Roe v. Wade is dead

[Zaku3]

2 hours ago, SaysWho? said:

“Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're fucked.”

 

 

"Conservatives only care about you again until you reach military age." George Carlin

 

Gotta have bodies to send on questionable wars to keep the empire going.

[crispy4000]

27 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

I think opposition to Build Back Better is a reminder about "pro-life" being pro children or even meaning pro-life:

 

Universal Pre-K?

Paid Parental Leave?

 

These two things would be a boon for families or single parents, allowing them to bond with their children once they're born and have access to pre-k education as a head start to k-12. Where was the opposition? A "pro-life" party and a "pro-life" West Virginia Democrat.

 

Show me that Democrats care about more this in the wake of Roe leaks than vying for future political gains and package deals.

 

I've said it before in this thread.  Put Universal Pre-K and Materity Leave to vote directly.  It's absurd that it hasn't happened yet.

[SaysWho?]

2 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

 

Show me that Democrats care about more this in the wake of Roe leaks than vying for further political gains and package deals.

 

I've said it before in this thread.  Put Universal Pre-K and Materity Leave to vote directly.

 

To even try to equate both sides by saying those two don't count because "package deals" is a new one. One side supported them. The other side didn't. "But it was in a package" is insider speak. People support both; our elected officials should too.

[Guest]

The undercurrent in this discussion that death is preferable to poverty is simply a POV I don’t share as a former impoverished person myself.

[Uaarkson]

The problem isn’t life. It’s modern life 

[Chris-]

1 minute ago, sblfilms said:

The undercurrent in this discussion that death is preferable to poverty is simply a POV I don’t share as a former impoverished person myself.

 

And the implication that abortion is equivalent to death is a POV many here do not share.

[crispy4000]

12 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

To even try to equate both sides by saying those two don't count because "package deals" is a new one. One side supported them. The other side didn't. "But it was in a package" is insider speak. People support both; our elected officials should too.

Nope, this isn't about equating both sides.  It's about giving it the best chance to pass in our current political climate.  And secondary to that, putting our politicians on record on these issues directly.

Trump muddied the party waters on maternity leave in particular.  I still have hope for a bipartisan resolution someday, but the current approach would only work when the Dems control everything.

[legend]

36 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

Human existence isn’t as much of a moral question as a material one, IMO.

 

What you value is a moral question though. If there is a possible series of events that leads to some person X existing in the future, and you additively value that hypothetical person, that is a moral matter.

 

This kind of thinking leads to all kinds of insane conclusions. Classically, philosophy would describe it as the repugnant conclusion and it might have just be a weird academic thought experiment. But this kind of crazy thinking is something we have to contend with. Effective altruists, for example, make all kinds of weird moral decisions as a consequence of this thinking. In particular, they make decisions based on a goal to create as many people as possible in the future, even as far out as a trillion years. This leads them to downplaying the importance of climate change because they think "well it probably won't kill us all, and we'll still eventually populate the galaxy, better to focus on the fantasy "problem" of a god-like AI killing us all in the future and prevent our galaxy empire from ever happening!" They similarly reach anti-abortion conclusions because they additively value the "hypothetical" people that could exist. I'm waiting for them to start advocating that women are raped to add more to the population. Since their trend is only toward the more insane, I won't be shocked to see that happen.

[SaysWho?]

1 minute ago, crispy4000 said:

Nope, this isn't about equating both sides.  It's about giving it the best chance to pass in our current political climate.  And secondary to that, putting our politicians on record on these issues directly.

Trump muddied the party waters on maternity leave in particular.  I still have hope for a bipartisan resolution someday, but the current approach would only work with a super majority.

 

You just equated both sides. One side wasn't going to vote for paid leave at all; the other side did, sans one. The fact that a president even came out with universal pre-k and paid leave and spent his political capital on it is stunning considering how modest presidents have been, especially Trump and his daughter's limp approach to it.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

4 minutes ago, Chris- said:

 

And the implication that abortion is equivalent to death is a POV many here do not share.

 

Hence my use of the term "non-existence" when it comes to abortion.

 

Yes, I'd rather not exist to begin with (through abortion) than be poor and to be perfectly honest, now that I actually do exist, I'd rather die than be poor in this society.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Chris- said:

 

And the implication that abortion is equivalent to death is a POV many here do not share.

It if a miscarriage, medically known as a spontaneous abortion, is the death of a fetus or embryo…what do you call it when you do the same thing intentionally?

 

What is a Miscarriage? | Causes of Miscarriage

WWW.PLANNEDPARENTHOOD.ORG

---

A miscarriage is the loss of a pregnancy before 20 weeks. Miscarriages are common. Learn about some of the causes of miscarriage.

 

[Chairslinger]

3 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

It if a miscarriage, medically known as a spontaneous abortion, is the death of a fetus or embryo…what do you call it when you do the same thing intentionally?

 

What is a Miscarriage? | Causes of Miscarriage

WWW.PLANNEDPARENTHOOD.ORG

---

A miscarriage is the loss of a pregnancy before 20 weeks. Miscarriages are common. Learn about some of the causes of miscarriage.

 

 

 

An omelet.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

47 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

What if a lack of follow through results in a society that cannot sustain as “just” as you envision it?  

 

Can you clarify further?  I don't quite understand the question.

 

 

48 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

On the flip side, we also don’t have an example of a country that views abortion as default rather than the exception AFAIK.  I’d be curious to know why you think that perspective shift would be sustainable.

 

That's because no such society has ever existed in all of human history   I'm genuinely advocating for a paradigm/social order shift of a level never even before conceived!

 

As for its sustainability, I have absolutely no idea whether it would be sustainable or not, but it would be at the very least interesting to find out!

[crispy4000]

20 minutes ago, legend said:

 

What you value is a moral question though. If there is a possible series of events that leads to some person X existing in the future, and you additively value that hypothetical person, that is a moral matter.

What you value, yes.  What exists, not so much.

 

20 minutes ago, legend said:

They similarly reach anti-abortion conclusions because they additively value the "hypothetical" people that could exist. I'm waiting for them to start advocating that women are raped to add more to the population. Since their trend is only toward the more insane, I won't be shocked to see that happen.

 

Most pro-lifers don't view unborn children principally as hypotheticals, but as material human beings.  I think that's the least problematic place to begin a discourse on abortion, the material, but sadly the facts are too often contested.  The best pro-choice arguments don't downplay it, IMO.

[crispy4000]

10 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

You just equated both sides. One side wasn't going to vote for paid leave at all; the other side did, sans one. The fact that a president even came out with universal pre-k and paid leave and spent his political capital on it is stunning considering how modest presidents have been, especially Trump and his daughter's limp approach to it.

 

I don't buy this with 100% certainty if maternity leave was brought up outside of BBB.  If anything, I believe Republicans would cave on it if their favorite orange orangutan told them to.

[Jason]

[mclumber1]

18 minutes ago, Uaarkson said:

The problem isn’t life. It’s modern life 

 

Maybe if you are full of angst and self remorse.  There is no better time in humanity's existence than right now.  Do you honestly think you'd be better off at any other time in human history?  

[Chris-]

17 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

It if a miscarriage, medically known as a spontaneous abortion, is the death of a fetus or embryo…what do you call it when you do the same thing intentionally?

 

What is a Miscarriage? | Causes of Miscarriage

WWW.PLANNEDPARENTHOOD.ORG

---

A miscarriage is the loss of a pregnancy before 20 weeks. Miscarriages are common. Learn about some of the causes of miscarriage.

 

 

I would call it death, but I would also submit that it is not the same thing as the death of a human being (which is what I felt your statement implied).

[stepee]

Sometimes you just wanna argue without arguing anything in particular and literal definitions are a great place to make sure you don’t accidentally touch on anything relevant to anything.

[Jason]

10 hours ago, crispy4000 said:

@sblfilms is right

 

plz don't encourage him k thx

[SaysWho?]

12 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

 

I don't buy this with 100% certainty if maternity leave was brought up outside of BBB.  If anything, I believe Republicans would cave on it if their favorite orange orangutan told them to.

 

Which he didn't, because he doesn't give a shit. If he spent as much energy doing that as he did trying to get autocratic Secretaries of State to overturn democratic elections, maybe it would be a thing.

 

"Pro-life" doesn't support these items. 

 

Not universal paid leave.

 

Not universal pre-k.

 

Not strong climate change legislation.

 

Not WIC.

 

Not guaranteed educational programming for kids.

 

Nothing.

 

Apparently, many of them support insurrectionists, which is coo'

 

For whatever reason, you're going after Democrats, who spent political capital actually trying to enact an ambitious agenda, and giving Republicans a lot of leeway, no responsibility for opposing this, and even suggesting they'd be more prone to support this if only Trump would save the day.

 

"I'm not BoTh SiDeSiNg, but..." *proceeds to both sides* 

 

I see you.

[skillzdadirecta]

2 hours ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

Also, for all of its massive and irredeemable faults and failures, the Roman Catholic Church is at least morally consistent in its pro-life stance in that it strenuously opposes both abortion and the death penalty.

Yup... this is true too 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, stepee said:

Sometimes you just wanna argue without arguing anything in particular and literal definitions are a great place to make sure you don’t accidentally touch on anything relevant to anything.

Except that I said something specific (I don’t believe death is preferable to poverty) and somebody else wanted to argue that abortion isn’t death, only to agree that it is indeed death just not equivalent to the death of born people  

[Chris-]

1 minute ago, sblfilms said:

Except that I said something specific (I don’t believe death is preferable to poverty) and somebody else wanted to argue that abortion isn’t death, only to agree that it is indeed death just not equivalent to the death of born people  

 

Because in this instance the concept of death can't be divorced from the concept of human life, otherwise the dichotomy (death versus poverty) is completely pointless.

[crispy4000]

7 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

Which he didn't, because he doesn't give a shit. If he spent as much energy doing that as he did trying to get autocratic Secretaries of State to overturn democratic elections, maybe it would be a thing.

 

"Pro-life" doesn't support these items. 

 

Not universal paid leave.

 

Not universal pre-k.

 

Not strong climate change legislation.

 

Not WIC.

 

Apparently, many of them support insurrectionists, which is coo'

 

"I'm not BoTh SiDeSiNg, but..." *proceeds to both sides*

 

A pro-life political party should support those items.

The difference in the way I see it is that there is an immediate need for paid maternity leave, an extension of the child tax credits, and universal pre-K in a post-Roe united states.  Heck, there's an immediate need for it now.  It should be must-pass legislation.  None of our politicians are treating it that way in practice, in spite of the courts.

 

They don't have the balls to try this piecemeal.

[legend]

23 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

What you value, yes.  What exists, not so much.

 

Right, but the point was precisely about people valuing hypothetical people!

 

23 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

Most pro-lifers don't view unborn children principally as hypotheticals, but as material human beings.  I think that's the least problematic place to begin a discourse on abortion, the material, but sadly the facts are too often contested.  The best pro-choice arguments don't downplay it, IMO.

 

I have had many arguments with pro-life people over the years (including people no longer here but whom once posted in the early days of Bad Cartridge) who very much embrace the "hypothetical/ will become a person" position. I don't have any statistics, but it's absolutely an argument often used.

 

It's a position that's almost unavoidable once you press people on it, because it's very clear that a fertilized egg is not the same as a person.

 

[SaysWho?]

1 minute ago, crispy4000 said:

 

A pro-life political party should support those items.

The difference in the way I see it is that there is an immediate need for paid maternity leave, an extension of the child tax credits, and universal pre-K in a post-Roe united states.  Heck, there's an immediate need for it now.  It should be must-pass legislation.  None of our politicians are treating it that way in practice.

 

They don't have the balls to try this piecemeal.

 

And why do you think the pro-life party that opposes these items will support them piecemeal?

[Chairslinger]

3 minutes ago, Chris- said:

 

I would call it death, but I would also submit that it is not the same thing as the death of a human being (which is what I felt your statement implied).

 

 

My answer wasn't entirely facetious. 

 

I agree, I simply don't see early term pregnancies as human life.

 

To me calling a fertilized egg "human life" makes about as much sense as holding a memorial service for a cum stained sock.

 

If I Trolley Problem'd my way into a burning room with a freezer full of frozen eggs and a hamster in a cage, I would save the hamster without a second thought.

[crispy4000]

Just now, SaysWho? said:

 

And why do you think the pro-life party that opposes these items will support them piecemeal?

 

I think it's the best shot families have right now.  And I'd like to see it, to know they'd still vote in total opposition in light of recent developments.

[stepee]

8 minutes ago, legend said:

 

Right, but the point was precisely about people valuing hypothetical people!

 

 

I have had many arguments with pro-life people over the years (including people no longer here but whom once posted in the early days of Bad Cartridge) who very much embrace the "hypothetical/ will become a person" position. I don't have any statistics, but it's absolutely an argument often used.

 

It's a position that's almost unavoidable once you press people on it, because it's very clear that a fertilized egg is not the same as a person.

 

 

A lot of pro life supporters are on the same intellectual wave length as a fetishized egg so that might be hard to make that argument with them.

[Ghost_MH]

5 minutes ago, legend said:

It's a position that's almost unavoidable once you press people on it, because it's very clear that a fertilized egg is not the same as a person.

 

And a fertilized egg being treated the same as a person has some wild implication as far as just regular birth control or things like IVF are concerned.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Chris- said:

 

Because in this instance the concept of death can't be divorced from the concept of human life, otherwise the dichotomy (death versus poverty) is completely pointless.

I’m not divorcing the two. You are making the claim that death pre-birth is fundamentally different than death post-birth. This is part of what @crispy4000was saying when it comes to this topic that there is a base set of presuppositions that are wholly at odds.

 

One side views this as “potential life” and the other “life with potential”. These differences are irreconcilable.

 

But let’s rephrase it this way: some people would rather not be born than live in poverty, and that is also not a POV I share as a person who was in poverty for the first 28 years of my life.

[Chairslinger]

2 minutes ago, Ghost_MH said:

 

And a fertilized egg being treated the same as a person has some wild implication as far as just regular birth control or things like IVF are concerned.

 

 

I look forward to the future with state mandated firearm implantations into the womb.

 

Can't infringe on that lump of cells Constitutional right to own a gun!

[Chris-]

2 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

I’m not divorcing the two. You are making the claim that death pre-birth is fundamentally different than death post-birth. This is part of what @crispy4000was saying when it comes to this topic that there is a base set of presuppositions that are wholly at odds.

 

One side views this as “potential life” and the other “life with potential”. These differences are irreconcilable.

 

But let’s rephrase it this way: some people would rather not be born than live in poverty, and that is also not a POV I share as a person who was in poverty for the first 28 years of my life.

 

Correct, that is entirely my stance. 

[crispy4000]

45 minutes ago, legend said:

 

I have had many arguments with pro-life people over the years (including people no longer here but whom once posted in the early days of Bad Cartridge) who very much embrace the "hypothetical/ will become a person" position. I don't have any statistics, but it's absolutely an argument often used.

 

It's a position that's almost unavoidable once you press people on it, because it's very clear that a fertilized egg is not the same as a person.

 

You’re talking to one now, technically. 

 

I’d say personhood is more an attribution we place on someone.  So of course there can be a distinction, and like other general attributes of humans, one can grow into it.
 

It just doesn’t have anything to do with what makes us individual human beings materially.  Which is generally where the “potential life” view is mistaken.