Roe v Wade is on deck

[Toni]

...show me where in US law it states that a woman consenting to sex means that she consents to having a baby.

...because the biology of sexual reproduction obeys US law.

Seriously, are there really woman who are THAT ignorant of where babies come from? Do they not have the Discovery Channel in the USA?

When you consent to unprotected sexual intercourse you are submitting to a statistical probability of a baby showing up. And no, pro-lifers DONT say you have to 'have" unwanted babies. They just say you can't kill them.

You are making a lot of assumptions, primarily that the sex that results in a pregnancy is always consensual and that the sex was unprotected. Birth control fails. Even sterilizations sometimes fail. Rarely, but I have friends who were born because a tubal ligation did not actually work and because a vasectomy healed itself. Stuff happens.

Anti-abortionists are typically anti-child and anti-woman. I don't really care what they say.

 

[Harry Bosch]

What is the difference between forcing a woman to carry a fetus vs forcing a person to give up his kidney to a person who will die without the kidney? We should all have the right to govern our own bodies. Period.

In a thread full of pedantry about the word parasite and biological meanings of words, I'm now dealing with someone who thinks a kidney is equivalent to a human embryo.

It is biologically factual to describe an unborn baby as a living human. They are alive. And they are the same species as the people who are contemplating whether or not to carry out the execution abortion.

Ah, you missed the point. No. I'm saying that I compare my life to the fetus in terms of priority. In my scenario, just as the fetus depends on the woman for life, I depend on getting the kidney from my genetic match. Under your proposed rules, if you can compel the woman to carry the fetus, I can demand the kidney.

 

[Lion IRC]

Crying about the fact that a developing embryo is a parasite won't change it.

Hey. Your work here is done.
You've already helped enough thanks.
You've correctly identified that the definition which makes an unborn baby a parasite is exactly the same definition which places a new born baby in that same category. And a quadriplegic adult. And a Covid 19 patient who relies on a ventilator for life support.

Yours and others definition of parasite give us this syllogism.

P. It's morally OK to kill parasites (that live on, or with another human in order to obtain nutrients, and grow, or multiply often being dependent on, or exploiting another human.)

P. New born babies, quadriplegics, Covid 19 patients on ventilators, welfare recipients, cerebral palsy sufferers, unwanted female embryos...these are parasites dependent on, or exploiting others while giving little or nothing in return.

Conclusion - It's morally necessary acceptable to kill these parasites.

 

[untermensche]

Wrong.

A parasite just takes.

It does not live off the kindness of others.

It takes what it needs.

 

[Lion IRC]

What is the difference between forcing a woman to carry a fetus vs forcing a person to give up his kidney to a person who will die without the kidney? We should all have the right to govern our own bodies. Period.

In a thread full of pedantry about the word parasite and biological meanings of words, I'm now dealing with someone who thinks a kidney is equivalent to a human embryo.

It is biologically factual to describe an unborn baby as a living human. They are alive. And they are the same species as the people who are contemplating whether or not to carry out the execution abortion.

Ah, you missed the point. No. I'm saying that I compare my life to the fetus in terms of priority. In my scenario, just as the fetus depends on the woman for life, I depend on getting the kidney from my genetic match. Under your proposed rules, if you can compel the woman to carry the fetus, I can demand the kidney.

You're not very good at logic are you.
If you need my kidney to live, that makes YOU the parasite.
Do you support my right to kill parasites?

 

[untermensche]

A parasite would just take the kidney.

They don't have to ask for what they get.

 

[Lion IRC]

...The other question would become, just how much nuance is needed in such an opinion to shave/overturn Roe v Wade, without destroying the concept of precedence.

Nuance?
You mean like this?
Roe V Wade didn't have this science.
#IFLS #Evidence_based

 

[untermensche]

The religious person thinks the soul of the unborn human goes to heaven to be with god. Eternal bliss.

That would not be harming the unborn human then.

It would be sparing it a bunch of nonsense.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Ah, you missed the point. No. I'm saying that I compare my life to the fetus in terms of priority. In my scenario, just as the fetus depends on the woman for life, I depend on getting the kidney from my genetic match. Under your proposed rules, if you can compel the woman to carry the fetus, I can demand the kidney.

You're not very good at logic are you.
If you need my kidney to live, that makes YOU the parasite.
Do you support my right to kill parasites?

Ding ding ding! You got! Well, almost. Very close. But I'm proud of you. I need your kidney to survive. Just as a fetus needs a woman to survive. As much as it pains me, I support your right to make the decision to donate your kidney to me or not. Do you know support a woman's right to choose if she goes forward with the pregnancy or not?

 

[Toni]

Wrong.

A parasite just takes.

It does not live off the kindness of others.

It takes what it needs.

As I wrote above, a fetus does not just ‘take.’ Some of its cells migrate into the mother’s body and take up residence there. They even can repair some heart damage. A pregnancy carried to term confers some protection against breast cancer and so on…

 

[untermensche]

Wrong.

A parasite just takes.

It does not live off the kindness of others.

It takes what it needs.

As I wrote above, a fetus does not just ‘take.’ Some of its cells migrate into the mother’s body and take up residence there. They even can repair some heart damage. A pregnancy carried to term confers some protection against breast cancer and so on…

Every pregnancy does not lower the odds of certain cancers.

Some do for some women.

It is a probability not a certainty.

There is no guarantee you will get the benefit.

 

[Lion IRC]

...Do you now support a woman's right to choose if she goes forward with the pregnancy or not?

Nope. Your argument from parasitic dependency relies on the disgusting notion that an unborn baby has no more value than a tick or a threadworm or head lice. If I agreed with you about this then I might be persuaded. But I can't...I won't...I refuse to muster THAT level of selfishness.

Similarly, I don't accept your false equivalency that pregnancy is a life threatening condition akin to kidney disease.

"Give me your kidney or I will die"
is not medically/scientifically parallel with...
"let me have an abortion or I will die".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Abortion on demand can't be a fundamental wimmin's rights issue because (self-evidently) huge numbers of women oppose abortion. Similarly, huge numbers of men support abortion for their own selfish male (deadbeat dad) reasons.

Except for the phenomenon of plenty of those protesters showing up in the very clinics they are protesting.

It's not about abortion, it's about making being a slut risky.

 

[Elixir]

Abortion on demand can't be a fundamental wimmin's rights issue because (self-evidently) huge numbers of women oppose abortion.

Such bullshit! It's a HUMAN rights issue. Let the huge number of women who oppose abortion decline to have abortions (the bible belt is also the abortion belt you know). Nobody is forcing abortions on them. But you want to force the superstitions of "huge numbers of women" on everyone, and modify their behavior to suit your *expletive* whims.

Do you think eating meat should be illegal because huge numbers of women oppose eating meat?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

...The other question would become, just how much nuance is needed in such an opinion to shave/overturn Roe v Wade, without destroying the concept of precedence.

Nuance?
You mean like this?
Roe V Wade didn't have this science.
#IFLS #Evidence_based

That's not evidence of anything, it's purely an appeal to emotion.

Gynecological ultrasound had been around for more than a decade when Roe vs Wade was decided. It just wasn't relevant to the decision.

 

[Toni]

Wrong.

A parasite just takes.

It does not live off the kindness of others.

It takes what it needs.

As I wrote above, a fetus does not just ‘take.’ Some of its cells migrate into the mother’s body and take up residence there. They even can repair some heart damage. A pregnancy carried to term confers some protection against breast cancer and so on…

Every pregnancy does not lower the odds of certain cancers.

Some do for some women.

It is a probability not a certainty.

There is no guarantee you will get the benefit.

No. There is no guarantee the benefit is sufficient.

 

[Toni]

...The other question would become, just how much nuance is needed in such an opinion to shave/overturn Roe v Wade, without destroying the concept of precedence.

Nuance?
You mean like this?
Roe V Wade didn't have this science.
#IFLS #Evidence_based

View attachment 34133

The stages of fetal development t were well known, described and catalogued long before the advent of 3-D ultrasounds.

 

[Rhea]

...Do you now support a woman's right to choose if she goes forward with the pregnancy or not?

Nope. Your argument from parasitic dependency relies on the disgusting notion that an unborn baby has no more value than a tick or a threadworm or head lice. If I agreed with you about this then I might be persuaded. But I can't...I won't...I refuse to muster THAT level of selfishness.

Similarly, I don't accept your false equivalency that pregnancy is a life threatening condition akin to kidney disease.

"Give me your kidney or I will die"
is not medically/scientifically parallel with...
"let me have an abortion or I will die".

Wow, you are really mixed up about this. He said,

"Give me your kidney or I will die"
is INDEED medically/scientifically parallel with...
"Give me your uterus or I will die".

And the answer to both is, “i do not have to.”

 

[Toni]

...Do you now support a woman's right to choose if she goes forward with the pregnancy or not?

Nope. Your argument from parasitic dependency relies on the disgusting notion that an unborn baby has no more value than a tick or a threadworm or head lice. If I agreed with you about this then I might be persuaded. But I can't...I won't...I refuse to muster THAT level of selfishness.

Similarly, I don't accept your false equivalency that pregnancy is a life threatening condition akin to kidney disease.

"Give me your kidney or I will die"
is not medically/scientifically parallel with...
"let me have an abortion or I will die".

For some women, it is indeed a choice between having an abortion or dying. Unfortunately.

 

[Lion IRC]

...That's not evidence of anything, it's purely an appeal to emotion.

Emotion is central to philosophy of science.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logocentrism
It's certainly central to notions of justice.
Death penalty. Assisted suicide. Abortion....
Science alone doesn't tell you whether Jews should or shouldn't be gassed. Science doesn't tell you whether you should buy a great big plasma screen TV or have an abortion. Science doesn't answer Harry Bosch's trolly dilemma about the kidney versus the 39 week old human baby desperately hoping to make it down the birth canal before the mother changes her mind and has a late term abortion.

Gynecological ultrasound had been around for more than a decade when Roe vs Wade was decided. It just wasn't relevant to the decision.

Nope. There were no hi resolution, full color, 3D ultrasound images of smiling, thumb-sucking babies plastered all over Facebook and Instagram back in 1973.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/pro-life-pro-science/549308/

You speak as if SCOTUS judges decide matters purely without any reference to public emotional zeitgeist and that it makes no difference who sits on the Supreme Court - Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Brett Kavanaugh because SCOTUS only considers stuff that's "relevant to the decision". LOL