BREAKING: Roe v. Wade might be overruled or severely weakened by SCOTUS

[UncleSam]

Fundamentally the problem is that most American conservatives want to punish people (and especially women) for the crime of having sex outside of marriage. The issue is really that Christianity teaches that sex is evil / wrong unless it is for the explicit purpose of procreation.

If we were able to convince Christians that this is purely a delusion most likely invented by old men who had had little to no female attention throughout their lives, we’d be most of the way there in terms of dealing with this issue. Suddenly teaching safe sex in schools, promoting contraception, and providing reliable medical counseling services to young women would make a lot of the problem go away on its’ own.

Obviously we will still always need women to be able to get an abortion, but to quote Bill Clinton, the hope would be that it would be ‘safe, legal, and rare’. I’d actually support a ban on abortion past 18 or 20 weeks if I were confident women wouldn’t get intimidated to keep the pregnancy up until that point due to having a total lack of institutional support or just fundamental human rights.

Part of the problem is also that the rights of a ‘man’s child’ supercede the rights of women in the minds of many conservative Christians. We need to push hard on the point that they are not and that thinking so is incredibly misogynistic. Just because a woman has sex with a man and that act results in a pregnancy does not give the man any claim to control over her body. None. Nor does having sex resulting in pregnancy give a fetus OR a child (regardless of how you define it) rights that supercede the mother’s. With that being said, I’d still support a ban past some threshold of weeks since at that point, assuming freedom of the mother up to that point to decide for herself, I’d argue that the mother waived her right to total dominion over her body for the sake of the fetus’ right to life.

[John Dule]

I believe you are confusing the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, my church, and every church which has existed for any long period of time with the SBC. They have no process of ordination which I recognize; they continually lie about basic facts; in short, I find it difficult to consider them Christian.

It’s not about its neurons - it is about whether or not it is alive. If you would care to tell me the moment between when my brother was not human but my dead infant cousin was, J would appreciate it.

But if the question is about whether or not the fetus is alive, then surely you must agree that this argument applies to eggs and sperm as well. Those are literally living cells. Nobody denies that a zygote is composed of living genetic material; the question is whether that zygote can be classified as "human." My toes are "alive" in the sense that they are made up of living cells. But they are not humans.

Again, there is no "moment" where a zygote or fetus suddenly becomes human.

This is not “offensive to my Christian sensibilities” except in the sense that murder generally is. I did not say we should treat “every sperm as sacred” - this phrase is so boorish I find it difficult to believe you thought it out in your head, typed it up, and thought “Yes, this isn’t a straw an at all.”

If you read that again, you will find it obvious that I didn't imply that it was something you believed. I just named two equally extreme positions which neither of us believe in.

You’re the first PC person I’ve had this discussion with to pretend conception is arbitrary. It is, in point of fact, the only line which is not arbitrary - it is when life begins. Even the BBC, which uses purposely biased phrases, has said “The chief appeal to defining our value as beginning at conception is that it is the only point which is not arbitrary.”

You are still talking about "life" as though that is the deciding factor. Again: Sperm cells are alive. Life exists prior to conception, and it exists after conception as well. Whether or not the zygote is "alive" is not a meaningful  distinction. All that changes at the moment of fertilization is that the zygote possesses genetic material that is identical to that of the fully formed human. But it does not gain a soul, consciousness, or whatever you'd like to call it in that instant.

You previously (and laughably) claimed that ancient theologians did not believe abortion was murder; when proven wrong, you then mocked me for... believing in my religion? You can’t have it both ways - when you thought ancient theologians were on your side, you suggested it was a heavy blow against me. When I demonstrated this was wrong and the opposite was true, you suggested that I ought not place my values into laws? This is absurd - I do not intend to pretend that your “secular values” are somehow innately superior to my values to such an extent that I would advocate for your values over mine.*

Are you claiming that many Christians of the past did not believe that life began with an infant's first breath? That is factually wrong. In any case, my point was never that ancient Christian teachings should be taken seriously. My point is that different cultures place the beginning of personhood at different places, and it is far from a foregone conclusion that a fertilized egg ought to be treated as a human being.

*(It should be noted that, as a self-proclaimed moral non-realist, your previously expressed judgments on my conduct as bad or unbecoming contradicts your claim to be a moral non-realist. Indeed, as a moral realist, I can reasonably claim that your positions are bad in some real sense; you lack the ability to thus far even insinuate that my values are bad in any real meaning of the word.)

When I make a moral judgement, it is my opinion. The same is true for you (even if you pretend otherwise).

[Person Man]

I believe you are confusing the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, my church, and every church which has existed for any long period of time with the SBC. They have no process of ordination which I recognize; they continually lie about basic facts; in short, I find it difficult to consider them Christian.

It’s not about its neurons - it is about whether or not it is alive. If you would care to tell me the moment between when my brother was not human but my dead infant cousin was, J would appreciate it.

But if the question is about whether or not the fetus is alive, then surely you must agree that this argument applies to eggs and sperm as well. Those are literally living cells. Nobody denies that a zygote is composed of living genetic material; the question is whether that zygote can be classified as "human." My toes are "alive" in the sense that they are made up of living cells. But they are not humans.

Again, there is no "moment" where a zygote or fetus suddenly becomes human.

This is not “offensive to my Christian sensibilities” except in the sense that murder generally is. I did not say we should treat “every sperm as sacred” - this phrase is so boorish I find it difficult to believe you thought it out in your head, typed it up, and thought “Yes, this isn’t a straw an at all.”

If you read that again, you will find it obvious that I didn't imply that it was something you believed. I just named two equally extreme positions which neither of us believe in.

You’re the first PC person I’ve had this discussion with to pretend conception is arbitrary. It is, in point of fact, the only line which is not arbitrary - it is when life begins. Even the BBC, which uses purposely biased phrases, has said “The chief appeal to defining our value as beginning at conception is that it is the only point which is not arbitrary.”

You are still talking about "life" as though that is the deciding factor. Again: Sperm cells are alive. Life exists prior to conception, and it exists after conception as well. Whether or not the zygote is "alive" is not a meaningful  distinction. All that changes at the moment of fertilization is that the zygote possesses genetic material that is identical to that of the fully formed human. But it does not gain a soul, consciousness, or whatever you'd like to call it in that instant.

You previously (and laughably) claimed that ancient theologians did not believe abortion was murder; when proven wrong, you then mocked me for... believing in my religion? You can’t have it both ways - when you thought ancient theologians were on your side, you suggested it was a heavy blow against me. When I demonstrated this was wrong and the opposite was true, you suggested that I ought not place my values into laws? This is absurd - I do not intend to pretend that your “secular values” are somehow innately superior to my values to such an extent that I would advocate for your values over mine.*

Are you claiming that many Christians of the past did not believe that life began with an infant's first breath? That is factually wrong. In any case, my point was never that ancient Christian teachings should be taken seriously. My point is that different cultures place the beginning of personhood at different places, and it is far from a foregone conclusion that a fertilized egg ought to be treated as a human being.
[\b]

*(It should be noted that, as a self-proclaimed moral non-realist, your previously expressed judgments on my conduct as bad or unbecoming contradicts your claim to be a moral non-realist. Indeed, as a moral realist, I can reasonably claim that your positions are bad in some real sense; you lack the ability to thus far even insinuate that my values are bad in any real meaning of the word.)

When I make a moral judgement, it is my opinion. The same is true for you (even if you pretend otherwise).

That’s the big thing right there. There’s no proof beyond the shadow of a doubt that there is or ever was a  universal fundamental right to be born.

[RI]

You are still talking about "life" as though that is the deciding factor. Again: Sperm cells are alive. Life exists prior to conception, and it exists after conception as well. Whether or not the zygote is "alive" is not a meaningful  distinction. All that changes at the moment of fertilization is that the zygote possesses genetic material that is identical to that of the fully formed human. But it does not gain a soul, consciousness, or whatever you'd like to call it in that instant.

More than this changes; the telos of the cell changes irreversibly after conception. Prior to conception, a sperm cell or an ovum left to its own devices will continue to exist as itself in perpetuity as long as conditions allow it to live. Following conception, the merged zygote left to its own devices will grow invariably into a human fetus, a human child, and an human adult as long as conditions allow them to live.

[John Dule]

You are still talking about "life" as though that is the deciding factor. Again: Sperm cells are alive. Life exists prior to conception, and it exists after conception as well. Whether or not the zygote is "alive" is not a meaningful  distinction. All that changes at the moment of fertilization is that the zygote possesses genetic material that is identical to that of the fully formed human. But it does not gain a soul, consciousness, or whatever you'd like to call it in that instant.

More than this changes; the telos of the cell changes irreversibly after conception. Prior to conception, a sperm cell or an ovum left to its own devices will continue to exist as itself in perpetuity as long as conditions allow it to live. Following conception, the merged zygote left to its own devices will grow invariably into a human fetus, a human child, and an human adult as long as conditions allow them to live.

We can have that conversation too, but at that point we are no longer talking about "life." So just to clarify, whether or not the cells are alive is not the meaningful distinction that will solve this issue, yes?

[Person Man]

You are still talking about "life" as though that is the deciding factor. Again: Sperm cells are alive. Life exists prior to conception, and it exists after conception as well. Whether or not the zygote is "alive" is not a meaningful  distinction. All that changes at the moment of fertilization is that the zygote possesses genetic material that is identical to that of the fully formed human. But it does not gain a soul, consciousness, or whatever you'd like to call it in that instant.

More than this changes; the telos of the cell changes irreversibly after conception. Prior to conception, a sperm cell or an ovum left to its own devices will continue to exist as itself in perpetuity as long as conditions allow it to live. Following conception, the merged zygote left to its own devices will grow invariably into a human fetus, a human child, and an human adult as long as conditions allow them to live.

We can have that conversation too, but at that point we are no longer talking about "life." So just to clarify, whether or not the cells are alive is not the meaningful distinction that will solve this issue, yes?

It’s the same for unimplanted embryos too. Why else would they be used years after they were frozen?

[afleitch]

You are still talking about "life" as though that is the deciding factor. Again: Sperm cells are alive. Life exists prior to conception, and it exists after conception as well. Whether or not the zygote is "alive" is not a meaningful  distinction. All that changes at the moment of fertilization is that the zygote possesses genetic material that is identical to that of the fully formed human. But it does not gain a soul, consciousness, or whatever you'd like to call it in that instant.

More than this changes; the telos of the cell changes irreversibly after conception. Prior to conception, a sperm cell or an ovum left to its own devices will continue to exist as itself in perpetuity as long as conditions allow it to live. Following conception, the merged zygote left to its own devices will grow invariably into a human fetus, a human child, and an human adult as long as conditions allow them to live.

A zygote is not however 'left to it's own devices'. It is very much subject to acceptance or rejection by the body of whom it is impregnated in for a myriad of reasons (indeed statistically that rejection happens a lot) and the same is true of the fetus. It's a poor analogy.

[Motorcity]

I think you would see mass mobilisation of pro-choice Americans and a mass drain of demographic and economic drain from states where there would be default anti-choice legislation.

So, Ohio, West Virginia, Missouri, Iowa are doomed economically?

I think states with punitive abortion law will see both economic boycotts and a drain of young people. Women have much more social mobility than they did pre Roe.

'Big Pro-Life' is well connected and powerful but it is not popular. Repealing Roe ends the grift.

This is just silly

It’s hard enough to find a job or a house nowadays. Educated women aren’t going to leave booming places like Nashville, Atlanta, Austin, etc because of abortion laws.

At most, they’ll travel out of state to get an abortion.

People do not base their lives on certain laws, much less laws on a hypothetical situation that may never happen

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I think you would see mass mobilisation of pro-choice Americans and a mass drain of demographic and economic drain from states where there would be default anti-choice legislation.

So, Ohio, West Virginia, Missouri, Iowa are doomed economically?

I think states with punitive abortion law will see both economic boycotts and a drain of young people. Women have much more social mobility than they did pre Roe.

'Big Pro-Life' is well connected and powerful but it is not popular. Repealing Roe ends the grift.

This is just silly

It’s hard enough to find a job or a house nowadays. Educated women aren’t going to leave booming places like Nashville, Atlanta, Austin, etc because of abortion laws.

At most, they’ll travel out of state to get an abortion.

People do not base their lives on certain laws, much less laws on a hypothetical situation that may never happen

You don't have to travel out of state for anything, it's just an emotional attachment if you give the baby up for adoption a from Egyptian time until the 1970s babies were left on doorsteps to their relatives or given up for an adoption, it's a myth that abortion is the only way to give up a baby

Many relatives even as adolescent are given to other relatives to adopt and get paid for it

[John Dule]

I think you would see mass mobilisation of pro-choice Americans and a mass drain of demographic and economic drain from states where there would be default anti-choice legislation.

So, Ohio, West Virginia, Missouri, Iowa are doomed economically?

I think states with punitive abortion law will see both economic boycotts and a drain of young people. Women have much more social mobility than they did pre Roe.

'Big Pro-Life' is well connected and powerful but it is not popular. Repealing Roe ends the grift.

This is just silly

It’s hard enough to find a job or a house nowadays. Educated women aren’t going to leave booming places like Nashville, Atlanta, Austin, etc because of abortion laws.

At most, they’ll travel out of state to get an abortion.

People do not base their lives on certain laws, much less laws on a hypothetical situation that may never happen

Ok. So the women who have enough money to travel will be able to get abortions, whereas women who don't have time/money to spare will be forced to give birth. Sounds like a great system, and I foresee no potentially bad consequences to this.