Texas bans abortion.

[Stacyhs]

I have a piece of coal and over enough time with the proper inputs and conditions it will develope into diamond so I think I should get diamond pricing for my coal.

Also I thought I've read stuff about stem cells or even skin cells being able to be developed into a baby. Are we murdering babies every time we take a shower?

I've tried the "seed to flower: at what stage does the seedling become flower" comparison, but as a flower will never develop into baby, it doesn't seem to count. Try giving your wife a seedling on your anniversary and ask her how she likes her bouquet of red roses. Cue the "but a seedling never develops into a baaaaaaaaaaby!"

 

[smartcooky]

But, you didn't challenge them. You posted the same statistic as I did, relating to the maternal death rate. The link I provided was much more centered on abortion stats in the US, however. This is the country we are generally discussing in this thread. This debate, or non-debate, has no further merit.

 

[JoeMorgue]

We're back to the Jabba thread, desperately trying to make someone understand (or to be more fair try to make someone stop pretending to not understand) that it doesn't matter that every lottery ticket has the same chance of winning, only the winning ticket gets the jackpot. It's arguing with a pit boss at Vegas that you should get the pot because your cards had a potentially better hand than the winning hand, you just didn't play it.

The "potential human" nonsense is exactly what the wrong side wants, an endless death spiral WITH NO ACTUALLY POSSIBLE ANSWER that they can pretend wins them the discussion until we answer it

I cut the stupid Gordian Knot pages ago and got ignored. I DON'T CARE. Call it a fetus, call it a baby, call little it little Jeffy. If it's fully dependant on another human for base biological existence it DOESN'T MATTER ANYMORE THAN THE PERSON IT IS DEPENDANT ON DECIDES IT DOES.

It has nothing to do with risk, it has nothing to do with identity, it has nothing to with personhood.

If tomorrow the person who was metaphysically certain to cure cancer, broker peace in the Middle East, and was destined to write an orchestral piece that would make Bethooven's #5 sound like a handful of silverware being shoved down a garbage disposal woke up and needed a kidney and my kidney was the only match in the complete present, future, and past timelines of this and all other universes was mine... I STILL WOULD NOT BE LEGALLY OBLIGATED TO GIVE HIM MY KIDNEY.

 

[Warp12]

Zygotes/ embryos aren't a baby.

But they can develope into a baby so they should be treated as such.

So can stem cells or skin cells.
Ridiculous argument!

 

[acbytesla]

I have a piece of coal and over enough time with the proper inputs and conditions it will develope into diamond so I think I should get diamond pricing for my coal.

Also I thought I've read stuff about stem cells or even skin cells being able to be developed into a baby. Are we murdering babies every time we take a shower?

I've tried the "seed to flower: at what stage does the seedling become flower" comparison, but as a flower will never develop into baby, it doesn't seem to count. Try giving your wife a seedling on your anniversary and ask her how she likes her bouquet of red roses. Cue the "but a seedling never develops into a baaaaaaaaaaby!"

What something might develop into is totally irrelevant to what it is. I might develop into a concert pianist if only I can master chopsticks

Absolutely none of us is suggesting women should have the right to terminate babies.

We are saying that women should be able to choose whether they want to undergo the health costs to have a baby before it becomes one. Why is this so hard to figure out?

 

[Warbler]

I think Warbler knew what I meant and danced around it with "living things that aren't sentient will never be sentient have less rights than a sentient being". And then he capped off the evasion dance with a fetus is slowly developing into a sentient being, which has zero to do with my question.

I was not dancing around your question. Nor was the "a fetus is slowly developing into a sentient being" an evasion dance. And I don't think it has zero to do with your question.

I did not specify that because it has nothing to do with my question.

In your opinion. I disagree.

I said non-sentient and I meant non-sentient. Something either is sentient or it is not and it matters not if it will or will not eventually develop into one for the purpose of my question. You are trying to endow the non-sentient being with "personhood".

no, I simply stating the fact that unlike an amoeba, the embryo is developing into something sentient.

An amoeba is not sentient as it does not 'feel' or 'think'. It merely reacts to stimuli.
Even a third trimester fetus does not "think" or "feel" emotions, it has no self-awareness. It doesn't even have the ability to feel pain until the beginning of the third trimester. These are scientific facts, not "I think it's possible" opinion.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-does-consciousness-arise/

clearly, it is still eventual going to become sentient, even if that isn't until birth itself.

You seem to be stuck on that. It's not a 'separate' lifeform because it cannot survive without the mother's giving it nutrition and oxygen through the placenta. By the very definition of 'separate', it is not 'by itself', 'apart from' or 'independent of' the mother. I think what you mean is that you view it as a "life" distinct from any other life.

Sorry for being stuck on the idea that mother and child are separate lifeforms.

I realize the fetus can not survive without being connected to its mother, but I know that that is how we should measure whether they are same lifeform or separate lifeforms.

This constant response that something "WILL develop into a human baby" is the go to for those who don't want to deal with the "what is" at the moment. Whenever we talk about the zygote/embryo stage when there is no brain or central nervous and no sentient being (first trimester, early second), they go to "but it WILL be a baby/human being" because they want to confer upon it the status of "person" and "baby". It's an attempt to emotionalize it...an appeal to emotion.

It is a fact. It is turning into separate human. You can not deny that. Maybe you think that is meaningless to what value we should put on the fetus/zygote/embryo, I of course disagree. I don't think it is an appeal to emotion.

 

[acbytesla]

.





no, I simply stating the fact that unlike an amoeba, the embryo is developing into something sentient.

It is a fact. It is turning into separate human. You can not deny that. Maybe you think that is meaningless to what value we should put on the fetus/zygote/embryo, I of course disagree. I don't think it is an appeal to emotion.

Again, what difference does it make what it is turning into?

A lump of coal is turning into a one carat diamond but you're never going to treat them the same.

There's a reason that a woman chooses to prevent a fetus from becoming a baby, Usually, it's because she is not ready emotionally, physically or financially ready to raise that baby.

Doesn't that ever play a factor in this? Do you think it's better to raise children in poverty? Does the quality of its life or its family's life matter at all to you?

 

[Warbler]

Again, what difference does it make what it is turning into?

If you don't know, I don't know how to explain it to you. I just the fact that it is turning into a human should play a part in the value we put on the fetus/zygote/embryo

A lump of coal is turning into a one carat diamond but you're never going to treat them the same.

Is turning, or could if you put it through the right steps. Sometimes the potential future value plays a part in the present value you put on a item. For example, if you a making a long term investment, you don't just take a how some stock is worth today. You also consider its future value.

There's a reason that a woman chooses to prevent a fetus from becoming a baby, Usually, it's because she is not ready emotionally, physically or financially ready to raise that baby.

Doesn't that ever play a factor in this? Do you think it's better to raise children in poverty? Does the quality of its life or its family's life matter at all to you?

I would think it would be better for a woman in such a situation to put the child up for adoption, but then people attacked me for the Trauma a woman would go through giving up the child for adoption, a child some months ago she was considering aborting. I like I said earlier, I admit I don't understand this trauma and need to learn more about it.

 

[psionl0]

I'm not so sure this DNA/separate/unique entity argument is the slam dunk some here think it is. If it's a unique/separate individual then it has no right to invade the body of another unique/separate individual.

It didn't "invade" the host. It was placed there - either by accident or design.

The rights or otherwise of a zygote/embryo/foetus is a totally separate issue.

 

[psionl0]

I have a piece of coal and over enough time with the proper inputs and conditions it will develope into diamond so I think I should get diamond pricing for my coal.

Do human traffickers really charge the same price for a zygote as they do for a baby?

 

[acbytesla]

If you don't know, I don't know how to explain it to you. I just the fact that it is turning into a human should play a part in the value we put on the fetus/zygote/embryo

I absolutely DON'T KNOW. The whole point of an abortion is the same as a condom, a diaphragm or an IUD. To stop it before it turns into something it isn't.

I would think it would be better for a woman in such a situation to put the child up for adoption, but then people attacked me for the Trauma a woman would go through giving up the child for adoption, a child some months ago she was considering aborting. I like I said earlier, I admit I don't understand this trauma and need to learn more about it.

Do you? Do you have any idea how emotionally painful it is to give up a child for adoption after it has been part of you for nine months?

And while there are lots of potential parents wanting to adopt at this moment. What happens when there are suddenly 800,000 more children annually available? Do you think there will be enough financially capable and suitable parents for all of them?

 

[Warp12]

And while there are lots of potential parents wanting to adopt at this moment. What happens when there are suddenly 800,000 more children annually available? Do you think there will be enough financially capable and suitable parents for all of them?

<Thanos has entered the chat>

"We might not have the best resources for them...so just kill them."

 

[cosmicaug]

And also if you'd like to see the USA's horrifically high maternal mortality rates reduced.

Let's keep this in perspective with real numbers: in 2018 the overall death rate was 17.4 per 100,000 live births.

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/pu...0/dec/maternal-mortality-united-states-primer

I keep seeing people screech about a risk of death to the mother. But, even considering if 800,000 potential abortions were carried to term, you would only be looking at 139 additional deaths. Now, that is not an exact science but even if you double that number it is nothing in comparison to the life extinguished by abortion.

This doesn't really impact my position on abortion, as I don't favor outlawing it. But, there are probably better arguments to be made than "risk of death to the mother".

Comparing maternal deaths to number of abortions is not in any way putting it in perspective. In fact, it's barely relevant to catsmate's comment. When we have tried to address the issue, maternal mortality has been reduced. Catsmate's point is that it will not be addressed with Republicans controlling government.

 

[Warp12]

Comparing maternal deaths to number of abortions is not in any way putting it in perspective. In fact, it's barely relevant to catsmate's comment. When we have tried to address the issue, maternal mortality has been reduced. Catsmate's point is that it will not be addressed with Republicans controlling government.

Yawn. People have been screeching about this huge risk to the mother, page upon page.

If you feel you can dispute my statement about the relative risk of maternal death, have at it.

Otherwise you are trying to redirect, like others. It is not an argument of politics..it is fact on record.

 

[acbytesla]

<Thanos has entered the chat>

"We might not have the best resources for them...so just kill them."

We're not killing babies no matter how many times you make that facetious argument. We are preventing one from becoming a a being that we should protect.

 

[cosmicaug]

I cut the stupid Gordian Knot pages ago and got ignored. I DON'T CARE. Call it a fetus, call it a baby, call little it little Jeffy.

Can I call it Earthwax Earthflax?

 

[psionl0]

We're not killing babies < -- snip -->. We are preventing one from becoming a a being that we should protect.

I might have said "preventing one from becoming a a being with a greater right to protection" but otherwise, I would go with what you are saying.

 

[Warp12]

We're not killing babies no matter how many times you make that facetious argument. We are preventing one from becoming a a being that we should protect.

Amazingly, some here will not condemn such a sentiment.

I wonder who else in history might have presented such an argument in order to justify their actions...

 

[cosmicaug]

Yawn. People have been screeching about this huge risk to the mother, page upon page.

If you feel you can dispute my statement about the relative risk of maternal death, have at it.

Otherwise you are trying to redirect, like others. It is not an argument of politics..it is fact on record.

No, what you are actually trying to tell us is that absolute risk does not matter.

Others (including me) have brought up relative risk.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Amazingly, some here will not condemn such a sentiment.

I wonder who else in history might have presented such an argument in order to justify their actions...

Here's a radical idea. Stop being coy and actually make an argument instead of these vague, giggle allusions to some "Mic Drop" moment you're going to make in the future.