SCOTUS Getting Shade Over Roe v Wade

[Agent23]

So what makes NASA's definition of life more credible than a Christian's? And before you say science backs it up, recall that science backs up the fact that conception happens, too.

What makes the opinion of a subsection of one sect of Judaism at one particular point in time more credible than the scientific definition of life?

Actual born babies "siphon off" resources from nursing as well. Are they not humans? They are in fact wholly reliant on humans, and will die without human care.

No breathing, no hydration, probably no liver to syphon off toxins....

 

[Rocinante]

What makes the opinion of a subsection of one sect of Judaism at one particular point in time more credible than the scientific definition of life?


No breathing, no hydration, probably no liver to syphon off toxins....

Neither one is more credible. There is no experiment or test to confirm that NASA's definition is in fact where life begins. It's just something that people agreed on because it feels good.

When you accept that you're actually basing your opinion on philosophical agreements the same way as the life at conception crowd, then you can actually have a rational discussion about it.

But if you each keep shouting and demanding that you're right, it'll never go anywhere.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

The capability to function independently.

So...since an infant/todler/child can't really function independently and survive...or an elder in hospice care...are they humans?

 

[Bacle]

You all forget you are arguing with a vatnik and tankie; they are psychologically incapable of admitting fault or error or over-reach.

 

[LordsFire]

What makes the opinion of a subsection of one sect of Judaism at one particular point in time more credible than the scientific definition of life?

By the definition from NASA you linked, a fetus is alive from the moment of conception.

 

[Agent23]

Neither one is more credible. There is no experiment or test to confirm that NASA's definition is in fact where life begins. It's just something that people agreed on because it feels good.

When you accept that you're actually basing your opinion on philosophical agreements the same way as the life at conception crowd, then you can actually have a rational discussion about it.

But if you each keep shouting and demanding that you're right, it'll never go anywhere.

You are the one bringing stupid, emotional arguments coming from the SJW classic idiots in the discussion, not me.I have stated my view, I stand by it.

So...since an infant/todler/child can't really function independently and survive...or an elder in hospice care...are they humans?

Take a human, strip out the ability to breathe, remove the liver, lungs, stomach, pancreas, the muscles, the ability to see and hear and comprehend anything beyond rudimentary stimuli, take away everything that human has learned ever.
Is that life?

Your analogy is flawed.

By the definition from NASA you linked, a fetus is alive from the moment of conception.

No, it is 100% dependent on the host organism and mindless.

It is not autonomous life, let alone autonomous intelligent life.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

Take a human, strip out the ability to breathe, remove the liver, lungs, stomach, pancreas, the muscles, the ability to see and hear and comprehend anything beyond rudimentary stimuli, take away everything that human has learned ever.
Is that life?

Your analogy is flawed.

Yes, it is life.

As a counterpoint, what is it if only the liver is missing? The lungs? Sight and or Hearing? Muscles?

 

[Agent23]

Yes, it is life.

As a counterpoint, what is it if only the liver is missing? The lungs? Sight and or Hearing? Muscles?

Stop cherrypicking.
Is what I described life or not?

 

[The Whispering Monk]

Stop cherrypicking.
Is what I described life or not?

I answered.

Now do me the same courtesy and answer my question as well.

 

[Agent23]

I answered.

Now do me the same courtesy and answer my question as well.

No, you cherry picked a few types of functional degradation and wanted me to examine them individually.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

Nevermind, we'll stop talking. Start granting me the same courtesy in this discussion, and I'll we can keep going.

 

[Agent23]

Yeah, unwatching this thread, since I have said my peace, I have no dog in this fight.

TL;DR I do not view an unimplanted Zygote or a fetus that is unviable outside of the womb as a "baby", and this whole thing happening now is a distraction from Brandon's other megafails.

But do keep taking the bait as double digit real inflation destroys your purchasing power.
The west, and the world, is fucked, anyway.

I am here for AH, VS. SF&F related discussions and general weebery, not religion.

 

[Morphic Tide]

It's them killing a innocent child that did nothing wrong

To you, and that's the biggest problem. The inverse of what was stated later applies: You need to get in through your skull that the other side has a logically coherent, even if not fully fleshed out to the last edge-case, idea of when life starts that draws the line later than yours.

Using conception doesn't work, because then 90% of humans are miscarried. Probably even more. Extremely few zygotes make it to term. It makes life insultingly cheap, because the extremely vast minority of the time it goes nowhere at all.

Your own definition also fails to cover identical twins and cloning, because we land right back at featural definitions to define when the lives become separate. In which case, why not use such in the first place instead of putting moral value on something with less than a 10% chance of getting any meaningful biological features?

 

[Cherico]

To you, and that's the biggest problem. The inverse of what was stated later applies: You need to get in through your skull that the other side has a logically coherent, even if not fully fleshed out to the last edge-case, idea of when life starts that draws the line later than yours.

Using conception doesn't work, because then 90% of humans are miscarried. Probably even more. Extremely few zygotes make it to term. It makes life insultingly cheap, because the extremely vast minority of the time it goes nowhere at all.

Your own definition also fails to cover identical twins and cloning, because we land right back at featural definitions to define when the lives become separate. In which case, why not use such in the first place instead of putting moral value on something with less than a 10% chance of getting any meaningful biological features?

realistically this is just getting kicked down to the states.

Different states will have different rules about how to handle things, some will handle abortions later then others. I think this is an issue best left to different communities to decide what works for them. I never liked the one sized fits all bullshit we have been doing since the world wars.

 

[Vyor]

Viability outside of the womb and neural activity.
So somewhere around 21 - 26 weeks, I'd say.

Neural activity is 8-10 weeks.

 

[Vyor]

also enjoy ACTUAL SCIENCE

An extra-uterine system to physiologically support the extreme premature lamb - Nature Communications

The ability to support the development of a premature fetus in the form of an extracorporeal system has had limited success. Here, the authors show that an extra-uterine device that mimics the intra-uterine environment can provide physiologic support for the extreme premature lamb fetus for four...

www.nature.com

 

[Floridaman]

So...since an infant/todler/child can't really function independently and survive...or an elder in hospice care...are they humans?

Congragulations you rediscovered the argument for eugenics, this was an actual view,Until after the Germans, when it became unpopular., this inability to survive independently was also why eugenicists including the founder of planned parenthood proposed sterilizing the physically and mentally unfit, and those on wellfare.

 

[Blasterbot]

Congragulations you rediscovered the argument for eugenics, this was an actual view,Until after the Germans, when it became unpopular., this inability to survive independently was also why eugenicists including the founder of planned parenthood proposed sterilizing the physically and mentally unfit, and those on wellfare.

most people are incapable of functioning on their own. how many people can be dropped in a savannah with nothing and live? how many depend on others for shelter? food? water? the idea that it is independence from others that is what determines whether you are alive is hilarious to me because 80% of people wouldn't be alive by that standard.

 

[Agent23]

most people are incapable of functioning on their own. how many people can be dropped in a savannah with nothing and live? how many depend on others for shelter? food? water? the idea that it is independence from others that is what determines whether you are alive is hilarious to me because 80% of people wouldn't be alive by that standard.

Clearly you don't get what dependence means in this case.
As in, the fetus's metabolism is permanently attached to and taxing another metabolism and seperation is impossible.
And good job disregarding the bits about higher brain function being permanently impaired.

 

[Bear Ribs]

Clearly you don't get what dependence means in this case.
As in, the fetus's metabolism is permanently attached to and taxing another metabolism and seperation is impossible.
And good job disregarding the bits about higher brain function being permanently impaired.

So basically no humans at all, given how hilariously dependent we all are on symbionts living inside us?