American Politics 3.0 - Back to Brunch

[PeteMoss]

^^ Spoken like someone who hasn't had to fight a premature baby in a few decades

[GGG]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

You'd have to define viability. Viability on their own or equipping NICUs to the teeth? I don't think the viability of babies on their own have changed drastically over the years. I've mentioned before, lungs are the last thing to develop.

Current fetal viability is about 12 years without intervention.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

OBVIOUSLY talking about “with medical intervention.”

Human fetuses haven’t just evolved greater survival traits over the last 30 years. Come on Girly lol.

Not even with better diets and better pre-natal care? Because as you said, with better pre-natal care and better technology, the line moves back. We might be able to save a pre-mature baby at 20 weeks or 19 weeks etc....

[GGG]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It’s not an uncomfortable question. Some of you are obsessed with these hypotheticals that ultimately don’t mean anything to where we’re at today.

Given that minimum weeks for viability seems to drop about 1 week every decade, I’m sure there’s more pressing and intelligent things to discuss that the morality of abortion long after we’re all dead.

I like hypotheticals, (I note you didn’t answer it despite saying it’s uncomfortable). If you are trying make a morally consistent argument it’s good to test it.

In the end the only argument for abortion that actually holds up to any scrutiny is that body autonomy trumps rights of the fetus. Arguments like just a clump of cells is very similar to a theist arguing for the god of the gaps.

It’s uncomfortable but anyone making time constraint arguments is just deluding themselves to make themselves more comfortable.

In the end a baby is a baby when the host calls it a baby. Before that it’s cancer.

[ResAlien]

Alright bringing back prayer in schools as well. The American Christian nation must be so excited for the prosperity that’s to come

[GGG]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

Alright bringing back prayer in schools as well. The American Christian nation must be so excited for the prosperity that’s to come

They are two elections away from being a theocracy.

[photon]

Life beings 3.5 billion years ago in an unbroken chain.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by GGG

They are two elections away from being a theocracy.

While the general population gets less and less religious.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Not even with better diets and better pre-natal care? Because as you said, with better pre-natal care and better technology, the line moves back. We might be able to save a pre-mature baby at 20 weeks or 19 weeks etc....

So, "with medical intervention." I'm still not sure why you asked the question.

Originally Posted by GGG

I like hypotheticals, (I note you didn’t answer it despite saying it’s uncomfortable). If you are trying make a morally consistent argument it’s good to test it.

In the end the only argument for abortion that actually holds up to any scrutiny is that body autonomy trumps rights of the fetus. Arguments like just a clump of cells is very similar to a theist arguing for the god of the gaps.

It’s uncomfortable but anyone making time constraint arguments is just deluding themselves to make themselves more comfortable.

In the end a baby is a baby when the host calls it a baby. Before that it’s cancer.

It's not uncomfortable, you're just acting like White Out with the "answer my question" "why won't you answer my question" "you didn't answer my question because it's uncomfortable" when the problem is the fact that the question is a pointless waste of time to everyone but you.

It's great that you like these hypotheticals that are supposed to reveal some greater moral truth or test the consistency of our morals but that sort of defies the reality of being human, which is that morals are culture and context dependent and evolve all the time. What you need to realize is that just because you make up a hypothetical you think is meaningful, one that allows you to test your own moral consistency, doesn't mean it's worthy of a response or a "tough question" or relevant to anyone else. It's not uncomfortable, it's silly.

"Should abortion be banned altogether when a lil 4 week bean can survive in the TX1101 Box, fed with Soylent Green until the age of 5 when it is released into the wild?" Sure man. Ban it I guess. Tough question you got there. But nobody is going to care when you ban it since in this hypothetical future abortion won't exist as women who don't wish to have a baby will have it painlessly extracted alive and well and placed into the Womb X Birth Pod. But of course, how you feel about this doesn't matter and can't be morally consistent, because it's just a precursor to the future where sex is for-pleasure only and "birth" is done 100% artificially with the eggs and semen extracted by both parties and placed into the Womb X10 Birth Pod where the parents then select which genetic traits they want their baby to acquire. In fact, natural birth, given the danger of it in comparison, will be criminalized. So technically, giving birth is morally wrong, if we care about being morally consistent with the hypothetical future.

[Cappy]

The Catholic Church states that life begins at conception.

One must be baptized to avoid infernal damnation. No baptism, No heaven.

The Catholic Church baptizes infants, but not fetuses.

So every miscarriage / still birth equals H-E-double hockey sticks for that poor soul.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

So, "with medical intervention." I'm still not sure why you asked the question.



It's not uncomfortable, you're just acting like White Out with the "answer my question" "why won't you answer my question" "you didn't answer my question because it's uncomfortable" when the problem is the fact that the question is a pointless waste of time to everyone but you.

It's great that you like these hypotheticals that are supposed to reveal some greater moral truth or test the consistency of our morals but that sort of defies the reality of being human, which is that morals are culture and context dependent and evolve all the time. What you need to realize is that just because you make up a hypothetical you think is meaningful, one that allows you to test your own moral consistency, doesn't mean it's worthy of a response or a "tough question" or relevant to anyone else. It's not uncomfortable, it's silly.

"Should abortion be banned altogether when a lil 4 week bean can survive in the TX1101 Box, fed with Soylent Green until the age of 5 when it is released into the wild?" Sure man. Ban it I guess. Tough question you got there. But nobody is going to care when you ban it since in this hypothetical future abortion won't exist as women who don't wish to have a baby will have it painlessly extracted alive and well and placed into the Womb X Birth Pod. But of course, how you feel about this doesn't matter and can't be morally consistent, because it's just a precursor to the future where sex is for-pleasure only and "birth" is done 100% artificially with the eggs and semen extracted by both parties and placed into the Womb X10 Birth Pod where the parents then select which genetic traits they want their baby to acquire. In fact, natural birth, given the danger of it in comparison, will be criminalized. So technically, giving birth is morally wrong, if we care about being morally consistent with the hypothetical future.

The question becomes uncomfortable if you claim to be pro-choice but want to use fetal viability to make yourself feel better. Your position is insane that every conception will result in a birth. How does the state afford to raise that many unwanted children? You also seem to want to criminalize natural birth which again is a pretty big strike against peoples individual freedoms. If the above were your actual positions on these issues you would not support abortion rights today. Your position is in favour of controlling the reproductive practices of people. But you didn’t take the question seriously anyway.

The answer to whiteouts question was the current system of the mother deciding does not produce deaths that society is uncomfortable with. The hosts deciding when babies are babies doesn’t create this situation.

[CroFlames]

I don't know. I've heard my kids' heartbeats in the womb and I've seen them moving around on the ultrasounds. Hard to argue "it's not human" at that point. Plus, when they start kick and punching and you can actually see the little hands and feet through the belly... it looks like an alien and is off-putting, but certainly looks "living" to me lol.

I think I remember they start kicking at about 18 weeks. If that is the cutoff for when we say it's morally wrong to terminate because it is a human, was it something non-human at 17 weeks? 15? 3?

I hate the politics stuff, but I like having intellectual (and honest) debate about it because I am not sure what the ultimate right answer is.

[AltaGuy]

I admit that it's tough for me to engage with the pedantic moral debates about abortion, because of the absolute inevitability of abortions. They happen. They're going to happen. They've been happening since humans became sentient, and will continue long after the US devolves into a regressive Christian hellhole. Attempts to regulate them, while occasionally coming from a good-faith belief in one's own moral compass, only seem to lead down the same dystopian path of other excessive "moral" overreach like eugenics or forced sterilizations. People die, get sick, and societies get dark and rotted.

It has been mentioned quite a few times in here, but I keep thinking about it: rich people everywhere in the states (or simply well-off people) will continue to have access to safe abortions. There will be almost zero change for them or their health choices. Literally thousands of men and women in the anti-abortion camp will privately avail themselves of a safe form of this type of healthcare while publically denouncing it and preventing others from safely accessing it. Even if it were banned the world-over, this would be true.

Is it just apathy that allows so many to live in such hypocrisy? The lives of disadvantaged people - mostly women - are going to be made markedly and horrifyingly worse by this decision. There will be thousands of preventable and senseless deaths, but there won't be fewer abortions.

[GordonBlue]

Haven't caught up on the thread as the decision in my opinion is sickening.

but what scares me the most is the Roe vs wade ruling being the touchstone to overturning many items religious conservatives hate.

so probably soon say good-bye to access to contraceptives, anal sex and same sex marriage.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/24/roe-...be-tossed.html

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said landmark high court rulings that established gay rights and contraception rights should be reconsidered now that the federal right to abortion has been revoked.

Thomas wrote that those rulings “were demonstrably erroneous decisions.”

The cases he cited are Griswold vs. Connecticut, in which the Supreme Court said married couples have the right to obtain contraceptives;
Lawerence v. Texas, which established the right to engage in private sexual acts;
and Obergefell v. Hodges, which said there is a right to same-sex marriage.

we have a duty to
’correct the error’ established in those precedents,” Thomas added.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by GGG

The question becomes uncomfortable if you claim to be pro-choice but want to use fetal viability to make yourself feel better. Your position is insane that every conception will result in a birth. How does the state afford to raise that many unwanted children? You also seem to want to criminalize natural birth which again is a pretty big strike against peoples individual freedoms. If the above were your actual positions on these issues you would not support abortion rights today. Your position is in favour of controlling the reproductive practices of people. But you didn’t take the question seriously anyway.

The answer to whiteouts question was the current system of the mother deciding does not produce deaths that society is uncomfortable with. The hosts deciding when babies are babies doesn’t create this situation.

What position? These are just hypotheticals, so how can they be a stated position? I thought that's the fun game we were playing? I don't really find you telling me what my positions are and what I would or would not support today based on your summary very compelling. It makes you come off as even less serious.

Again, it's not uncomfortable. It's not about people making themselves feel better. Pro-choice is just another term for the abortion-rights movement, it is not meant to convey the concept of "unlimited choice" since that defies basic logic as choice will always be limited by the medical field and all associated understanding, technology, ethics, and oaths. It's never been unlimited, that's not what the movement is about. Even you're suggesting certain limitations, so you're not really pro-choice I guess? Some within the movement may believe it should be legally unlimited up until birth, some believe that "choice" should have some limits. Some in the movement morally disagree with abortion in general but still believe women should have safe, legal access to it. That last part is what unites everyone in the movement.

You're basically just playing out a no true scotsman fallacy and pretending it's relevant. It's boring, man. We're talking about real life here. Abortions are going to happen. Women should have safe, legal access to them. That's it. Any poking around the edges of judgement on which positions in the abortion-rights movement are the most morally pure or "truly" pro-choice is completely missing the point.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

What position? These are just hypotheticals, so how can they be a stated position? I thought that's the fun game we were playing? I don't really find you telling me what my positions are and what I would or would not support today based on your summary very compelling. It makes you come off as even less serious.

Again, it's not uncomfortable. It's not about people making themselves feel better. Pro-choice is just another term for the abortion-rights movement, it is not meant to convey the concept of "unlimited choice" since that defies basic logic as choice will always be limited by the medical field and all associated understanding, technology, ethics, and oaths. It's never been unlimited, that's not what the movement is about. Even you're suggesting certain limitations, so you're not really pro-choice I guess? Some within the movement may believe it should be legally unlimited up until birth, some believe that "choice" should have some limits. Some in the movement morally disagree with abortion in general but still believe women should have safe, legal access to it. That last part is what unites everyone in the movement.

You're basically just playing out a no true scotsman fallacy and pretending it's relevant. It's boring, man. We're talking about real life here. Abortions are going to happen. Women should have safe, legal access to them. That's it. Any poking around the edges of judgement on which positions in the abortion-rights movement are the most morally pure or "truly" pro-choice is completely missing the point.

If you want robust and permanent protection of rights to choose then any time restriction is problematic. It’s basically saying your body is the property of the fetus and the state after a certain time period.

It effectively creates a sunset clause on abortion.

[TherapyforGlencross]

Originally Posted by photon

Life beings 3.5 billion years ago in an unbroken chain.

The first animal, the Dinkinsonia, lived approximately 554 ma. Only stromatolites were alive 3.5 bya, and is hotly debated about the time-length. Sorry, I’m a nerd for historical geology xD.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by GGG

If you want robust and permanent protection of rights to choose then any time restriction is problematic. It’s basically saying your body is the property of the fetus and the state after a certain time period.

It effectively creates a sunset clause on abortion.

I think things are working out OK in western Europe, and all those countries have restrictions.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

I think things are working out OK in western Europe, and all those countries have restrictions.

So you support the Robert’s compromise. The Mississippi law banning abortion post 15 weeks should have been permitted without overturning the principles of Roe.

[calf]

Originally Posted by TherapyforGlencross

Only stromatolites were alive 3.5 bya.

And they've taken full advantage of their lifetime appointments to SCOTUS