SCOTUS Getting Shade Over Roe v Wade

[WolfBear]

But unavoidable if you're intellectually consistent and you accept the presuppositions about either the definition of human life or the value of human life that allowing abortion requires.

One could try getting around this by insisting on bodily autonomy, but then the pro-lifer could argue that while bodily autonomy should be very strong, it should not be absolute. And to be fair, pro-choicers who support vaccine mandates likewise agree with this idea in a general sense.

And in any case, we regularly kill various non-human animals even though they are not violating anyone else's bodily autonomy.

No, if he had no morals, he'd just lie whenever it was useful.

Being seen as a monster is generally not good. Especialy if you are a monster.

Well, Peter Singer would probably argue that our opposition to infanticide is based on emotions rather than on cold, hard logic and that infanticide really isn't immoral when it comes to infants whom no one is actually willing to take care of.

 

[Simonbob]

Well, Peter Singer would probably argue that our opposition to infanticide is based on emotions rather than on cold, hard logic and that infanticide really isn't immoral when it comes to infants whom no one is actually willing to take care of.

There are logical arguments, one of which is because we don't know the future, and can't know the future, we can never know what cures will come, and we don't know who will change things for the best.

As such, you should not kill a potential person, because they might be incredible.



As for the "bodily autonomy" argument, well, the moment you point out the baby should have that, even if it's living in somebody...... (Man, and I though my apartment was small!)

 

[WolfBear]

There are logical arguments, one of which is because we don't know the future, and can't know the future, we can never know what cures will come, and we don't know who will change things for the best.

As such, you should not kill a potential person, because they might be incredible.



As for the "bodily autonomy" argument, well, the moment you point out the baby should have that, even if it's living in somebody...... (Man, and I though my apartment was small!)

Are you also against IVF?

 

[Simonbob]

Are you also against IVF?

No, why?

It's got problems, but that's more about imperfections in the tech, rather than any problem with the concept.

 

[Floridaman]

Yup.

Either you work from "Human life is Sacred/Paramount" or you don't. And, if you don't, you have to work out the cost/benefit analysis, and where the point is.


At least he's honest.

And when you don’t, then why is the life of those who are not deemed beneficial to society worth preserving. And from there, well all sorts of conclusions can be reached about eugenics, and genocide

 

[Carrot of Truth]

Dankula literally just pretended to be a supreme court Justice on twitter and the retards actually fell for it.

 

[Stargazer]

No, why?

It's got problems, but that's more about imperfections in the tech, rather than any problem with the concept.

My understanding is that IVF inevitably involves the creation of embryos that will be destroyed.

 

[Ixian]

My understanding is that IVF inevitably involves the creation of embryos that will be destroyed.

In theory IVF is just the fertilization of an egg outside the uterus, which is then either frozen to be utilized at a later date, or replanted in the uterus.

The issue is that overtime, people have begun fertilizing multiple eggs at a time to improve the chances of success, then destroying any extras they don't want, killing them.

 

[Morphic Tide]

In theory IVF is just the fertilization of an egg outside the uterus, which is then either frozen to be utilized at a later date, or replanted in the uterus.

The issue is that overtime, people have begun fertilizing multiple eggs at a time to improve the chances of success, then destroying any extras they don't want, killing them.

And the fundamental absurdity of this perspective is that if you tried implanting all of them, you'd still get maybe two babies, at the high end, with none of the safeguards against genetic defects that tends to be involved.

"Life Begins At Conception" makes it worthless by making the vast majority of all human lives be utterly unknown miscarriages. Because at conception it's still a complete and total crapshoot.

 

[Stargazer]

And the fundamental absurdity of this perspective is that if you tried implanting all of them, you'd still get maybe two babies, at the high end, with none of the safeguards against genetic defects that tends to be involved.

"Life Begins At Conception" makes it worthless by making the vast majority of all human lives be utterly unknown miscarriages. Because at conception it's still a complete and total crapshoot.

Life has always been a "crapshoot" at any stage of development. It's only relatively recently that we've cut down on infant and child mortality, and pushed up the average life expectancy.

 

[Bear Ribs]

And the fundamental absurdity of this perspective is that if you tried implanting all of them, you'd still get maybe two babies, at the high end, with none of the safeguards against genetic defects that tends to be involved.

"Life Begins At Conception" makes it worthless by making the vast majority of all human lives be utterly unknown miscarriages. Because at conception it's still a complete and total crapshoot.

Throughout most of human history, infant mortality was horrifically high and half of all humans didn't make it past childhood. Were children only worth half as much then?

 

[Abhorsen]

Or without moral conscience.

No he has a morality, it's just not one I agree with. He's basically the worlds most extreme utilitarian. The guy is smart, and I don't have issues with his arguments, I have absolute issues with his predicates (i.e. the things he bases his argument on). If you accept his predicates, he'll show you exactly where they lead, and it isn't a comfortable place. He knows this, and is quite open about it.

His original assumptions are where I always have issue with him.

No, why?

It's got problems, but that's more about imperfections in the tech, rather than any problem with the concept.

Yeah, but attempting IVF right now will lead to a much higher mortality rate of fertilized eggs than natural pregnancy. Is that wrong by your morality (honestly curious).

For me, I think life begins at the first thought in the brain, which as far as science can tell, happens no earlier than the 8th week with electrical signals in the brain beginning, but almost certainly no later than 12 weeks (when there is movement, as that is almost certainly the response of some sort of thoughts). 14 weeks is guaranteed, as the baby starts sucking its thumb, for example. Now if I had to guess, I'd go with 8-9 weeks, and that's also where I'd put the legal bar until we (or I, I haven't needed to do much research here until Dobbs) know more about fetal development in that period.

 

[Jormungandr]

[...]
For me, I think life begins at the first thought in the brain, which as far as science can tell, happens no earlier than the 8th week with electrical signals in the brain beginning, but almost certainly no later than 12 weeks (when there is movement, as that is almost certainly the response of some sort of thoughts). 14 weeks is guaranteed, as the baby starts sucking its thumb, for example. Now if I had to guess, I'd go with 8-9 weeks, and that's also where I'd put the legal bar until we (or I, I haven't needed to do much research here until Dobbs) know more about fetal development in that period.

As I said in prior posts, the whole "when is it just a clump of cells and when it is actually life" line is blurry and hard to define, but this is a good example of that point of view that others would agree or disagree with.

And the fundamental absurdity of this perspective is that if you tried implanting all of them, you'd still get maybe two babies, at the high end, with none of the safeguards against genetic defects that tends to be involved.

"Life Begins At Conception" makes it worthless by making the vast majority of all human lives be utterly unknown miscarriages. Because at conception it's still a complete and total crapshoot.

A lot of women get pregnant but show no signs of it ever happening, nor would they ever know: for one reason or another, sometimes the female body just ejects the cells/fertilized egg, and as such women often think they're having a "heavy period" or have an STI, or something along those lines.

 

[Morphic Tide]

Life has always been a "crapshoot" at any stage of development. It's only relatively recently that we've cut down on infant and child mortality, and pushed up the average life expectancy.

Throughout most of human history, infant mortality was horrifically high and half of all humans didn't make it past childhood. Were children only worth half as much then?

We're talking a huge portion not even being known in the first place, here, on top of mutual exclusivity in survival of one, very rarely two, and any more being statistically insignificant, among dozens.

You seem not to grasp the sheer scale of just how impossible it is for the extreme majority to ever take on any recognizable material realities of personhood. If for no other reason than logistics of wombs to house them.

It isn't just a minority making it to five years old due to now-solved risks. It's a minority being capable of making it to birth, whether the limitations of the mother or the zygote being quite literally unfit for life.

And, of course, people did place dramatically less value on children back then. Christianity had to make a point of infanticide being wrong for a reason. Dangerous child labor was normal for decades of the Industrial Revolution.

These bounding factors are so severe that it is literally more common for one zygote to end up two or more people than for two zygotes to come to term from the same pregnancy.

Edit: Okay, actually checking the data, it turns out it's a drastic crapshoot based on a load of different factors, but a very important note is the estimate that around 1/8th of pregnancies start as multi-fetus but one outright disintegrates without a trace. Which is after all the fertilized eggs that never implant.

Fundamentally, the point remains that "Life Begins At Conception" means the exceedingly large majority of "humans" literally cannot be born by any current means. Which means any valuation of life that actually puts a value on it instead of ivory-tower idealism calling it immeasurable would plummet dramatically. As was the case with historic infant mortality rates.

 

[Bear Ribs]

We're talking a huge portion not even being known in the first place, here, on top of mutual exclusivity in survival of one, very rarely two, and any more being statistically insignificant, among dozens.

You seem not to grasp the sheer scale of just how impossible it is for the extreme majority to ever take on any recognizable material realities of personhood. If for no other reason than logistics of wombs to house them.

It isn't just a minority making it to five years old due to now-solved risks. It's a minority being capable of making it to birth, whether the limitations of the mother or the zygote being quite literally unfit for life.

And, of course, people did place dramatically less value on children back then. Christianity had to make a point of infanticide being wrong for a reason. Dangerous child labor was normal for decades of the Industrial Revolution.

These bounding factors are so severe that it is literally more common for one zygote to end up two or more people than for two zygotes to come to term from the same pregnancy.

Edit: Okay, actually checking the data, it turns out it's a drastic crapshoot based on a load of different factors, but a very important note is the estimate that around 1/8th of pregnancies start as multi-fetus but one outright disintegrates without a trace. Which is after all the fertilized eggs that never implant.

Fundamentally, the point remains that "Life Begins At Conception" means the exceedingly large majority of "humans" literally cannot be born by any current means. Which means any valuation of life that actually puts a value on it instead of ivory-tower idealism calling it immeasurable would plummet dramatically. As was the case with historic infant mortality rates.

Yeah, but that's not an answer to the fact that most people died as children historically. Does that mean those children weren't human? Or if "Known" is your criterion, are you saying it doesn't matter if all the witnesses are dead too?

Carrying this thought process further, suppose some sort of natural disaster kills off most of a social group or haplogroup, because 90+% of them are dead, does that mean murdering potential survivors is no longer an immoral or criminal act?

 

[Stargazer]

For me, I think life begins at the first thought in the brain, which as far as science can tell, happens no earlier than the 8th week with electrical signals in the brain beginning, but almost certainly no later than 12 weeks (when there is movement, as that is almost certainly the response of some sort of thoughts). 14 weeks is guaranteed, as the baby starts sucking its thumb, for example. Now if I had to guess, I'd go with 8-9 weeks, and that's also where I'd put the legal bar until we (or I, I haven't needed to do much research here until Dobbs) know more about fetal development in that period.

This definition of life raises questions about people who are knocked unconscious from head trauma or from anesthesia, or who fall into longer term comas either from trauma or by being medically induced. They're not having "thoughts". Do they cease to be alive when they fall unconscious, and come back to life when they "wake"? If not, what makes them still count as life during that period?

We're talking a huge portion not even being known in the first place, here, on top of mutual exclusivity in survival of one, very rarely two, and any more being statistically insignificant, among dozens.

You seem not to grasp the sheer scale of just how impossible it is for the extreme majority to ever take on any recognizable material realities of personhood. If for no other reason than logistics of wombs to house them.

It isn't just a minority making it to five years old due to now-solved risks. It's a minority being capable of making it to birth, whether the limitations of the mother or the zygote being quite literally unfit for life.

And, of course, people did place dramatically less value on children back then. Christianity had to make a point of infanticide being wrong for a reason. Dangerous child labor was normal for decades of the Industrial Revolution.

These bounding factors are so severe that it is literally more common for one zygote to end up two or more people than for two zygotes to come to term from the same pregnancy.

Edit: Okay, actually checking the data, it turns out it's a drastic crapshoot based on a load of different factors, but a very important note is the estimate that around 1/8th of pregnancies start as multi-fetus but one outright disintegrates without a trace. Which is after all the fertilized eggs that never implant.

Fundamentally, the point remains that "Life Begins At Conception" means the exceedingly large majority of "humans" literally cannot be born by any current means. Which means any valuation of life that actually puts a value on it instead of ivory-tower idealism calling it immeasurable would plummet dramatically. As was the case with historic infant mortality rates.

I'd like to know what source you're referring to that shows this definition of life would mean the "extreme majority" would never take on "personhood". But even granting that, I'm not entirely sure what your point about valuation of life "plummeting dramatically" means. I'm just not following.

 

[Bear Ribs]

This definition of life raises questions about people are knocked unconscious from head trauma or from anesthesia, or who fall into longer term comas either from trauma or medically induced. They're not having "thoughts". Do they cease to be alive when they fall unconscious, and come back to life when they "wake"? If not, what makes them still count as life during that period?

While I disagree with Abhorsen in this matter, chiefly because I've found there's no actual clear line as to when brain activity begins (The neural plate starts forming in the first few days and begins sending electrochemical signals between it's synapses immediately) I feel I need to provide a defense here. A person sleeping or unconscious still has plenty of brain activity going on, and if that brain activity actually ceases entirely the person is considered legally dead. He's holding a consistent position and this specific objection doesn't apply.

 

[Stargazer]

While I disagree with Abhorsen in this matter, chiefly because I've found there's no actual clear line as to when brain activity begins (The neural plate starts forming in the first few days and begins sending electrochemical signals between it's synapses immediately) I feel I need to provide a defense here. A person sleeping or unconscious still has plenty of brain activity going on, and if that brain activity actually ceases entirely the person is considered legally dead. He's holding a consistent position and this specific objection doesn't apply.

He didn't define it directly based on brain activity, though. He defined it based on thoughts. Do people have thoughts when they're unconscious? Brain activity, yes, but thoughts? I guess the real question then is if brain activity is necessarily indicative of thoughts.

 

[Carrot of Truth]

I think people should just stop whoring around or wear rubbers.

 

[Bear Ribs]

He didn't define it directly based on brain activity, though. He defined it based on thoughts. Do people have thoughts when they're unconscious? Brain activity, yes, but thoughts? I guess the real question then is if brain activity is necessarily indicative of thoughts.

He clarifies that electrical signals in the brain are thoughts literally in his first sentence.