SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Darththeo]

Before fertilization it's not a unique human. I'm not a lunatic who thinks male masterbation is genocide. An unfertilized egg is not a unique human.

I dunno what situation a dead person still has multiplying cells unless I guess during the first few minutes or hours after death, but a growing baby wouldn't fall into that. Nice try.

So yeah they're alive and growing. They're human.

We define death as the end of brain activity. The rest of the body may still function after the brain has died for actually surprisingly long periods of time. This isn't even getting into medical intervention that can keep a body alive after the brain is dead.

[Edge-]

Before fertilization it's not a unique human.

Biologically, it's not a unique human after fertilization either.

I dunno what situation a dead person still has multiplying cells unless I guess during the first few minutes or hours after death, but a growing baby wouldn't fall into that. Nice try.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrietta_Lacks

So yeah they're alive and growing. They're human.

Or a tumor. It could absolutely be a tumor.

[Endus]

I knew you'd have the audacity to compare involuntary miscarriage to abortion. Just wanted you to say it. A miscarriage is caused by an unhealthy or unviable pregnancy. Not because someone made a.stupid decision or just doesn't want to deal with the burden of parenthood

This is, again, a lie. Miscarriages of healthy pregnancies happen all the time. You have no idea what you're talking about. And miscarriages are abortions. Literally, definitively. The only difference is spontaneous vs induced.

People only can because it's currently legal in some states. Key word, currently.

Not really. Especially because the USA isn't the only country in the world. Banning abortion won't stop abortions. It just makes them less safe. We've been handling abortions for millenia. There's a description of abortion techniques in the Christian Bible (probably also the Torah? Same books, AFAIK, but I haven't read the Torah specifically).

I support exceptions because we live in a society which means there are always exceptions. But exceptions never make the rules, they define them.

That isn't how anything works. If you uphold an exception to a maxim, you don't believe the maxim. Any exception debunks the premise in question. You're just openly lying to us about your views, here.

[Varx]

When you claim consent to sex is consent to pregnancy, and that consent can't be revoked after being given, that is exactly what you're saying. I'll agree you're not implying it; you're coming right out and overtly stating it up-front.



"Human being" isn't a scientific term. It's natural language, or it has a legal meaning, and the legal meaning explicitly doesn't work like you claim; a fetus is legally not a "human being", definitively.

So, not a scientific argument at all, actually.

Okay homosapien then, w/e floats your boat. Just because a fetus is not a legal person yet for obvious reasons doesn't remove their right to life in a civilized society. I mean I don't have to tell you why a toddler.cant legally drink alcohol right? Despite being just as human as an adult.

[Endus]

Before fertilization it's not a unique human.

What about twins, triplets, quads, etc?

They're not "unique humans", genetically. Why are you denying their humanity?

[Edge-]

I mean I don't have to tell you why a toddler.cant legally drink alcohol right? Despite being just as human as an adult.

Yes actually, you should. Because we don't just arbitrarily do that, or because of some vague sense of morality. There are sound medical reasons to not keep your toddler drunk all the time.

You really do pick the worst examples for your own arguments.

[Varx]

Tumors have unique DNA. Are they people?

Twins share DNA, so neither's DNA blueprint is unique. Are they not people?

This just isn't an argument. It's nonsense. It's a cover story to hide the claims of a soul, which a tumor wouldn't have and twins would each have, unlike DNA blueprints.



So? You haven't explained why this means anything.



The gametes that combined to form that egg were also both alive. Why don't you hold the same position for sperm and ova that don't manage to combine with their counterparts? They're "human" too, after all.

Again with libs taking exceptions and using them as the rules.

But I'll entertain you.

Does a tumor grow into a sentient person with thoughts and feelings like a fetus does?

Are twins one entity with a hive mind?

And I'm the nonsensical one with arguments like these, top kek.

Those gametes are just part of their person's, they're not living unique individuals.

Keep it up lol

[Endus]

Okay homosapien then, w/e floats your boat.

That's a species descriptor, not a statement of personhood. A 200,000-year-old Homo Sapiens fossil is "homo sapiens", but it's super dead and definitely not a person at this point, right? Even if it once was?

This is what I keep driving at. You keep mis-using scientific terminology without understanding what it actually means.

Just because a fetus is not a legal person yet for obvious reasons doesn't remove their right to life in a civilized society.

What right to life? They absolutely do have to be a legal person to have legal rights, dude.

Also, we've already been over how, even if we granted legal personhood, rights to bodily autonomy always trump another person's right to life. That's why you can't harvest organs or tissue against the donor's will, even to safe a life, even if the donor has just died and is no longer a legal person. You're denying women the same respect and protections we grant to a corpse. All in the name of religious extremism.

[Varx]

Who in the hell told you that bull? That is not what a miscarriage is.

That's exactly what a miscarriage is. For what ever reason, the female's body cannot carry the baby.

[Endus]

Again with libs taking exceptions and using them as the rules.

Again, if your premises have exceptions, it's because your premises have been disproven and are false. Pushing them despite those exceptions just means you're lying.

But I'll entertain you.

Does a tumor grow into a sentient person with thoughts and feelings like a fetus does?

An aborted fetus? No it doesn't. And no, I don't entertain hypothetical futures as a valid argument against decisions today.

Are twins one entity with a hive mind?

Your standard was "unique DNA blueprint". Don't move the goalposts just because your position has been proven ridiculous.

Those gametes are just part of their person's, they're not living unique individuals.

Keep it up lol

Neither is a fetus.

You keep making that kind of shit up.

[Varx]

We define death as the end of brain activity. The rest of the body may still function after the brain has died for actually surprisingly long periods of time. This isn't even getting into medical intervention that can keep a body alive after the brain is dead.

Um no death is defined as all bodily activity ceasing. If you wanna say brain dead sure. But true death is all body activity.

Don't know why you even using this for this topic anyway. Stop reaching.

[Endus]

That's exactly what a miscarriage is. For what ever reason, the female's body cannot carry the baby.

In other words, an "abortion".

Basic medical definitions really bother you, don't they?

[Edge-]

Again with libs taking exceptions and using them as the rules.

It's not an exception. It's taking the definition and applying it consistently.

But I'll entertain you.

Does a tumor grow into a sentient person with thoughts and feelings like a fetus does?

Irrelevant. It's unique DNA, which per the arguments of those opposing bodily autonomy is indicative of another separate body and life.

Are twins one entity with a hive mind?

When did this become a requirement? Y'all never make mention of hive minds before.

And I'm the nonsensical one with arguments like these, top kek.

No, welcome to needing to fully think out your argument and the consequences of vague arguments appealing to emotion. They're generally very easy to punch holes in.

[Darththeo]

That's exactly what a miscarriage is. For what ever reason, the female's body cannot carry the baby.

You do know that your first statement and the bolded are contradictory right?

Also, this is also not what a miscarriage is. A miscarriage is a spontaneous abortion of a pregnancy. It makes no claim on viability or whether the mother could carry it to term. Most miscarriage are due to unknown causes, but you want to assert a cause into the unknown.

- - - Updated - - -

Um no death is defined as all bodily activity ceasing. If you wanna say brain dead sure. But true death is all body activity.

Don't know why you even using this for this topic anyway. Stop reaching.

Not with humans. You are "dead" when your brain stops.

It isn't reaching, it is showing you lack understanding of the topic.

[Yetanothernewbie]

So because I agree with some of top g's ideals, NOT ALL. I don't think his life style is something all men should stride for. I'm a rapist? Big oof there buddy

Walks like a duck, talks like a duck, idolize a dogshit rapist like a duck. We have you pegged for what you are.

[Varx]

This is, again, a lie. Miscarriages of healthy pregnancies happen all the time. You have no idea what you're talking about. And miscarriages are abortions. Literally, definitively. The only difference is spontaneous vs induced.



Not really. Especially because the USA isn't the only country in the world. Banning abortion won't stop abortions. It just makes them less safe. We've been handling abortions for millenia. There's a description of abortion techniques in the Christian Bible (probably also the Torah? Same books, AFAIK, but I haven't read the Torah specifically).



That isn't how anything works. If you uphold an exception to a maxim, you don't believe the maxim. Any exception debunks the premise in question. You're just openly lying to us about your views, here.

If a miscarriage happens then that means something went wrong with the process. Simple as that. No one can say what but it definitely was not normal nor healthy, either for the fetus, the mother's body, or both.

Laws don't stop all murder but I'm sure they substantial reduce they're occurrence of they weren't illegal. The goal is to stop legal abortion to save as many lives as possible. Obviously there would still be black mart abortions or unsafe home abortions. But that's up to those criminals to deal with.

Thats exactly how everything works. Depending on context there can always be an exception to laws. Killing someone for example. It's illegal to kill with the exception of self defense.

- - - Updated - - -

What about twins, triplets, quads, etc?

They're not "unique humans", genetically. Why are you denying their humanity?

Again, an exception doesn't make the rule. Twins, triplets etc are all unique beings as they have their own unique sentience despite sharing dna

[Darththeo]

If a miscarriage happens then that means something went wrong with the process. Simple as that. No one can say what but it definitely was not normal nor healthy, either for the fetus, the mother's body, or both.

No one can say what you are saying. Again, the majority of abortions are due to unknown causes. You cannot assert a cause onto it.

To say it was not normal or healthy is to assert a cause. Most cases it is unknown what caused it.

[Varx]

Yes actually, you should. Because we don't just arbitrarily do that, or because of some vague sense of morality. There are sound medical reasons to not keep your toddler drunk all the time.

You really do pick the worst examples for your own arguments.

Okay well we don't just arbitrarily consider a fetus a LEGAL human yet because they're still in the womb, can't even function as a developed human, I mean do I really need to say this? Like it's common sense.

- - - Updated - - -

That's a species descriptor, not a statement of personhood. A 200,000-year-old Homo Sapiens fossil is "homo sapiens", but it's super dead and definitely not a person at this point, right? Even if it once was?

This is what I keep driving at. You keep mis-using scientific terminology without understanding what it actually means.



What right to life? They absolutely do have to be a legal person to have legal rights, dude.

Also, we've already been over how, even if we granted legal personhood, rights to bodily autonomy always trump another person's right to life. That's why you can't harvest organs or tissue against the donor's will, even to safe a life, even if the donor has just died and is no longer a legal person. You're denying women the same respect and protections we grant to a corpse. All in the name of religious extremism.

Lol again with tissues and organs.

Apples and oranges dude...

Autonomy does not trump, or at least shouldn't, the right to live. In the case of pregnancy.

[Endus]

If a miscarriage happens then that means something went wrong with the process. Simple as that. No one can say what but it definitely was not normal nor healthy, either for the fetus, the mother's body, or both.

This is false. You have no basis for this, you're literally making it up. Most miscarriages occur for reasons that aren't understood.

Also, you're literally describing an abortion, here, still.

Laws don't stop all murder but I'm sure they substantial reduce they're occurrence of they weren't illegal. The goal is to stop legal abortion to save as many lives as possible. Obviously there would still be black mart abortions or unsafe home abortions. But that's up to those criminals to deal with.

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/healt...report-n858476

Banning abortions increases abortion rates. Canada, for instance, has a lower abortion rate than the USA, despite having absolutely no legal restrictions on abortion whatsoever.

If you really wanted to limit abortion rates, you'd support abortion rights.

Thats exactly how everything works. Depending on context there can always be an exception to laws. Killing someone for example. It's illegal to kill with the exception of self defense.

That just means that "killing another human being" is not defined as "murder". And it isn't. It's defined as "homicide". And not all homicides are unlawful. Lawful homicides aren't exceptions to some base rule.

You're mangling the legal definitions and premises and proving your argument false, here.

- - - Updated - - -

Again, an exception doesn't make the rule. Twins, triplets etc are all unique beings as they have their own unique sentience despite sharing dna

"Soul"-like arguing detected.

You keep falling back on that no matter how many times you insist you're not talking about it.

- - - Updated - - -

Autonomy does not trump, or at least shouldn't, the right to live. In the case of pregnancy.

It does in literally every other case. Why would pregnancy be an exception? You're arguing it should be and the onus is on you to justify that to us.

[Varx]

Again, if your premises have exceptions, it's because your premises have been disproven and are false. Pushing them despite those exceptions just means you're lying.



An aborted fetus? No it doesn't. And no, I don't entertain hypothetical futures as a valid argument against decisions today.



Your standard was "unique DNA blueprint". Don't move the goalposts just because your position has been proven ridiculous.


Neither is a fetus.

You keep making that kind of shit up.

Im not moving goal post. You need me to hold your hand for everything I say? You a coder or something? Follow the bouncing ball. It's all specifics and semantics with you.