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

[Terminal Blue]

That is not at all inconsistent.

Yes, it is.

A single cell is not a multicellular organism. That is about as definitively true as it's possible to get. Therefore, the life of a multicellular organism like a human being does not begin at the point it is a single cell because at that point it is not a multicellular organism at all. Claiming that a human life begins at the point of conception is no more coherent than claiming that a human life begins at the point of intercourse or at the point of implantation or any of the other thousands of things that typically need to happen in order for humans to reproduce.

Nothing magical or special happens at the point of conception. A sperm encounters an ovum. An organelle within the sperm releases acidic enzymes which weaken the cell membrane of the ovum allowing the head of the sperm to penetrate said membrane. The plasma membrane of the sperm breaks down and is absorbed into that of the ovum along with the nucleus. The result is a cell with two nuclei containing two separate sets of DNA. At what exact point in that process does a human life begin? At what point does the soul come into existence?

Also, I still need to know about those monozygotic twins..

Are those things human?

Define human.

Again, do you think there is a clear and objective distinction between human and non-human organisms? That distinction only exists at this point in time because the intermediate stages are extinct. So what exactly is it that makes humans human? When did this uniquely human quality first appear?

Remember, I'm only asking questions you claim to know the answer to. I do not mind if you believe that abortion is a sin or even that personhood begins at conception (even if I think the latter is incredibly stupid). That disagreement might be the basis for some fun ethical discussion. But you are claiming to possess actual knowledge of reality to which you think everyone else should be forced to conform. You are asking to be held to a much, much higher standard.

 

[tstorm823]

OK, so it depends on being 1) human and 2) having these secondary attributes; but neither individually warrants protection?

So, we take something human, and add some attributes common to other random non-human things, that counts?

It's not random non-human things, it's living things. Living + human = living human.

 

[tstorm823]

Remember, I'm only asking questions you claim to know the answer to.

No, you're only asking dumb questions. You've convinced yourself that your inability to explain something is of logical significance.

 

[Silvanus]

It's not random non-human things, it's living things. Living + human = living human.

OK. Attributes common to plenty of non-human living things.

So: you don't believe something human inherently warrants this protection.. But if we add certain attributes-- ones that are common to various living creatures, including rodents and more basic life forms-- then it becomes worthy of absolute and extensive protection.

Is that accurate?

 

[tstorm823]

OK. Attributes common to plenty of non-human living things.

So: you don't believe something human inherently warrants this protection.. But if we add certain attributes-- ones that are common to various living creatures, including rodents and more basic life forms-- then it becomes worthy of absolute and extensive protection.

Is that accurate?

Make a point.

 

[Thaluikhain]

It wasnt until Roosevelt made an EO during WW2 that slavery legally ended. All you have to do is remove that EO, fake some charges and you have slaves again

Eh, since the US has prison factories, it doesn't need to muck about with hat.

 

[Terminal Blue]

No, you're only asking dumb questions.

If they're dumb questions, you should be able to answer them.

You want to avoid arbitrary judgements because you believe your beliefs are grounded in something real. The point of these questions is to show that you are still making arbitrary judgements. Refusing to make any judgement at all is just hypocritical, because you want us all to abide by your judgements.

 

[Silvanus]

Make a point.

Make it make sense.

 

[tstorm823]

If they're dumb questions, you should be able to answer them.

Your questions are dumb because they are a waste of time. You seem to think your questions point to contradictions. "What about monozygotic twins, do they only have one soul?" On one hand, no, but that's fine, have two souls tied to one cell at the start. Why not? But on the other hand, yes, sure, why not share a soul? Are we all not tied to one another, are we all not parts of a shared whole that is mankind, is that not why we developed to idea of human rights to begin with? I can answer that 100 different ways without contradicting the idea that the unborn are people.

Why am I wasting my time on this question that leads nowhere? Did I say you shouldn't have abortions because of the soul? No, I didn't. You shouldn't have abortions because it's killing people, and you shouldn't kill people. I don't have an absolute answer on the nature of the soul, I am not omniscient, I am not God. But I can stand by one of the exceptionally simple rules that society as a whole can generally agree on: thou shalt not kill. That is not an arbitrary judgment, it's basically the culmination of all moral philosophy. And I know you agree to it in principle, because they only ways to justify abortion are either to say killing is fine or it isn't killing. Since you keep arguing there isn't a person being killed, it's implicit admission that killing is wrong. Which means the only question being debated is whether abortion is killing (it obviously is).

But lets say you're really committed to the idea that your stance and my stance are both just arbitrary judgments (which I don't agree with, but for the sake of the hypothetical, let's consider it). Abortion is an act that arguably may or may not be murder, and our human limitations means we don't really know an absolute truth. Well, in an uncertain situation where you can take an action but it might murder someone, can you morally take that action? It's the "press the button and you get something good, but someone you don't know dies" question, which people rationalize jokingly, but it's not a trolley problem, it's like the easiest ethical question in the world. You don't press the button.

 

[tstorm823]

Make it make sense.

Make what make sense?

 

[Silvanus]

Make what make sense?

you don't believe something human inherently warrants this protection.. But if we add certain attributes-- ones that are common to various living creatures, including rodents and more basic life forms-- then it becomes worthy of absolute and extensive protection.

 

[tstorm823]

you don't believe something human inherently warrants this protection.. But if we add certain attributes-- ones that are common to various living creatures, including rodents and more basic life forms-- then it becomes worthy of absolute and extensive protection.

Human life is worthy of absolute and extensive protection. A dead body has no life to protect. A rodent being alive doesn't diminish human life. You agree to every one of those statements, I guarantee it, stop playing dumb.

 

[Silvanus]

Human life is worthy of absolute and extensive protection. A dead body has no life to protect. A rodent being alive doesn't diminish human life. You agree to every one of those statements, I guarantee it, stop playing dumb.

I do not agree with the first statement, and in fact neither do you. You make endless exceptions elsewhere.

Earlier, when prompted to define life (to differentiate from death), you outlined a bunch of attributes that would exclude early zygotes. That was my intention in asking the question.

 

[tstorm823]

I do not agree with the first statement, and in fact neither do you. You make endless exceptions elsewhere.

Name one.

 

[Terminal Blue]

You seem to think your questions point to contradictions.

Nothing so obvious.

I can answer that 100 different ways without contradicting the idea that the unborn are people.

Which means that the answer is arbitrary, because you don't actually know. You don't actually know whether monozygotic twins have one soul or two. You don't know whether the unborn are people. You don't know any of it. You just believe, and have somehow deluded yourself into thinking that should be good enough for everyone. It's not. You cannot make anything you believe real, all you can do is keep repeating the same empty, regurgitated phrases over and over again in the hope that repetition alone will somehow convince reality to accord with them.

But I can stand by one of the exceptionally simple rules that society as a whole can generally agree on: thou shalt not kill.

That's not a simple rule at all. Earlier, you were arguing that doctors should be permitted to "kill" one person to spare the life of another. Is that exempt from the rule? How many exceptions does this rule have? Who decides when the exception applies? Is that person omniscient? Is that person God?

You have a very strange habit of insisting that all of this is simple. It is not. You want to judge people and decide what is best for them, but you also seem to want to avoid any degree of responsibility for those judgements by pretending that any of it is just self-evident and obvious. God is not here. God is silent. You are the one who wants to sit on the throne and dictate what is right and wrong.

Which means the only question being debated is whether abortion is killing (it obviously is).

That isn't obvious at all.

Nothing you have said has made it obvious or demonstrated it in any degree which would make sense to anyone not already irrationally convinced.

Well, in an uncertain situation where you can take an action but it might murder someone, can you morally take that action?

This is the closest you have ever come to an actual argument.

But once again, you have framed this as an entirely binary affair, that either we have perfect knowledge which just happens to align with what you believe or we have no knowledge at all. In reality, the knowledge of human reproduction is extensive enough to clearly show that, once we take out unprovable metaphysical crap about souls and magic life energy, there is nothing to indicate that abortion is in any way comparable to murdering a person. You can believe that there is, but that belief is irrational. You can live by an irrational belief, you can choose to believe that everyone who does not is committing some terrible sin, but there is no reason for anyone else to care. You have not provided one, all you seem capable of doing is repeating the same statements of belief over and over and getting increasingly frustrated that noone sees how obvious and self-evident they are.

Well I'm sorry, but it isn't the children who are wrong. It's just you.

 

[tstorm823]

Which means that the answer is arbitrary, because you don't actually know. You don't actually know whether monozygotic twins have one soul or two.

I like how I told you your question is pointless, so you really dug into it like it had a point, forgetting that the question was pointless. If you have fun rambling about things that aren't relevant, I guess keep doing what you're doing.

That's not a simple rule at all. Earlier, you were arguing that doctors should be permitted to "kill" one person to spare the life of another.

I definitely did not say that. I argued that is is permittable to induce labor to save someone's life. Death as a consequence of that is a tragedy one would do everything in their power to avoid.

You have a very strange habit of insisting that all of this is simple.

You have a very deliberate habit of insisting that everything is vague and arbitrary because you think it allows you to conclude anything you want to. You aren't actually oblivious to the fact that the unborn are human beings, you're just rationalizing why you should be forgiven for pretending otherwaise.

In reality, the knowledge of human reproduction is extensive enough to clearly show that, once we take out unprovable metaphysical crap about souls and magic life energy, there is nothing to indicate that abortion is in any way comparable to murdering a person.

I feel like this is an accidental confession. You're arguing on the basis of "metaphysical crap about souls and magic life energy". You're the one who thinks the fetus is lacking those things and therefore isn't a person to murder. Those are your distinctions.

 

[Seanchaidh]

You aren't actually oblivious to the fact that the unborn are human beings, you're just rationalizing why you should be forgiven for pretending otherwaise.

consider the possibility that you think you know things that you do not.

 

[tstorm823]

consider the possibility that you think you know things that you do not.

Says the person who most thoroughly relies on lies.

 

[Silvanus]

Name one.

Sperm and eggs, human cells, as well as support for various policies that restrict access to lifesaving food/medicine/shelter. All of these can be rationalised. But they also represent exceptions to an 'absolute' protection for all forms of human life.

 

[tstorm823]

Sperm and eggs, human cells, as well as support for various policies that restrict access to lifesaving food/medicine/shelter. All of these can be rationalised. But they also represent exceptions to an 'absolute' protection for all forms of human life.

So you can't name one?