Well, that's why I said "a bunch", instead of all, or the majority, or a significant number. There'd be some.
But yeah, Trump is too clever not to be say that out loud unless for some reason her had to.
Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade; states can ban abortion
- Thread starter Piscian
- Start date
But yeah, Trump is too clever not to be say that out loud unless for some reason her had to.
What is wrong with ya'll?
-A cut off finger can't become anything but a cut off finger
-A bear is a bear regardless of what we call it. Somebody with no knowledge of bears that stumbles upon a bear is gonna get eaten by the bear because it's a fucking bear
A combination of both bad faith arguments and mental gymnastics.
-A cut off finger can't become anything but a cut off finger
-A bear is a bear regardless of what we call it. Somebody with no knowledge of bears that stumbles upon a bear is gonna get eaten by the bear because it's a fucking bear
A combination of both bad faith arguments and mental gymnastics.
I will add in the far flung future where we can raise a fetus in a pod or something with no danger to mother or child, I will bet the primary opposition will come from the religious side which, today, is using 'barbarism' in their tool kit.
Once the tools are there, they will kick and scream about how immoral it is to play gods or some bullshit. They want power and control over other people, not some particular outcome. And they'll wield whatever stick it takes to get there.
Once the tools are there, they will kick and scream about how immoral it is to play gods or some bullshit. They want power and control over other people, not some particular outcome. And they'll wield whatever stick it takes to get there.
There will be the same opposition there as there currently is to separating a child from their parents: that should be a last resort.
You seem to have forgotten we're talking about a scenario where the zygote or fetus can be removed and grown independently. There is no parent / child attachment, simply a continuation of genetic material.
Man your bit fell apart remarkably quickly this time.
It might be best to look at the difference between a virus and bacteria. The latter is classed as an organism but viruses are not. Bacteria can live outside of a host. Viruses can not. They can only live through the host
A just impregnated egg can not live by itself. A 30 week old baby has a good chance of living by itself. The latter is an organism, the former is not
You're trying to be evil on purpose, I think.
If a virus did anything we consider as living, nobody would hesitate to call them organisms. Viruses do not move themselves, they do not grow, they neither consume nor produce energy, they cannot reproduce themselves, they do not respond to stimuli, they are not made of cells, they do nothing at all to maintain homeostasis. A virus inside of a host is pretty much exactly the same inanimate object as a virus outside a host, basically just a dust particle floating about, until such a time when it just happens to fall into just the right place in an actual living organism that the organism's cells latch on, rip open the virus, and get confused into producing more of the virus. Viruses and bacteria are dramatically and fundamentally different in nature.
Time is the difference between a fetus and an adult, they are otherwise the exact same thing. There is no fundamental difference.
Really? They have the same capabilities, experience of their surroundings, and attributes?
Snipping away the context so you can take a jab? Man I really have backed you into an angle where you have nothing.
Again, if the incubation takes place independently (in our future scenario where tech facilitates that) then there is no parent / child bonding AT THE TIME OF BIRTH. No pregnancy, no bond. Insisting that the child go to the parents who do not want it, based on the genetic link, rather than a set who want a child? That is evil.
Time is the difference between 10 sheep and 100 sheep, they are otherwise the exact same number. There is no fundamental difference.
I'm saying that taking the fetus out of the mother should be a last resort. The ideal is that the biological parents care for their children. A world where people can remove a living fetus and grow it in a tube and then somebody else can be the parents would be a dramatic upgrade over the current situation, but if done the way we do abortion now at the rates we do abortion now, that's still a world of immense tragedy. Just less tragic than straight up murder.
Correct. The essential nature is "a flock of sheep" either way.
Yes. You said there's no fundamental difference except time. One's capabilities, experience of their surroundings, and attributes may change with time, but are not the same thing.
If you include anything that may change with time, you'd end up including almost every possible attribute, making the statement meaningless. After all: Time is the difference between a human adult and a pile of corpse-dust-- we should therefore afford the latter all the same rights, eh?
It's very fortunate that pretty much all of America agrees with you
It sure isn't like a bacteria at the start because it cant maintain any homeostasis or reproduce or produce energy. Somewhere along the 9 months, a fetus turns from something akin to a virus to something akin to bacteria.
You're saying this like its a revelation when it just paraphrasing my point
Maybe not necessarily you but you guys have been arguing about semantics for awhile now, whether finger, bear, organism, virus, bacteria, etc. The point is one side doesn't care about the semantics, a fetus is still gonna be a person and the other side is basically doing mental gymnastics to explain why it's different when the other side doesn't care about the differences.
Ah yes, children being loved and raised by someone without a genetic connection, with no harm done to anyone involved. What a tragedy. How Christian of you.