Roe v. Wade Overturned June 24, 2022

[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.

[Clownboat]

I would save whichever I saw first.

See, not answering the question!
Copy/paste to save time and sanity: "Burning building. You can save a 1 year old or a jar containing 5 blastocysts. You cannot save both."

I’m still unclear on why I couldn’t save both.

Then it is a reading comprehension issue.
"Burning building. You can save a 1 year old or a jar containing 5 blastocysts. You cannot save both."

One could carry both a 1 year old and a jar. Ask any mother how great we are at multi tasking.

Burning building. You can save a 1 year old or a jar containing 5 blastocysts. You cannot save both.

And again, if I knew there were five embryos in a jar (Of course, like I said, I’m not sure how I would know this without a neon sign saying “Five embryos with an arrow pointing to some jar”) I would save them.

That's not the scenario as I would save embryos as well if I could.
Burning building. You can save a 1 year old or a jar containing 5 blastocysts. You cannot save both.

I also believe it would be wonderful whether I saved the five embryos OR the 1 year old – as all life has value.

I agree.

So, several times now I have said, I would have no problem saving the embryos.

Correct, that is your statement and I also would have no problem saving the blastocysts. What about what I'm asking of you?
Burning building. You can save a 1 year old or a jar containing 5 blastocysts. You cannot save both.

So, once again, I say, I would save the embryos. Not sure how many more times you plan to ignore what I’m saying.

I also would save embryos. What about the burning building scenario I'm asking you about where you can only save one? In that scenario, you know the one I have been asking from the start, do you knowingly save the 1 year old or knowingly save the 5 blastocysts? You're aware of each remember.

You, however, do not think human life has equal value/dignity/worth at his/her different stages of development and consequently can be discarded at the hands of another human, which I will remind you is exactly the thinking behind ageism, as well as prejudiced and discrimination against the mentally or physically challenged. These simply stem from an ill-informed worldview based on ignorance.

I do recognize the value difference between a blastocyst and a child. The rest of what you typed though, you can try to slander me all you want. When the debate is lost, slander become the tool of the loser. - Socrates

Any “value difference” is all in your head and not based on facts/science.

Awesome! Let's test this claim of yours.
Burning building. You can save a 1 year old or a jar containing 5 blastocysts. You cannot save both.

I would save the 1 year old. Readers, which would you save?

I’m afraid it is you who holds some kind of prejudiced value difference.

Please show the prejudice or kindly retract your claim. I do hold that there is a value difference between a blastocyst and a baby.
prej·u·dice
/ˈprejədəs/
Learn to pronounce
noun
1.
preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.

I base my value claim on 'reason'. I am reasoning that there is a value difference between a blastocyst and a 1 year old and clearly am showing my reasoning when I ask: "Burning building. You can save a 1 year old or a jar containing 5 blastocysts. You cannot save both. Which do you save?"

I believe all human beings have equal value/dignity, inherent in being human.

Me to, but I'm comparing a blastocyst to a human here.

I do not judge humans on which stage of development they are. Or on if they look different than me. Or on what they bring to the table. Or on the color of their skin. Or on their intelligence or mental capabilities. Or if they would be a financial burden or inconvenience, etc.

Calm down. No one has made any of these claims about you.

RightReason wrote:Now let me ask you, if Mr. Smith chose to save his little Susie Smith over someone else’s Jane Miller, would that mean unchosen Jane had less human value?
To Mr. Smith, yes. That is exactly what it shows

Tsk. Tsk. NOT what I asked. And not even true for Mr. Smith. Do you believe Jane has less human value?

I'm trying my best to answer your question, I really am.
Take 2. I believe that Jane's value is the same as Susie's. Answered, now you can proceed with wherever you intended to take this line of reasoning.

Mr. Smith saving Susie does NOT indicate Jane is worth less.

Clearly, to Mr. Smith, Susie has more value as that is the one he chooses to save over the other. For me, their value is the same. What are you not getting about this?

Once again, your analogy does not logically follow. In your little hypothetical, we could say that during the time Abraham Lincoln was president a barn caught fire. Inside the barn was a slave and a free man. Joe can only save one. Who does he save? Does whoever Joe saves mean that human has more value?

Clearly, for Joe, he will save the one that has more value to him. Being a slave or a free man doesn't even enter the equation. You fail to see this though for some reason.

Such nonsense. The one behavior does not determine or indicate value.

Let's talk rare coins to help keep emotions out of this.
Burning building. You can save 1 rare coin out of your 2 coin collection. You cannot save both.
You will save the coin that has the most 'value' to you. Could be monetary value, could be a gift from a grandparent that supplies value, but you will save what you value most.

That’s not how it works. Even Mr. Smith would never claim Jane’s life is worth less.

Really!? Then why did he save Susie?

Huh? Nooooooooooooo! That is illogical. One human being does not get to determine the value/worth of another human being.

Sure we do, just like we get to determine which coin we find most valuable.
I assure you, my family has more worth to me than you do (I say this factually, not as an insult to you). I still find value in you as a human, but it is not equal when you are asking me. Susie and Jane, likely the same value to me, unlike a blastocyst and a baby.

Each human has equal value in being human.

And there we finally have it. A human does in fact have more value than a blastocyst. Progress!

And whichever human is fortunate enough to be saved does not mean the one who died must have been worth less. How odd.

You already demonstrated that for Mr. Smith, you know, the one you claim is doing the saving, Susie's life does have more value to him. I don't see why I wouldn't value them the same, but I'm not involved in YOUR analogy.

And I have no idea why you continue to relate abortion to a tragic natural event like an uncontrollable fire.

I'm demonstrating that there is a value difference between a blastocyst and a baby. You really should know what I'm arguing by now.

Abortion is the direct purposeful intentional unnecessary taking of a life. There is a huge difference in trying to save a human vs. purposely killing a human. In saving Susie, Mr. Smith is not intentionally killing Jane. Duh.

I agree. What is your point, please expand?

No. She doesn’t. Both Susie and Jane have equal beauty and dignity.

Let's test this claim of yours shall we?
Why did Mr. Smith save Susie and not Jane?

And even Mr. Smith would acknowledge that it is tragic that Jane died.

He would be correct and neither you nor I disagree with this. It really need not be typed and our discussions are getting too long already. Please do you best to limit unnecessary statements like these.

He would know that Jane was someone else’s little Susie. He would know that Jane is just as beautiful and valuable as his child.

He would know this sure, so why did he chose Susie again?

He would also know the difference between accidental tragedies and murder, as we all do.

(This really need not be typed)

It is about facts. Both Susie and Jane are human beings, with their own unique set of DNA. With this scientific definition of human life, they have intrinsic value.

I agree, however, we demonstrated that the intrinsic value when it comes to Mr. Smith and Susie/Jane is not the same. They both have value, that I do not dispute, but obviously Mr. Smith has a value difference.

I’m only saying all humans have equal value/worth.

This I agree with, but we do not abort humans and that is what we are discussing. A blastocyst has value, but not nearly the value a child has.

Our value/worth is not dependent on whether someone else (including Mr. Smith) thinks we are worthy of saving.

Yes it is. Mr. Smith will not save you over Susie if your value is less to him when compared to Susie. Therefore your statement is wrong.

It’s funny to me that you think it does or should. LOL! Again, you ought to be really grateful that you don’t live in a world where some other human who finds you inconvenient can simply destroy you.

I'm a human and we have laws against murder and I am grateful that I live in a world where I cannot be destroyed because some human finds me inconvenient.
More words that could have been left out IMO.

I’m making no decision for Mr. Smith or anyone else. I’m the one saying no one has the right to decide whether another innocent human life lives or dies.

Here is how your statement reads: "I'm not making decisions for anyone else, but I want to decide that no one else can have an abortion." Correct, you seek to restrict that a woman can be free to decide for herself. That is removing a possible decision. I cannot support what you would seek to impose on women.

Mr. Smith can save however many and whoever’s lives he wants to save. What he can’t do is purposely kill an innocent human.

Are you back to talking about murder? You really don't want to discuss if there is a value difference between a blastocyst and a baby now do you?

I say, not only should Mr. Smith be free to choose, but he should be free to choose to save the one he values most. If you disagree, please explain why.

<sigh> Poor, poor Mr. Clownboat. We are witnessing what happens when a person’s argument is drawn out to its logical conclusion. The unraveling reveals the eerie. We are left with defending horrific behaviors like ageism – believing different humans have different value/worth based on their stage of development or whether I desire them.

Your condescension aside, you did not explain why you disagreed with why Mr. Smith should not be allowed to save what he found most valuable to him. I even said "please'.

Should RightReason make the decision as to if my daughter should attempt to carry a fetus to term or not or would my daughter be in the best position to determine such?

The human life in your daughter’s womb should not be subject to either of our decision as to whether he/she can live.

Yet here you are!
I see the value of my daughter as greater then that which she carries and ackowledge that she is in the best position as to whether she should attempt to carry it to term or not.
My position is the only one where 'should not be subject to either of our decision' is a reality.

I also acknowledge that there is a value difference between the born and unborn as I would save a 1 year old over hundreds if not thousands of blastocysts. Should I amend my thinking? If so, why?

Yes. It is anti science and illogical and also lacks compassion/reason. It does not recognize the most weakest and most vulnerable among us, who need protection.

Again, when the debate is lost.... slander.
I recognize that what you seek to protect does not come close to having the value of that which you seek to restrict the freedoms of. I will use my reason to have compassion on those who are in the best position to make the decision at hand. Unless of course you can convince me that women have no place in making this kind of decision. So far you are unsuccessfull.

[RightReason]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #91]

you can try to slander me all you want. When the debate is lost, slander become the tool of the loser. – Socrates

Nothing I have said is close to slander. I am pointing out the illogic of your argument.

Burning building. You can save a 1 year old or a jar containing 5 blastocysts. You cannot save both.

I save the 5 embryos.

I’m afraid it is you who holds some kind of prejudiced value difference.

Please show the prejudice or kindly retract your claim. I do hold that there is a value difference between a blastocyst and a baby.

Right. You admit you feel/believe a human life at a different stage of development does not have the same value as a human life at a different stage of development, even though both are human lives.

That is not based on science or reason. That is a personal opinion/view you hold that is likely based on emotion/indoctrination/or lack of education regarding the science.

I base my value claim on 'reason'. I am reasoning that there is a value difference between a blastocyst and a 1 year old and clearly am showing my reasoning when I ask: "Burning building. You can save a 1 year old or a jar containing 5 blastocysts. You cannot save both. Which do you save?"

How exactly is it reasonable to conclude the value of a human life based on the opinion of another human life? A drug addict would likely save his hidden drugs over either the 1 year old or the 5 embryos. That would not mean the drugs are more valuable.

I believe all human beings have equal value/dignity, inherent in being human.

Me to, but I'm comparing a blastocyst to a human here.

Right. You do know the science is clear that an embryo is human life, right?

Clearly, to Mr. Smith, Susie has more value as that is the one he chooses to save over the other. For me, their value is the same. What are you not getting about this?

Your illogic.

The value of human life is not determined on whether said human life is wanted/planned/chosen. To “reason” as such is equivalent to the “reasoning” of the bigot.

Even Mr. Smith would never claim Jane’s life is worth less.

Really!? Then why did he save Susie?

Because she is his flesh and blood who he has had the opportunity to fall in love with. That doesn’t mean he thinks Susie’s life is worth less.

One human being does not get to determine the value/worth of another human being.

Sure we do, just like we get to determine which coin we find most valuable.

Uuuuuhhh . . . no. Not just like a coin. A coin does not have inherent value. It only has the value denoted to it by some state or country. I cannot believe I have to say this, but we are talking about human life.

I assure you, my family has more worth to me than you do (I say this factually, not as an insult to you). I still find value in you as a human, but it is not equal when you are asking me.

My value is not dependent on you. Even your daughter’s value is not dependent on you.

A human does in fact have more value than a blastocyst. Progress!

An embryo is simply a human at a different stage of development. The cells that make us up are continually changing throughout our lives. A 6 week old newborn looks completely different from a 6 year old, who looks completely different from a 60 year old, who looks completely different from a 6 week old inutero. That’s science.

And whichever human is fortunate enough to be saved does not mean the one who died must have been worth less. How odd.

You already demonstrated that for Mr. Smith, you know, the one you claim is doing the saving, Susie's life does have more value to him.

Incorrect. THAT is what you keep repeating. However, I have maintained that a human’s value/worth is not dependent on another human’s opinion or behavior.

I'm demonstrating that there is a value difference between a blastocyst and a baby. You really should know what I'm arguing by now.

But your hypothetical does not demonstrate that any more than me choosing a red ball over a blue ball means the red ball has more value. My choice does not determine the value of the ball.

Not only does your hypothetical not demonstrate choice equals value regarding things/objects. It especially does not demonstrate choice equals value regarding humans, BECAUSE THE VALUE OF A HUMAN IS NOT DETERMINED BY SOME OTHER HUMAN’S CHOICE!!!!!!

we demonstrated that the intrinsic value when it comes to Mr. Smith and Susie/Jane is not the same.

I do not think you know what intrinsic means. Your sentence does not make sense.

we do not abort humans

Science shows otherwise. If not a human life, what do you think an embryo is? But I am really glad to hear that you recognize how wrong it is to abort humans. It gives me hope, as it shows education is all that is needed to correct your views regarding abortion.

you seek to restrict that a woman can be free to decide for herself.

Yes, I do for a woman or anyone if it means murder. Everyone should be restricted from murdering an innocent human.

I say, not only should Mr. Smith be free to choose, but he should be free to choose to save the one he values most.

Should he be free to purposely kill the one he values less?

The human life in your daughter’s womb should not be subject to either of our decision as to whether he/she can live.

Yet here you are!

Nope. There you are. You think one human can decide whether another innocent human can live.

I see the value of my daughter as greater then that which she carries

I know you do, but that is faulty, illogical, unscientific reasoning. Your daughter is beautiful and wonderful, but were she pregnant, so would be the little human life she is carrying.

I will use my reason to have compassion on those who are in the best position to make the decision at hand.

I’ve also already explained that abortion does the opposite. It does not show compassion for the women facing an unplanned pregnancy. As the social research shows women often feel pressured to have an abortion and are made to feel they have to choose between their baby and money/job/career. And if truly free, they wouldn’t feel pressured to make such a “choice”. Women are not in the ‘best position’ as they are fed a continual stream of messages like; “Unless you abort, I’ll leave!”, “You are too young to have a baby!”, “You can’t afford a baby!”, “I will not support you if you go thru with this!”, “You will be a drain on society!”, “You’ll never amount to anything!”, “A baby will ruin your career!”, etc. This is not true freedom. We put women in a horrible position. And it is the women who suffer and pay both the physical and mental price of undergoing an abortion. Society, the men, the parents, think the “problem” has been solved/taken care of. But it is the women who have to live with this so called “choice”.

[Clownboat]

Burning building. You can save a 1 year old or a jar containing 5 blastocysts. You cannot save both.

I save the 5 embryos.

Holy moly, did that ever take some effort!

I submit that RightReason is correct in their thinking here according to their views that a blastocyst has the save value as that of a 1 year old.

For all the other humans that would save a 1 year old over a blastocyst, they would do so for the value argument I'm am putting forth. The value is not the same to them like it is for RightReason.

Do take note, that if you save my wife's blastocyst over her 1 year old, she would be horrified and would never forgive you, but you are free to believe whatever you want as long as you are not harming others. Removing a women's right to choose is to cause harm IMO and I cannot support what you argue for. Even though I don't like abortions.

Please show the prejudice or kindly retract your claim. I do hold that there is a value difference between a blastocyst and a baby.

Right. You admit you feel/believe a human life at a different stage of development does not have the same value as a human life at a different stage of development, even though both are human lives.

That is not based on science or reason. That is a personal opinion/view you hold that is likely based on emotion/indoctrination/or lack of education regarding the science.

It is a personal view, but it is not one done out of prejudice like you claim. I have supplied my reasoning, you don't agree with it because a blastocyst is not different to you then a 1 year old and you would save 5 blastocysts over a single 1 year old (shame on you by the way. Again ask any mother what they would prefer you to save on their behalf).

prej·u·dice
/ˈprejədəs/
noun
1.
preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.

How exactly is it reasonable to conclude the value of a human life based on the opinion of another human life?

In the burning building, value must come in to play.
Most humans would save a 1 year old over 5 blastocysts. You would save the blastocysts over a 1 year old and I claim no mother would forgive you for it. The value you place on a blastocyst that has a 50% chance of making it to the birth stage is not the same to the mother in question when compared to their 1 year old. I don't understand the lack of compassion it would take to walk up to the mother, feeling proud for saving her blastocysts over her child. I guess this is where we differ and you are free to believe a blastocyst has the same value to a mother over her little Johnny.

A drug addict would likely save his hidden drugs over either the 1 year old or the 5 embryos. That would not mean the drugs are more valuable.

To the drug dealer yes. You are starting to get it.
I argue that the mother is in the best position to know what the best decision is. For me, you are the drug dealer ignoring the mothers desires for your 'fix'. I can't get behind this.

I believe all human beings have equal value/dignity, inherent in being human.

Me to, but I'm comparing a blastocyst to a human here.

Right. You do know the science is clear that an embryo is human life, right?

A blastocyst is human life. It would do you well to understand that I don't question this.
Most humans would save a baby over a blastocyst. You are an exception and I argue that a mother would not forgive you for doing what you say you would do. You don't have to care about what the mother thinks though obviously and that is part of the problem from where I sit.

The value of human life is not determined on whether said human life is wanted/planned/chosen.

Human life has value. The amount of value is subjective though and that is the reason my wife could never forgive you for saving her 5 blastocysts over her 1 year old.
"Here are your blastocysts!"
You could only be proud of yourself if you ignore her wailing over having lost her child. Losing the blastocysts would be tragic, but not comparable, so clearly there is a value difference to the mother.

To “reason” as such is equivalent to the “reasoning” of the bigot.

Then every one of us that would save a 1 year old over 5 blastocysts is a bigot. Is that where you are going with this? Can't be a value difference, it just has to be bigotry.

Because she is his flesh and blood who he has had the opportunity to fall in love with. That doesn’t mean he thinks Susie’s life is worth less.

Thank you for pointing out where from his point of view the value differences stem from. Should he not be free to act on what he sees as more valuable?

Uuuuuhhh . . . no. Not just like a coin. A coin does not have inherent value.

I'll just leave this one here for all to read.

I assure you, my family has more worth to me than you do (I say this factually, not as an insult to you). I still find value in you as a human, but it is not equal when you are asking me.

My value is not dependent on you. Even your daughter’s value is not dependent on you.

If I'm saving either of you from a burning building for example, your value definitely will come in to play. Therefore, your value is dependent upon me. If your sitting at home playing chess, I need not enter the equation and your value to me is inconsequential.

An embryo is simply a human at a different stage of development. The cells that make us up are continually changing throughout our lives. A 6 week old newborn looks completely different from a 6 year old, who looks completely different from a 60 year old, who looks completely different from a 6 week old inutero. That’s science.

This is all correct! However, it fails the reality test. If you were to save 5 blastocysts for my wife over her 1 year old, she will never forgive you and you don't seem the least bit concerned about this or her feelings. I cannot just accept that a mother should not be able to be the one to decide to attempt to carry a fetus to term or not and I certainly don't see you as a better authority over the mother.

Science shows otherwise. If not a human life, what do you think an embryo is? But I am really glad to hear that you recognize how wrong it is to abort humans. It gives me hope, as it shows education is all that is needed to correct your views regarding abortion.

Yup, just stupid ol me that just needs a bit of education and I'll think just like you.

When you say we abort humans, you are just being emotional. What is generally removed is just a clump of cells that has about a 50% chance to survive to term, hardly a human being. It being a human clump of cells does not make it a human as language would have us use the word. Part of being human is to have human form or attributes. A clump of human cells does not have this. Again, any mother hearing you value a clump of human cells over their 1 year old would be appalled.

Yes, I do for a woman or anyone if it means murder. Everyone should be restricted from murdering an innocent human.

Are you talking about murder again or just conflating a blastocyst with an innocent human? Your emotional and non-descriptive use of the English language makes it hard to know.

You want so bad to call what we remove an 'innocent human'. You do this because you actually do acknowledge the value difference and it's why you want to assign the value of an innocent human to that of a clump of cells that is what actually is being removed. You see the value of an innocent human and seek to impose it on a clump of cells while arguing you would save a blastocyst over a 1 year old. Your logic deceives you.

Should he be free to purposely kill the one he values less?

You can't be serious! You're not even trying it seems. If you think I am arguing that humans should be able to kill other humans that they value less than another human, to debate you would truly be a waste of time.

Nope. There you are. You think one human can decide whether another innocent human can live.

Such deception! I believe a mother is in the best position to be the one to decide to attempt to carry a fetus to term or not. The readers will decide if what you project on to me is accurate or not.

I see the value of my daughter as greater than that which she carries

I know you do, but that is faulty, illogical, unscientific reasoning. Your daughter is beautiful and wonderful, but were she pregnant, so would be the little human life she is carrying.

None of what you just said even came close to suggesting that my claim is faulty, illogical or unscientific. The value of my daughter is greater than that which she carries still holds as being true. You will need to offer more than just empty accusations.

I will use my reason to have compassion on those who are in the best position to make the decision at hand.

I’ve also already explained that abortion does the opposite.

I acknowledge that at times is does. To think that it always does is faulty.
Therefore, I will use my reason to have compassion on those who are in the best position to make the decision at hand. I argue that is the mother. Who do you argue should be the one to decide?

[RightReason]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #93]

Holy moly, did that ever take some effort!

Not really. I not only answered your question awhile back. I also explained why your little hypothetical doesn’t demonstrate what you think it does. A human’s value/worth is not dependent on if they are someone’s choice. Also, if it did, then my response proves your entire hypothetical invalid. Your analogy fails on all counts

For all the other humans that would save a 1 year old over a blastocyst, they would do so for the value argument I'm am putting forth.

Nope. Hitler would save only the Germans. Are the lives of Jews of less value? Even if it is Hitler’s view that they are of less value, does his view make it so? Should we all agree that Hitler is the best person to decide which humans he thinks have more value?

Do take note, that if you save my wife's blastocyst over her 1 year old, she would be horrified and would never forgive you, but you are free to believe whatever you want as long as you are not harming others. Removing a women's right to choose is to cause harm

Killing the unborn causes harm to both the unborn and the mother. And I cannot support what you argue for.

Please show the prejudice or kindly retract your claim. I do hold that there is a value difference between a blastocyst and a baby.
Right. You admit you feel/believe a human life at a different stage of development does not have the same value as a human life at a different stage of development, even though both are human lives.

That is not based on science or reason. That is a personal opinion/view you hold that is likely based on emotion/indoctrination/or lack of education regarding the science.
It is a personal view, but it is not one done out of prejudice like you claim. I have supplied my reasoning, you don't agree with it because a blastocyst is not different to you then a 1 year old

Thank you for admitting yours is a personal opinion. Like I said my position is based on science/facts/biology. And I agree that an embryo is different from a 6 week old baby, who is different from a 6 year old child, who is different from a 60 year old, but they all have equal value/worth in being human. That is science and reason.

Again ask any mother what they would prefer you to save on their behalf)

I am myself a mother of 8 live births and 3 miscarriages. I am well aware of a mother’s heart and her children. And as I said before, the majority of pro-lifers are women.

Not just like a coin. A coin does not have inherent value.

I'll just leave this one here for all to read.

Not sure why you bolded this. If you are stranded on a desert island a coin has no inherent value. There is nothing of inherent value in a coin. The value is what ever someone is willing to give it – UNLIKE human life!!!!!!

An embryo is simply a human at a different stage of development. The cells that make us up are continually changing throughout our lives. A 6 week old newborn looks completely different from a 6 year old, who looks completely different from a 60 year old, who looks completely different from a 6 week old inutero. That’s science.

This is all correct! However, it fails the reality test

It passes the reality test, as it is based on science/facts. What you mean is it passes the re-defining of reality. What you mean is it is a subjective/emotional argument that must be shouted to cover up reality.

When you say we abort humans, you are just being emotional. What is generally removed is just a clump of cells

We’ve already been thru this and you admitted to accepting the science that an embryo is in fact human life with his/her own unique set of DNA, just at a different stage of development. We are all just a clump of cells that are continually changing shape/form/number throughout our lives. The pro life position is based on science/fact. It is the pro choice position that denies the science and resorts to an emotion based argument. Or one that is based more on a patriarchal dominance that puts economics over women and children.

[Bust Nak]

Not really. I not only answered your question awhile back. I also explained why your little hypothetical doesn’t demonstrate what you think it does. A human’s value/worth is not dependent on if they are someone’s choice. Also, if it did, then my response proves your entire hypothetical invalid. Your analogy fails on all counts...

It's working in the sense that people would now be less likely to listen to your opinion, since we would interpret your answers as five embryos are worth more than the life of a one year old child, despite your protest.

Nope. Hitler would save only the Germans. Are the lives of Jews of less value?

To Hitler, yes.

Even if it is Hitler’s view that they are of less value, does his view make it so?

The same way my view make Jews and German equal value - by the very act of holding that opinion.

Should we all agree that Hitler is the best person to decide which humans he thinks have more value?

No, you should all agree that I am the best person to decide which humans have more value. Failing that, we should agree that worth/value are determined solely by a person's opinion.

Killing the unborn causes harm to both the unborn and the mother. And I cannot support what you argue for.

The benefits for the woman involved outweighs the harm.

Thank you for admitting yours is a personal opinion. Like I said my position is based on science/facts/biology. And I agree that an embryo is different from a 6 week old baby, who is different from a 6 year old child, who is different from a 60 year old, but they all have equal value/worth in being human. That is science and reason.

That's your opinion. Science is silent on value/worth, and reason alone can't get you to equal value/worth without your opinion as premise.

I am myself a mother of 8 live births and 3 miscarriages. I am well aware of a mother’s heart and her children. And as I said before, the majority of pro-lifers are women.

Not in the US it's not, according to this poll the majority of pro-lifers are men by quite a margin.

Not sure why you bolded this. If you are stranded on a desert island a coin has no inherent value. There is nothing of inherent value in a coin. The value is what ever someone is willing to give it – UNLIKE human life!!!!!!

Again, your opinion.

What you mean is it is a subjective/emotional argument that must be shouted to cover up reality.

That's better than passing one's subjective/emotional argument off as reality, science and reason.

We’ve already been thru this and you admitted to accepting the science that an embryo is in fact human life with his/her own unique set of DNA, just at a different stage of development. We are all just a clump of cells that are continually changing shape/form/number throughout our lives. The pro life position is based on science/fact.

Note that none of that says anything about value/worth, none of that means anything without your accompanying opinion that embryos are of equal value to us. The pro life position is based on subjective opinion and emotion.

Or one that is based more on a patriarchal dominance that puts economics over women and children.

That's a bonus, not just beneficial overall to those directly involved, but also economically beneficial for everyone else.

[RightReason]

[Replying to Bust Nak in post #95]

It's working in the sense that people would now be less likely to listen to your opinion, since we would interpret your answers as five embryos are worth more than the life of a one year old child, despite your protest.

The intrinsic value of humans is not opinion. I’ve already demonstrated the science. But you and clownboat want to reduce the value of human life to a ‘might makes right’ thing. <sigh> Clownboats little scenario ends up demonstrating Hitler or any other psychopath gets to decide which humans can remain on the planet. THAT should make us all listen very little to your opinions about anything.

And this is exactly what happens when we draw someone’s faulty argument out to its logical conclusion – they end up defending Hitler in the end.

Nope. Hitler would save only the Germans. Are the lives of Jews of less value?
To Hitler, yes.

You can’t actually believe the lives of the Jews are dependent on the value a person gives them. Please think about what you are saying.

Even if it is Hitler’s view that they are of less value, does his view make it so?
The same way my view make Jews and German equal value - by the very act of holding that opinion.

Who the heck are you that you think your personal opinion determines the value of Jewish people. That’s not how it works.

Should we all agree that Hitler is the best person to decide which humans he thinks have more value?
No, you should all agree that I am the best person to decide which humans have more value.

That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. And you certainly wouldn’t agree with your own line of reasoning were you to live under a tyrannical rule where the tyrants thought your life is of little value to them and you ought to be eliminated.

Failing that, we should agree that worth/value are determined solely by a person's opinion.

Ha, ha, ha . . . yeah, that is exactly the mindset that brought us racism, sexism, social class warfare, etc.

Killing the unborn causes harm to both the unborn and the mother. And I cannot support what you argue for.
The benefits for the woman involved outweighs the harm.

That’s not what the social science shows.

Thank you for admitting yours is a personal opinion. Like I said my position is based on science/facts/biology. And I agree that an embryo is different from a 6 week old baby, who is different from a 6 year old child, who is different from a 60 year old, but they all have equal value/worth in being human. That is science and reason.
That's your opinion.

Not even a little. What I said is science/biology/fact. What you are spouting is opinion and a dangerous one.

Science is silent on value/worth, and reason alone can't get you to equal value/worth without your opinion as premise.

It is via science that we can know humans have intrinsic value in being human and it is exactly via reason we can come to that conclusion.

Not in the US it's not, according to this poll the majority of pro-lifers are men by quite a margin.

Despite Popular Belief, Women Are More Pro-Life than Men, Gallup Poll Says
https://www.christianheadlines.com/cont ... -says.html

Women are More Pro-Life Than Men
https://www.lifenews.com/2018/02/15/wom ... -think-of/

Democrat pollster admits women are more pro-life than men
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/democ ... als-ignor/

We’ve already been thru this and you admitted to accepting the science that an embryo is in fact human life with his/her own unique set of DNA, just at a different stage of development. We are all just a clump of cells that are continually changing shape/form/number throughout our lives. The pro life position is based on science/fact.

Note that none of that says anything about value/worth

That is exactly what it demonstrates. I am following the science. You, on the other hand, are right there with those who suggested whether women or African Americans have equal value over men or whites ought to be merely a matter of opinion.

Or one that is based more on a patriarchal dominance that puts economics over women and children.
That's a bonus, not just beneficial overall to those directly involved, but also economically beneficial for everyone else.

Not sure how sick of comment you realize this is. You are cool with a male dominated culture pressuring women to abort because it’s better for the bottom line. Wow!

I really encourage people to stop and think about what it is you actually believe. Sometimes the illogic and absurdity of it all just smacks you in the face.

[Bust Nak]

But you and clownboat want to reduce the value of human life to a ‘might makes right’ thing. <sigh>

Not might, being a moral agent makes right.

Clownboats little scenario ends up demonstrating Hitler or any other psychopath gets to decide which humans can remain on the planet.

So our thesis matches up with historical data, Hitler did end up getting to decide which human can remain on the planet. That's all the more reason to accept that subjective value is the correct model.

And this is exactly what happens when we draw someone’s faulty argument out to its logical conclusion – they end up defending Hitler in the end.

It ended up describing history accurately. You are appealing to emotion.

You can’t actually believe the lives of the Jews are dependent on the value a person gives them. Please think about what you are saying.

Believe me when I tell you that I do. You believe the worth of a coin is dependent on what value a person gives it, there is no difference in the reasoning.

Who the heck are you that you think your personal opinion determines the value of Jewish people.

I am Bust Nak, a moral agent, that's who. That's how value/worth works.

That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. And you certainly wouldn’t agree with your own line of reasoning were you to live under a tyrannical rule where the tyrants thought your life is of little value to them and you ought to be eliminated.

What made you so certain that I would change my tone under tyrannical rule where the tyrants thought I ought to be eliminated?

Ha, ha, ha . . . yeah, that is exactly the mindset that brought us racism, sexism, social class warfare, etc.

I think you'll find that the opposite is true. For example, Hitler thought that the Jews were intrinsically worth less then the Aryan master race; same goes for the white slaver owners, they thought the white race were intrinsically better than black people; same for sexists who think women naturally belongs in the kitchen, and they are going against some intrinsic order for trying to become equals of men.

That’s not what the social science shows.

How?

Not even a little. What I said is science/biology/fact... The intrinsic value of humans is not opinion... It is via science that we can know humans have intrinsic value in being human... That is exactly what it demonstrates.

Then by all scientific means demonstrate that humans have intrinsic value. If you only address one thing in my post, make it this one.

Despite Popular Belief, Women Are More Pro-Life than Men, Gallup Poll Says
https://www.christianheadlines.com/cont ... -says.html

That article is is just looking at the latest data point on the year the article was written. Go to Gallup source itself, women are consistently more pro-choice than men, include the polls for the 3 years since the article was written, where the gap widen to 41:51, 43:50 and 33:47 respectively. That last 33:47 split was what I was referring to as large margin.

Women are More Pro-Life Than Men
https://www.lifenews.com/2018/02/15/wom ... -think-of/

Democrat pollster admits women are more pro-life than men
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/democ ... als-ignor/

These two focuses on the question on banning abortion without exception, not pro-life vs pro-choice. Also worth noting is that women favors allowing abortion without restriction more than men consistently.

You, on the other hand, are right there with those who suggested whether women or African Americans have equal value over men or whites ought to be merely a matter of opinion.

Not ought to be a matter of opinion, IS a matter of opinion. I have no problem stating that whether women or African Americans have equal value over men or whites is a matter of opinion, the same way the value of coins is a matter of opinion.

Not sure how sick of comment you realize this is. You are cool with a male dominated culture pressuring women to abort because it’s better for the bottom line. Wow!

There you go with your appeal to emotion again, quit it. I am cool with a prosperous and equal culture where women can choose to abort, including for economic reasons. Wow, very sickness.

I really encourage people to stop and think about what it is you actually believe. Sometimes the illogic and absurdity of it all just smacks you in the face.

Having you considered the scenario where people have thought about it then came to an opposition views, because we don't have the same starting premises?

[RightReason]

[Replying to Bust Nak in post #97]

But you and clownboat want to reduce the value of human life to a ‘might makes right’ thing. <sigh>
Not might, being a moral agent makes right.

I think you are a little confused. That’s my argument.

A moral agent is a person who has the ability to discern right from wrong and to be held accountable for his or her own actions.

Someone is not considered a moral agent if in fact he/she lacks the ability to discern right from wrong and simply believes his decision/choice is sovereign because it is his to make. THAT would not be being a moral agent.

^Moral agency is what I am arguing. The key word being moral. We have the ability/reason to know human life begins at conception, where a fetus has its own unique set of DNA, but is simply at a different stage of development in the continuum that IS human life. We can discern, given this scientific evidence, that it would be wrong to kill Joey at 9 weeks old because he can’t yet provide for himself. Or to kill Joe at 90 because he no longer can provide for himself. Or to kill little Joe Joe at 9 weeks inutero because he can’t yet provide for himself.

Clownboats little scenario ends up demonstrating Hitler or any other psychopath gets to decide which humans can remain on the planet.
So our thesis matches up with historical data, Hitler did end up getting to decide which human can remain on the planet. That's all the more reason to accept that subjective value is the correct model.

Clownboats hypothetical demonstrates the problem with using subjective value to determine the intrinsic value of human life. Perhaps we should learn from our mistakes.

You can’t actually believe the lives of the Jews are dependent on the value a person gives them. Please think about what you are saying.
Believe me when I tell you that I do.

I don’t believe you. You realize morality is about standards in accordance with that which is right and good. It would be wrong to make a human’s value/worth/right to life dependent upon the psychotic opinion of another.

Not even a little. What I said is science/biology/fact... The intrinsic value of humans is not opinion... It is via science that we can know humans have intrinsic value in being human... That is exactly what it demonstrates.
Then by all scientific means demonstrate that humans have intrinsic value. If you only address one thing in my post, make it this one.

Human exceptionalism proves it. Humans think abstractly, they can envision, and explore deeper truths. We comprehend grandeur and beauty in the world. And only humans have the capability of moral agency. Other species do not share this. This is more than enough evidence showing the equal value each human life has in merely being human. Heck, even our founding fathers recognized this:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".

So, just like Thomas Jefferson rightly proclaimed, it is self-evident! Humans do not receive their value from the state or another individual. The have this intrinsic value in being human.

I am cool with a prosperous and equal culture where women can choose to abort, including for economic reasons.

Are you cool with a culture that chooses to abort all their unborn females because statistically males earn more money or any unborn of an illegal immigrant citing economic concerns as the reason?

Are you cool with a family that is struggling financially being able to kill their born children?

I really encourage people to stop and think about what it is you actually believe. Sometimes the illogic and absurdity of it all just smacks you in the face.
Having you considered the scenario where people have thought about it then came to an opposition views, because we don't have the same starting premises?

I think about that all the time. Just like the research shows, the pro choicers like to hide the truth about what abortion actually is with words like referring to human life (as already agreed confirmed by science) as a clump of cells or worse a parasite (not unlike the way the Naziis referred to Jewish people, in order to devalue them). I notice how places like Planned Parenthood fight to keep ultrasound machines out of their abortion clinics. Why keep people from information they need in order to make informed decisions? Gee, I wonder. Of course, many are starting from a different premise, because the truth/science/facts are being kept from them or disguised in propaganda. Our women deserve better. We really ought to stop this oppression.

[Bust Nak]

I think you are a little confused. That’s my argument.

A moral agent is a person who has the ability to discern right from wrong and to be held accountable for his or her own actions.

Someone is not considered a moral agent if in fact he/she lacks the ability to discern right from wrong and simply believes his decision/choice is sovereign because it is his to make. THAT would not be being a moral agent...

^Moral agency is what I am arguing. The key word being moral. We have the ability/reason to know human life begins at conception, where a fetus has its own unique set of DNA, but is simply at a different stage of development in the continuum that IS human life.

We can discern, given this scientific evidence, that it would be wrong to kill Joey at 9 weeks old because he can’t yet provide for himself. Or to kill Joe at 90 because he no longer can provide for himself. Or to kill little Joe Joe at 9 weeks inutero because he can’t yet provide for himself.

Okay, you've outlined your position, but haven't explained why others should accept it, so how is that an argument? That's still just your opinion, until you can demonstrate it with science, more below...

Clownboats hypothetical demonstrates the problem with using subjective value to determine the intrinsic value of human life.

What problem? You disagreeing with it does not make it a problem. The problem you actually mentioned re: racism and sexism etc. were cause by appealing to objective/intrinsic value to determine the value of human life - Hitler thought Jews were intrinsically less valuable. Talk about learning from our mistakes.

I don’t believe you. You realize morality is about standards in accordance with that which is right and good. It would be wrong to make a human’s value/worth/right to life dependent upon the psychotic opinion of another.

Well, that's very presumptions of you and you are incorrect. Morality is about standards in accordance with that which is right and good, that much is true, but there are as many standards as there are individuals, and some of those individual are psychotic. You can't make a human’s value/worth/right to life dependent upon a standard, because it IS determined by standards. The question is, which is the most relevant one, I don't think it's those of psychotic individuals, do you?

Human exceptionalism proves it. Humans think abstractly, they can envision, and explore deeper truths. We comprehend grandeur and beauty in the world. And only humans have the capability of moral agency. Other species do not share this. This is more than enough evidence showing the equal value each human life has in merely being human.

To carry on from above... How exactly is that enough in showing that? How are you jumping from the premise, "human are smart and uniquely, only humans have moral agency" to your conclusion "each human life has equal and intrinsic value in merely being human." Again, if you only address one point, make it this one. While we are here, if value is based upon the capability of moral agency and comprehension of beauty, then why don't those with more capability and comprehension have higher values?

Heck, even our founding fathers recognized this...

That's religion talking, you said you could show it with science. I am holding you to your claims.

Are you cool with a culture that chooses to abort all their unborn females because statistically males earn more money or any unborn of an illegal immigrant citing economic concerns as the reason?

Yes, presumably you are not talking about forced abortion against a woman's wishes. This is what pro-choice entails: the women involved should have the final say, if they choose to do so based on economic concern, that's up to them. Frankly, a culture deserve to die out if its gender pay gap is so great that it becomes a deciding factor in whether a woman (let alone all of them,) choose to carry a pregnancy to term or not. Of course the same applies to all women whatever their legal status is. Illegal immigrants have the same right to choose as citizens.

Are you cool with a family that is struggling financially being able to kill their born children?

No, that's immoral.

I think about that all the time. Just like the research shows, the pro choicers like to hide the truth about what abortion actually is with words like referring to human life (as already agreed confirmed by science) as a clump of cells or worse a parasite (not unlike the way the Naziis referred to Jewish people, in order to devalue them).

You've affirmed on multiple occasion that you and I are clumps of cells. It is the truth that a fetus is a clump of cells, did you want to hide that truth from women thinking of an abortion? I do accept that they are is not strictly speaking, parasites, as parasites are a different species to the host. Speaking of what the research shows, are you ready to accept that women in the US are more pro-choice than men are?

I notice how places like Planned Parenthood fight to keep ultrasound machines out of their abortion clinics. Why keep people from information they need in order to make informed decisions?

It's not information they need in order to make informed decisions thought, that's the point. We keep it out because we want women to make the most rational choice they can, rather than an emotional one.

Gee, I wonder. Of course, many are starting from a different premise, because the truth/science/facts are being kept from them or disguised in propaganda. Our women deserve better. We really ought to stop this oppression.

There you go with the appeal to emotion again. Quit it.

[RightReason]

[Replying to Bust Nak in post #99]

Okay, you've outlined your position, but haven't explained why others should accept it

It should be accepted because the science supports it. And as each of us has already admitted, regarding the intrinsic value/worth of human life, “we hold these truths to be self-evident.”

Clownboats hypothetical demonstrates the problem with using subjective value to determine the intrinsic value of human life.
What problem? You disagreeing with it does not make it a problem.

No. What makes it a problem is it permits the Hitlers and bigots to have power. According to Clownboat, the value of the Jewish person is dependent on what Hitler thinks of them. That is illogical and problematic.

The value/worth/right to life of a human does not come down to the opinion of another. I’m not sure what you don’t get about that. We have already acknowledged all human life has equal worth/value/right to life, as demonstrated by science and as acknowledged as universal truth by things like the Declaration of Independence, which merely confirmed what we already knew.

Just because some people come along and attempt to deny/ignore/or worse attack this inherent value/worth/right to life does not mean well then those being attacked are actually worth less and have no rights. How absurd! It’s like saying, “Look, the bullies just beat up that kid -- must mean he’s a loser.” Such an unacceptable line of reasoning.

racism and sexism etc. were cause by appealing to objective/intrinsic value to determine the value of human life - Hitler thought Jews were intrinsically less valuable. Talk about learning from our mistakes.

Not even a little. Hitler did not recognize the intrinsic value of human life. It was his opinion some humans were worth less and that all did not have intrinsic value. He was wrong. But according to your and clownboat’s understanding, if Hitler thought less of Jewish people, then Jewish people must have less value. Your position is one person’s behavior/action/attitude determines the value of another. THAT is false and unacceptable.

there are as many standards as there are individuals, and some of those individual are psychotic.

There are not many standards when we are talking about moral truth. Moral truth is derived from one ultimate, external standard that we all point to. The fact that a psychopath is oblivious to THE standard does not then mean there isn’t one standard. It merely means his conscience is messed up, which is something we can all agree upon regarding a psychopath.


But you are correct in realizing that nothing can be done. Nothing for social justice. Nothing to stop oppression. Nothing to help people. Nothing to make this world a better place – if we don’t recognize Truth exists. Truth is something all men can know via observation of this world we live, acknowledgment of science and the way things work, and by using reason and logic. And all men are subject to this Truth and it is actually how we all live on a daily basis and why we even appeal to doing what is right and good. If we didn’t all realize that right and wrong exists, we wouldn’t demand it. We wouldn’t insist upon it. We wouldn’t get so outraged. But we do. And rightly so.

You can't make a human’s value/worth/right to life dependent upon a standard, because it IS determined by standards. The question is, which is the most relevant one, I don't think it's those of psychotic individuals, do you?

You seem oblivious to the irony in your response. You appeal to us having to determine the relevance of a standard. LOL! We would have to appeal to an ultimate, external standard, to be able to appeal to the relevance of a standard. And your very own line, “I don’t think it’s those of the psychotic, do you?” shows you recognize there is an ultimate standard for right/wrong to which we can judge the psychotic’s action/behavior. Please read this a couple of times to see the irony in all you’ve said.

Human exceptionalism proves it. Humans think abstractly, they can envision, and explore deeper truths. We comprehend grandeur and beauty in the world. And only humans have the capability of moral agency. Other species do not share this. This is more than enough evidence showing the equal value each human life has in merely being human.
To carry on from above... How exactly is that enough in showing that? How are you jumping from the premise, "human are smart and uniquely, only humans have moral agency" to your conclusion "each human life has equal and intrinsic value in merely being human."

Re-read it. As has already been described by many people before me, all of the science and what makes us unique as humans makes our intrinsic value a “self-evident truth”. That my friend is science and reason.

if value is based upon the capability of moral agency and comprehension of beauty, then why don't those with more capability and comprehension have higher values?

I don’t understand what you are asking. Are you saying why aren’t humans who have greater capability worth more? Or do you mean why don’t people who have more capabilities act more morally?

Heck, even our founding fathers recognized this...
That's religion talking

The statement isn’t really a religious one. It simply acknowledges the intrinsic value/right to life of every human in simply being human. That’s what I posted was what the declaration of independence was acknowledging. There actually is no need to mention God, even if a Christian nation sometimes chooses to. The words simply mean, our value/rights are not given to us by the state or another individual human, rather they are external and intrinsic in just being human (which as already discussed can be determined via science and our human innate sense of moral Truth). This is something both the religious and secular can acknowledge.

Are you cool with a culture that chooses to abort all their unborn females because statistically males earn more money or any unborn of an illegal immigrant citing economic concerns as the reason?
Yes, presumably you are not talking about forced abortion against a woman's wishes. This is what pro-choice entails: the women involved should have the final say, if they choose to do so based on economic concern, that's up to them.

Why should the woman have the final say? We are talking about a separate unique human life. Also, that life has a father as well. What about his say? If the state or father can’t abort a child due to economic reasons, why can a woman? No one can force her to be a parent. We have adoption and safe houses. Please watch this. It does a great job of pointing out the illogic of the pro choice position and their cries of, “No forced birth!” as a false opposition to eliminating abortion.


https://edify.us/video/how-to-change-minds-on-abortion/

Frankly, a culture deserve to die out if its gender pay gap is so great that it becomes a deciding factor in whether a woman (let alone all of them,) choose to carry a pregnancy to term or not.

How about we try to support women so they can keep their children like the social research shows they want to? How about that? Seems a little more noble than telling her, well we can’t help or support you financially, but there’s always abortion (which, btw, negatively impacts women over the men and society at large. So, while a great solution for the economic bottom line, or for a dead beat father who wants an out, or for a company that doesn’t want to pay family leave, it really isn’t a great solution for women).

Are you cool with a family that is struggling financially being able to kill their born children?
No, that's immoral.

Riiiiiiiiiiight . . . . because the child is a human life, right? And human life is protected? Hmmmmm . . . .

It's not information they need in order to make informed decisions thought, that's the point. We keep it out because we want women to make the most rational choice they can, rather than an emotional one.

Huh? How is accessing thru technology what is going on in a woman’s uterus emotional? It’s literally showing what we are literally dealing with. It is providing her with information. It is revealing, not hiding or keeping anything from her in order for her to make an informed decision. Who in the world would oppose access to information?


So, at this point, I would like to thank you and clownboat for the conversation and I will let the two of you have the last word, but I’m not sue there is much left to say. I am very happy with what I have presented as my position. And I stand by it as being the most reasonable. I find the pro choice position anti science and anti reason. And I maintain clownboat’s hypothetical does NOT indicate the value of human life. If it did, heaven help us! “Let’s save only the pretty ones!”


And while I can understand the emotion based argument for abortion, that is all the pro choice position has, I find it completely misplaced. As, like I already said, I am unsure why we wouldn’t look for a solution to love both the mother and the child. Abortion is not pro women. It makes no sense other than for a short term selfish economic based solution that ends up harming more people in the long run (including women, children, and society at large). A country that permits mothers to kill their own children is a country that devalues life. This devaluing then overflows into other areas of life. If we can’t protect and respect the unborn, then how can we be expected to protect and respect the vulnerable, marginalized, those who can’t speak for themselves, those who don’t look like us, those who may be seen as economic liabilities? Part of what it means to be a human is protecting and respecting each other from womb to tomb. That is beautiful and the only thing that makes sense, less we are all reduced to our productivity/usefulness.

Thanks for taking the time to talk with me. I hope you’ll continue thinking about these very important issues.