SCOTUS Getting Shade Over Roe v Wade

In theory IVF is just the fertilization of an egg outside the uterus, which is then either frozen to be utilized at a later date, or replanted in the uterus.

The issue is that overtime, people have begun fertilizing multiple eggs at a time to improve the chances of success, then destroying any extras they don't want, killing them.

So.

No problem with the theory, as stated. Yes, I do have issues with the imperfections of the implimentation.


There are issues with the tech on a social level, things like women assuming "If I freeze my eggs, I can have kids at 35-40-50!", but the basic concept is fine.


Note, I'm no expert, and this isn't an issue I've read up on, so there might be something I'd hate in there, and there's a number of things I think are quite reasonable in theory, but are not nearly so good in practice. IVF might well be one of those things.
 
This definition of life raises questions about people who are knocked unconscious from head trauma or from anesthesia, or who fall into longer term comas either from trauma or by being medically induced. They're not having "thoughts". Do they cease to be alive when they fall unconscious, and come back to life when they "wake"? If not, what makes them still count as life during that period?
No. There's still brain activity going on, and thus presumably some sort of thought. Like I don't require much to count as thought. Also, this summary of a study goes into how the brain thinks while unconscious:

As for the Neural plate, I'm fairly doubtful that it does rise to thoughts, as much of it is just an electrical signal that could be compared to the classic experiment of shocking a frogs leg, or a particularly fleshy electric watch. But then I could be wrong here. I'm not married to the timeline I set out, and it could be earlier, but I doubt it. I am very confident and certain about the later edges I set out (12 and 14 weeks respectively) as the outer bounds at which point the fetus must be alive.

Crucially, though, believing life begins at conception has a lot of holes that people think don't exist, the biggest being identical twins which result from the cluster of cells splitting and, AFAICT, seems to be a physical chance thing and not a genetic thing (there's practically no variety in frequency across different populations, for example). What happened to the original bundle of cells that was presumably a person? Which one are they now? When did each of the twins' lives begin? And then you get into even weirder stuff, such as zebraism and saimese twins, manually splitting and then recombining cell bundles, etc. Basically, it's not the clear definition people like to think it is (IMO once you deal with the special cases, it's either way too messy or self-contradictory), though it does give a clear timeline, however wrong it may be.

My hypothesis gives a clear definition, but an unclear timeline, but the second is resolvable through further understanding of fetal development.
 
I'm tempted to make up twitter accounts to send them bs info.

don't this is deeply illegal shit and you do not want to be any where near this when the hammer finally comes down.

Report them to law enforcement but other then that stay away.
 
don't this is deeply illegal shit and you do not want to be any where near this when the hammer finally comes down.

Report them to law enforcement but other then that stay away.
No, what I would be doing isn't illegal even if what they are doing is. What they are doing is awful, but not illegal (protesting people in public places).
 
No, what I would be doing isn't illegal even if what they are doing is. What they are doing is awful, but not illegal (protesting people in public places).

all it takes is one maniac physically attacking a judge and the whole thing goes radioactive, and since we both know their crazy....yeah don't.

Seriously man while there are times for trolling this isn't one of them.
 
Is this one of those, "We have to look like we are doing something" deals?

Yes, the actual order is basically toothless, and for once Biden is actually making executive branch policy limit by what he can actually legally do, as opposed to blatantly illegal power grabs like the eviction mandate.
 
Under Pressure, Biden Issues Executive Order on Abortion (msn.com)

Well now issuing an exexutive order over something the states are to decide but they have no solid plan on how to do it.

Is this one of those, "We have to look like we are doing something" deals?

Late to answer this, yeah--that's exactly what it is. From what I read, literally just him having "emergency mobile abortion clinics" near the borders of red states from blue states.

Yes, the actual order is basically toothless, and for once Biden is actually making executive branch policy limit by what he can actually legally do, as opposed to blatantly illegal power grabs like the eviction mandate.

C'mon, we all know Biden isn't the one making decisions here. It's decisions by committee. Which is great when you don't want anyone to make quick decisions and very, very bad when you need someone to make quick decisions. Hence why the Afghanistan withdrawal I think, was such an unmitigated disaster. A collection of ivory tower idiots were talking around a table like analysts, rather than following their gut.

And if you think Biden was a disaster then or now, just wait six months. By that time, the Ukrainians will have depleted the stingers we've sent them (and we won't have any more for them to use for months or a year or so), the Middle East will be in flames because of a lack of food, and Africa will suffer the world's greatest famine. All because we needed to stick our nose in Ukraine, to "protect" the Ukrainians from Russia's government, who is only mildly more corrupt than the Ukrainian ones. At the cost to tens of thousands of dead Ukrainians and millions of them displaced within and without the country.

Gold star.
 
Last edited:
All because we needed to stick our nose in Ukraine, to "protect" the Ukrainians from Russia's government, who is only mildly more corrupt than the Ukrainian ones. At the cost to tens of thousands of dead Ukrainians and millions of them displaced within and without the country.
Actually, most of the famine will be the result of the Greens' movement around the world through the WEF pressuring small countries away from cheap energy and onto 'green' energy.

Sri Lanka, Ghana, etc...all of them were pressured and offered 'deals' if they went green. Now their local energy prices are skyrocketing AND they are suffering scarcity and blackouts. Which has also led to a decrease in ag production.

Tractors need fuel? Totally organic fertilizers suck? WHAAAAT?
 
Actually, most of the famine will be the result of the Greens' movement around the world through the WEF pressuring small countries away from cheap energy and onto 'green' energy.

Sri Lanka, Ghana, etc...all of them were pressured and offered 'deals' if they went green. Now their local energy prices are skyrocketing AND they are suffering scarcity and blackouts. Which has also led to a decrease in ag production.

Tractors need fuel? Totally organic fertilizers suck? WHAAAAT?

Which wouldn't be an issue of Ukraine and Russia weren't both blocked off from international trade.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top