Leaked/breaking:Roe v. Wade expected to be overturned

[chipbennett]

Why do conservatives so dumb to play liberals' games? What do you actually win if abortion is banned(it won't because on Roe v. Wade). Abortion is one way to warm up the liberal voter base, specially the suburban women. All of sudden the heat on Biden's back is off, nobody talks about how bad of a situation he's got our country into. They want abortion to be a bigger issue, but sure don't feed fuel to their fire.

Stop focusing on abortion, Roe v. Wade is about the federal government overtaking individual state's rights to govern themselves.

I want better life for the later generations, it has to come through the ballot box. Don't rely on one or two justices to change the outcome of state's rights, because they can overturn it today, they can also reinstate it tomorrow.

Abortions have been around for decades, a lot of liberty minded people, specially the younger generation, don't care about it, and in REALITY it will not disappear because RvW is overturned.

I care about the inflation, the economy, illegal immigration, drugs coming over the boarder. I want to get rid of the Dept of Education, the ATF, the IRS, the EPA. All of which, are more important the abortions. I spoke with few 20-30 year olds after the news broke, none of them gives a flying F$%^ about abortions, but they do want to keep their hard earned money and their guns.

Educate the public, get RvW overturned so we can take back the state's rights. Abortion is just gonna be a bonus.

I care about the unjust taking of the lives of the most innocent and vulnerable among us.

 

[KG1]

The Rape Question is merely application of Alinsky tactics. Over 98% of abortions are purely elective. Fewer than 2% of abortions are due to threat to the life of the mother, rape, or incest.

Should rape be an exception? No. The act of rape is despicable, but it is not the fault of the human life created through that despicable act, and that human life should not be forced to have its life taken due to a despicable act committed by its father.

Can I "hold my nose" and make peace with a rape exception? Yes. Without hesitation. Protecting the lives of more than 98% of the human beings currently being taken through abortion is unquestionably a net positive outcome.

I think the rape and or medical necessity of the mother's health even more so, as in the debate on saving the life of the pregnant mother in crisis have reason for discussion but using the abortion route so easily as an elective means to address certain lifestyle choices of the majority are the most troublesome.

 

[chipbennett]

Probably the best non-religious argument is that an aborted pregnancy even before sentience is indeed choosing to end a *potential* sentient life. But why does that matter? Does a law have to be based on secular reasoning before it can be a law?

It doesn't matter that you don't have religious beliefs that drive your thinking on abortion. People have a right to what they believe and they have a right to vote according to their beliefs. Maybe they're full of ****, or maybe you are.

Please provide objective, scientific definition of the point at which an unborn human being gains sentience. Further, please provide an objective, scientific rationale for why human life requires said sentience, and when "potential" sentience and "potential" human life become actual human life.

 

[chipbennett]

I think the rape and or medical necessity of the mother's health even more so, as in the debate on saving the life of the pregnant mother in crisis have reason for discussion but using the abortion route so easily as an elective means to address certain lifestyle choices of the majority are the most troublesome.

Life of the mother is, of course, a rational and required exception.

Rape and incest are not.

 

[jamil]

I've got a few problems with this. First scientifically speaking life begins at conception, that single cell is life by scientific definition. Another is "potential human", it is human. It can be nothing else, it's not going to turn into a puppy or a kitten. It is human.

You can call it “science” to say that the embryo is living. It delves into unknown territory to call it a life in the way that religious people define it in service of their beliefs. Is it a sin to kill any human living cell? Or just the ones involved in becoming human beings? You’d probably have a hard time convincing the average atheist to agree with you that it’s a non-religious argument.

Regarding sentience, there have been multiple studies that show sentience doesn't develop until several months after birth. Now the possibility of sentience does develop much earlier in the womb, but actual sentience no. It also doesn't cover those with severe mental defects who will never become sentient, so where do you draw the line? Okay to kill after birth but before they develop actual sentience, severe mental defects anytime after birth?

How are we defining sentience?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I think the rape and or medical necessity of the mother's health even more so, as in the debate on saving the life of the pregnant mother in crisis have reason for discussion but using the abortion route so easily as an elective means to address certain lifestyle choices of the majority are the most troublesome.

Life of the mother is, of course, a rational and required exception.

Rape and incest are not.

From what I’ve read such cases are so rare with modern medical technology so as to virtually be a moot point.

 

[jamil]

Please provide objective, scientific definition of the point at which an unborn human being gains sentience. Further, please provide an objective, scientific rationale for why human life requires said sentience, and when "potential" sentience and "potential" human life become actual human life.

We don’t know. Undoubtedly it’s not exactly at the same point universally. It’s just a point where the most people agree that it’s immoral to abort that “life” however you wish to define life.

From a secular standpoint, there’s no objective justification outside of religious belief to award equal rights at conception. It’s when we approach something like sentience that objective reasons form.

 

[chipbennett]

It's the open hostility in the presentation itself that causes the problem. It no longer becomes a civil dialog worthy of continuation and causes the discussion to get shut down by the mods who have no other choice but to do so.

The choice always exists merely to ignore such hostility. Some things are posted purely to cause an emotional response. Why give it?

 

[jamil]

From what I’ve read such cases are so rare with modern medical technology so as to virtually be a moot point.

But, it’s an effective “gotcha” question because to most people, forcing a woman to go through pregnancy because she was raped is an unreasonable policy. But once asked, a person with such views must deflect the question or answer it honestly. The better choice would be to deflect. Which saying it’s rare, is indeed a deflection. The point is the unreasonable belief to most people. And this is another area where the position has a purely religious origin.

 

[Leadeye]

Yep. Let's put it this way. You won't see me posting about buying it in the "What gun stuff did you buy today?" thread. That's because I won't be buying it and not because I did buy it and I'm trying to hide it.

I think John Hart's Colt from his stint as the Lone Ranger gaveled for about a quarter of that big number. It's in the Cody museum now.

 

[jamil]

The choice always exists merely to ignore such hostility. Some things are posted purely to cause an emotional response. Why give it?

I think it’s fair to call out that behavior. But without the emotion that equal contempt would conjur.

 

[chipbennett]

To religious people "life" begins at conception, which I think can only be defended on religious grounds. In other words, that there is something more sacred about an embryo than just the fact that its a potential human, and that it follows that an embryo at it's earliest point even, has the full rights of any other human being in society.

Such a statement can only be believed when one ignores basic, scientific fact as taught in high school freshman biology class. "Sentience" is not a requirement for the scientific definition of "life". "Personhood" is a non-scientific construct. The two-celled zygote is living. It meets the biological definition of life. The two-celled zygote is a human being. It meets the genetic definition of "human being". Genetically (and physiologically), the developing human life is distinct from the life/body of the mother.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

We don’t know. Undoubtedly it’s not exactly at the same point universally. It’s just a point where the most people agree that it’s immoral to abort that “life” however you wish to define life.

From a secular standpoint, there’s no objective justification outside of religious belief to award equal rights at conception. It’s when we approach something like sentience that objective reasons form.

Though I haven't replied to this thread for a few pages, I've been reading a lot of the responses, and I think this is like the sixth or so post in which you've tried to explain why you think there's no secular argument against abortion pre-sentience, and your reasoning become more murky to me with each post. Just to clarify, do you also believe that there is no objective reason, from a secular standpoint, to award equal rights to people in a vegetative state?

What's wrong with the following argument, which makes no reference to religion?

1) Meaningful laws must be capable of being enforced based on objective criteria
2) There are no objective criteria for determining if a human life has sentience
3) Therefore, any meaningful law that protects human life must not be based on the concept of sentience
4) Human life can be easily defined using objective, scientific criteria
5) Therefore, in makes sense to protect ALL human life

In other words, even if you believe that some certain human lives are not worth protecting under the law (from a secular standpoint) it makes more sense to continue protecting those lives, than to open the door to having which human lives are or are not worth protecting be determined by subjective, squishy criteria like "sentience."

 

[chipbennett]

You can call it “science” to say that the embryo is living. It delves into unknown territory to call it a life in the way that religious people define it in service of their beliefs. Is it a sin to kill any human living cell? Or just the ones involved in becoming human beings? You’d probably have a hard time convincing the average atheist to agree with you that it’s a non-religious argument.


How are we defining sentience?

First: life is defined scientifically. Why do the non-religious keep bringing in religious belief? Perhaps because it is a straw man erected for demolishing, since objective science is abundantly clear regarding the definition of life?

Similarly, "to kill any human living cell" is also a straw man. Surely, one can argue from a position of sincerity, rather than conflate a human cell with the entire human being?

 

[AndreusMaximus]

But, it’s an effective “gotcha” question because to most people, forcing a woman to go through pregnancy because she was raped is an unreasonable policy. But once asked, a person with such views must deflect the question or answer it honestly. The better choice would be to deflect. Which saying it’s rare, is indeed a deflection. The point is the unreasonable belief to most people. And this is another area where the position has a purely religious origin.

There you go again. Do you really believe that no atheist can find objective, reasonable grounds for NOT condemning a child to death for the crime of his/her father? I'm not exactly pro-atheist by any stretch, but even I wouldn't accuse them of that.

Maybe I'm reading you all wrong here, but this is really coming across weird to me...

 

[chipbennett]

We don’t know. Undoubtedly it’s not exactly at the same point universally. It’s just a point where the most people agree that it’s immoral to abort that “life” however you wish to define life.

From a secular standpoint, there’s no objective justification outside of religious belief to award equal rights at conception. It’s when we approach something like sentience that objective reasons form.

How do objective reasons emanate from something that you admit that you don't know/can't define? That sounds, to me, like the polar opposite of objective.

The biological definition of life is clear. Why do you wish to introduce other definitions of life?

 

[KG1]

Life of the mother is, of course, a rational and required exception.

Rape and incest are not.

I can certainly acknowledge your point. It's the elective remedy for lifestyle choices which I find to be the most unacceptable of them all. It's not the baby making the mistake that must be sacrificed for your choices. Now some pro choice also make the argument that in the case rape and incest it should be a valid acceptation because it wasn't the consenting mistaken choice of the mother.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

You can call it “science” to say that the embryo is living. It delves into unknown territory to call it a life in the way that religious people define it in service of their beliefs. Is it a sin to kill any human living cell? Or just the ones involved in becoming human beings? You’d probably have a hard time convincing the average atheist to agree with you that it’s a non-religious argument.


How are we defining sentience?

I don't call it science, it is science. A single cell amoeba is life. Why are you bringing sin and religion into it? We're discussing science. And killing any human living cell, is different than killing a human life. Is it acceptable in some instances to end a human life? Yes. Is it acceptable in some instances to kill a human cell? Again yes. And you keep saying "becoming a human being". It is a human being.

I'm going old school definition, sense of self/being self aware/consciousness.

 

[Route 45]

Of course it's only about protecting babies. Just like gun control is only about bumpstocks.

Batshit crazy does not only reside on the left.

Worst President in several decades, and Republitards are bound and determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory this November.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Of course it's only about protecting babies. Just like gun control is only about bumpstocks.

Batshit crazy does not only reside on the left.

Worst President in several decades, and Republitards are bound and determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory this November.

View attachment 199568

I wonder if some of this is hyperbole kinda like Jim Lucas' draft bill requiring a 1st amendment license? you know, created to make a point but not actually designed/intended to be implemented.