Overturning Roe V Wade

[mikkel_the_dane]

That analogy is the fallacy of false equivalence because the zygote has the potential to become a person whereas granny can never be a person again.

Nitpick. You could in practice remove the head from the torso and keep the head alive. It has be done with monkey. But for the example given, yes, there is biologically a difference.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

That analogy is the fallacy of false equivalence because the zygote has the potential to become a person whereas granny can never be a person again.

Whereas in the case of abortion, we are considering the needs of a fully realized human capable of emotion and experience vs that of a potential human unable to emote or experience.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The conclusion that human life begins at sperm-egg fusion is uncontested, objective, based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other and on ample scientific evidence (thousands of independent, peer-reviewed publications).

Except it is contested and not universally accepted in science.
When Does Personhood Begin?

Howard A. Schneiderman Professor of Biology Scott Gilbert admits he can't answer the question he poses at the start of his popular talk. However, he adds with "absolute certainty" that there is also "no consensus among scientists." Gilbert, who teaches embryology and developmental genetics, is frequently invited to lecture on this subject and has given this talk to diverse audiences from around the country to the Vatican.

Beginning of human personhood - Wikipedia

In their book, When Does Human Life Begin?,[20] John L. Merritt, MD and his son J. Lawrence Meritt II, MD, present the idea that if "the breath of life" (Genesis 2:7) is oxygen, then a blastocyst starts taking in the breath of life from the mother's blood the moment it successfully implants in her womb, which is about a week after fertilization.

Non-conjoined monozygotic twins form up to day 14 of embryonic development, but when twinning occurs after 14 days, the twins will likely be conjoined.[21] Some argue that an early embryo cannot be a person because "If every person is an individual, one cannot be divided from oneself."[22]

at the first appearance of brain waves in higher brain (cerebral cortex) at 22–24 weeks of gestation.[24]

"Until the fetus is viable, any rights granted to it may come at the expense of the pregnant woman, simply because the fetus cannot survive except within the woman's body. Upon viability, the pregnancy can be terminated, as by a c-section or induced labor, with the fetus surviving to become a newborn infant. Several groups believe that abortion before viability is acceptable, but is unacceptable after" is the perspective of Planned Parenthood,

There are actually many answers to this question.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes. We agree. It is two different domains. One is knowledge and facts. The other is moral beliefs and opinions.

It has to be based upon moral beliefs. Have you heard the false accusations of scientism by creationists? You appear to be demanding that people use science where it can't be used. You appear to be advocating for scientism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That analogy is the fallacy of false equivalence because the zygote has the potential to become a person whereas granny can never be a person again.

No, I never said it was an equivalence. Why do you try to use logical fallacies? I have as of yet to see you get one right. You don't like this because you can see what it leads to.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It has to be based upon moral beliefs. Have you heard the false accusations of scientism by creationists? You appear to be demanding that people use science where it can't be used. You appear to be advocating for scientism.

Sorry, if I didn't made clear. We agree.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, if I didn't made clear. We agree.

Okay. Now go back to the extreme hypothetical question and answer that.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Okay. Now go back to the extreme hypothetical question and answer that.

Too late now.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Too late now.

Nope. You dodged a question only because you did not like the answer. You can still see it. Do you want to be taken seriously?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Nope. You dodged a question only because you did not like the answer. You can still see it. Do you want to be taken seriously?

Well, I don't have the time now. I will leave this open and look later.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There is a difference between being biologically human and being human in a legal sense.

Let's take an extreme example. Granny just had her head chopped clean off and she is in the hospital. There is no coming back. All that made her "Granny" as a person are gone. She is consuming money at a terrible rate. Soon the estate will be all gone. Worse yet, a pandemic has hit and the hospital needs every bed. Is she "human"? Do we keep her body alive at all cost regardless of what it does to all of her heirs or to those waiting for a hospital bed or do we pull the plug because she is no longer "human"?

We agree. Is it it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

We agree. Is it it?

Sorry, you have a question to answer first.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sorry, you have a question to answer first.

Then help me. Find it again. And then I will do it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then help me. Find it again. And then I will do it.

Nope. I could simply put you on ignore as so many others have. I see that most that reason consistently never seem to answer your posts.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Nope. I could simply put you on ignore as so many others have. I see that most that reason consistently never seem to answer your posts.

Okay, that is your choice.

So let me explain some about a contraction. It is related to how you view the words "all, same, similar, different and sense"?

In short if I can do something different at a different time, space and sense, it is not a contradiction if you do something different at a different time, space and time.
Nor is it a contradiction if I do something different as different times, spaces asd senses. That is only a contradiction if I claim it is universal for all cases.
That is the short. That is the limited of the law of non-contradiction.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Okay, that is your choice.

So let me explain some about a contraction. It is related to how you view the words "all, same, similar, different and sense"?

In short if I can do something different at a different time, space and sense, it is not a contradiction if you do something different at a different time, space and time.
Nor is it a contradiction if I do something different as different times, spaces asd senses. That is only a contradiction if I claim it is universal for all cases.
That is the short. That is the limited of the law of non-contradiction.

That appears to not have any application yet.

 

[wellwisher]

So I’m sure many have heard that the Supreme Court is mulling over whether or not to overturn Roe V Wade. It looks like they are, that’s what the news stations are saying anyway

But as a non American I fear I may not fully understand the implications.

So can you help me out a bit here guys?

What does that hypothetical scenario look like in the long run?

Can it be legally challenged?

Why would this be decided by your Supreme Court in the first place? This is like a constitution thing, is that right?

And do you think this will set off a chain reaction of some kind?
I can only imagine the protests that would occur if something similar happened in literally any other Western Nation today.

This will not change access to abortion, per se. All it will do is bump the decision for abortion, to the states, where states can make that choice. There are plenty of states that will keep it open. There is nothing to worry about accept convenience.

The biggest complain, that is not bring said by the Left, is all the free Federal money Left states currently exploit, via abortion, will be gone. They will need to put their own state money where their mouth is.

Under the current Federal system, tax payer money is given to abortion, with the tax payers having no choice on this divided issue. The Fed is how the Left forces the Right to supplement their pet projects. If this goes back to states, the Left will need to foot its own tab, and maybe even the tab of its neighbors to maintain the image of being for abortion. Their poor management style will become more pronounced with mounting debt for their bad ideas leading to a change of policy.

Abortion will still be around, but one may have to travel to the next state to get one. This will give the young girl more time to search her soul. It has nothing to do with rights, but has more to do with money, time and convenience when the Left has to put it money where its mouth is.

This change could also open up a can of worms for the Left, where the Court makes the Federal Government get smaller and state political parties have to foot the tabs for their political Party issues and choices.

For example, open borders, which is pushed by the Left, creates money challenges that are now forced on all tax payers, even if you disagree with open borders but want enforced borders. You are forced to pay for things, the Left gets all the political benefit from.

If this goes to the states, the entire tab could end up being funded by the Left, without any way to force the Right to buy what it does not want to buy. The Left now gets all the political credit, with the Right now forced to foot half the bill via common Federal taxes.

I like the idea of each political party footing their own tab for their bright ideas, maybe though the states. The Right has been forced to pay for bad Left wing idea for too long, with little credit for that forced effort. The Left is now running an abortion rights misinformation scam, when in reality it is about the fear of losing an easy money shakedown scam.

Women should not worry since abortion will still be there. But as time goes on, the Left will get cheaper. Then you can be mad at them for making promises they cannot keep.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This will not change access to abortion, per se. All it will do is bump the decision for abortion, to the states, where states can make that choice. There are plenty of states that will keep it open. There is nothing to worry about accept convenience.

The biggest complain, that is not bring said by the Left, is all the free Federal money Left states currently exploit, via abortion, will be gone. They will need to put their own state money where their mouth is.

Under the current Federal system, tax payer money is given to abortion, with the tax payers having no choice on this divided issue. The Fed is how the Left forces the Right to supplement their pet projects. If this goes back to states, the Left will need to foot its own tab, and maybe even the tab of its neighbors to maintain the image of being for abortion. Their poor management style will become more pronounced with mounting debt for their bad ideas leading to a change of policy.

Abortion will still be around, but one may have to travel to the next state to get one. This will give the young girl more time to search her soul. It has nothing to do with rights, but has more to do with money, time and convenience when the Left has to put it money where its mouth is.

This change could also open up a can of worms for the Left, where the Court makes the Federal Government get smaller and state political parties have to foot the tabs for their political Party issues and choices.

For example, open borders, which is pushed by the Left, creates money challenges that are now forced on all tax payers, even if you disagree with open borders but want enforced borders. You are forced to pay for things, the Left gets all the political benefit from.

If this goes to the states, the entire tab could end up being funded by the Left, without any way to force the Right to buy what it does not want to buy. The Left now gets all the political credit, with the Right now forced to foot half the bill via common Federal taxes.

I like the idea of each political party footing their own tab for their bright ideas, maybe though the states. The Right has been forced to pay for bad Left wing idea for too long, with little credit for that forced effort. The Left is now running an abortion rights misinformation scam, when in reality it is about the fear of losing an easy money shakedown scam.

Women should not worry since abortion will still be there. But as time goes on, the Left will get cheaper. Then you can be mad at them for making promises they cannot keep.

What "free federal money". And in reality the abortion issue is not a conservative vs liberal battle. It is Republican vs Democrat.

 

[fantome profane]

Under the current Federal system, tax payer money is given to abortion …

Bovine feces! In fact the whole post was full of bovine feces, but this is one great big stinking pile of it stands out.

Do you have any evidence to support this crap?

 

[wellwisher]

What "free federal money". And in reality the abortion issue is not a conservative vs liberal battle. It is Republican vs Democrat.

Abortion, if it goes to the states, does not make abortion illegal, everywhere. There will still be plenty of states that will still support it. The difference will be no Federal money funding for abortion. The states who wish abortion to remain, will have to foot the entire bill. This will not be about a women's right to choose, but about the political advocates having to foot the tab for a pet project that benefits them the most.

The Democrats support abortion, more than do the Republicans. This means that Democrat states will more than likely need to provide the lion's share of all funding for abortion, from their own state revenues, to maintain their political stance, as being the biggest defenders of abortion.

Women from other states, where abortion is made illegal, will go to the states who will still allow abortion. This will further increase the costs for abortion for these pro-abortion states, beyond the needs of their own state tax payers.

This is where the hypocrisy will start, since instead of the anti abortion states supplementing the pro-abortion states through Federal tax revenues; everyone pays, they will now have to supplement citizens from the pro-life states, who want abortions.

The Democrats are not used to being on the crap end of that money stick. This will alter the opinions of many people in some of these states. It will be interesting to watch. Women will still have all the options but with less convenience.

The analogy is the high property taxes in some Democrat states, like CA, NY and NJ. They used to get Federal tax breaks to supplement the high property taxes due to the wasteful habits of their state leaders, compared to other states.

Trump got rid of this tax break since it benefited the most wasteful Democrats states at the expense lower taxed Republican states, who were forced by the Fed to supplemented them with common taxes. This loss of other state's federal tax revenue made states like NY, NJ and CA get up in arms. They wanted other states to be forced to supplement their excessive state taxes via this federal tax break.

The same is about to happen with abortion. Nothing else, besides the revenue streams will change, with both property taxes and abortion still going strong in CA, NY and NJ. The day of the Federal shake down of efficient Republican states to support inefficient Democrat states may be over.

The number of abortion among the blacks living in Democrats states is very high; millions a year. This will have to come out of mostly Democrat state revenue and this extra cost and tax may shake the commitment of many. No more free ride by forcing anti-abortion states to fund it for them.