The Roe Countdown

[thaiboxerken]

I have never heard anyone equate IUDs and birth control pills with abortion. I suppose there may be "lots" of people who view it that way. But a significant fraction of the population? There are "lots" of people who believe the moon landing didn't occur. They are still a fringe.

The Republican party is the party of the fringe wackadoodles.

 

[Meadmaker]

I have never heard anyone equate IUDs and birth control pills with abortion.

I've heard it said about IUDs.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I have never heard anyone equate IUDs and birth control pills with abortion. I suppose there may be "lots" of people who view it that way. But a significant fraction of the population? There are "lots" of people who believe the moon landing didn't occur. They are still a fringe.

That was the whole argument behind the Hobby Lobby case for one. You really need to pay more attention.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

A zygote is life,

Correct.

and it is a human being.

Not by the meaningful definitions of being. It is not conscious, it is not a moral agent, it generally doesn't meet the definitions of "person".

Life clearly begins at conception.

Objectively wrong. The two things that came before it are alive. They are also human, though not human beings for the same reasons I just gave for a zygote.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I have never heard anyone equate IUDs and birth control pills with abortion. I suppose there may be "lots" of people who view it that way. But a significant fraction of the population? There are "lots" of people who believe the moon landing didn't occur. They are still a fringe.

What the majority of people think isn't really relevant to how this country is governed. That's kinda the whole point of the right wing political and legal movement.

Yes, the anti-contraceptive and anti-abortion people are a lunatic fringe. that won't stop them from forcing their will on the broader public.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Correct.

Not by the meaningful definitions of being. It is not conscious, it is not a moral agent, it generally doesn't meet the definitions of "person".

Objectively wrong. The two things that came before it are alive. They are also human, though not human beings for the same reasons I just gave for a zygote.

Do you feel that way about all life? Is a frog egg not a frog being?

There is zero, meaningful difference between a zygote of a species and a fully grown unit of a species. They are both frogs...they are both humans.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

"Come with me... and you'll be... in a world of purely meaningless semantics..."

I disagreed with someone who said we did not evolve to believe life begins at conception.

At what point in human development would you suggest " life " begins?

Are semantics only meaningless when you disagree with the common definition of a particular word?

 

[JoeMorgue]

I disagreed with someone who said we did not evolve to believe life begins at conception.

At what point in human development would you suggest " life " begins?

Are semantics only meaningless when you disagree with the common definition of a particular word?

It's semantics when it's a hijack that discussing will in no way actually lend any clarity to what anyone is trying to say.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Only 61% of Americans are "strongly" sure that we landing on the Moon.

Let me save everyone a lot of trouble. Ask pretty much any question at this point.

~60% of Americans will say the truth or at least something honest and close to it.
~40% are idiots, trolls, liars, or people who want to watch the world burn.

 

[Meadmaker]

So you think Griswold was a good decision,

Yes

but you don't think it's "too stupid" to suggest that it should be overturned

That would be not too stupid.

so that a state can again declare the advocacy of "artificial" birth control a felony?

That would be too stupid. No one will do that.

I seriously doubt Griswold will be overturned, but if it is, it won't be overturned for that reason.

So what if Mr. condomban is a fringe nut?

Mr. Condomban didn't exist. The man in question did not want to ban condoms. His position was being misrepresented.


However, at the time I wrote, I wasn't sure of that, because he was only identified as a GOP Senate candidate. Well, some states have pretty easy ballot access for primaries. He could have been a Vermin Supreme style candidate, or just a crank who filed the paperwork. As it turns out, he appears to be a legitimate candidate, but he never said what was attributed to him. In other words, option 2.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I disagreed with someone who said we did not evolve to believe life begins at conception.

At what point in human development would you suggest " life " begins?

Are semantics only meaningless when you disagree with the common definition of a particular word?

Cancers are life as well. We aren't trying to give cancers human rights.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Only 61% of Americans are "strongly" sure that we landing on the Moon.

Let me save everyone a lot of trouble. Ask pretty much any question at this point.

~60% of Americans will say the truth or at least something honest and close to it.
~40% are idiots, trolls, liars, or people who want to watch the world burn.

Why would anyone be strongly sure of any claim of fact? That isn't very skeptical

 

[TomB]

I don't think "they" are doing anything. I do think that some of "them" are doing one thing, and some of "them" are doing something else, and some of "them" are repeating things they heard somewhere, thoughtlessly parroting the ideas without actually giving them any real thought themselves.

That last group includes most, but not all, of the ones running for office.

And that's what's dangerous.

I can understand constitutional discussions about the construction of court decisions including Roe, Griswold, and the leaked Alito opinion as it relates to the powers granted in the constitution.

The problem is that the people "parroting the ideas without actually giving them any real thought themselves" are the people who are or likely will be in a position to act on them. By that I mean devise laws to challenge those decisions. Alito's decision has shown that this court is willing to overturn long standing precedent, which puts a lot of "settled" matters into play.

Like you, I don't see a public support for banning birth control measures. But I could see some volleys lobbed in that direction. The biggest fear is that some of the more effective forms of birth control...which also are the ones women have the most control over...could be subject to strict regulation as they could be "abused" to induce abortion.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Cancers are life as well. We aren't trying to give cancers human rights.

That is a case for not setting your moral standards around a label or categorization

 

[TomB]

That was the whole argument behind the Hobby Lobby case for one. You really need to pay more attention.

Fair point. I didn't follow it closely and assumed that they did not want to provide any birth control for religious reasons. Turns out they did (do?) cover birth control pills (and other hormonal types), condoms, vasectomies and tubal ligation.

I had never heard IUDs as objected to. I stand corrected.

 

[TomB]

What the majority of people think isn't really relevant to how this country is governed. That's kinda the whole point of the right wing political and legal movement.

Yes, the anti-contraceptive and anti-abortion people are a lunatic fringe. that won't stop them from forcing their will on the broader public.

Which illustrates the problem with our system: only two parties that have any chance of office.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Cancers are life as well. We aren't trying to give cancers human rights.

Your point; in the context of my posts?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Do you feel that way about all life? Is a frog egg not a frog being?

I don't know the mind of a frog but I would suggest frogs never become beings in the same sense that humans do. You are equivocating. And you've now moved one step further in to absurdity since you said egg, not zygote. Are all sperm next?

There is zero, meaningful difference between a zygote of a species and a fully grown unit of a species. They are both frogs...they are both humans.

Too stupid to bother with.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

It's semantics when it's a hijack that discussing will in no way actually lend any clarity to what anyone is trying to say.

Perhaps you could direct me to where that ( the lending of clarity ) is happening in this topic.

Let me guess.. It must be every time you post..

I responded to a post that claimed (human life) does not begin at conception.
You cried " semantics" ..

Can you lend some clarity to that? Try to include some science.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Your point; in the context of my posts?

The topic is about abortion. Not about life.

Specifically, it's about protecting people. Zygotes, embryos and fetus are not people and should not be given human rights because of this.