:)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

so that somehow makes it her fault, rather than the fault of the people actively undermining women's rights? weird "logic". reminds me of the pootin apologists claiming it's NATO's fault that they are murdering ukrainians now, or people claiming it's women's dressing habits' fault they are getting raped...

Exactly, we need to determine what it means to be human. That's precisely what I was doing. More specifically, I was exploring the lower bound for the stages of pregnancy during which one can argue abortion bans based on natural law, without having to draw from particular religions or arbitrary biological features. ("Does life begin with a heartbeat, with the ability to feel pain, the development of the lungs/etc.")

Since the conversation is around U.S. jurisdiction, the basis can be the technological capabilities in the U.S..


Regarding the broader question again: it should be obvious that the development of humans from a clump of cells through the embryonal and fetal stages, toward infancy and ultimately into a fully independent human being, is a continuous process. Since pregnancy is binary in nature, there can be no compromise/continuous scale in the legality of abortion either. Just like a woman can only be pregnant or not pregnant, with nothing in between, an abortion can also only be legal or illegal for any given set of circumstances (week of pregnancy, health issues, rape/incest). It is inevitable that abortions abruptly switch from being legal to being illegal at some point, which inevitably conflicts with the gradual, continuous nature of human development and personhood.




Side note: if we were to deny infants personhood on the ground that they can't survive without a caregiver, have intelligence lower than many animals and limited sentience, this would also apply to coma patients and some late-stage dementia patients. My threshold of "can survive independent from the mother" avoids these pitfalls without implying the need for a full-scale abortion ban from the moment of conception. (Which is presumably what you were aiming at?!)

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on May 5 2022 02:52am

Going "I told you so, look how dangerous to our cause these people are when you let them get into power" is a ridiculous take when you are one of the main factors why they got into power.

Think of a defender in hockey who slips and then the other team scores a goal. Yes, he did not score that goal himself, but he knew what the other team was up to, was in position to stop them, but failed to do so. Hillary of course doesn't bear the moral responsibility for this development, but in a real politics sense, she has to take some of the blame.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on May 5 2022 03:02am

There is literally no reason for governments to be making laws about what healthcare people should or should not or have to access.

There is no rationale for this whatsoever.

We are losing power over our bodies. Don't complain about mandatory vaccines when you fight for a society that controls your body. These issues are related.

The state has made major power grabs over the past two years and all people seem to be worried about is letting their shitty sports team get as much as they can when we're all losing here.

Restricting safe abortion is a terrible thing. I don't know why they want abortion to be unsafe for women.



Yeah, women don't like being second class citizens. They were warned about it. The dumb bitches should have voted though. People get the democracies they deserve.

This post was edited by Skinned on May 5 2022 05:37am

This might come as a shock to you, but I'm pro-choice. It's just a low salience issue to me, which is also why I'm more concerned with the political fallout than the actual policy. Perhaps I'd be more worried about women's rights in America if abortion was under threat of becoming completely outlawed and unavailable throughout the whole country. In reality, it will stay legal in at least half the country and accessible for 90++ percent of the population.

My gloating in this thread is mostly coming from the fact that a flagrant piece of judicial activism has rightfully been taken down. It's not good when policy is made out of thin air by random court majorities without political majorities backing it up. Likewise, it is good when a very contentious issue on which majority opinion varies wildly from state to state is given back to the state level to decide. (And since women make up over half of the electorate in every state, this cannot be compared with civil rights legislation where the federal side had to step in to prevent a racist majority in particular states from imposing racist policy on a powerless minority.)





Not really comparable. The crux with abortion is that two living beings are sharing one body and their interests clash. If one ascribes a right to live to a fetus at a certain stage of gestation, weighing this right against the mother's bodily autonomy becomes an incredibly difficult tradeoff. And that's the basic premise of all pro-lifers: that the fetus, or perhaps even the embryo, is a human being with inherent worth and rights.

The question of vaccine mandates involves none of these tradeoffs.

Ironic about this part for a law that's been in place for decades. And every judge that voted for this lied in their confirmation process In the US the majority are Pro Choice.
This is 100% GOP activism. The case law has been set since 70's. So a group of liars went back in time to re write something that the minority wants.

This post was edited by theCrossbones on May 5 2022 07:52am

Two things...

1. Whether or not the fetus can survive outside the womb has nothing at all to do with the issue. We define murder as killing a sentient being. When the fetus first says "I am", should be the determining factor.

2. Having the ability to abort up till 24 weeks (6 months), is ridiculous. Any issues of physical or psychological damage to the mother can be determined LONG before then.

2b. Waiting 6 months is just being irresponsible. That's a time frame for deciding things like whether you like the job or the relationship you have, NOT whether you like being pregnant or not.

2c. If aborting up to 6 months is legal, then why not up to two years, or thirteen years. In all three cases, the child can exist outside the womb.



This whole abortion issues is BS. The time to abort is BEFORE you have sex.

This post was edited by Ghot on May 5 2022 07:59am

And what's so bad and wrong about being inextricably conditioned on the life of another human? This is a very arbitrary line you have drawn. It seems to me that you hate the unborn, so you formulate your criterion in such a way that would exclude them from protection. Seriously. What is so special about not being conditioned on the life of another human?

Indeed the unborn cannot exist independently from its mother, however this is not its fault. It also doesn't mean we can kill it lightly. It's still human life.

This post was edited by JessiWan on May 5 2022 08:31am