SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Ghost of Cow]

It really shouldn't.

Here's why it's a nonsense argument, from the secular perspective (since any religious arguments can be summarily dismissed and thrown out);

1> The fact that something is "alive" does not confer it rights. The dandelions in my lawn are "alive" but I can still dig them out or use weedkiller on 'em.

2> Life does not "begin". The "beginning" of life was the trigger point of abiogenesis, some billions of years ago. Since then, it's been a continuation of life. In the human context, our gametes (ova and sperm) are created by living individuals, and are, themselves, alive, and combine to form a new, still-living, fertilized zygote. There was never a point where anything in that cycle was "not alive", and no "life" was created.

3> If you mean "a life", rather than the processes of life itself, then you're making a personhood argument, or a religious argument. If the latter, toss it away. If the former, we'll come back to that. If you mean anything but those two, you're making something up and it's weird and not relevant.

4> Whether something is "human" has the same issue. If you mean "human", you are referring to anything produced by a human body. Human excrement. Human sweat. Human hair. Human tissue. Of course a zygote or fetus is "human". So's the snot I dug out of my nose. Does my snot have rights?

5> If you mean "a human", we're talking about personhood or a religious argument, again. See #3.

6> Now, personhood. This is a legal term. It's fundamentally arbitrary, though can be justified on objectively-determinable grounds. The current definition in the USA is "at birth, you become a person". Anyone pushing anything else is just wrong. It's also a completely irrelevant question, as we're about to get into; anyone talking about "personhood" (or "a life", or "a" human", see #s 3 and 5) is willfully trying to distract you with irrelevancies, attacking a straw man because they know they can't make their case on the relevant facts and principles.

7> Why is personhood irrelevant? Because bodily autonomy trumps right to life. There is no circumstance where one person can be forced to donate tissue or be forcibly hooked up to another human being as a mobile dialysis unit (say). Even the suggestion is gross as hell. But that's because it violates one person's right to bodily autonomy, to protect another person's right to life. There is no circumstance where right to life is deemed to overrule bodily autonomy; if you're the only possible match to someone who needs a new liver, even though livers regrow and you'll face very little long-term consequence or risk (less than carrying a pregnancy to term), you cannot be forced to donate part of your liver. So, even if we consider the fetus "a human", or "a life", it isn't relevant; the bodily autonomy of the one pregnant overrules any right to life a fetus even hypothetically might have. Which it doesn't, to be clear. But even if it did, still not an argument against freedom of choice.

It's all a distraction. Bullshit, from day 1, pushing a pseudo-religious misogyny. A lie, perpetrated to harm and marginalize women.

Eh, most of this is actually really weak. I wouldn't want to present arguments like, "Life? Weeds in my yard are life!" or "Human? My feces are human!" when trying to convince someone why abortion is a right.

All it comes down to is bodily autonomy and the fact that we almost universally understand that it trumps nearly anything else.

[uuuhname]

Sounds an awful lot like something a phrenologist might have said circa 1860. Just saying.

????

here's a hint: stop invoking terms that you clearly do not know what they mean.

[Endus]

Eh, most of this is actually really weak. I wouldn't want to present arguments like, "Life? Weeds in my yard are life!" or "Human? My feces are human!"

The weakness is that people misuse terminology to stir up emotional arguments, because they can't make an honest defense of pro-life stances. Sure, a lot of what I said is silly. So are their arguments. I'm mirroring that silliness, to demonstrate the dishonesty. Take it up with people who made those arguments.

I fully admit that everything but the last point is fundamentally irrelevant. That's the point I made. I just wanted to underscore the inherent dishonesty behind arguments like "the fetus is human/alive, tho!"

[gondrin]

Self-defense is the appropriate argument here in my opinion and would largely be in line with the anti-abortion viewpoint. That said, the mere fact that whether or not a fetus is ‘alive’ or ‘human’ is controversial should really make more people take pause. I’d have an older sibling were it not for Roe (and my mother’s parents), a decision my mother has regretted and felt shame and guilt for her entire life. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, pro-choice is not a salient argument when it comes to whether or not to end the life of a fetus and has only served to push opponents to greater extremes because of the perceived flippancy of abortion advocates. We fought a war over whether or not other human beings were considered human and history seems to like cycles.

Problem is, and always will be, pro-life is NOT about being, well, about saving lives. IT NEVER HAS. If it was, the "pro-life" crowd would also demand mandated organ donation, blood donations, vaccine usage and ANY OTHER LIFE SAVING MEASURE.

Until someone can prove to me, through using ANY OTHER MEANS THEN RELIGION that a human being, whether it is a fetus or full grown, has the right to compel the use someone else's body against their will for their own survival without the donor body having a say in it, I'll listen to that argument. Otherwise, it is, at the most basic, forced to be a slave at the wishes of another person.

This is coming from someone(myself) that isn't for abortion. However, I am for a person have the right to choose what they can and cannot have in their own body, whether it is vaccines, fetuses, drugs or whatever.

Maybe they should use this ruling and mandate that vaccine usages MUST be compelled to live within the state.

[Mekh]

Eh, most of this is actually really weak. I wouldn't want to present arguments like, "Life? Weeds in my yard are life!" or "Human? My feces are human!" when trying to convince someone why abortion is a right.

All it comes down to is bodily autonomy and the fact that we almost universally understand that it trumps nearly anything else.

You are right on the bodily autonomy aspect of course, but the vapid argument that a clump of cells might grow into a human one day needs thorough disenchantment, considering we've already grown human ears on the back of mice. The "miracle of life" isn't as impressive as people make it out to be, otherwise they'd also be campaigning for the rights of frozen IVF embryos.

[Crissi]

Thing about pro life arguments...if right to life overrides bodily autonomy, then forced vaccination and forced organ / blood donation is on the table. Because my right to live by getting a functioning kidney overrides your right to bodily autonomy to not have your kidney donated, since a person can live with only 1 kidney.

cant wait to force all the pro life people to take the COVID vaccines under threat of arrest

[D3thray]

Of course it's potential. Until they can live outside the womb, they aren't done. Spontaneous abortions happen all the time, ~10% in week 6, another ~5% in week 7, ~2% in week 8. Just for that short period alone, a fetus has about the same odds as an actual human surviving one round of Russian roulette.

And then assuming it makes it past that gauntlet, what? Did you actually believe your mom when she told you ‘I brought you into this world and I can take you out’?

[Fugus]

You are right on the bodily autonomy aspect of course, but the vapid argument that a clump of cells might grow into a human one day needs thorough disenchantment, considering we've already grown human ears on the back of mice. The "miracle of life" isn't as impressive as people make it out to be, otherwise they'd also be campaigning for the rights of frozen IVF embryos.

A good way to show the stupidity of that argument is by pointing out we have learned to turn mature cells back into stem cells and are getting to the point that we can soon turn them into viable embryos at which point skin flakes off my ass will be as sacred as their fetus by their logic.

[Mekh]

And then assuming it makes it past that gauntlet, what? Did you actually believe your mom when she told you ‘I brought you into this world and I can take you out’?

Not sure what your mom did to you, but mine actually wanted me. Considering the suicide rate in foster care is about four times the average, being an unwanted child probably isn't that great for either party.

- - - Updated - - -

A good way to show the stupidity of that argument is by pointing out we have learned to turn mature cells back into stem cells and are getting to the point that we can soon turn them into viable embryos at which point skin flakes off my ass will be as sacred as their fetus by their logic.

Not sure if it's even "soon". There's certain ethical boundaries keeping us from trying, but I honestly don't know if we aren't already there.

[Mihalik]

I’ll give the rudeness a pass and just assume you didn’t read the words ‘self-defense’ in my original response to.

I did. I specifically answered that too. The right to bodily autonomy trumps the right to life under every circumstance.

The only exception you're making is one for pregnant women.

1. Anecdote and what if.
2. Fetuses are not human beings.
3. Even if they were human beings one's right to life does not override another's right to bodily autonomy.

You brought up self defense. Point 3 is literally what allows you to exercise self defense. It's also why you cannot be forced to donate blood or organs, or even take a vaccine. It's why for example a father could never be legally obligated to donate blood to his own infant child for example.

[D3thray]

It really shouldn't.

Here's why it's a nonsense argument, from the secular perspective (since any religious arguments can be summarily dismissed and thrown out);

1> The fact that something is "alive" does not confer it rights. The dandelions in my lawn are "alive" but I can still dig them out or use weedkiller on 'em.

2> Life does not "begin". The "beginning" of life was the trigger point of abiogenesis, some billions of years ago. Since then, it's been a continuation of life. In the human context, our gametes (ova and sperm) are created by living individuals, and are, themselves, alive, and combine to form a new, still-living, fertilized zygote. There was never a point where anything in that cycle was "not alive", and no "life" was created.

3> If you mean "a life", rather than the processes of life itself, then you're making a personhood argument, or a religious argument. If the latter, toss it away. If the former, we'll come back to that. If you mean anything but those two, you're making something up and it's weird and not relevant.

4> Whether something is "human" has the same issue. If you mean "human", you are referring to anything produced by a human body. Human excrement. Human sweat. Human hair. Human tissue. Of course a zygote or fetus is "human". So's the snot I dug out of my nose. Does my snot have rights?

5> If you mean "a human", we're talking about personhood or a religious argument, again. See #3.

6> Now, personhood. This is a legal term. It's fundamentally arbitrary, though can be justified on objectively-determinable grounds. The current definition in the USA is "at birth, you become a person". Anyone pushing anything else is just wrong. It's also a completely irrelevant question, as we're about to get into; anyone talking about "personhood" (or "a life", or "a" human", see #s 3 and 5) is willfully trying to distract you with irrelevancies, attacking a straw man because they know they can't make their case on the relevant facts and principles.

7> Why is personhood irrelevant? Because bodily autonomy trumps right to life. There is no circumstance where one person can be forced to donate tissue or be forcibly hooked up to another human being as a mobile dialysis unit (say). Even the suggestion is gross as hell. But that's because it violates one person's right to bodily autonomy, to protect another person's right to life. There is no circumstance where right to life is deemed to overrule bodily autonomy; if you're the only possible match to someone who needs a new liver, even though livers regrow and you'll face very little long-term consequence or risk (less than carrying a pregnancy to term), you cannot be forced to donate part of your liver. So, even if we consider the fetus "a human", or "a life", it isn't relevant; the bodily autonomy of the one pregnant overrules any right to life a fetus even hypothetically might have. Which it doesn't, to be clear. But even if it did, still not an argument against freedom of choice.

It's all a distraction. Bullshit, from day 1, pushing a pseudo-religious misogyny. A lie, perpetrated to harm and marginalize women.

I mean if she’s just ‘a woman’ why do you care and draw a distinction? Your flippancy betrays the inconsistency in your logic.

[Ghost of Cow]

Thing about pro life arguments...if right to life overrides bodily autonomy, then forced vaccination and forced organ / blood donation is on the table. Because my right to live by getting a functioning kidney overrides your right to bodily autonomy to not have your kidney donated, since a person can live with only 1 kidney.

cant wait to force all the pro life people to take the COVID vaccines under threat of arrest

The thing is, they already believe that "forced vaccinations" are a thing. So we won't be catching them in that bit of logic.

[Crissi]

The thing is, they already believe that "forced vaccinations" are a thing. So we won't be catching them in that bit of logic.

ah yes, where they complain about it being forced but they arent in jail or being forced down to get the jab. just societal pressure. bunch of whiny babies. This would be actual force.

[Endus]

I mean if she’s just ‘a woman’ why do you care and draw a distinction? Your flippancy betrays the inconsistency in your logic.

What distinction do you think I'm drawing? The pregnant person is a human being, and has bodily autonomy. I'm perfectly comfortable if you want to discuss pregnant men, who'd have similar rights.

There was no "just a woman" statement in anything I said. That you think so says wonders.

[D3thray]

What distinction do you think I'm drawing? The pregnant person is a human being, and has bodily autonomy. I'm perfectly comfortable if you want to discuss pregnant men, who'd have similar rights.

Because you’re all for the women unless that woman happens to be inside another woman. Why even bother drawing the line when it’s clearly arbitrary on your part.

[Endus]

Because you’re all for the women unless that woman happens to be inside another woman. Why even bother drawing the line when it’s clearly arbitrary on your part.

1> A fetus isn't a person.

2> Yeah, if one woman crawled inside another woman and that second woman was all "what? Get out of me!" I'm siding with Woman #2 in that.

Such a weird fuckin' argument, dude.

[Mekh]

There’s no trolling at all intended in my response, I’m being quite sincere.

Because you’re all for the women unless that woman happens to be inside another woman. Why even bother drawing the line when it’s clearly arbitrary on your part.

Fucking LOL.

[Mihalik]

Because you’re all for the women unless that woman happens to be inside another woman. Why even bother drawing the line when it’s clearly arbitrary on your part.

Because again. The right to life of one woman doesn't trump the right to bodily autonomy of another woman. Or man. Or intersex person.

YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING AN EXCEPTION THAT ONLY APPLIES TO PREGNANT WOMEN, AND ONLY TO PREGNANT WOMEN. He is consistent, you are not.

[D3thray]

@Endus @Mekh @Mihalik

I’ve got to run but I just want to cap the brief discussion, I’m not arguing here from a pro-life stance I’m very much in the camp that abortion should be available even if reluctantly so. I’m trying to point out how extreme some of your arguments and justifications sound even to someone who agrees with the base point. If you want abortion to be available, these are terrible talking points. Self-defense, respect for life, go with that. Bin the fetuses aren’t human crap.

[Twdft]

If men would be the ones getting pregnant we'd have drive-through abortion clinics with attached bar and bowling centre.