As you well know, science is not on your side. Scientifically every human being’s life begins at conception. Undeniable fact . You a
It's a more important undeniable fact that every human pregnancy does not end up with a live birth. We all love to focus on the wonder of a successful birth of a healthy baby. But, expecting perfection is never rational. And, pretending that perfection can be prescribed by legislators and prosecutors is especially ridiculous - and seriously harmful.
So, using you logic, the fact that some people die of natural causes means nobody should be prosecuted for killing someone else! I simply have to disagree!
Nope. Deniable. The law denies it. A fetus is not a “human being” according to the law. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8
Question: do you believe the SCOTUS decision to end Roe v Wade and send the question of abortion back to the states was the correct thing to do?
A fetus is not a person. You do NOT have a legitimate analogy for other important reasons as well. This judge blocks DOCTORS from using this drug in cases where the fetus is deprecated, where its existence is a threat to the woman's life, where continuation of the pregnancy prevents healthcare for the woman, etc. The judge made it ILLEGAL for doctors to choose the far less invasive method of using mifepristone, leaving far more invasive methods to be used. He ruled AGAINST a standard of care for women in serious medical circumstances, demanding that LESS safe methods be used.
Nor is a human zygote, a Person according to Science.. not " A Human" according to Science Yes .. and so not legally a person .. nor on the basis of Science .. This leaves only Religion .. Religious extremists wanting to make law on the basis of Religious Belief - lovers of Theocracy .. but even this is a massive fail on the basis of the simple question "When does the Soul Arrive" This question also takes of legal arguments and arguments from science (were there any good ones but there are not)
Years ago I found and used the Cornell Law School definition of person/human being/individual but I’ve had trouble finding any specifically “scientific” definition. Do you know of any I could use?
Yes indeed Kode - but first it needs be said that there is no "Defacto" science definition of what a person is -- as the definition of such is what we create it to be .. we are the ones that defines what characteristics are required for a person to exist - not science .. and thus anyone claiming "Science says zygote is a human" is simply wrong. Humans say what a human is .. now once we have agreed on the required characteristics .. then we can go to science to help us. The first place in science we could start is "Human Taxonomy" - Subject Matter Domain in Biology for what characteristics distinguish a human from a worm .... we all learned this in high school biology -- phylum chordata - (has a spine) and so on Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Chordata Class: Mammalia Order: Primates Suborder: Haplorhini Infraorder: Simiiformes Family: Hominidae Subfamily: Homininae Tribe: Hominini Genus: Homo Obviously a Zygote doesn't make the cut -- having almost none of the characteristics required to get into the "Homo Sapiens" Club. We can then look at the 5 main Scientific "Perspectives" - on when human life begins. Notice the term "Human life" we are not necessarily stating a human exists .. just life that can be described as Human - These perspectives are Metabolic, Genetic, Embryological, Neurological, Ecological Each one gives a different perspective on when human life begins -- Genetic for example postulates the beginning at the Zygote .. meaning something we can identify as human life. This perspective - while popular with the public - has fallen out of favor among scienctists due arguments such as the twinning argument and (if a zygote is a human - and if after a few days you have 200 zygotes - how many humans do you have ?) In order to claim defacto from Science "Zygote is a Human" one at minimum needs to refute the other 4 perspectives -- and good luck with that. So at the end of the day -- what a Person is -- is a Philosophical / BioEthical Question - the 5 perspectives above (6 if you count Taxonomy) each taking a different Philosophical approach I - and most other Scientists - favor the Neurological Approach - " I Think Therefor - I Am" with no thoughts .. there is no "I AM' moment .. where you open up your eyes and realize you exist. .. and without the wiring of the brain being connected "Science" tells us there is no "I AM" - and with no "I AM" there is no Person. Notice this is a Philosophical argument at the end of the day .. there is no "Science" until I first define what I am claiming to be required for a human to exist. "Thought" .. OK how can Science now show thought exists .. "Significant Brain Function" is the current scientific Bar .. a bar which can be measured -- and if lacking -- is when "Brain dead" is declared .. the Doc pulls the plug - and dirt nap begins .. and NO .. is not a Coma .. there is still significant brain function. Is around 22 weeks when the wiring of the brain is complete - thus able to capacitate thought - significant brain function. Interestingly enough ... unlike the the Zygote where there is no actual moment of conception .. there is a "Moment" of "I AM" if you wish .. when the wiring is complete .. is like a light turning on .. the brain lights up like an xmas Tree. While this is one perspective --- some claim that is not till the entity breaths air . .which I suppose would be in keeping with the Taxonomy .. having all the parts .. but this perspective just reeks unsatisfactory ... does not even try to explain how a Thinking being that is genetically identifiable as a human .. does not constitute a human .. sans "not breathing air" -- and I won't go further here but the arguments get really dumb really fast ... one needs be a Sociopath to maintain such a perspective. So at the end of the day this becomes a moral - bioethical question - of which there is no definitive answer ... and so there is no way for the anti abort to claim defacto a human exists through Science -- until the moral question is settled .. until one chooses which definition one is using for a Person. The problem for the Anti Abort at this juncture is .. it is up to the one who wants to make law to prove their case ... must prove a living human exists .. and you simply can't prove positive at the Zygote Stage .. but I would claim you can show the negative .. upon a realistic moral perspective -- if feels no pain - no memories - no thoughts - Nothing ... can we call this entity a Person by any reasonable moral standard ? Now we end up at the Law-- and it would be an absurdity to make law on the basis of " We don't know" "We don't know otherwise" - that messes with essential liberty .. and just because some Clown show of Justice decides otherwise .. does not prove a human exists at conception .. just as the Nazi' declaring the Jews Subhuman did not prove they were subhuman. This then leaves us with the moral decision in law -- The definition we have chosen - for what justifies messing with essential liberty - is the Constitutional Republic ..and under our system of the Constitutional Republic .. one needs not 50+1 too mess with Essential liberty .. nor Simple Majority Mandate (SSM) .. one needs "Overwhelming Majority" public consent at least 2/3rds - change in constitution requires 75% of states in our system. and that decides it .. we have a moral obligation to uphold the rules .. the rules state that Gov't has NO (ZERO NONE -NOTHING) legitimate authority to make law messing with essential liberty "of its own volition" Gov't is required to appeal to the people "consent of governed" for a change to the social contract .. and such change requires 2/3rds majority consent .. and I would claim this would not be by State .. but is across the nation .. as every State's constitution obliges them to agree with this construct .. they all signed on to the Constitutional Republic.. but either way .. don't think there is a single state where you could get 67% in a referendum banning abortion as they have done with the 6 week law and the Abortion Pill law. What is absurd about the Abortion pill is that it often works before conception .. Condom breaks - take the pill ..sperm does not make it to conception .. but "Time is of the Essence" meaning that even if one is one of these Religious Right "Soul at conception" people .. good .. stop the process prior to conception where possible .. these people arguing against themselves with such law.. abject irrational stupidity as justification for law. All of this mumbo jumbo then comes full circle .. and can be resolved via one question .. "When does the Soul Arrive" which begs the question "what is the soul" .. which leads us once again to the "I AM" moment .. somewhere around 22 weeks.
I'm pro-choice. Russians boasted that just 1% of fake social profiles are caught, leak shows An analysis of Russia’s effectiveness at boosting propaganda on social media platforms is part of a trove of documents recently leaked on the chat app Discord. By Joseph Menn
True. And to justify codification into law, we must have a basis for doing so. We can choose science, or law, or both. Overwhelming public opinion is also a possible justification. And we should, at the same time, be aware that “human life” and “a human being” are not the same. Yeahwell I don’t believe “zygote=‘human life’ “ is actually popular any more than “appendix=‘human life’ “ is. The law needs a definition to hang its hat on. It MUST identify a legal position on what a “person” is if there is to be defensible law. And so the legal position has come to depend on a concept of “born alive” to identify an entity, a person, and human being to which law can apply. I also think the anti crowd is up against a conflict of their own making. On one hand they must provide for a definition of “person” that will accommodate and support existing law regarding what a person is, has, and can do, and on the other hand they want to identify as a “person” some entity (fetus) to which the vast majority of extant law cannot ever apply. They want it both ways and they haven’t figured out how to do it. (Interesting to note here that the original acceptance of the Constitution in 1788 was not put to a public vote.) The assumption there is that the “I AM” moment is equivalent, or at least related directly, to the arrival of the soul, but I’ve never met anyone who could define the soul as anything measurable and identifiable. And more important than all the above is that we are left with the justification of abortion as based on either the law or on science, or both, neither of which satisfies the anti crowd because the conclusion would have to be “abortion is acceptable”. And the only other alternative, and the one the anti crowd has chosen, is a justification of their position based on emotion and religion. Enter the Taliban.
Thanks for putting some thoughts out -- It is not about putting the constitution to a vote ... the social contract is a construct - by which "we the people" give authority to Gov't. The constitution is irrelevant for essential liberties not included in the document. The document was never intended to include everything. .. this is a question about how law is made for instances outside of, or partially covered by Constitution. .. "Abortion" for example What are the rules that govern legislation in this district of town ? Who has authority -- wherby it come - and how is exercised - the heavy hand of the State. Is a bit complicated aye mate - so complicated SCOTUS yet to figure it out .. or rather the ones that express the inability to figure it out are the ones chosen for SCOTUS. The Rules ... for out of bounds Essential liberty Town - one first must define "Essential Liberty" but for simplicity ..this can be assumed .. "My body My Choice" -- no way to make this out of the realm of Essential Liberty Rule 1: Gov't has no legitimate Authority - "Of its own volition" make law messing with Essential Liberty. - "FULL STOP" - End of Discussion .. by definition under our constitutional Republic Format .. Life - Liberty - Pursuit of Happiness -- So how then how are such laws made in a legitimate fashion.. with out being "illegitimacy of authority" -- a concept those with politicl science background will recognize. So what is the Declaration in this hoge Poge ? it is the document that sets out 1) on what basis power is granted to some authority 2) what constitutes illegitimacy of authority .. such that taking up arms to defend your right to party may well be justified. 1) consent of the governed 2) messing with Essential Liberty in violation of rules set out via Constitutional Republic. The principles in the DOI .. and rules of Constitutional Republic are by which SCOTUS supposed to judge law and constitution. In a CR .. you have a list of items in the basket (Constitution) - Gov't has no legit authority codified for those .. but also no legit authority for anything else deemed "Essential Liberty" once deemed so .. the social contract comes into play .. Gov't not supposed to be able to make law of its own volition .. without consent of governed. To solve this problem with 50+1 referendum - which we sometimes do on a state level - is, by definition "Tyranny of the Majority" -- and das ist verboten in our system under both Classical Liberalism and Republicanism. The whole purpose of having a CR .. is to not have Tyranny. Nor is Simple majority Mandate legitimate .. because some moron got elected . has some legitimate mandate ---- NOOOOOO .. Sooorry charlie .. not supposed to be how it works .. we don't care much for Tyrrany of Majority in this nation.. supposedly. Now .. this is not like you go to a referrendum 67% being the margin required to give Gov't the requested authority.. making the change to the Social Contract .. as that is what such law messing with Essential liberty is doing. If you look out into society .. and see 60% agreeing with some form of decriminalization .. then how on earth is such law remaining on the books .. that number needs to be below 33% .. don't need to put it to a vote .. should have some kind of "give in to the obvious Arbiter" - every year declares laws which are no longer legitimate .. This is kind of what happens in society anyway . but not always .. such as in this Abortion fiasco .. and that is where there is problem .. .. should be hearkening back to the founding principle .. rules on which we supposed to be running things . we have hard core illegitimacy of authority going on all over the place these days .. and is getting worse.
Yes you have -- har har har .. you me me and I did not Assume anything .. other than the one thing you know for sure is True You missed something -- no justification of law for abortion was ever given- until the "I AM" moment .. and that was only a potential jumping off point . a condition that needs be met - . law was not justified solely on that basis of personhood. You still require 67% to agree with you. but this has nothing to do with the when the soul arrives argument and of course serves any group .. Commies - Nazis TAliban .. who can get 67% This is about how you convince rational people .. that the "I AM" moment is not at conception. == how it plays out in law is a separate deal . and we are doing way worse than 67% .. which is even better for the TAliban .. so there is no Entering of the Taliban .. Tyranny of the Majority is already here. Now tell me -- what is the one and only thing in this whole wide world that you know for sure 100% ? (Answer) but now you want to claim that the one thing that you know for sure .. 100% - is also an assumption .. cause that is all I have assumed ... Some kind of existentialism Fallacy -- a complicated one. Second .. I quantified the existence of the Soul ,, said look here .. by this measurement .. this condition exists .. or it does not. I quantified the "I AM" for you my young apprentice.. both measurable and identifiable. What is the only thing you know for sure ? .. then how do we measure if it is there .. or if it is not ?
Then what is the quantity? You defined it as “I AM”. But that is your own cut at a definition. I consider the “I AM” moment to which you refer as consciousness. Is “soul” another word for “consciousness”; a synonym? Religionists say god created the soul. I say the brain creates consciousness and consciousness is an activity of brain. But when you walk into a wall or a surgeon applies an anesthetic and in either case you fall unconscious, is the soul gone? But we’re getting WAYYYYYY off topic here. To return to the topic, I’ll assert that when either the anti crowd or the choice crowd refer to viability, it’s not a reference to the soul OR to consciousness. Rather, the basis of the position taken is, in my view, either science and fact, or religion and myth. And I’ll leave it there.
There are SOLID justifications for late term abortion. From YOUR article: Other justifications involve dangerous disease in the woman, with life saving treatment being catastrophic for the fetus. Choosing to allow the woman to die is NOT a solution for the fetus. Nor is it rational to ask a local prosecutor whether a doctor may provide what is lifesaving for the woman. It might involve a fetus having died, making continued presence in the body a MAJOR health risk. >>>What we are seeing is a lethal ASSAULT ON WOMEN'S HEALTHCARE.
YOU accused those interested in women's healthcare as making frivolous excuses, thus rendering them untrustable. But, these serious issues are NOT NEW. And, they are WELL KNOWN throughout the medical world. The laws Republicans demand are cases of right wing legislatures being IGNORANT of OB/GYN healthcare, yet writing laws BLOCKING women's healthcare, even when the woman is at risk of dying. And, YOU fell for that kind of sociopathic logic.
Then maybe they should make that argument talk about these medical issues and how abortion is the only way to deal with them. I never hear anything like that from pro-abortion people it's probably because they don't know what they're talking about. I think for the most part this is one of those issues where they have to be against because these people are for this is contrarian nonsense.
I point that out all the time. Doctors point that out. BUT, let's remember that healthcare issues of the woman and of the fetus show up throughout pregnancy from the beginning to the end of pregnancy. So, limiting talk to late term abortions really misses the issue - remember that NOBODY is interested in terminating at the point where it can survive outside the woman unless there are some sort of overwhelming health issues for either - issues I don't know about. The real issues of women's rights to personal healthcare come throughout pregnancy.
You must be doing a poor job of it. They should rethink they way they do it. Sounds like your trying to avoid talking about the health issues that merit a late term abortion. Is this how you point them out all the time? Murdering a baby isn't healthcare.
