Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade; states can ban abortion

[Terminal Blue]

An individual, functioning life form.

I don't see how many of the things you're describing as people can possibly meet that definition.

For example, what defines an individual? Does an individual need to have its own distinct DNA? Because if so, a zygote isn't an individual.

Furthermore, what defines a life form as "functioning?" Does a functioning life form need to be able to maintain homeostasis? A fetus can't do that on its own until quite late in pregnancy. The amount of medical attention needed to keep babies born a couple of months early alive is very aggressive and wasn't possible until quite recently. Even healthy babies can't do some things until a little while after they are born, for example they need to be kept warm until their bodies adapt to regulating their own temperature.

None of this is to suggest that a newborn baby, even a premature one, isn't a living organism or isn't a person. Only that this is a silly definition that ignores the realities of how humans are created. In fact, how multicellular life itself works.

That single celled zygote isn't a person, it's a cell. There are trillions of cells in a human body, and our ability to exist as living things relies on the cumulative action of those cells. The cells themselves are not us, they are created, live and die without us even noticing. Hundreds of millions of them are shed from our skin each hour. The life of a multicellular organism is an emergent property of the action of countless cells. Those cells are not capable of intelligence, but when countless billions of them form a structure that structure can become capable of intelligence.

That is why there will never be a clear line when a human life begins, because a human life is a function of complexity, not a function of cellular metabolism. That is why your definition of life is reductive, nihilistic and nonsensical, because it fails to understand that humans are not cells. The cells that make us up may be "functioning" but they are not individuals. We as individuals are complex structures made of cells, and a human is not a functioning life form until that structure forms.

To clarify, this is the basis of my moral and political opinions on the subject. There are certainly other ways of understanding the pretty complex questions of when human life begins, I just find this one to be the most robust.

I'm largely not expressing moral opinions here. If you look at the thread, you might notice which users are attempting to shame people with comments of how barbaric they are.

Look at the title of the thread, and consider the context. There are very good reasons for people to believe that these are not moral opinions but political opinions, and if you think that is an inaccurate view of your argument here you might get better results by clearly distinguishing your political opinions from your moral opinions.

I of all people understand that's not always possible, and certainly not always easy, but if it is impossible it's because those moral opinions are also political, and you should probably own that instead of complaining about being misjudged.

Soooooo you want me to be a different person?

I want you to stop moving the goalposts and address the problems with your argument. I don't really care what the outcome of that is.

You've misunderstood the example I gave. It was not an example of how I "want" you to change, it was an example of how you could keep the same argument (how you could not change) while also reconciling the problems and contradictions. If you have an alternative or something better, I'm interested to hear it. But you can't keep claiming the high ground of being reasonable while making the same weak argument over and over again and moving the goalposts by using different language. That is frustrating and makes it appear that you aren't being honest.

For what it's worth, I apologize for calling you a liar. I don't think you are intentionally being dishonest, but I would think deeply about whether this is an argument you actually want to have, or whether you're simply trying to defend intractable and deeply held beliefs which you're not actually willing to give serious thought to. This isn't a particularly fun topic, but it seems like you're finding it particularly unenjoyable, especially for someone who isn't directly affected by it.

You can't survive without the nourishment provided by other organisms. I've painted myself into the biological definition of life. What a horrible corner to be in.

We can, however, maintain homeostasis on our own, and if we can't do that it's because we're dying.

That is important because it's not only one of the most common definitions of life, but also because it's the mechanism by which the vast majority of abortions actually work.

 

[tstorm823]

For example, what defines an individual? Does an individual need to have its own distinct DNA? Because if so, a zygote isn't an individual.

You are incorrect.

To clarify, this is the basis of my moral and political opinions on the subject. There are certainly other ways of understanding the pretty complex questions of when human life begins, I just find this one to be the most robust.

If by robust you mean exploitable, sure. You don't believe a human is a human unless it meets your arbitrary standards of complexity.

I want you to stop moving the goalposts and address the problems with your argument. I don't really care what the outcome of that is.

You: "Can't you just agree to believe this thing you never remotely said?"
Me: "No"
You: "Stop moving the goalposts!"

It was not an example of how I "want" you to change, it was an example of how you could keep the same argument (how you could not change) while also reconciling the problems and contradictions.

There is no contradiction in viewing all living human beings as people. You decided that was about empathy, then also decided that empathy is reserved for those sufficiently like you, and called that a contradiction. I accept none of those premises. Rather, if anything, I'd suggest you move beyond empathy, as a society built on people understanding each others' feelings is quite a fragile society. It's better to assume the value of others regardless of whether you can empathize with them.

For what it's worth, I apologize for calling you a liar. I don't think you are intentionally being dishonest, but I would think deeply about whether this is an argument you actually want to have, or whether you're simply trying to defend intractable and deeply held beliefs which you're not actually willing to give serious thought to. This isn't a particularly fun topic, but it seems like you're finding it particularly unenjoyable, especially for someone who isn't directly affected by it.

I enjoy arguments, particularly in a topic that gets as complex as this. I don't believe I've lost a single point in this thread. Once upon a time a user on here argued with me about abortion and he ultimately concluded that the unborn are people and future generations will view abortion as absolutely monstrous in retrospect, but he still believed it to be both justified for the woman's freedom and necessary in societies that can't support more children. That is a position that I strongly disagree with, but is also pretty darn bulletproof. Everyone in here now arguing about whether a fetus is alive or if a zygote is unique or if any stage of life is non-human are wasting their time. It's unreasonable, anti-scientific gobbledygook. Those who accept the humanity of the unborn but try and delineate between human and person are at least not in denial of objective reality, but they are trying to create subjective standards of personhood, which is a bad, bad idea, for reasons that should be obvious, but if someone was willing to accept the inevitable consequences of such an argument, at least they'd be consistent.

What I see is a lot of people trying to carve out a special pocket in their view of nature that leaves room specifically for abortion and nothing else. If anyone were to suggest to you in other topics that maybe human rights are reserved for only "people", rather than all humans, you'd probably take issue with that.

 

[thebobmaster]

Another unforeseen consequence of this ruling.

Pregnant Texas woman cited for driving alone in HOV lane, claims unborn child counts as second passenger

A pregnant Texas woman got a traffic ticket for driving alone in the HOV lane. Now she’s fighting against the citation, claiming her unborn child should count as a second passenger.

www.ksat.com

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Another unforeseen consequence of this ruling.

Pregnant Texas woman cited for driving alone in HOV lane, claims unborn child counts as second passenger

A pregnant Texas woman got a traffic ticket for driving alone in the HOV lane. Now she’s fighting against the citation, claiming her unborn child should count as a second passenger.

www.ksat.com

I glanced at the comment section and somebody pointed out if this logic ends up holding up, a pregnant mother can start getting child benefits early, claiming their unborn as a dependent. The next thought then is a woman could get pregnant, take benefits for 2 or 3 months, and probably have enough money to go out of state to get an abortion and be able to pocket some leftover cash.

 

[immortalfrieza]

I glanced at the comment section and somebody pointed out if this logic ends up holding up, a pregnant mother can start getting child benefits early, claiming their unborn as a dependent. The next thought then is a woman could get pregnant, take benefits for 2 or 3 months, and probably have enough money to go out of state to get an abortion and be able to pocket some leftover cash.

...and then fast an industry will pop up where women deliberately get pregnant for 2-3 months so get the benefits, head out of state, get it aborted, then sleep with some guy again, lather, rinse, repeat.

I wish that was a joke, I really do, but I honestly could see it happening until the government seals that loophole.

 

[Cheetodust]

...and then fast an industry will pop up where women deliberately get pregnant for 2-3 months so get the benefits, head out of state, get it aborted, then sleep with some guy again, lather, rinse, repeat.

I wish that was a joke, I really do, but I honestly could see it happening until the government seals that loophole.

No. It won't.

 

[Elijin]

Being pregnant is physically and mentally exhausting. Abortions are painful and traumatic. Anyone who chooses to do those things for a profit is both earning that money and accepting being wildly underpaid for the experience.

 

[McElroy]

snip

In IVF we essentially "waste" embryos because many more are fertilized, thus becoming people, than eventually born. But maybe through medical science advancement this becomes unnecessary and we get good results with only one fertilization at a time or whatever. Nevertheless, fewer killed people -- as you put it -- means a more moral society.

Or we just never count the embryos as people, y'know don't think about it just like they don't think about literally anything, and the moral fabric never had that tear to begin with. So many pregnancies end on their own without a viable fetus and nobody keeps count and moralizes over them all. Extending that idea is no problem. First for the wasted IV embryos, and then for abortions.

 

[Kwak]

...and then fast an industry will pop up where women deliberately get pregnant for 2-3 months so get the benefits, head out of state, get it aborted, then sleep with some guy again, lather, rinse, repeat.

I wish that was a joke, I really do, but I honestly could see it happening until the government seals that loophole.

You have an extremely dim view of women, perhaps you should look into that.

 

[Casual Shinji]

...and then fast an industry will pop up where women deliberately get pregnant for 2-3 months so get the benefits, head out of state, get it aborted, then sleep with some guy again, lather, rinse, repeat.

That's the same argument pro-lifers use as to why women shouldn't have access to abortions; they'll just get pregnant for the heck of it to get an abortion. It doesn't happen. It also smacks of 'don't give people (who desperately need help) any help (money), because then they'll just exploit it'.

 

[immortalfrieza]

You have an extremely dim view of women, perhaps you should look into that.

I have an extremely dim view of humanity. If there's a loophole or law or system anywhere that lets people sit on their butts collecting money with no work on consequences, people will use it until it's no longer an option. Even if it would've been less of a hassle to just do actual honest work. Some people think they are clever when they aren't.

 

[thebobmaster]

I have an extremely dim view of humanity. If there's a loophole or law or system anywhere that lets people sit on their butts collecting money with no work on consequences, people will use it until it's no longer an option. Even if it would've been less of a hassle to just do actual honest work. Some people think they are clever when they aren't.

Being pregnant, from everything I've observed from the outside and heard about, is a consequence.

 

[Terminal Blue]

You are incorrect.

..and yet you cannot coherently explain why. I wonder why that is?

You don't believe a human is a human unless it meets your arbitrary standards of complexity.

I don't believe a human zygote is a person, and that's really as far as I'm comfortable going.

It would be far easier and more convenient if I could tell you that a human becomes a person at exactly 12 weeks, or 20 weeks. The reality is that a human becomes a person gradually over about 25 years of development. For the purposes of law, we have to draw certain developmental milestones onto that process which are arbitrary. But that is a matter of necessity, because being arbitrary is preferable to not having any standards at all.

But ultimately, I don't think deciding whether a fetus is a person is actually particularly important, because the concept of personhood is itself arbitrary.

Simply put, if you believe that all human organisms are people from the moment they are concieved, then the standard of personhood is broad enough to accommodate a range of things with basically no properties in common. It doesn't then follow that it is wrong to abort a person because even if a fetus in early pregnancy is a "person", it's still a fundamentally different type of person, and thus it doesn't follow that it should be held to the same standards as an adult or even a child. That difference isn't conceptual, it's physical. It exists no matter how you define it.

The "personhood" argument is a red herring. It's a misleading attempt to elicit feelings of sympathy towards things that don't actually feel at all.

You: "Can't you just agree to believe this thing you never remotely said?"
Me: "No"
You: "Stop moving the goalposts!"

You: "Here is my absolutely uncontroversial, objective definition of a thing"
Me: "That definition is vague and, taken seriously, would result in these unintended consequences"
You: "Nooooo! I didn't say that."

Am I supposed to treat the things you say as serious premises, or am I supposed to uncritically accept the stunning brilliance and universal validity of your beliefs and then treat the weak justification by which you seem to be getting there as nothing but a means to an end? I am open to the possibility that I am misinterpreting, but if I am then you're not explaining yourself well.

There is no contradiction in viewing all living human beings as people.

Leaving aside the potential complexity of defining a living human being, If you don't mind a meaningless and anemic definition of personhood then I agree, there isn't an inherent contradiction in that. There is, however, a contradiction in using this meaningless definition of personhood to argue against abortion.

You decided that was about empathy

It is about empathy.

The assumption that other people have minds like my own (which you proposed, I did not) is a literal description of empathy, and an assumption that in most cases is very good and necessary to understand the world. However, by weakening the definition of personhood to the degree you have you have made that assumption ridiculous. As quintessentially human as it may be, it is very silly to feel empathy towards the cells that make up a human body or to assume that they have the qualities of personhood simply because you cannot definitively prove otherwise.

Rather, if anything, I'd suggest you move beyond empathy, as a society built on people understanding each others' feelings is quite a fragile society. It's better to assume the value of others regardless of whether you can empathize with them.

Has that worked for you?

Since 1977, eight abortion providers have been murdered. 17 have been victims of attempted murder. There have been 42 bombings and 186 arson attacks against abortion clinics.

Again, the parties and individuals which advocate banning abortion are typically those most deeply opposed to cutting funding to police forces that routinely kill people, or restricting the availability of deadly firearms, or ensuring universal access to life saving medical treatments, or to measures that might reduce traffic and alleviate the death toll of road accidents. They have routinely proven themselves indifferent to or outright supportive of violence or abuse against queer and trans people, the detention and accompanying abuse of undocumented migrants, the disproportionate imprisonment of racial minorities for non-violent crimes and the use of said prisoners as forced labor. They are typically indifferent towards climate change, and the absolute holocaust that will be inflicted on subsequent generations of humans. They are typically supportive of global capitalism despite the death toll inflicted on developing countries through poverty and political repression.

Then there's the human toll of criminalizing abortion itself, which seems to be brushed off at every opportunity. The people who will die or be seriously harmed by having undocumented procedures, the children who will grow up unwanted, neglected or abused, or who will grow up in a cycle of poverty, or who will end up raised in care. There's the toll of the resulting social problems. Crime, addiction, suicide. Not to mention the mental health toll on people who are being told, in essence, that they no longer own the functioning of their own bodies.

I don't know about you, but this assumption of human value in the absence of actual feelings towards other humans doesn't seem to result in a strong or robust society. It seems to result in a society which only values unborn humans, which doesn't care what happens to people after they are born unless they happen to fall into the right demographics and don't step out of line. It seems to be a profoundly cruel and unforgiving society, a society which is largely indifferent to suffering and finds excuses to condemn anyone who experiences it. It's a society that demands moral perfection and yet gives nothing back.

I would say that's not a society that values life at all. In fact, it's a necrophiliac society. it despises living people because living people are flawed and messy and prone to mistakes, and worships fetuses as the exemplars of its ideal form of human life, brainless, devoid of independent thought, incapable of moral action and thus incapable of error, devoid of love or happiness or anything that makes life worth living. Without empathy or emotion, the value of life becomes existence without meaning for the sake of existence itself, and a society based on it is a society that systematically denies everything vital and human in the vain hope that death will bring a purer and less complicated happiness.

If evil is banal, then it's hard to imagine a more singularly and wholly evil philosophy.

I don't believe I've lost a single point in this thread.

Try engaging with one.

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

I have an extremely dim view of humanity. If there's a loophole or law or system anywhere that lets people sit on their butts collecting money with no work on consequences, people will use it until it's no longer an option. Even if it would've been less of a hassle to just do actual honest work. Some people think they are clever when they aren't.

This is the same old justification for cutting social services and welfare safety nets over and over again in every relevant country, despite it being repeatedly proven to be completely overblown while being found to be of minimal cost and concern. That's not even going into the specific racist and sexist baggage America has with such stereotype.

Welfare fraud is actually rare, no matter what the myths and stereotypes say

Stigma has power."But if you ask about the things that welfare performs, you get support for it," says Noam Chomsky

www.salon.com

What are the real figures of welfare fraud in the US

In the United States, monitoring efforts to combat public benefits fraud are often part of a broader approach that focuses on stigmatizing people receiving benefits and reducing their number, rather than ensuring that the maximum number of people who are eligible receive benefit

privacyinternational.org

Just How Wrong Is Conventional Wisdom About Government Fraud?

Entitlement programs, from food stamps to Medicare, don't see unusually high cheating rates -- and the culprits are usually managers and executives, not "welfare queens."

www.theatlantic.com

The Facts About Food Stamp Fraud

Malfeasance among the program's participants ballooned in the four years through 2016, but fraud still represents a tiny percentage of the money in SNAP.

www.forbes.com

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

In IVF we essentially "waste" embryos because many more are fertilized, thus becoming people, than eventually born. But maybe through medical science advancement this becomes unnecessary and we get good results with only one fertilization at a time or whatever. Nevertheless, fewer killed people -- as you put it -- means a more moral society.

Or we just never count the embryos as people, y'know don't think about it just like they don't think about literally anything, and the moral fabric never had that tear to begin with. So many pregnancies end on their own without a viable fetus and nobody keeps count and moralizes over them all. Extending that idea is no problem. First for the wasted IV embryos, and then for abortions.

I mean, I get where you're going, but the people who share tstorm's politics very much want to ban IVF

 

[McElroy]

I mean, I get where you're going, but the people who share tstorm's politics very much want to ban IVF

I expect that, yes. Still, if one accepts that 30-40% pregnancy loss as a natural flaw, it doesn't take half a brain to think that the reason for IVF treatment is some sort of natural flaw in those seeking it and thus the result is some per cent of lost pregnancies. It isn't so clear cut for abortions, but we can still accept that pregnancies aren't lossless. There are flaws -- both in and out of the uterus -- that result in termination of the pregnancy.

Anyway, I just wanted to explain my train of thought on the matter, and how it doesn't hinge on whether the unborn are human beings or not. Biological viability is cool 'n' all, but the value of an embryo/fetus is more of an emotional work in progress. And in most cases the best person to be the arbiter of that is the pregnant woman herself.

 

[tstorm823]

I don't believe a human zygote is a person, and that's really as far as I'm comfortable going.

I imagine you're aware that's a few days of life you're counting out.

The "personhood" argument is a red herring. It's a misleading attempt to elicit feelings of sympathy towards things that don't actually feel at all.

The personhood argument is a red herring. It is red herring that is deployed by the pro-choice side to justify legal homicide. The argument that fetuses are people doesn't start from a pro-life position, it is a reaction to the insistence that fetuses aren't people from the other side.

Like, you talk in part of the post I snipped for clarity about it taking 25 years to become a person, and I understand your perspective there, but that should only make it even more obvious that you can't reasonably premise the right to live on what state of development you've reached. I could buy "you're not a full person til 25", but to hold that belief, you can't hold that killing someone isn't criminal until they're a full person.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Try engaging with one.

He doesn't like that, so he won't.

 

[Gergar12]

I know why they are doing this. It's because they want us, young people, to have more children despite the fact that some of those children will die, grow up poorer, and some young women and even fucking female kids will die. It has nothing to do with life otherwise these republicans would act like the catholic church who are assholes, but at least want social welfare programs along with their horrific anti-freedom abortion policies. It's what I called economically aligned social policy.

Stop treating this like a religious issue, it's an economic issue. Republicans want more economic fodder for the death cult that is the current economic system.

 

[Seanchaidh]

I have an extremely dim view of humanity. If there's a loophole or law or system anywhere that lets people sit on their butts collecting money with no work on consequences, people will use it until it's no longer an option. Even if it would've been less of a hassle to just do actual honest work. Some people think they are clever when they aren't.

Honest work? In this economy!?