Some good that could come out of the Abortion Heartbeat laws?

[Jolly_Penguin]

Abortion is the killing of something/someone. There are plenty of arguments to justify that killing (it isn't sentient; it is self defence; etc), but simply ignoring the killing and implying evil intention onto those who seek to protect from it isn't going to win the debate.

 

[Toni]

Abortion is the killing of something/someone. There are plenty of arguments to justify that killing (it isn't sentient; it is self defence; etc), but simply ignoring the killing and implying evil intention onto those who seek to protect from it isn't going to win the debate.

There's a difference between killing something and someone. With abortion, it is not a clear delineation, no bright line.

The best case one can make to make abortion as rare as possible is to ensure that women have equal opportunities for education, jobs, careers, housing, money, wealth and that those opportunities are not diminished by a pregnancy.

Access to excellent, affordable, and accessible healthcare for all is also absolutely necessary. Too many women and too many babies die in childbirth and in the days and weeks and months following childbirth. Too many women face serious long term and even permanent serious health issues due to pregnancy--and botched backstreet abortions.

And of course, easy access to birth control and good education about sex and reproduction for all should be a given.

And of course, eliminating rape and other domestic abuse is mandatory.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Agreed to all of the above (so why did you quote me?), except that taking time to focus on having a baby and raising a child is usually going to slow somebody down on their career as compared to somebody who doesn't, and that's not unjust nor a bad thing for the person who chooses that focus. That's just a matter of what they spend their time on.

As I wrote above, maybe one day pregnancies won't require wombs and babies will be made in factories so it won't be a factor "holding women back".

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Once babies are made in factories, and selected from gene computers and put into development vats until birth, will most of the people who now oppose abortion still oppose it to once it no longer involves a woman's control over her body? That should actually separate that issue from the right to life issue.

 

[Toni]

Once babies are made in factories, and selected from gene computers and put into development vats until birth, will most of the people who now oppose abortion still oppose it to once it no longer involves a woman's control over her body? That should actually separate that issue from the right to life issue.

Where do you propose to get the eggs? How do you propose to replace the biological nutrients, fluids, biochemicals when we have not yet managed to create a suitable artificial blood product that fully and completely replaces human blood or is an adequate substitute for anything longer than a short term emergency use.

Human reproduction is a biological process, not a mechanical one. Although there is a relatively easy way to carry out pregnancy without a (living) male or potentially, without any male at all (see parthenogenesis) there is no realistic substitute for a human woman to produces human baby.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Where do you propose to get the eggs?

Ovary vats. The time will come. You don't need a woman to have ovaries and you don't need a man to have testicles. Once the science is good enough we'll be able to grow both in vats with no human mind (or rest of body) attached.

Although there is a relatively easy way to carry out pregnancy without a (living) male or potentially, without any male at all (see parthenogenesis) there is no realistic substitute for a human woman to produces human baby.

Not yet, but its just a matter of time. Biological IS mechanical. It is just rather complicated machinery, not magic.

 

[Toni]

Where do you propose to get the eggs?

Ovary vats. The time will come. You don't need a woman to have ovaries and you don't need a man to have testicles. Once the science is good enough we'll be able to grow both in vats with no human mind (or rest of body) attached.

Although there is a relatively easy way to carry out pregnancy without a (living) male or potentially, without any male at all (see parthenogenesis) there is no realistic substitute for a human woman to produces human baby.

Not yet, but its just a matter of time. Biological IS mechanical. It is just rather complicated machinery, not magic.

You obviously don't understand biology. Or human reproduction. Or embryonic development. Or human development (physical, psychological, developmental) or a host of other things.

 

[Toni]

Where do you propose to get the eggs?

Ovary vats. The time will come. You don't need a woman to have ovaries and you don't need a man to have testicles. Once the science is good enough we'll be able to grow both in vats with no human mind (or rest of body) attached.

So, magic.

Although there is a relatively easy way to carry out pregnancy without a (living) male or potentially, without any male at all (see parthenogenesis) there is no realistic substitute for a human woman to produces human baby.

Not yet, but its just a matter of time. Biological IS mechanical. It is just rather complicated machinery, not magic.

Biologist here. To be specific, cell and molecular biologist. You seem to have your analogies backwards and apparently you do think that there is some sort of magic involved.

You obviously don't understand biology. Or human reproduction. Or embryonic development. Or human development (physical, psychological, developmental) or a host of other things.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Once babies are made in factories, and selected from gene computers and put into development vats until birth, will most of the people who now oppose abortion still oppose it to once it no longer involves a woman's control over her body? That should actually separate that issue from the right to life issue.

Yeah, sure. The religious right will be fine with the fruitful and multiple commandment in the first chapter of their holy book going the way of the science reproduction factory.

There are religious people who are against surgery that would save their life!

 

[Toni]

Once babies are made in factories, and selected from gene computers and put into development vats until birth, will most of the people who now oppose abortion still oppose it to once it no longer involves a woman's control over her body? That should actually separate that issue from the right to life issue.

Yeah, sure. The religious right will be fine with the fruitful and multiple commandment in the first chapter of their holy book going the way of the science reproduction factory.

There are religious people who are against surgery that would save their life!

This has NOTHING to do with the religious right or religious left or leftists or utopians or anything other than really outdated sci fi written with no actual knowledge or understanding of human biology. Or vertebrate biology or even plant reproduction, ffs.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Once babies are made in factories, and selected from gene computers and put into development vats until birth, will most of the people who now oppose abortion still oppose it to once it no longer involves a woman's control over her body? That should actually separate that issue from the right to life issue.

Yeah, sure. The religious right will be fine with the fruitful and multiple commandment in the first chapter of their holy book going the way of the science reproduction factory.

There are religious people who are against surgery that would save their life!

This has NOTHING to do with the religious right or religious left or leftists or utopians or anything other than really outdated sci fi written with no actual knowledge or understanding of human biology. Or vertebrate biology or even plant reproduction, ffs.

If it can't happen, then why not tell us why it can't happen, instead of resorting to attempts at insults?I think it can and will happen at some point in the future. You've given no reason why not.Nor did you comment on the actual reason I bought it up, in that it separates the control of body issue from the right to life issue.

 

[laughing dog]

This has NOTHING to do with the religious right or religious left or leftists or utopians or anything other than really outdated sci fi written with no actual knowledge or understanding of human biology. Or vertebrate biology or even plant reproduction, ffs.

If it can't happen, then why not tell us why it can't happen, instead of resorting to attempts at insults?I think it can and will happen at some point in the future. You've given no reason why not.Nor did you comment on the actual reason I bought it up, in that it separates the control of body issue from the right to life issue.

You have given no reasons other than "I believe it will happen" which is not a compelling reason for others to accept it.

Your sci-fi prediction does separate the two issues just like waving a magic wand to materialize a baby would.

In my view, by the time it is possible to manufacture human eggs outside of women from materials obtained that are morally acceptable to society, the idea that fertilized egg is a person will have been in the dustbin of stupid religious ideas for centuries.

 

[Toni]

This has NOTHING to do with the religious right or religious left or leftists or utopians or anything other than really outdated sci fi written with no actual knowledge or understanding of human biology. Or vertebrate biology or even plant reproduction, ffs.

If it can't happen, then why not tell us why it can't happen, instead of resorting to attempts at insults?I think it can and will happen at some point in the future. You've given no reason why not.Nor did you comment on the actual reason I bought it up, in that it separates the control of body issue from the right to life issue.

I have mentioned things such as biology, the biology of human reproduction, embryonic development and I will add developmental biology, anatomy and physiology and the list could go on.


Maybe you could explain how " Biological IS mechanical. It is just rather complicated machinery, not magic."

 

[ruby sparks]

The 'giving women control over their own bodies' argument in favour of allowing abortion is not the best or most reliable argument, imo, of itself and on its own. It can be part of a more sophisticated case, yes. For example, it could be (and often is) that women are given control over what happens to the fetus in their bodies, up to a certain stage of development, barring exceptional circumstances (when that time limit may be exceeded). Which imo they obviously should be (given that control).

The question of when the developing entity changes from being part of the woman to something distinctly not part of her (even if still inside her) is not easy to answer. In one way, it's 'part of her' until it is born, but it could equally be said that it is merely 'in her'. Another option is that she and the fetus are a shared system.

 

[Toni]

The 'giving women control over their own bodies' argument in favour of allowing abortion is not the best or most reliable argument, imo, of itself and on its own. It can be part of a more sophisticated case, yes. For example, it could be (and often is) that women are given control over what happens to the fetus in their bodies, up to a certain stage of development, barring exceptional circumstances (when that time limit may be exceeded). Which imo they obviously should be (given that control).

The question of when the developing entity changes from being part of the woman to something distinctly not part of her (even if still inside her) is not easy to answer. In one way, it's 'part of her' until it is born, but it could equally be said that it is merely 'in her'. Another option is that she and the fetus are a shared system.

No.

I understand that you (and some other people, often male people) reject the argument that a woman should have control over her own body. Her own personal needs and wants should be made subordinate to the needs of an innocent developing fetus (most morally acceptable) or, more obscurely, to the needs and wants of a man, a family, or society.

This, in many respects, is not different than the notion that at least some women must be made available, willing or not, to satisfy the needs of (some) men for sexual gratification. Or to cook, clean, bring coffee, sort mail, provide ‘menial and therefore poorly compensated labor for men who are made for better things.

Any person deserves to have autonomy and control over their own body. No one should be compelled to do so much as donate blood, much less cede their entire body and health and education and career and personal development to serve the needs of any other being unless it is their express desire to do so.

I am not familiar with the abortion laws in other countries but in the US, it was established that women have the right to terminate a pregnancy up until the point of viability of the fetus, after which that right MAY be restricted to certain circumstances such as the life and health of the woman.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I have mentioned things such as biology, the biology of human reproduction, embryonic development and I will add developmental biology, anatomy and physiology and the list could go on.

I could hand waive just as well mentioning various other areas of science. What you have not done is actually tell us why it isn't possible. I don't think you have any reason in mind. I don't think you are the expert you claim to be, because if you were you would be able to actually explain your claim it's impossible.

Maybe you could explain how " Biological IS mechanical. It is just rather complicated machinery, not magic."

Sure. Biology is based on chemistry and physics, nothing more. That makes it complicited machinery. Unless you are going to argue with us that souls are things or other Magick is involved?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I am not familiar with the abortion laws in other countries but in the US, it was established that women have the right to terminate a pregnancy up until the point of viability of the fetus, after which that right MAY be restricted to certain circumstances such as the life and health of the woman.

The health of the woman is a good consideration to weigh against that of the viable fetus, yes. But in doing so you have moved past the mere right to choose to do with one's body argument. We put restrictions on what people may or must do with their bodies in other contexts. The draft comes to mind, as does jail, as does prostitution, as does not allowing people to assault other people (despite them calling them Nazis). The question of the justification matters. The life of the unborn is a factor that weighs much heavier on those who see it as our equal than those who merely see it as a clump of cells.

 

[Toni]

I have mentioned things such as biology, the biology of human reproduction, embryonic development and I will add developmental biology, anatomy and physiology and the list could go on.

I could hand waive just as well mentioning various other areas of science. What you have not done is actually tell us why it isn't possible. I don't think you have any reason in mind. I don't think you are the expert you claim to be, because if you were you would be able to actually explain your claim it's impossible.

Maybe you could explain how " Biological IS mechanical. It is just rather complicated machinery, not magic."

Sure. Biology is based on chemistry and physics, nothing more. That makes it complicited machinery. Unless you are going to argue with us that souls are things or other Magick is involved?

I don't think you understand what machinery is or what the term means. Or what biology or chemistry or physics mean on any meaningful level, at least as demonstrated in this thread. As I stated before, you have the analogy backwards re: biology and machinery or mechanics.

I haven't gone into detail because I really have no understanding of your level of learning or grasp of biology or of reproduction.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I could hand waive just as well mentioning various other areas of science. What you have not done is actually tell us why it isn't possible. I don't think you have any reason in mind. I don't think you are the expert you claim to be, because if you were you would be able to actually explain your claim it's impossible.



Sure. Biology is based on chemistry and physics, nothing more. That makes it complicited machinery. Unless you are going to argue with us that souls are things or other Magick is involved?

I don't think you understand what machinery is or what the term means. Or what biology or chemistry or physics mean on any meaningful level, at least as demonstrated in this thread. As I stated before, you have the analogy backwards re: biology and machinery or mechanics.

I haven't gone into detail because I really have no understanding of your level of learning or grasp of biology or of reproduction.

And because you don't actually have any reason why babies can't be made outside the womb. If you did, you would have stated it by now. Instead you chose to attack my education (and rather than encourage it, with is also telling).

 

[ruby sparks]

The 'giving women control over their own bodies' argument in favour of allowing abortion is not the best or most reliable argument, imo, of itself and on its own. It can be part of a more sophisticated case, yes. For example, it could be (and often is) that women are given control over what happens to the fetus in their bodies, up to a certain stage of development, barring exceptional circumstances (when that time limit may be exceeded). Which imo they obviously should be (given that control).

The question of when the developing entity changes from being part of the woman to something distinctly not part of her (even if still inside her) is not easy to answer. In one way, it's 'part of her' until it is born, but it could equally be said that it is merely 'in her'. Another option is that she and the fetus are a shared system.

No.

I understand that you (and some other people, often male people) reject the argument that a woman should have control over her own body. Her own personal needs and wants should be made subordinate to the needs of an innocent developing fetus (most morally acceptable) or, more obscurely, to the needs and wants of a man, a family, or society.

This, in many respects, is not different than the notion that at least some women must be made available, willing or not, to satisfy the needs of (some) men for sexual gratification. Or to cook, clean, bring coffee, sort mail, provide ‘menial and therefore poorly compensated labor for men who are made for better things.

Any person deserves to have autonomy and control over their own body. No one should be compelled to do so much as donate blood, much less cede their entire body and health and education and career and personal development to serve the needs of any other being unless it is their express desire to do so.

I am not familiar with the abortion laws in other countries but in the US, it was established that women have the right to terminate a pregnancy up until the point of viability of the fetus, after which that right MAY be restricted to certain circumstances such as the life and health of the woman.

I think you must be answering a point made by someone else, not me.