advocate abortion.
Of course those who advocate for abortion are subject to the same external standard we all are. In fact, this is precisely why they must change the definition of things. All men know killing an innocent little baby is wrong, which is why they insist on calling the baby a clump of cells or by it’s scientific name, a fetus. It’s much easier on their conscience for what they know is wrong. It’s why they prefer to refer to themselves as pro choice instead of pro aborts. It’s why they prefer to talk about abortion in terms like “reproductive health care”. It’s why we now see on social media talking about seeking an abortion as going on a camping trip. Everyone knows killing a baby is wrong, which is why pro aborts have to redefine the definition of ‘baby’ and definition of ‘killing’. Such mental gymnastics are defense mechanisms because those external standards I am talking about exist.
Also "we" do not know that rape is wrong, most rapists do not regard it as wrong at all.
But we do know it’s wrong, don’t we? Do you not think it is? Even most rapists know what they are doing is wrong. But even if someone thinks or believes what they are doing is right or good, it doesn’t make it so, just because they believe it. You get that, right?

I disagree, consider:

Wikipedia wrote:In Judaism, views on abortion draw primarily upon the legal and ethical teachings of the Hebrew Bible, the Talmud, the case-by-case decisions of responsa, and other rabbinic literature. While all major Jewish religious movements allow (or even encourage) abortion in order to save the life or health of a pregnant woman, authorities differ on when and whether it is permitted in other cases.
Consider this:

Ancient Jews would have been familiar with this stuff:


You must not worship the LORD your God in their way, because in worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the LORD hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods. -Deuteronomy 12:31


Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire -Deuteronomy 8:10


"If men fight and hurt a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follow, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman's husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any harm follows (the death of mother or child), then you shall give life for life." Exodus 21:22, 23


Did not He who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same one fashion us in the womb? -Job 31:15


Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you: I ordered you a prophet to the nations. -Jeremiah 1:5



"For thou hast made my reins; Thou has knit me together in my mother's womb." Psalms 13



"Thine eyes did see mine unformed substance, and in Thy book they were all written." -Psalms 16


Please take note the following were ancient writings -- many written before Christ or very shortly after the Resurrection. That the ancient Jews saw abortion as a barbaric abomination is an understatement.


*********


Tacitus on Jewish attitudes to abortion and infanticide In his "The Histories", the Roman historian Tacitus (approx. 56-120 A.D.) recorded that the Jews regarded abortion and killing new-borns as serious acts of wickedness. He said that to the Jews: "It is a deadly sin to kill a born or unborn child..." 1 Tacitus held the high-ranking Roman office of consul in 97 A.D. Two ancient Jewish writings condemning abortion and infanticide Two Jewish writings originating in Alexandria in Egypt condemn abortions and the infanticide of new-born children. The first Jewish writing was called the "Sibylline Oracles" and was written about the first or second century B.C. In its section on the punishment of the wicked in Book 2, the Sibylline Oracles states that some of those who would be punished by God were: "...as many as aborted what they carried in the womb, as many as cast forth their offspring unlawfully." 2 The second is called the "Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides" and was written probably between 50 B.C. and 50 A.D. 3 In its section on the marriage and the family, it states: "Do not let a woman destroy the unborn babe in her belly, nor after its birth throw it before the dogs and the vultures as a prey." 4


Philo of Alexandria on parents murdering their children In his writing "The Special Laws III", the Jewish writer Philo of Alexandria (approx. 20 B.C.-40 A.D.) wrote about the infanticide or murdering of children by their parents: "Again, who can be greater haters of their species than those who are the implacable and ferocious enemies of their own children? Unless, indeed, any one is so foolish as to imagine that these men can be humane to strangers who act in a barbarous manner to those who are united to them by ties of blood. And as for their murders and infanticides they are established by the most undeniable proofs, since some of them slay them with their own hands, and stifle the first breath of their children, and smother it altogether, out of a terribly cruel and unfeeling disposition, others throw them into the depths of a river, or of a sea, after they have attached a weight to them, in order that they may sink to the bottom more speedily because of it. Others, again, carry them out into a desert place to expose them there, as they themselves say, in the hope that they may be saved by someone, but in real truth to load them with still more painful suffering; for there all the beasts which devour human flesh, since there is no one to keep them off, attack them, and feast on the delicate banquet of the children, while those who were their only guardians, and who were bound above all other people to protect and save them, their own father and other, have exposed them. And carnivorous birds fly down and lick up the remainder of their bodies, when they are not themselves the first to discover them; for when they discover them themselves they do battle with the beasts of the earth for the whole carcass." 5 The Jewish historian Josephus condemned abortion In his writing "Against Apion", the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (37-100 A.D.) wrote: "The law; moreover enjoins us to bring up all our offspring, and forbids women to cause abortion of what is begotten, or to destroy it afterward; and if any woman appears to have so done, she will be a murderer of her child, by destroying a living creature, and diminishing humankind..." 6



http://internetbiblecollege.net/Lessons ... ticide.pdf



"Thou shalt not murder a child by abortion nor kill him when born." Didache 2.2 (c.50-100 AD)


There is evidence that there has been a strong prohibition against abortion in Judaism dating to ancient times. Yes, there has always been debate about when exactly a child receives a soul from God. It is not something we are specifically told or can know for sure. And the limited scientific knowledge the people had at the time regarding the baby in the womb didn't help. Eventually science has helped make more present to us the developing baby. Regardless of when God infuses the soul, Jewish tradition did teach the evils of abortion:


*******

Originally, Jewish scholarship was oral and transferred from one generation to the next. Eventually the Talmud was compiled as the comprehensive written version of the Jewish oral law. And here's some of what it has to say regarding abortion:


The Third Noahide Law contains the admonition, "He who spills the blood of a man in a man, his blood will be spilt." The Talmud (Sanhedrin 57b) defines "a man in a man" as a preborn baby in his mother's womb. This passage specifically states that abortion is a capital crime.



The Talmud states in Nidah 31a that there are three partners in the creation of a child: The father, the mother, and Hashem. This means that the creation of a child is the direct Will of the Creator Himself. Does it make any sense to deny the will of the Almighty by killing one of His creations to save another of His creations ? a woman in "hard travail?"


https://www.hli.org/resources/judaism-on-abortion/


I also found this reference to a study of ancient Judaism and abortion:


An important book by Dr. Michael J. Gorman1 addresses the issue of abortion in ancient religions and pagan cultures. While abortion was prevalent in the pagan world, Jews did not practice abortion and there is "no direct mention of a nontherapeutic Jewish abortion in any texts of the Hebrew Bible or other Jewish literature through A.D. 500" other than the reference to an accidental abortion death found in Exodus 21:22-23.2 In his chapter, "The Jewish World," Dr. Gorman describes three primary contexts in which the unborn child was discussed:


"Behind each of these discussions is assumed a basic Jewish orientation to life: first, the duty and desire to populate the earth and ensure both Jewish survival and the divine presence; second, a deep sense of the sanctity of life as G-d's creations, a respect extending in various ways to life in all its manifestations and stages and finally, a profound horror of blood and bloodshed."3




The Seven Noahide Commandments prohibit abortion, as indicated in Sanhedrin 57b and Genesis 9:6. These laws are universal and binding upon non-Jews, and the prohibition also applies to Jews.5 The Torah's 613 Commandments were to be built upon and not to replace, the Noahide Laws.6


There is no direct proscription against abortion in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) because abortion never existed as a choice in Jewish tradition, or in the Jewish community. But there are many passages and positive commandments indicating a connection between the preborn child and the adult; a continuum in the life cycle that began prior to birth.



Talmud Arakin 7a-b: Indicates it is permissible to violate the Shabbat to save the life of a preborn child. Further, while a traditional Jew is forbidden from carrying a knife on the Shabbat, a Jewish surgeon may do so and use it, to save a preborn child's life.


There are other critically important biblical proscriptions against abortion. The unborn child has inheritance rights and the baby's father has the right to an heir. There is a positive commandment to protect the child so that he may observe many future Shabbats. There is a biblical prohibition against self-wounding.



The view of traditional Judaism is that abortion is akin to murder. In Halachic law, the unborn child is considered a developing life with value that must be protected and saved whenever possible . . . Had abortion been performed in Rashi's time as it is today, there would have been an outcry from rabbis and the religious community, and the practice would have been condemned as infanticide.


https://www.jewishlifeleague.org/pro-li ... e-religion




Given this information and seeing how the ancient Jews saw unborn children it would be absolutely false to claim they did not have an issue with abortion. In fact, given what we know from ancient Scripture and from Biblical scholars and historians, I would consider that a false assertion and far from a known fact.


1There is evidence that Ancient Judaism did oppose abortion.


2There is evidence Ancient Judaism did acknowledge the unborn.


3Scripture teaches God is the creator of life and only God can take it away.


4Scripture teaches we are to trust in God's plan.


5Scripture teaches, "thou shall not kill"

They are silent, compare the protests about abortion compared to the protests about babies dying in Yemen from Western weapons that are supplied to the Saudis, nothing, these deaths do not matter to the militant Christians. They care about only one specific means of killing the young, the rest they don't care about or protest about.
I can take any tragedy today and say so and so doesn’t care about X as much as Y. We all might feel called to certain causes over other ones. We all can’t do everything. And it is often easier to work at a local level than feel the power to help with something in Yemen. This is why at the end of the day, we make sure we have taken care of our own family. If we have energy or resources left, we begin to act beyond our own “world”. This is normal and even necessary to a degree.

Abortion is justified by the material benefits it produces for the pregnant woman, just as deaths by our weapons overseas produces benefits for political and industrial beneficiaries.

Being outraged by the former yet indifferent to the latter is quite simply, hypocrisy.
Not even a little. Again, you are the one saying no one is outraged when children die in war. I beg to differ. And it very odd to me to not recognize the difference between collateral damage in warfare vs. directly, purposely, intentionally killing an innocent child. Some of you keep wanting to compare lives lost in tragic car accidents vs. abortion. That’s like not seeing the difference between John dying from a heart attack vs. being violently attacked in his home. Strange.

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1569
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 16 times

Re: Roe v. Wade Overturned June 24, 2022

Post #55

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to Clownboat in post #52]
I reject your opposition due to the fact that what we abort has less value than an actual child.
They use to use the same reason why the vote of an African American wasn’t worth as much as a white man’s.

Also, you were once a fetus. We all started out that way. It is simply a different stage of development.

See if you can watch this whole thing and tell me the unborn has less value than the born.



We cannot treat them as equal, because they are not equal.
True. The unborn is weaker, more vulnerable, and can’t fight back. All the more reason he/she deserves protection and should not be silenced and snuffed out.
You ignore this it seems in favor of pretending we abort human beings.
Do you think they are houseplants?
This is nothing more than an emotional argument from where I sit.
It appears yours is the emotional argument. Mine is based on science.

I do hate the idea of abortions though
Why is that? If we aren’t talking about a human being, what bothers you about it?
but your emotional arguments fail to address that the value of a fetus for example is less than that of a baby.
I do address this. I wholeheartedly disagree with your unscientific conclusion. Is a 3 week old less valuable than a 3 month old? Then a 3 year old? Then a 30 year old? Then a 3 month old in the womb? Like I said, we are simply talking about different stages of development, but equality in dignity, worth, and value. Again, that’s not emotion speaking – that’s the definition of human life.

Thinking about abortion logically and not emotionally will help, but I get it, as it is an extremely emotional topic for many.
I couldn’t agree more. I do hope you will join me in doing so.

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9342
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 883 times
Been thanked: 1240 times

Re: Roe v. Wade Overturned June 24, 2022

Post #56

Post by Clownboat »

Clownboat wrote:I reject your opposition due to the fact that what we abort has less value than an actual child.
RightReason wrote:They use to use the same reason why the vote of an African American wasn’t worth as much as a white man’s.
Is this you claiming that African Americans don't have the same worth as a white man?
I ask because I very clearly am claiming that a fetus does not have the same value as a born human and you went straight to a racist equivalent. Hmmm....
Also, you were once a fetus. We all started out that way. It is simply a different stage of development.

Derp! Yup, but one of different value.
See if you can watch this whole thing and tell me the unborn has less value than the born.
I already have made this claim and I stand by it.
You can address it if you can, but I will not get sucked in to racist arguments.
We cannot treat them as equal, because they are not equal.
True. The unborn is weaker, more vulnerable, and can’t fight back. All the more reason he/she deserves protection and should not be silenced and snuffed out.
Amazing! You acknowledge the difference at the begining, but then seemingly forgot about it by the time you got to your emotional silenced and snuffed out retort.
You ignore this it seems in favor of pretending we abort human beings.
Do you think they are houseplants?

A zygote nor a blastocyst is surely not a houseplant and no one here has made such an arugment. .
This is nothing more than an emotional argument from where I sit.
It appears yours is the emotional argument.

Let's let the readers decide shall we.
Copy/paste: "Abortion is believing one human being can decide if another innocent human being can be killed simply because that person finds him/her inconvenient. GROSS!"

And here I thought abortions were the removal of an unwanted fetus not killing a person because you find them inconvenient. How many unwanted fetuses is the perfect amount to save and how would be go about doing such a thing? Would it help or hinder society if we were to save all the unwated fetuses?
I do hate the idea of abortions though
Why is that? If we aren’t talking about a human being, what bothers you about it?
The unborn have value, that is why. Not the same value as an actual born human though, but value none the less.
but your emotional arguments fail to address that the value of a fetus for example is less than that of a baby.
I do address this. I wholeheartedly disagree with your unscientific conclusion.

Thank you for this. Now, let's test your disagreement.

You are outside a burning building. From outside you see a false uterus with a label showing that there are 5 fertalized human embrios in it. You also notice a 1 year old child in a corner crying. You have time to save one. Which one do you save?

Any actual parent would be apalled if you would save any number of embryos over their child. This is because the value of a child is much greater than the value a zygote (for example) has. You can address my actual point if you decide. No need to discuss racism.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1569
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 16 times

Re: Roe v. Wade Overturned June 24, 2022

Post #57

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to Clownboat in post #56]

I will not get sucked in to racist arguments.
I compared your comment regarding the unborn equivalent to racism, because it is equivalent to racism. Different classes of humans have been discriminated against at different times throughout history. To render an entire class of humans inferior/less than/undeserving, etc, is equivalent to racism. The attempt is to devalue said class of humans so one can rationalize/justify some disgusting act against them. It’s nothing new. It’s been tried many times, but thankfully always fails in the end, with the help of science, education, and reason.

Please watch:


RightReason: Also, you were once a fetus. We all started out that way. It is simply a different stage of development.

Derp! Yup, but one of different value.

No – with the exact same value/worth/human dignity. A human life is a human life.


Do you often value human beings based on their stage of development?


So, is grandpa worth less than junior? Is mommy’s newborn worth less than Tommy Toddler? Is the 14 year old with Downs Syndrome worth less than the 15 year old without since mentally the person with Downs is at the level of a 5 year old?


See what happens when we put a person’s worldview to the logical test? The illogic and inconsistencies become quite clear.


The unborn have value, that is why. Not the same value as an actual born human though, but value none the less.

On a scale of 1 to 10, how much more?

You are outside a burning building. From outside you see a false uterus with a label showing that there are 5 fertalized human embrios in it. You also notice a 1 year old child in a corner crying. You have time to save one. Which one do you save?
I have no idea what a false uterus is and I oppose IVF precisely due to the fact embryos can be left in a test tube in a lab apart from their mother or father.

But to respond to your little hypothetical . . . it reveals human nature, not what is right/good/moral. It is human nature to ask the prettier girl out than the plane Jane. Doesn’t mean the prettier girl has more human value. It also doesn’t mean to pick the prettier girl is the right thing to do. It’s human nature to want to punch someone in the face when they make you angry, but that doesn’t mean it would be good or right to do so. If it was a choice between saving a 90 year old vs. saving a 10 year old, perhaps the 10 year old would get chosen, someone thinking they have more life ahead of them. Does this mean the 10 year old is more valuable than the 90? No. We all would recognize both the 90 year old and the 10 year old have equal human worth/value.

If there were two children in a burning building, I would probably save my own first. Does this mean I think someone else’s kid is not as valuable? No. Just because someone might choose the one year old crying in the corner, doesn’t mean the embryos have less value. They probably choose the 1 year old because the one year old can get their attention by crying and looks more like them. Maybe if the embryos were their own embryos, they’d save the embryos over the 1 year old.

The truth is abortion is wrong. It’s bad for women, for children, and for society. It is a horrific oppressive practice and the greatest violation of human rights we face today. Many women say they felt pressured to have an abortion and admit they felt like they had no choice. If we really want to help women, we can do better than abortion.

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1614
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 203 times
Been thanked: 153 times
Contact:

Re: Roe v. Wade Overturned June 24, 2022

Post #58

Post by AgnosticBoy »

RightReason wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 7:41 pm No – with the exact same value/worth/human dignity. A human life is a human life.

Do you often value human beings based on their stage of development?

So, is grandpa worth less than junior? Is mommy’s newborn worth less than Tommy Toddler? Is the 14 year old with Downs Syndrome worth less than the 15 year old without since mentally the person with Downs is at the level of a 5 year old?

See what happens when we put a person’s worldview to the logical test? The illogic and inconsistencies become quite clear.
Unfortunately, some of this boils down to definitions, and some of the definitions, like the one for "human", usually is loaded with ideology. Your point begs the question. Just what is considered a human life? I know the Bible considers unborn babies to be a life worth protecting. But secular definitions, maybe not so much. Which do we go by?

I know even if a Christian says he is against protecting life, but what about that burger they had last night? Then they can say they meant only "human" life, but then I'd ask them what is a human?

I've read a few articles (like this one) that tries to tackle this question. They get into biology, philosophy, and ethics, but none of them provide a concrete answer. One side just seems to presume an answer and the other side gives some arbitrary criteria. What I'd really want to know given this, is what do we do in the face of uncertainty? Allowing any extreme, banning abortions or allowing them without restriction, certainly doesn't help. I know if the fetus was able to feel pain, then that certainly wouldn't sit well with a lot of people. This would not be as big of a problem if some of the women seeking abortions had access to birth control and perhaps better sex education.
- Proud forum owner ∣ The Agnostic Forum

- As a non-partisan, I like to be on the side of truth. - AB

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1569
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 16 times

Re: Roe v. Wade Overturned June 24, 2022

Post #59

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to AgnosticBoy in post #58]
Unfortunately, some of this boils down to definitions, and some of the definitions, like the one for "human", usually is loaded with ideology. Your point begs the question. Just what is considered a human life? I know the Bible considers unborn babies to be a life worth protecting. But secular definitions, maybe not so much. Which do we go by?
We go by the science. It is the pro aborts who make it about ideology. When a woman is pregnant, the human developing inside of her womb already has his/her own unique set of DNA. We are talking about a new human life.

What I'd really want to know given this, is what do we do in the face of uncertainty?
Hmmmm . . . let’s see . . . if you were driving at night and saw ahead of you something in the middle of the road, but you couldn’t quite make out what it was yet, why wouldn’t you err on the side of caution and not run over whatever it is?

Or, tell you what, if you are uncertain about what is developing in the woman’s womb, why not wait a few months until you are more certain?
Allowing any extreme, banning abortions or allowing them without restriction, certainly doesn't help.
It helps the baby and the mother. And I wouldn’t say banning abortions is the extreme position. I would say Roe V Wade was extreme. It permitted abortion up to 9 months of pregnancy for any reason. In fact, it even permitted partial birth abortion, whereupon a baby is permitted to be born half way, but before he/she is fully delivered, a knife is stuck in the baby’s neck in order to kill him/her. Now that is extreme. And we are not talking ideology here. We are talking about the facts.
I know if the fetus was able to feel pain, then that certainly wouldn't sit well with a lot of people.
The fetus can feel pain.
• 4 – 6 weeks: The fetus’ cerebral cortex is formed, and she develops reflexes.
• 6 – 8 weeks: Brain waves can be recorded, and the nervous system starts to develop. The fetus’ lips become sensitive to the touch around seven weeks. By eight weeks, she is moving around the uterus to make herself more comfortable. She begins to react to harmful stimuli.
• 10 weeks: Her whole body is sensitive to the touch. She can now swallow, squint, frown, pucker her brow, and make a fist if her palm is touched.
• 11 weeks: The fetus will start to swallow more amniotic fluid if it is artificially sweetened and less if it is bitter. Saline injection is used after 16 weeks; yet at 11 weeks the fetus can already respond to taste.
• 12 weeks: The fetus’ neurotransmitters can send pain signals to the brain. Her cerebral cortex is only about 30 to 40 percent developed, but her response to pain is at least proportional to that amount, as confirmed by A. William Liley, the “Father of Modern Fetology” and Mortimer Rosen, an American researcher.
• 13 – 17 weeks: The fetus’ “general sense organs” begin to differentiate into “free nerve terminations” responding to pain, temperature and chemicals, “lamellated corpuscles” responding to pointed pressure, “tactile corpuscles,” “neuromuscular spindles,” and “neurotendinous end organs” responding to light and pointed pressure. Her vocal cords and auditory sense are now present, and she may cry if air bubbles get in the uterus.
• After 14 weeks: The fetus will cry, wiggle her body, or throw out her arms if her mother moves too suddenly or if she hears a loud noise. She must be sedated during surgery, just like any other patient. If she is irritated, her heartbeat will increase and she will move around, showing this sensation to be unpleasant.

At this point in her development, the fetus weighs only about two ounces and is about five inches long. She is small enough to fit in the palm of her mother’s hand, yet she can react to outside stimuli just like a grown person can. And even with a developed response system, she can legally be killed by chemical burns, dismemberment, suffocation, starvation, and worse while her mother is convinced by her killers that there is no fetal pain.

https://www.hli.org/resources/fetal-pai ... -abortion/

This would not be as big of a problem if some of the women seeking abortions had access to birth control and perhaps better sex education.
Women have access to contraception in this country. In fact, it is often free or fairly inexpensive. Women also have access to educate themselves, as do men regarding women’s bodies. A sexually active couple should be able to communicate with each other. It isn’t rocket science to figure out when you are ovulating. It might require 2-3 days of abstinence a month. If not having a baby right now is that important for a couple, I would think abstaining on a day you are ovulating is not that big of a hardship.

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1614
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 203 times
Been thanked: 153 times
Contact:

Re: Roe v. Wade Overturned June 24, 2022

Post #60

Post by AgnosticBoy »

RightReason wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 9:17 am
AgnosticBoy wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 1:39 am Unfortunately, some of this boils down to definitions, and some of the definitions, like the one for "human", usually is loaded with ideology. Your point begs the question. Just what is considered a human life? I know the Bible considers unborn babies to be a life worth protecting. But secular definitions, maybe not so much. Which do we go by?
We go by the science. It is the pro aborts who make it about ideology. When a woman is pregnant, the human developing inside of her womb already has his/her own unique set of DNA. We are talking about a new human life.
There is ideology on both sides when it comes to morality, value, and in answering questions like when sentience or consciousness (its basic form, at least) starts, etc. Sure, we can agree that a fetus is a human but I also acknowledge that there is a difference between a human that's in the form of a cluster of cells vs. one that is already born. The latter obviously has more impact on life and has much more responsibility.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying that your position (i.e life has value as conception) is wrong, but rather I see it as unproven when it comes to assigning value. I personally draw the line with pain and suffering which some researchers have shown occurs in early second trimester. I don't believe there should be any abortions done at that point unless there is some emergency circumstance or harm to the mother.
RightReason wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 9:17 am
AgnosticBoy wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 1:39 amWhat I'd really want to know given this, is what do we do in the face of uncertainty?
Hmmmm . . . let’s see . . . if you were driving at night and saw ahead of you something in the middle of the road, but you couldn’t quite make out what it was yet, why wouldn’t you err on the side of caution and not run over whatever it is?

Or, tell you what, if you are uncertain about what is developing in the woman’s womb, why not wait a few months until you are more certain?
There is no perfect response but generally I err on the side of caution by taking a moderate position or trying things in small steps. Otherwise, expecting to know everything or at near certainty, you may never be able to act so that wouldn't be practical. I'm against abortions if or when it involves pain and suffering. Hek, I'd be against it if it can be shown that the fetus has any signs of awareness.
RightReason wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 9:17 am Women have access to contraception in this country. In fact, it is often free or fairly inexpensive. Women also have access to educate themselves, as do men regarding women’s bodies. A sexually active couple should be able to communicate with each other. It isn’t rocket science to figure out when you are ovulating. It might require 2-3 days of abstinence a month. If not having a baby right now is that important for a couple, I would think abstaining on a day you are ovulating is not that big of a hardship.
Agreed!
- Proud forum owner ∣ The Agnostic Forum

- As a non-partisan, I like to be on the side of truth. - AB

Post Reply