Roe v. Wade is dead

[legend]

1 minute ago, crispy4000 said:

You don’t care about a fertilized egg because it has no cognition, so it’s a hypothetical entity?

 

I think you mean that’s when you consider it a person, and you don’t care what it was before then.

 

The fertilized egg isn't hypothetical. The person it might, under the right conditions, turn into is a hypothetical entity. If it's the person for which you have value, and not the fertilized egg, then you're valuing a hypothetical entity.

[chakoo]

 

the continued masturbatory discussion in this thread.

[skillzdadirecta]

16 minutes ago, chakoo said:

 

the continued masturbatory discussion in this thread.

Serioulsy... my feeble brain cannot hope to comprehend

[stepee]

If irregardless isn’t a word then what is it? Okay, so it’s not a word, but that is just describing what it isn’t, what IS it then? It has to be something just by the fact we are talking about it now. I’d say with lack of a fitting substitute we would associate it with its closest relative, a word. So it might not be a word that you consider part of our language but it is in fact a word.

[mclumber1]

Would it be a dick move to smash a bunch of fertilized sea turtle eggs?  

[Kal-El814]

Just now, mclumber1 said:

Would it be a dick move to smash a bunch of fertilized sea turtle eggs?  

 

 

[stepee]

1 minute ago, mclumber1 said:

Would it be a dick move to smash a bunch of fertilized sea turtle eggs?  

 

It’s okay as long as you fertilized them.

[Jwheel86]

@Commissar SFLUFAN motion for a preemptive decree that anyone using the cripple card as an argument against abortion be ejected into space? Just had that argument with a crypto smooth brain lolertarian disabled incel guy who pulled that card, jfc.

[crispy4000]

2 minutes ago, legend said:

 

The fertilized egg isn't hypothetical. The person it might, under the right conditions, turn into is a hypothetical entity. If it's the person for which you have value, and not the fertilized egg, then you're valuing a hypothetical entity.

Personhood is a hypothetical development in its life.  If that constitutes a new entity to you, it’s still one dependent on it being the same living organism.

[legend]

1 hour ago, chakoo said:

 

the continued masturbatory discussion in this thread.

 

I wish it was masturbatory! The reasoning I've been railing against is reasoning a lot of powerful people are using to shape our society. Many wealthy and typically white men reason  this way to both oppose abortion and minimize the importance of climate change because it's not as important as stopping the god-AI who will prevent the galactic civilization of humanity 1 trillion years from now.

[legend]

3 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

Personhood is a hypothetical development in its life.  If that constitutes a new entity to you, it’s still one dependent on it being the same living organism.

 

Unfertilized eggs can develop into a person. Do you give it the same consideration?

[crispy4000]

4 minutes ago, legend said:

 

Unfertilized eggs can develop into a person. Do you give it the same consideration?

 

No.  An unfertilized egg isn’t a human being.

[CitizenVectron]

2 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

 

No.  An unfertilized egg isn’t a human being.

 

But neither is a fertilized egg.

[legend]

17 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

 

No.  An unfertilized egg isn’t a human being.

 

Where a human being is what? Anything containing the right sequence of DNA? Why do you care about strands of DNA from a moral stand point? Are you sure you're not just rationalizing your causal cut off point to avoid the obvious insanity that unravels from this kind of reasoning?

[legend]

And in case anyone wants to get very angry by the larger picture I've been deeply annoyed by for the past 10 years and only getting stronger, this is a decent primer.

 

The Dangerous Ideas of “Longtermism” and “Existential Risk” ❧ Current Affairs

WWW.CURRENTAFFAIRS.ORG

---

<p>So-called rationalists have created a disturbing secular religion that looks like it addresses humanity’s deepest problems, but actually justifies pursuing the social preferences of elites.</p>

 

 

 

And yes, people in this same group are using the same reasoning to be anti-abortion. This kind of thinking is a cancer that needs to be shut down.

[crispy4000]

 

49 minutes ago, legend said:

 

Where a human being is what? Anything containing the right sequence of DNA? Why do you care about strands of DNA from a moral stand point? Are you sure you're not just rationalizing your casual cut off point to avoid the obvious insanity that unravels from this kind of reasoning?

We’re both human beings.  We started our lives as such, so I’d say trace it to our earliest living existence as a member of our species.  And yes, the science points to this being before most would regard personhood to be a thing.
 

What I believe does flow from it, in part. I consider those the facts, and a mistake to ignore in decision making on this issue. But as this thread shows, even basic biology can be denied.

 

To be pro-choice, I would need to be convinced that ending innocent human lives intentionally is generally an appropriate recourse to reducing suffering that isn’t life threatening.  And believe we could put limits on this type of thing as a society without being arbitrary and hypocritical.

[Jason]

So you think it's mass murder to blow a wad into your cum sock? 

[crispy4000]

6 minutes ago, Jason said:

So you think it's mass murder to blow a wad into your cum sock? 

No.

[crispy4000]

42 minutes ago, Ominous said:

I didn't read this whole thing, but I take it you are against IVF because it fertilizes eggs and then many of the "people" are then discarded or die because of the nature of IVF? 

 
I am.  But not for the same reasons.

 

At the least, it’s a choice I wouldn’t personally make considering the options.  If IVF was all there was to keep humanity going and build a family, sure.

[legend]

34 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

 

We’re both human beings.  We started our lives as such, so I’d say trace it to our earliest living existence as a member of our species.  And yes, the science points to this being before most would regard personhood to be a thing.
 

What I believe does flow from it, in part. I consider those the facts, and a mistake to ignore in decision making on this issue. But as this thread shows, even basic biology can be denied.

 

To be pro-choice, I would need to be convinced that ending innocent human lives intentionally is generally an appropriate recourse to reducing suffering that isn’t life threatening.  And believe we could put limits on this type of thing as a society without being arbitrary and hypocritical.

 

 

I don't follow the distinction. Both you and I can be traced to unfertilized eggs too.

[crispy4000]

2 minutes ago, legend said:

 

 

I don't follow the distinction. Both you and I can be traced to unfertilized eggs too.

You or I were never a gamete.

[legend]

15 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

You or I were never a gamete.

 

You and I absolutely came from unfertilized eggs. This is not really a debateable point  I'm guessing you want to define what "you" are after the cut off point of being fertilized, but that's kind of begging the question. Beyond that though, you haven't actually explained why it is a fertilized egg has moral value to you. Saying "it's a human being" even if I accepted the definition doesn't describe what it is you value about them.

[crispy4000]

17 minutes ago, legend said:

 

You and I absolutely came from unfertilized eggs. This is not really a debateable point  I'm guessing you want to define what "you" are after the cut off point of being fertilized, but that's kind of begging the question. Beyond that though, you haven't actually explained why it is a fertilized egg has moral value to you. Saying "it's a human being" even if I accepted the definition doesn't describe what it is you value about them.

Came from =\= lived as

 

I value innocent human life because I’d want the same courtesy afforded to me and others.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, legend said:

 

You and I absolutely came from unfertilized eggs. This is not really a debateable point  I'm guessing you want to define what "you" are after the cut off point of being fertilized, but that's kind of begging the question. Beyond that though, you haven't actually explained why it is a fertilized egg has moral value to you. Saying "it's a human being" even if I accepted the definition doesn't describe what it is you value about them.

A cake doesn’t come from a bag of sugar, even though sugar is an ingredient. That bag of sugar will never become a cake as long as it stays a bag of sugar.

 

Left to develop with no interventions, what does an unfertilized egg become? 

[legend]

4 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

Came from =\= lived as

 

You "lived as" an unfertilized egg in the same way you "lived as" a fertilized one.

 

4 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

I value innocent human life because I’d want the courtesy afforded to me.

 

If your value for others is purely transactional, then you should have no problem with aborting fertilized eggs.

 

 

 

 

[legend]

7 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

A cake doesn’t come from a bag of sugar, even though sugar is an ingredient. That bag of sugar will never become a cake as long as it stays a bag of sugar.

 

Left to develop with no interventions, what does an unfertilized egg become? 

 

A fertilized egg will never become a person on its own either. In fact, this entire topic revolves around the fact that it's quite straightforward for that to not happen!

[Massdriver]

1 hour ago, legend said:

And in case anyone wants to get very angry by the larger picture I've been deeply annoyed by for the past 10 years and only getting stronger, this is a decent primer.

 

The Dangerous Ideas of “Longtermism” and “Existential Risk” ❧ Current Affairs

WWW.CURRENTAFFAIRS.ORG

---

<p>So-called rationalists have created a disturbing secular religion that looks like it addresses humanity’s deepest problems, but actually justifies pursuing the social preferences of elites.</p>

 

 

 

And yes, people in this same group are using the same reasoning to be anti-abortion. This kind of thinking is a cancer that needs to be shut down.

Incredible. When I first read about EA, I was reading Singer and its focus was helping the global poor. Now they’ve become some kind of techno cult.  Thanks for the lesson. This explains a lot of Musk’s thinking. 
 

Consequentialism as a normative ethical theory is very robust, but can be easily misapplied. I’ve recently come to be more of a pluralist with respect to ethical theory, and specifically have sympathies to virtue ethics. 

[CastlevaniaNut18]

Why do fertilized eggs take priority over a fully cognizant woman?

 

[Bacon]

So, I haven't been keeping up. Is it dead-dead now or it is still dying? Are people holding on to a thread of hope? 

[legend]

3 minutes ago, Massdriver said:

Incredible. When I first read about EA, I was reading Singer and its focus was helping the global poor. Now they’ve become some kind of techno cult.  Thanks for the lesson. This explains a lot of Musk’s thinking. 
 

Consequentialism as a normative ethical theory is very robust, but can be easily misapplied. I’ve recently come to be more of a pluralist with respect to ethical theory, and specifically have sympathies to virtue ethics. 

 

No problem! As you know I would describe myself as a consequentialist, but the challenge with it is I think the reasoning is incredibly complex in practice. Things like the repugnant conclusion and what these people are doing is basically a classic result of people only using the most absurdly simple version of it with terrible attempts at thinking through the ramifications and taking that to its absurd conclusion.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, legend said:

 

A fertilized egg will never become a person on its own either. In fact, this entire topic revolves around the fact that it's quite straightforward for that to not happen!

A fertilized egg naturally develops into something, it is for that exact reason that abortion exists 😉

[Massdriver]

 

If my very limited knowledge of biology is somewhat correct, certain types of adult cells have all the genetic information necessary to make a clone. It’s possible to then remove all the generic material of an egg and make a person out of just some adult cells, such as skin cells from you.
 

Does that mean that when I shave I’m killing lots of potential people? All the generic material is there to make a potential person.  If genetic material deserves that much moral significance, it creates a lot of problems. 

[legend]

7 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

A fertilized egg naturally develops into something, it is for that exact reason that abortion exists 😉

 

No it doesn't! A fertilized egg is so fucking far from some independent autonomous being it's staggering. Even just considering the requirement of food that has to be injected into it to form what will become brain matter is an insanely complex process that depends not only on the mother acting in ways that will facilitate it, but the luck that the rest of her biology outside her control is functioning well.

 

You tried to highlight that saying the cake comes from sugar is wrong because it requires more ingredients and processes, but it is far more fair to say the cake comes from the sugar than a person from a fertilized egg. To say otherwise is to be completely ignorant of the complexity of that biological process.

[Massdriver]

8 minutes ago, legend said:

 

No problem! As you know I would describe myself as a consequentialist, but the challenge with it is I think the reasoning is incredibly complex in practice. Things like the repugnant conclusion and what these people are doing is basically a classic result of people only using the most absurdly simple version of it with terrible attempts at thinking through the ramifications and taking that to its absurd conclusion.

I still lean consequentialist, especially when thinking about population ethics or macro policies. But when it comes to daily living and decisions, I think there’s a lot to be said for the idea of developing character and upholding certain virtues such as justice, courage, and temperance. 

[legend]

1 minute ago, Massdriver said:

I still lean consequentialist, especially when thinking about population ethics or macro policies. But when it comes to daily living and decisions, I think there’s a lot to be said for the idea of developing character and upholding certain virtues such as justice, courage, and temperance. 

 

In practice I think that's a reasonable way to act. I also think there are some good consequential and game theory reasons that can justify it!