Misogynist barbarians in Alabama impose forced pregnancy law
- Thread starter Jeff Robinson
- Start date
You don’t think human life is sacred?!
Jeff Robinson
Marxist-Lentilist: Jackboots and Jackfruit
Fuck no.
So you’d kill a human with as much impunity as a plant or other animal? Or are you taking sacred in it’s religious sense (which isn’t actually what I meant, but can see that might have been misleading).
8ball
Decolonise colons!
No, I don't really frame things that way.
8ball
Decolonise colons!
I’m struggling to understand you
8ball
Decolonise colons!
Generally speaking, no.
Though there are a few humans I'd kill in preference to many animals.
Jfc. For want of a better exclamation.
8ball
Decolonise colons!
I think a bullet in the back of Putin's head would lead to a multiverse local probability configuration with more positive than negative outcomes.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Sorry, just to finish on the 'where does pregnancy start' thing, following from what frogwoman said, I think taking the point at which the blastocyst embeds itself in the womb as a starting point, and not before, is entirely reasonable. Is it possible for the woman to have a miscarriage? If no, then no pregnancy has yet occurred.
imho that brings the definitions and understanding back to being centred on the woman and her body and what it has or has not accepted into it, rather than focussing on the moment the man's sperm does its thing.
imho that brings the definitions and understanding back to being centred on the woman and her body and what it has or has not accepted into it, rather than focussing on the moment the man's sperm does its thing.
But that isn’t the same as saying you “don't attach any particular value to biological uniqueness or species.”
That implies you don’t generally value human life above other species. Which is frankly at best a niche quirky view, and at worst a terrifying statement which could justify murder, eugenics, starvation, etc. This cannot be what you mean?
Well I’d agree with you.
At any point up until birth? Or do you accept that to some extent arbitrary limitations must be place?
8ball
Decolonise colons!
In terms of when does pregnancy start, then I agree.
I don't see that as the same as the point where an organism's life begins.
Also re: conception, it is not just the sperm doing it's thing - the egg is really doing the bulk of the work there. All the protein building machinery, the mitochondrial DNA, the existing enzyme setup - everything except that extra nucleus - it's all the egg's business. I think this is why I'm not seeing the conception element as male-centred in the way you do.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I don't see the conception element as male-centred. I'm saying that others, who are male-centred in their thinking, fixate on it for male-centred reasons - the religious nuts who primarily care about this.
But again, it's problematic to say 'organism' here. At this particular point, how is it more an organism than a cancer cell?
ETA: I would answer that by saying that the difference between a zygote and a cancer cell lies in the potential that lies within the zygote to grow into a separate organism. The cancer cell doesn't have that potential. It just grows into an undifferentiated lump. So a zygote is at the 'potential' stage regarding its value. That's the bit I think it is important not to concede to the nutjobs.
Last edited:
8ball
Decolonise colons!
Easier way to say it is that if, say, we discovered an animal that we could converse with, that could participate in our culture, live and understand the world broadly as we do, then I would consider killing it to be murder regardless of it's lack of shared lineage with a particularly invasive strain of primates.
8ball
Decolonise colons!
Re: the first. Maybe. I guess. I'm not sold on the idea, though.
Re: the second. Assuming you are talking about from initial cell formation to the 16 cell stage - the difference is basically down to the cell control systems still being functional.
Another important difference, some would say, is that it leads to a baby.
Ax^
Silly Rabbit
cancel cells can still be functional one line from HelA is about 100 year old
Henrietta Lacks: science must right a historical wrong
Jeff Robinson
Marxist-Lentilist: Jackboots and Jackfruit
What you call a 'quirky view' is vastly better than the one that thinks its terrible when a clump of human cells with no capacity for any experience is 'killed' but couldn't care less that highly intelligent, sentient animals like pigs are gassed and slashed in the throat for bacon butties. The view that all human life is inherently sacred and superior to all other life forms is bigoted, religious bullshit.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
But that's the key point. You're talking about potential - something that hasn't happened yet. And it doesn't lead to a baby unless it implants and the mother's womb accepts it. It is necessary to involve the woman's body here when discussing potential - without it, there is fuck all potential for anything.Re: the first. Maybe. I guess. I'm not sold on the idea, though.
Re: the second. Assuming you are talking about from initial cell formation to the 16 cell stage - the difference is basically down to the cell control systems still being functional.
Another important difference, some would say, is that it leads to a baby.
8ball
Decolonise colons!
I not sure what point you're trying to work round to. This started with you saying it was problematic to use the term 'organism'.
Which it really isn't.
Every human being has a point of origin. It is very simple. There is initially no human. Nothing there.
Then there are two very small things that combine to form one thing, which gets bigger and bigger and more differentiated until it reaches the point of worrying about mortgages and pensions and stuff and then it dies.
That one thing that gets formed is genetically identical to the thing that eventually dies. While it is proceeding along this tortuous and, some would say, stupid trip, we call it an organism just as we do with any animal.
There is nothing 'problematic' about that. Aside from the mortgages and pensions and an inordinate amount of laundry that always needs doing.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Your thinking has led to a frankly stupid place where IUDs preventing the implantation of a blastocyst are not contraception. And you have a way too narrow way of thinking about definitions, which is partly because you've started from the wrong place. Think about the woman's body a bit more. It is not just a passive vessel.
An abortion is the ending of a pregnancy. A contraception prevents a pregnancy from happening. Start from there.
An abortion is the ending of a pregnancy. A contraception prevents a pregnancy from happening. Start from there.
8ball
Decolonise colons!
Yes. It isn't.
Words mean things.
This Humpty Dumpty nonsense is dull, I'm not going round the circle again.
Nylock
I hate 'these days'...
Although it may look like liberal/US-left frothing, the current text of the Roe V Wade overturn is very originalist with regard to non-recognition of abortion rights as applicable the time period of the drafting of the US constitution*. Several other rights that were hard fought for and won over the years were also not enshrined in the original text of the constitution (abolition of slavery, women's right to vote, gay marriage to name but a few) and the concern is that they will come for these next.
The big problem here is that most of the current conservative majority of justices on the USSC, with the decision to overturn Roe, will be revealed as liars who effectively perjured themselves in order to get their appointments as all of them said in their vetting interviews that Roe was settled precedent and wouldn't be touched. If they lied about that, what else will they have lied about to get on the bench? Whether their protestations about not going after any other rights are genuine, belief in the court's impartiality will collapse -and this won't be some nutty fringe that believes the court lacks credibility, it will be a sizeable chunk of the population. Additionally, faith in the veracity of candidate responses to questioning under oath for future appointments will be continually thrown into doubt by either side of the divide.
This has the capacity to spectacularly backfire and sow further chaos and division. It will also be the thin end of the wedge with regard to precedent for future ideologically committed jusdges to overthrow and overturn past precedent and enshrined rights under law. This is not going to end well.
Considering how Republicans are actively trying to bake-in minority rule in the US (and are in some cases succeeding!), I wouldn't be too dismissive of hardcore minority views overturning the will of the majority...
*FFS, part of Alito's legal argument rests on the writings of a 17th century english jurist with some eyebrow-raising views on women and their place in society.
Yuwipi Woman
Whack-A-Mole Queen
The reason abortion rights weren't put directly into the constitution is that this was only a document that considered the rights of white, male property owners. If they look at abortion in Colonial America, it was legal and commonly available. No less a person than Benjamin Franklin published recipes for abortion concoctions in one of his books. Abortion wasn't criminalized until the mid-1800s, when the US experienced one of several religious revivals.
I'm already there. The Supreme Court lacks credibility. In hindsight, its amazing that anyone ever thought it did. Looking closely at their rulings over the last 200-plus years, they have a demonstrable tendency to favor the rights of the rich and powerful over the rights of the poor and vulnerable. The other thing that will be discarded is the rule of law. I see no reason to obey laws that I had no real input in creating, and don't grant me a basic level of humanity in their application. I won't be alone in this.
If everyone thinks choosing a new justice is problematic now, it will be worse in the future.
It's certainly leading nowhere good.
Absolutely disgusting. The man sentenced two women to death for witchcraft, FFS.
wemakeyousoundb
hopefully not gimboid
wouldn't the SC judgement on this mean the 2nd amendment is void?
(sorry just popped in from a different thread)
(sorry just popped in from a different thread)
Similar threads
