It's a "human issue"... compared to what? What's the unspoken other sort of issue? The first alternative I thought of was: legal issue. But it could also be considered a matter of natural science. And it could be considered a matter of religion.I think a lot of America is where @JoeRogan is. https://t.co/wXDbbA2TV2
— Greg Pollowitz (@GPollowitz) May 5, 2022
May 6, 2022
"It's what I call a human issue: It's a very complicated issue. It's so fraught with emotion. And it's so political."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
80 comments:
but where do you draw the line? That’s the question.
For many years we've been told -- in the strongest terms -- that Roe prevents any lines at all.
It seems the court intends to ensure the line can't be erased.
The issue - to kill another person - is not complicated. It's said to be complicated but that's offered to lessen the basic question. Will I choose to kill another person?
It's a "human issue"... compared to what?
Compared to a women's issue, I assume.
Serious Questions, about a gentle slope..
Are you (whoever You are,) in favor of abortion?
Are you in favor of late term abortion?
Are you in favor of infanticide?
Are you in favor of euthanasia?
What about killing grandma, because she's sick?
What about killing grandma, because she's a burden?
What about killing grandma, because she has a large estate; and you could REALLY Use the money?
What about killing a girl, because she's pregnant; and wants you to pay child support?
What about killing a man in Reno... Just to watch him DIE??
One of the negative effects of Roe/Casey is that it truncates the debate to whether abortion is constitutional. "Yes, it's constitutional, look over there!" "No, there's nothing in the constitution to support it." Ad nauseum, lawyer vs. lawyer, without any examination of the complex HUMAN issues that would occur in a legislative setting. Abortion deserves the breadth of debate a legislature affords that's well beyond the thumbs-up-or-down outcome in a judicial setting.
And it could be considered a matter of religion.
What do you mean could? This is 100% a religious war.
Look at all those raging women and their simps screaming at the clouds looking for witches to burn.
The Mississipi law that bans abortion after 15 weeks is less restrictive than the laws banning abortion after 14 weeks and with 2 consultations required in France. 15 weeks is an incredibly long time to make a decision like this and the baby is very well developed at 15 weeks. 15 weeks is approaching the upper limit on what should be considered decent.
And the fact that these raging petulant shitheads are vandalizing Catholic Churches and other religious buildings just underlines this.
The Secularists are just as much a cult as the Mormons are and Secularists are violent and murderous. They have killed millions of people in multiple iterations of their Masrxist agenda.
The Secularists are a death cult.
The key question is, when does a fetus become a person? Everyone (excepting "every sperm is sacred" Catholics) support abortion before that point and everyone (excepting some Democrats who toy with infanticide) oppose abortion after.
We're all on the same page on that issue.
Where we differ is, when does the fetus become a person? If you have an opinion on abortion (do you have an opinion on murder? If you have an opinion on murder then you have an opinion on abortion), then you have to pick a spot. It's no good saying "I think it's a person, but I won't push that belief on another." That's a psychopath's response. If that's your attitude, then you are evil.
So where's your spot? You have to be able to explain why what is there now is fundamentally different from what was there a moment ago. The reality is, there are only two places in the human life cycle where what is there now is fundamentally different from what was there a moment ago--the moment of conception and the moment of death. There is no other place you can point to and say "this is where the fetus becomes a person." Settling for any less precise location (viability, heartbeat, trimesters) requires putting your blessing on many thousands of what even you think is the murder of a human being.
The media and the abortionists don’t let out information on the science of embryonic development because it all works against their case for abortion. The “follow the science” crowd ignore their own rule when it comes to abortion.
Yes, one might say the abortion issue is an issue of religion but not for the reason you believe. Abortion is itself a religion for the abortionists. Christians (and Jews?) base their views on reason (I.e., what is known through science) as much as their faith. As we have learned more about embryonic development the gap between the belief that life begins at conception and the scientific proof of the embryo as human has continuously narrowed. Science is on the side of pro-life believers.
France just extended the time when abortion is legal from 12 to 14 weeks. Still less than the Miss. law being protested. We are the only country in the developed world allowing abortion to term.
"It's a "human issue"... compared to what? What's the unspoken other sort of issue?"
It's not a black and white issue. It's a human issue, meaning that it's complicated, and full of greys. That's what I think Rogan meant.
That's funny. Joe Rogan is so completely waterlogged with propaganda that he believes there are situations in which it is necessary to kill a fetus in order to save its mother's life. Where do you suppose he got that absurd notion? The Lying Whores at the NYT, perchance?
"It's a "human issue"... compared to what? What's the unspoken other sort of issue?"
It's not a black and white issue. It's a human issue, meaning that it's complicated, and full of greys. That's what I think Rogan meant.
If one doesn’t have their act together enough to know that a baby is unwanted within a 15 week time period, one shouldn’t be having sex. Same goes for the cisnormative mook… he who doesn’t have the wherewithal to support a child should exhibit self-control and not partake of teh poon.
I think he means anybody that still identifies as human understands the emotional complexity of the life issue. It's not much different from what that long passage from Casey says, right? At some point the "woman's right to choose" starts affecting a separate distinct human life, unlike any "individual right" in the Constitution, this one involves two parties.
But at what point. Fair minded people will disagree. I'm not sure the court can decide that point. Perhaps a consensus around limiting the choice to the first two trimesters would be enough latitude to let the person closest to the issue, the pregnant woman, make that call. Even if it is long after "viability" this is the least restrictive answer going forward. Again, many would find that point too far into pregnancy. This appears to be what the coming debate will center on.
The primary issue with abortion in the US is that the Supremes shouldn't legislate from the bench.
It's a social, moral, and economic issue. And it's an issue on which honest decent people can reach different outcomes.
I once was thinking about it, and I decided to try to put aside all of my priors, ignore my personal experiences with abortion, ignore my religious and educational upbringing, ignore my political affiliations, ignore the potential adverse social impacts on myself for having an unpopular opinion, and try to reason my way to the answer to the ethics of abortion. It took me only a little while to realize that I had embarked on a fool's errand. If you put everything aside, you are operating in an atmosphere of ethical weightlessness. It wasn't even nihilism, because nihilism is a commitment to something, an anchor of sorts. We can't escape our priors, and for the most part we haven't chosen them. So we are left to bumble around with the opinions that have chosen us as much as we have chosen them. Sorry, I fear that's as good as it's going to get.
"It's a "human issue"... compared to what?"
Why should there be a comparison?
It is a human issue in that it is complex, arouses various emotions, and may have no easy solution.
If there is a "comparison," it is with the easy ideological rationalizations of the sort peddled by Althouse and her allies and the specious legal reasoning about "constitutional rights" that follows from them.
"The reality is, there are only two places in the human life cycle where what is there now is fundamentally different from what was there a moment ago--the moment of conception and the moment of death. There is no other place you can point to and say "this is where the fetus becomes a person." Settling for any less precise location (viability, heartbeat, trimesters) requires putting your blessing on many thousands of what even you think is the murder of a human being."
In that case, every IVF embroyo will have to be carried to term, correct?
Defining life at conception is going to be an issue for that whole industry. One piece of equipment goes out and you have mass murder.
"but where do you draw the line? That’s the question."
That's 100% correct, which is exactly why it should be left up to the people and their elected representatives to decide this complicated question. If Alito's opinion carries the day, the line drawing power will be returned to us after being stolen by the court in Roe. It simply is not within the province of any court to engage in this type of line-drawing.
Not Rogan-related necessarily but I resent the implication that religion the only possible reason to oppose. George Orwell certainly confronted the humanity of the fetus and he was hardly religious.
He's only partially correct that it is political. For many of the Left, it is quasi-religious and often fanatically so.
Amazing that with legal and widely available birth control that there should be so many abortions.
Despite my strident position on the fact that life can only logically be set at conception, I am not unsympathetic to the real issues that face a woman who is faced with a pregnancy that is not desired. I am confident that this is part of what Rogan is alluding to. It is complex because there is the question of the life of the unborn and the sacrifices that the mother must make.
I think easy abortion has had a very negative affect on our society in many ways, from the devaluing of life, of motherhood, of fatherhood, of relationships, of personal responsibility, and of societal responsibility. Easy abortion also had the effect of increasing the need for abortions.
Abortion was a simple way to avoid lots of other negative issues. Negative issues that society handled incorrectly, so in establishing the "abortion" out, we did not solve the societal issues, we simply masked them. in the old days, the girl would be stuck with the child, often without parental support, with lots of social stigma, often with a father who denied his responsibility, etc. All those were poor responses to the situation, made easier by eliminating the problem. Instead we should have addressed the root problems of how to support people who made mistakes, and make other people take responsibility for their part in it. With DNA, we can now know for certain the paternity of the child and the man could be on the hook for the care. That one thing might mitigate a lot of unplanned pregnancies. A man faced with the expectation of n 19 year commitment might be less inclined to cajole the woman into going without protection, or even having intercourse at all. His risk profile becomes much closer to hers.
I can say lots more, but work calls.
It's a human issue as opposed to another boring budgetary question. For some people, those are human issues, too, and they'll have their own protests and die-ins, but for most people they aren't. "Human" here means something like immediate or relatable or directly relevant rather than procedural or mathematical or jargon-filled.
Human rites for social, redistributive, clinical, and fair weather causes has always been a clear and progressive controversy in all but the most liberal cultures.
The issue is not abortion, but elective abortion of a wholly innocent human life for social, redistributive, clinical, and fair weather causes. That said, there is no mystery in sex and conception, a woman with a man have four choices and self-defense through reconciliation. The wicked solution a.k.a. planned parent/hood, a rite practiced under the Pro-Choice "ethical" (i.e. relativistic) religion dies women and men's dignity and agency, and progresses human life to negotiable commodities. Deja vu.
And it could be considered a matter of religion.
Yes, a behavioral protocol: morality in a universal frame, ethics its relativist sibling, and law their politically congruent cousin.
The media and the abortionists don’t let out information on the science of embryonic development
Human evolution. Elective abortion (e.g. reproductive rites) of a wholly innocent human life is social justified under an "ethical" religion: Pro-Choice, selective, opportunistic, politically, congruent, in privacy or if you can get away with it, which exercises liberal license to indulge diversity [dogma] (i.e. color judgment, class-based bigotry) in order to deny a life deemed unworthy of life or "burden" h/t Obama. Planned parent/hood (e.g. GosnellTheRipper, CecileTheCannibal, Whitmer/Michigan of excess granny death fame) represents a progressive path and slope.
That said, keep Roe, Roe, Roe your baby down the river Styx, but adjust the standard of viability to match the beginning and end of life, the life of baby and the life of granny. Six weeks to the first heartbeat. Six weeks to coherent nervous system function and a baby step back to conception - the "big bang" of human evolution.
It's a "human issue"... compared to what? What's the unspoken other sort of issue?
Wouldn't Rogan be thinking that the human issue stands in contrast to the political issue? I think that for a great many people, possibly on both sides, it's more a political issue than anything else. Look at the events around the leak of the opinion. There were immediate protests that didn't "just happen". The entire point of the exercise is to try and reverse the potential midterm results. For conservatives, a moral objection to killing babies isn't nearly as strong as the objection to the Supreme Court deciding an issue on the basis of made up penumbras and emanations that should have been left to the states to resolve as a political matter.
It's a vote-energizing issue at the national level. Power!
I also suspect that deep down, the lefties have a certain affinity for eugenics.
- Krumhorn
From the biology, when the zygote has the combination of DNA in each gamete and contains all the genetic information required to form an individual, It is a human.
Look at all those raging women and their simps screaming at the clouds looking for witches to burn.
The raging women are the witches of myths told, and they are looking for children... babies, to capture, abort, and, perhaps, cannibalize in sacrificial rites. There is an element of truth in myths, and NOW we know the conception, birth, and progression of one of the oldest strains in a secular cult.
Abortion is a moral issue. The science is settled. Human embryology has held forever, even in the face of woke assaults, that life begins at conception. The life is obviously human and innocent. Abortion is therefore the taking of an innocent human life; a homicide.
Abortion is an immoral homicide for the sake of convenience.
What the hell does every sperm sacred even mean? That getting off for pleasure rather than procreation is sinful? I’ve never heard of that- it’s not the sperm that’s sacred: it’s the action, I’m presuming.
ps- I’m a sinner…
And it could be considered a matter of religion.
Nice try, but we have long been on to such tactics that seek to delegitimize the "issue" of abortion.
But except in the minds of Harry Blackmun, Joe Biden and fraudulent groups like "Catholics for Choice," pro-life organizations, including the Catholic Church, recognize that a new human life begins upon conception not because some God or scripture or some old man called Pope says so, but because medical science says so.
BUMBLE BEE said...
"From the biology, when the zygote has the combination of DNA in each gamete and contains all the genetic information required to form an individual, It is a human."
It"s wilful dishonesty to claim any different. That fertilized and growing egg has all the DNA it's ever going to have to be a complete, unique individual. It is alive. To abort it is to kill another human being.
And to call abortion an "issue" - to even use what is now a euphemism like "abortion" - is to minimize and dehumanize the reality.
Abortion is NOT an "issue" per se. Abortion is human beings. It is not simply an issue or idea, it is human beings. More specifically, what we conveniently call "abortion" to avoid the reality, is the KILLING of human beings. Even when that human being is at the very beginning of his or her existence - and yes, from the beginning, that being is a "he" or a "she" - what is involved is the DEATH of that new life. When intentional, it is called KILLING.
And like any death of a human being, it is a tragedy.
The human problem is deciding whether the innocent person living in a woman deserve to die or noti. I want to live in a community where the decision is obvious no matter the price the adults pay. Life ain’t fair. But raising a baby is the greatest gift any man or woman is given.
And the adopted children all agree.
Food for thought: what if, and I'm just spit balling here, any perceived abortion restriction also included FREE STERILIZATION FOR EVERYONE! Come one come all, men/women - in exchange for this we'll make it so easy for you to fix your fertility for good. Abortion will become moot.
A rush of hysterical, extremist types take the offer. Think of how many politically hysterical people will no longer BREED.
Think about it.
Althouse said:
"It's a "human issue"... compared to what? What's the unspoken other sort of issue? The first alternative I thought of was: legal issue. But it could also be considered a matter of natural science. And it could be considered a matter of religion."
********************
WTF? Does he actually have to spell out what the unspoken other issues are?
Suppose he said the decision to marry is a human issue.
Would he need to say it's also a legal issue, as it has tax consequences? An ownership of Real property issue? A social issue, as your circle of friends will likely change?
Face it, Althouse: when the topic is abortion, your chronic estrogen poisoning kicks in.
p.s. have a Happy Birthing Person Day!
Obviously, the "human issue" that Joe refers to casts a wide net including but not limited to legal, political, scientific, religious, moral, ethical, social, etc.
The media and the abortionists don’t let out information on the science of embryonic development
This raises an interesting question. When I was taking the pre-med courses that were required for admission, Embryology was one of them. That ended a few years ago. I wonder why ?
Mark said...
In that case, every IVF embroyo will have to be carried to term, correct?
Defining life at conception is going to be an issue for that whole industry. One piece of equipment goes out and you have mass murder.
Who wants to explain?
If you are okay with abortion, you are okay with murder. That's what it is.
farmgirl - "every sperm is sacred" is a Monty Python routine.
Look, even if some people might believe this personally, the Constitution does NOT compel the law to recognize to classes of humanity. It does not require that some humans be deemed as less than persons, and it does not require that some human beings be deemed to be subhuman or less-than-human. The untermensch is a concept foreign to U.S. law, even if the ancestors of today's pro-abortionists claimed similarly, in the words of the Dred Scott case, that the black man had no rights that the white man was obligated to respect.
A human being is a human being. A living human being is a living human being.
Yes, that is an inconvenient fact for many. But there is no point where a living human being becomes more living or more human or more of a being even if he or she might experience a physical and mental development and growth over time.
The states want control of this issue. The Constitution says howdy. Naturally. Legally.
The struggle to deal with all the complexities, and interests, involved in abortion is the major reason why the Supreme Court should never have made abortion a national issue in the first place. As with so many elements in our polity, having the rules made as close to the people as possible - in this case the states - has been the correct answer all along. The Sturm and Drang from Roe would never have occurred if the Court had kept its nose out.
It’s not a question for natural science, since that only privileges the political opinions of scientists, which are no better than anybody else’s and opens the question to political manipulation, since the left will have a defined target.
I'm opposed to late term abortions but I'm not an absolutist on the abortion issue. In fact life begins before conception if you want to be technical. The sperms must be alive and the egg must be alive, so there is already life, but they do not constitute anything beyond their respective identities until they combine. But even then what they are is not a "human being" in any full and real sense, but rather they form a combination of living cells which have the potential, but not the guarantee, to form into a human being. It's potentially a human being, not a human life. Those cells are the raw material, not the finished product. Lots of pregnancies end in spontaneous abortions. Sometimes this happens very soon after conception, before the woman is even aware that conception took place.
I see a similar situation to this if you can find an artist and provide a studio and all the materials, paint, canvas, etc., you still won't automatically get a masterpiece or even a work of art as a result. There's a human factor i.e., the artist. You can't force the artist to produce a genuine fine work of art if they are not willing. And of course the materials don't organize themselves independently, they need the artist's nurturing.
You shouldn't force a woman to give birth to a baby imo. It's not a healthy arrangement.
Also I'm in favor of women taking charge of when sexual relations take place based on being aware of their ovulation cycles. It's not up to men to decide when they want sex. When I hear women chanting, "my body my choice" that's what I'm thinking they should mean.
In that case, every IVF embroyo will have to be carried to term, correct?
No. While human life begins at conception, it does not evolve in a vacuum, thus the role of women as mothers in human reproduction. The goal is to abort elective homicides, whether they happen in darkness/privacy or clinics/chambers, and strive to mitigate their progress in all circumstances. The standard of viability for granny is her heartbeat, her coherent nervous system function, and that standard of viability, aside from the Pro-Choice "ethical" religion (e.g. State's Choice/one-child, her Choice/selective-child), the Twilight Amendment, can be applied to a baby, too. Baby steps back to conception.
Cancel culture.
It's almost like the question is about the existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.
Also I'm in favor of women taking charge of when sexual relations take place based on being aware of their ovulation cycles.
That hasn't been necessary since the 1960s. BCP pills are abundant and, if you can't remember to take them, there are implants that last months. Every time Republicans have tried to make BCPs available over the counter, they are blocked by Democrats.
Abortion should not be used as birth control.
It's almost like the question is about the existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.
If only. The question is about rites held for social, redistributive, clinical, and fair weather causes, typically in the service of leverage (e.g. "never let a crisis go to waste" mentality). It's an issue that has been resolved with a wicked solution to a purportedly hard problem (e.g. "burden"). If there is confusion, it is only by choice, Choice, or force. This is not about faith and the mystery of the far-domain: the universe and everything. This is about a special and peculiar secular "ethical" religion that is neither novel nor exclusive in time or space.
Blogger farmgirl said..."What the hell does every sperm sacred even mean?"
Every sperm is sacred,
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God will be i-rrate!
The chorus line of nuns is worth the price of admission all by itself.
For many years my lab's primary research project was a low-dose x-ray imaging system. Our (unofficial) motto was "Every photon's sacred!
Out of curiosity about this belief in "life begins at conception" argument, as if conception guarantees a human being, I did a search and found the following regarding spontaneous abortion from the National Library of Medicine https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK560521/:
Etiology
In 50% of cases, early pregnancy loss is believed to be due to fetal chromosomal abnormalities. Advanced maternal age and previous early pregnancy loss are the most common risk factors.[2] For example, the incidence of early pregnancy loss in women 20-30 years of age is only 9 to 17%, while the incidence at 45 years of maternal age is 80%.[8] Other risk factors include alcohol consumption, smoking, and cocaine use.
Several chronic diseases can precipitate spontaneous abortion, including diabetes, celiac disease, and autoimmune conditions, particularly anti-phospholipid antibody syndrome. Rapid conception after delivery and infections, such as cervicitis, vaginitis, HIV infection, syphilis, and malaria, are also common risk factors. Another important risk factor is exposure to environmental contaminants, including arsenic, lead, and organic solvents. Finally, structural uterine abnormalities, such as congenital anomalies, leiomyoma, and intrauterine adhesions, have been shown to increase the risk of spontaneous abortion.[1]
Go to:
Epidemiology
Vaginal bleeding before twenty weeks of gestation occurs in up to 20% of pregnancies, and 50% of these cases will have a spontaneous abortion.[9] Overall, 10-20% of clinically recognized pregnancies will end in early pregnancy loss.[2][10] However, these statistics likely underestimate the true incidence of spontaneous abortion, as many miscarriages occur before a mother realizes she is pregnant and is simply mistaken as heavy, late menses. As a result, the true incidence of spontaneous abortion may be closer to 30%.[10]
My favorite theory is that the leak was from the right to prevent Roberts from joining the five and assigning writing the opinion to himself to change its implications.
Every time the pro-choice folks put up a legal challenge to reasonable (as in comparison to European law) abortion restrictions, they took a chance that the case would lead to the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Roll the dice enough, and it will come up craps. We are having this discussion because the dice were rolled one too many times.
It's a human issue could be a Tom Swifty of sorts.
I'm an old man but I can imagine the shock a young woman first experiences when she realizes that she can't have it all like the marketing promises her. That there are hard choices which will have life altering consequences.
As such I can perhaps understand a tiny glimmer of her horrified reaction leading to a form of abortion absolutism. Not only is the marketing just an illusion but for maybe the first time she realizes that she doesn't "own" herself. It's all been a lie.
But when you live in a polite society you tacitly accept the compulsion to conform to your neighbor's requirements. Ask the hundreds of millions of us forced to wear that silly mask for months. Or many more millions compelled to take a vaccine which we knew had serious side effects.
Or particularly relevant to us old men, ask the thousands of Viet Nam vets conscripted to fight to the death against our little brown brothers. Instead of a fetus in our womb it could have been hot jagged steel.
Absolutism is the province of the young or naive. In the long term our society will find an uneasy truce over abortion. I doubt the young or naive will like it.
Mark- thank you.
Good to know lol.
"The reality is, there are only two places in the human life cycle where what is there now is fundamentally different from what was there a moment ago--the moment of conception and the moment of death. There is no other place you can point to and say "this is where the fetus becomes a person." Settling for any less precise location (viability, heartbeat, trimesters) requires putting your blessing on many thousands of what even you think is the murder of a human being."
In that case, every IVF embroyo will have to be carried to term, correct?
Defining life at conception is going to be an issue for that whole industry. One piece of equipment goes out and you have mass murder.”
——————————————
n.n. the anti abortion high priest and fetus whisperer says…
“The issue is not abortion, but elective abortion of a wholly innocent human life for social, redistributive, clinical, and fair weather causes.”
What terrible hypocrisy.
For those who believe life begins at conception (I do), an IVF unborn baby is as human as an unborn baby conceived inside the woman. For anyone to quibble over the embryo having more worth or humanity if conceived in a woman rather than in a test tube is being a terrible hypocrite. When an IVF baby is destroyed (no matter what the reason) it is the same as when a baby conceived in a woman is destroyed. If abortion becomes illegal, all those precious test tune embryos will also need protecting if one wants to be true to their conviction of anti abortion.
Anti abortion people are going to have to come to terms with what to do all those IVF babies, should taxpayer money be used to keep them frozen in perpetuity? So many unforeseen consequences of making abortion illegal by assigning full human rights to embryos. But this is what you folks wanted, no?
Spontaneous abortion is Her Choice. Every life ends, ideally, with Her Choice, not her Choice.
"Every photon's sacred!
In fact, every Carbon atom is divine. People... person... gendered object braying for Carbon sequestration, CO2 emission control and suppression of greening the Earth, is an advocate for her Choice on a scale without anthropogenic precedent, second only to the wicked solution, final solution of Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Sanger, Cecile, Gosnell, et al.
even then what they are is not a "human being" in any full and real sense, but rather they form a combination of living cells which have the potential, but not the guarantee, to form into a human being. It's potentially a human being, not a human life. Those cells are the raw material, not the finished product
When are you going to be a "finished product"? When are you going to become fully human? Is it OK to terminate you before then?
“In that case, every IVF embroyo will have to be carried to term, correct?”
————————————————————————-
n.n. said…
“No. While human life begins at conception, it does not evolve in a vacuum, thus the role of women as mothers in human reproduction. The goal is to abort elective homicides, whether they happen in darkness/privacy or clinics/chambers, and strive to mitigate their progress in all circumstances. The standard of viability for granny is her heartbeat, her coherent nervous system function, and that standard of viability, aside from the Pro-Choice "ethical" religion (e.g. State's Choice/one-child, her Choice/selective-child), the Twilight Amendment, can be applied to a baby, too. Baby steps back to conception.”
It so interesting to see someone’s mask slip. This person has been expressing his deeply held beliefs that’s life begins at conception for years, now he moves the goalpost to life begins at a heartbeat. He expressed so much concern for the life of the unborn, but it seems that is only if it is inside a woman. His concern for the life of the unborn does not extend to a frozen embryo that may be scheduled to be destroyed. It seems to me that is person is not truly concerned with the life of the unborn but rather his concern is in controlling a woman and what she chooses to do with her body. He is the most hypocritical person regarding abortion I have seen yet on these threads. He is the high priest of hypocrisy and IMO he has been misrepresenting himself and his true agenda for years now on these threads.
Ironic, innit, than many unplanned pregnancies result from...leaks.
@Elon Musk:
Kick loose a billion or so to fund research into creating artificial wombs please. Thx.
There is a false equivalency between spontaneous abortion and what people usually think when they hear the word “abortion”. Generally the woman who suffers spontaneous abortion has not willfully caused it to happen. It is a matter of intent. Should a woman feel guilty that she was not able to carry to term over issues she was not able to control? It is quite another thing to willfully take steps to terminate a pregnancy.
To say that clump of cells is not human once it has a different dna from the mother is really at heart evading biological fact. Assuming no fetal abnormalities and a good womb environment, that clump of cells will always result in the birth of a human baby. It never develops into some other animal.
As medicine keeps pushing back the limits of survival of premature babies it gets more and more absurd that people are aborting a fetus that could survive outside the womb with modern medical care. At some point we may have artificial wombs able to carry and deliver a baby from conception to birth. At that point the woman has zero excuse for an abortion as the fertilized cell could just be transferred to an artificial womb. Certainly a lot less invasive than an abortion!
So what would be the mindset of a woman to chose abortion at that future point? Rape? It is an awful situation to be in but she could just donate the fertilized cell to an adoption agency and make good out of an evil situation. The advantage of that is while she will always be saddled with the memories of being raped, at least she will never feel guilt by doing another bad thing by aborting a life.
What about incest or something wrong with the potential baby? At that point medicine may be able to treat any abnormal results with dna treatment so why should a potential baby deserve to die for that? Poverty? Adoption is always available. To charge ahead with abortion at that time in the future is selfishness. When you look at polls, almost no one supports abortion for selfish reasons!
They should never have attempted fertilization with multiple eggs and freezing the excess IVP embryos that were a result. It is clearly unethical and the practice should be banned. It should have been only one egg at a time and implanting only that egg. In the meantime all IVP embryos created deserve to be adopted especially as they were created with the intent for a baby. I do not think you will see any disagreement with my statement with anyone who professes to choose life.
Inga: intentionally obtuse.
When IVF is performed, multiple eggs are inserted to hopefully implant- and then the “extras” are pierced through their little beating hearts.
B/c who wants to be the next Octomom, right?
rhhardin said...
My favorite theory is that the leak was from the right to prevent Roberts from joining the five and assigning writing the opinion to himself to change its implications.
****
EPIC FAIL. ON MANY LEVELS.
https://www.answers.com/american-government/Who_decides_who_will_write_the_US_Supreme_Court%27s_majority_opinion
"Who decides who will write the US Supreme Court's majority opinion?
The Chief Justice if he (or she) voted with the majority; otherwise, the senior justice in the majority group assigns the task or writes the opinion, or to himself.
********
So: had Roberts agreed with majority, he could have named himself to write the majority opinion and ---as you put it---"change its implications". UP FRONT. BEFORE the opinion is formally rendered.
But the leak came "after" Alito's appointment. So..... what would be the point of the "right" preventing Roberts to do something about a decision had not been taken but not announced?
Having assigned writing the decision to Alito, and the draft having leaked, do you think Roberts could still publicly change his opinion, take Alito off the case, and appoint himself to write the decision.
But I don't think he could survive the resulting firestorm. He would obviously be caving to LEFTIST political pressure.
Roberts's legal reputation and place in American jurisprudence would be in tatters. He wouldn't be considered to be competent even as a judge in "Night Court".
His worst best course would to concur in part, dissent in part. And being the weasel he is, he might do that.
Can't have those illegally-adopted Central American kids get the Elian Gonzales treatment!!!
farmgirl said...
Inga: intentionally obtuse.
When IVF is performed, multiple eggs are inserted to hopefully implant- and then the “extras” are pierced through their little beating hearts.
B/c who wants to be the next Octomom, right?
******
Do "they" really wait for fetal heartbeats?
Not challenging, just asking for evidence fro medical sources.
Dear farmgirl,
You haven’t heard of freezing embryos?
“ Several chronic diseases can precipitate spontaneous abortion, including diabetes, celiac disease, and autoimmune conditions, particularly anti-phospholipid antibody syndrome. Rapid conception after delivery and infections, such as cervicitis, vaginitis, HIV infection, syphilis, and malaria, are also common risk factors. Another important risk factor is exposure to environmental contaminants, including arsenic, lead, and organic solvents. Finally, structural uterine abnormalities, such as congenital anomalies, leiomyoma, and intrauterine adhesions, have been shown to increase the risk of spontaneous abortion.[1]”
You are forgetting a big cause of miscarriages (spontaneous abortions): COVID-19 vaccinations.
(Just to throw some Caroline on the fire).
When I want to know about issues the affect women, Joe Rogan is always my go to guy. Has Glenn Greenwald weighed in? What about that Dilbert guy that Ann used to love?
Maybe Joe said it's Human tissue, not issue
To me, Roe v. Wade (and Casey which relies on it) are separate issues from abortion. Roe v. Wade is bad law. Anyone who believes there is a constitutional right to abortion is willfully deluding themselves.
Abortion is another issue, and one that will be decided best by individual states. I believe abortion is wrong at any stage, but I am not going to try to get a law against it enacted in Tennessee, much less in New York or California. I would like to see it at 14 weeks in Tennessee, and I believe that will probably be where Tennessee ends up. Might be heartbeat, but that is for the elected legislature to decide. I see abortion as a human issue, a woman issue, a legal issue and a religious issue.
I disagree with it on religious grounds. I believe Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you" and I believe Luke 1:44 "The baby in my womb leapt for joy" when Elizabeth met Mary, and John the Baptist knew Jesus, both still in the womb. But religion can not and must not be enshrined into law. Catholic Church tried that in the Middle Ages and we know it did not turn out well. Iran and Saudi Arabia are modern day examples of just that. Religion must rely on persuasion. If I can persuade enough people it is murder, then legislation can be enacted to put enough limits on it to suffice. And if you disagree with me, then there are going to be plenty of states where they decide to abort babies right up until they crown.
"Do "they" really wait for fetal heartbeats?
Not challenging, just asking for evidence fro medical sources."
No. They don't. The eggs are fertilized outside the body and then inserted. It is upto the woman to decide how many she wants inserted. The doctors will sometimes advise more fertilized eggs for older women because if they are lucky one egg will take hold. Usually IVF is used because the woman would have difficulty getting pregnant otherwise. I have yet to hear anybody desperate to have children turning down twins. Children are a gift.
https://www.karger.com/Article/Fulltext/357974
Yes, Rusty. They do.
Post a Comment