Roe v Wade

[rudd1]

-a little off topic...but trying to remember when "scientists" became infallible god-kings. By definition science is never settled, as many try to say. Our understanding of things evolves over time and is never static. Of course we "know" some basic stuff...but even then our understanding of that stuff changes.

^I'm pro science in the traditional sense of the word. Not in the weaponized version we have today.

 

[catlanta33]

-a little off topic...but trying to remember when "scientists" became infallible god-kings. By definition science is never settled, as many try to say. Our understanding of things evolves over time and is never static. Of course we "know" some basic stuff...but even then our understanding of that stuff changes.

^I'm pro science in the traditional sense of the word. Not in the weaponized version we have today.

About the same time the science came with political implications.

 

[TCurtis75]

Yes....and yes, it does.

No it doesn't. You can say that you think Santa Claus is real. It doesn't make it correct because there is no substantive proof available to support it. Many scientists say the same thing about life beginning at conception. It has yet to be proven. Many faiths say it does so people believe it for that reason. The Jewish faith doesn't have that belief so they don't believe it. Science has hypothesis about it but none have been concretely proven. They are still just opinions.

 

[bushrod1965]

With all due respect, you still didn't answer the question. What should they do with the eggs? Because of this ruling, should In Vitro no longer be an option? From a logisitics and cost standpoint, it is not possible to do one egg at a time to see if it will "take"? Should those couples who want to have a baby not be able to use modern medicine to make that possible? The reality is that eventually if none of these extra eggs are destroyed, storage capacity will run out. This ruling puts these procedures in jeopardy because of the potential need to destroy eggs. To me there is nothing unethical about in vitro and freezing the eggs. To me there is nothing wrong with destroying the extra eggs because until they are implanted into a woman and "take", they aren't life or human. If they are implanted into a woman and don't "take", they aren't life either IMO.

Why no answer? It’s taking a while to formulate a position on how to straddle the fence on this one. Criminalizing the implanting of fertilized eggs because other fertilized eggs will be discarded kills his pro-birth narrative. Simply discarding the extra fertilized eggs discredits his pro-birth narrative.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

With all due respect, you still didn't answer the question. What should they do with the eggs? Because of this ruling, should In Vitro no longer be an option? From a logisitics and cost standpoint, it is not possible to do one egg at a time to see if it will "take"? Should those couples who want to have a baby not be able to use modern medicine to make that possible? The reality is that eventually if none of these extra eggs are destroyed, storage capacity will run out. This ruling puts these procedures in jeopardy because of the potential need to destroy eggs. To me there is nothing unethical about in vitro and freezing the eggs. To me there is nothing wrong with destroying the extra eggs because until they are implanted into a woman and "take", they aren't life or human. If they are implanted into a woman and don't "take", they aren't life either IMO.

I think you have identified most of the issues. Respect for human life should be the objective and then you work from there. I am not venturing further down this rabbit hole with some one that does not desire to protect life.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

No it doesn't. You can say that you think Santa Claus is real. It doesn't make it correct because there is no substantive proof available to support it. Many scientists say the same thing about life beginning at conception. It has yet to be proven. Many faiths say it does so people believe it for that reason. The Jewish faith doesn't have that belief so they don't believe it. Science has hypothesis about it but none have been concretely proven. They are still just opinions.

Wrong.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

Why no answer? It’s taking a while to formulate a position on how to straddle the fence on this one. Criminalizing the implanting of fertilized eggs because other fertilized eggs will be discarded kills his pro-birth narrative. Simply discarding the extra fertilized eggs discredits his pro-birth narrative.

Or, I don’t sit here waiting for people to post, but have other things to do. It’s kind of how a message board works. It’s not new. It’s been around for decades.

And, “pro birth narrative” made me laugh. I fully accept that over pro kill.

 

[Dore95]

For some reason these days people feel as if they have to stake out extreme positions on complicated topics to appear ideologically "pure". I assume Caveman Catfan is opposed to IVF, the same way he is (apparently) opposed to abortion in all circumstances. Is he also opposed to contraception?

 

[Caveman Catfan]

For some reason these days people feel as if they have to stake out extreme positions on complicated topics to appear ideologically "pure". I assume Caveman Catfan is opposed to IVF, the same way he is (apparently) opposed to abortion in all circumstances. Is he also opposed to contraception?

Today, people call respect for human life extreme. That is extreme.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

Except there is no consensus with 100% of scientists that agree with life begins.

Why Science Can't Say When a Baby's Life Begins

If anything, science has only complicated the personhood debate.

www.wired.com

Not trying to change your mind, but the article is more about when personhood begins than when life begins. I don't really care when personhood begins. I have changed my mind on this over the years, but I think any termination of a potentially viable life is wrong. It should never be up to an arbitrary decision when a person is a human or not. If the fertilized egg would have survived without intervention, then abortion is effectively killing a person, irrespective of its current stage of development.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

Not trying to change your mind, but the article is more about when personhood begins than when life begins. I don't really care when personhood begins. I have changed my mind on this over the years, but I think any termination of a potentially viable life is wrong. It should never be up to an arbitrary decision when a person is a human or not. If the fertilized egg would have survived without intervention, then abortion is effectively killing a person, irrespective of its current stage of development.

He knows this. He knew it when he posted it. And, it was thereafter explained. But, he refuses to acknowledge the distinction and continues to claim a false narrative premised upon that sandy foundation.

 

[Dore95]

Today, people call respect for human life extreme. That is extreme.

A very small segment of our population is opposed to abortion in all circumstances, and you are part of that group. You are apparently also opposed to IVF, and that would make you part of an even smaller group. But you call others extreme.

 

[TCurtis75]

He knows this. He knew it when he posted it. And, it was thereafter explained. But, he refuses to acknowledge the distinction and continues to claim a false narrative premised upon that sandy foundation.

A fertilized egg can’t survive without intervention. It can’t survive without being implanted and carried to term inside a woman. Does that mean a fetus which can’t survive without intervention isn’t a person? If that’s the case, wouldn’t life begin around 22 weeks since that’s the earliest a fetus can survive outside the womb and therefore considered a person or life? With that being true, shouldn’t abortions be permitted up until that point?

And you still haven’t answered any of my questions about IVF.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

A very small segment of our population is opposed to abortion in all circumstances, and you are part of that group. You are apparently also opposed to IVF, and that would make you part of an even smaller group. But you call others extreme.

I accept your conclusion that respect for human life is extreme. It saddens me that we live in that culture.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

A fertilized egg can’t survive without intervention. It can’t survive without being implanted and carried to term inside a woman. Does that mean a fetus which can’t survive without intervention isn’t a person? If that’s the case, wouldn’t life begin around 22 weeks since that’s the earliest a fetus can survive outside the womb and therefore considered a person or life? With that being true, shouldn’t abortions be permitted up until that point?

And you still haven’t answered any of my questions about IVF.

A new born baby cannot survive without intervention. See how denying science and attempting to revolve issues with philosophical constructs leads to absurd conclusions?

 

[TCurtis75]

A new born baby cannot survive without intervention. See how denying science and attempting to revolve issues with philosophical constructs leads to absurd conclusions?

A newborn baby can’t survive without care. That isn’t intervention. Up until 22 weeks, the fetus isn’t viable. A new born baby is viable. That is the difference which is a huge distinction.

 

[TCurtis75]

I accept your conclusion that respect for human life is extreme. It saddens me that we live in that culture.

The problem is you don’t respect human life. You don’t respect the life of the woman. You have more respect for the unborn baby/fetus/zygote. That isn’t pro life. That’s pro birth.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

A newborn baby can’t survive without care. That isn’t intervention. Up until 22 weeks, the fetus isn’t viable. A new born baby is viable. That is the difference which is a huge distinction.

Need for constant care is not an intervention? Wrong. You are working backwards from a conclusion in an attempt to make the process fit your conclusion, while you deny simple science. It’s an irrational approach that leads to such absurd outcomes.

 

[TCurtis75]

Need for constant care is not an intervention? Wrong. You are working backwards from a conclusion in an attempt to make the process fit your conclusion, while you deny simple science. It’s an irrational approach that leads to such absurd outcomes.

Care isn’t the same thing as intervention.

 

[catlanta33]

A fertilized egg can’t survive without intervention. It can’t survive without being implanted and carried to term inside a woman. Does that mean a fetus which can’t survive without intervention isn’t a person? If that’s the case, wouldn’t life begin around 22 weeks since that’s the earliest a fetus can survive outside the womb and therefore considered a person or life? With that being true, shouldn’t abortions be permitted up until that point?

And you still haven’t answered any of my questions about IVF.

How do you know it's around 22 weeks if all scientists don't agree on that?

 

[TCurtis75]

How do you know it's around 22 weeks if all scientists don't agree on that?

Because when a baby can survive is based on what has happened and grounded in proof. That indicates a baby born at 22 weeks has survived. Ones born earlier haven’t (except in extremely rare circumstances). It’s pretty black and white. It isn’t a theory that is believed. It has been proven by actual events.

How Early Can a Baby Be Born?

The time in pregnancy when a baby is born plays an important role in fetal viability. Learn more about factors that affect how early a baby can be born.

www.verywellfamily.com

 

[catlanta33]

Because when a baby can survive is based on what has happened and grounded in proof. That indicates a baby born at 22 weeks has survived. Ones born earlier haven’t (except in extremely rare circumstances). It’s pretty black and white. It isn’t a theory that is believed. It has been proven by actual events.

Wait, what? You said earlier ITT there isn't 100% agreement of when life starts but now you're saying it's factual.

Are you cherry-picking your science?

 

[Caveman Catfan]

The problem is you don’t respect human life. You don’t respect the life of the woman. You have more respect for the unborn baby/fetus/zygote. That isn’t pro life. That’s pro birth.

Here is a huge fallacy that your side likes to self-righteously tout without evidence (a theme). You pretend that balancing competing interests means not respecting life. On the contrary, I respect the life of the woman with the womb and in the womb. I also respect the whole life of both. And, know women who have been coaxed into abortions by people who did not respect their whole life, but only their right to do something in a moment, that caused great mourning and pain later in life when they contemplated the loss the caused. So, that ugly claim is meritless, but unfortunately common in this debate.

 

[cole854]

Life is life, regardless. It does not require a time stamp, nor a definition.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

Care isn’t the same thing as intervention.

It actually is. I thought you claimed to work in healthcare. Talk to doctors about “intervention.” Babies cannot survive without adult intervention.

 

[TCurtis75]

Wait, what? You said earlier ITT there isn't 100% agreement of when life starts but now you're saying it's factual.

Are you cherry-picking your science?

I said there is documented proof that babies have survived at 22 weeks. It’s easy to document. Either they survive or they don’t. That is fully black and white. There is no such proof about when life begins. That is only opinions and falls completely in gray areas.

 

[TCurtis75]

Life is life, regardless. It does not require a time stamp, nor a definition.

If the right requires a definition for woman then a definition is required for life as well.

 

[catlanta33]

I said there is documented proof that babies have survived at 22 weeks. It’s easy to document. Either they survive or they don’t. That is fully black and white. There is no such proof about when life begins. That is only opinions and falls completely in gray areas.

What opinion happens in the prior 22 weeks?

 

[ukcatz12]

Not sure if everyone understands this yet but a freezer =/= a uterus.

So you've moved the goalposts. Life is not dependent on where something is. The cool thing about a fully formed human being is it's considered life whether it's in a freezer or not. If the location of a clump of cells is what depends if it's a human being or not, then it's not a human being.

 

[TCurtis75]

What opinion happens in the prior 22 weeks?

Based on my research, except in extremely rare cases, the baby fails to survive. Even at 22 weeks, the chance of permanent disability is extremely high. Which again is based on things that actually happened.

 

[catlanta33]

So you've moved the goalposts. Life is not dependent on where something is. The cool thing about a fully formed human being is it's considered life whether it's in a freezer or not. If the location of a clump of cells is what depends if it's a human being or not, then it's not a human being.

Um, I'm didn't. There is a difference of how I see the argument when comparing what's in a uterus vs what's in a freezer. I didn't invoke IVF or the idea that destroying eggs is murder; that was others.

 

[TCurtis75]

It actually is. I thought you claimed to work in healthcare. Talk to doctors about “intervention.” Babies cannot survive without adult intervention.

I’ve never claimed to work in healthcare.

 

[cole854]

If the right requires a definition for woman ....

Huh?

 

[catlanta33]

Based on my research, except in extremely rare cases, the baby fails to survive. Even at 22 weeks, the chance of permanent disability is extremely high. Which again is based on things that actually happened.

Got that. What I'm asking is what is the prevailing opinion of what happens inside the uterus during the first 22 weeks.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

A fertilized egg can’t survive without intervention. It can’t survive without being implanted and carried to term inside a woman. Does that mean a fetus which can’t survive without intervention isn’t a person? If that’s the case, wouldn’t life begin around 22 weeks since that’s the earliest a fetus can survive outside the womb and therefore considered a person or life? With that being true, shouldn’t abortions be permitted up until that point?

And you still haven’t answered any of my questions about IVF.

That seems rather arbitrary to me. A baby can't survive without intervention. Leave a 6 month old baby in the middle of your living room floor and come back in a month and you will find a dead baby. I would suspect intervention is required to keep a human alive for several years.

 

[CatsFanGG24]

So you've moved the goalposts. Life is not dependent on where something is. The cool thing about a fully formed human being is it's considered life whether it's in a freezer or not. If the location of a clump of cells is what depends if it's a human being or not, then it's not a human being.

Clump of cells is usually a defense mechanism in this argument, which i do not think helps that side...but when does the clump of cells morph into something more?

 

[TCurtis75]

Got that. What I'm asking is what is the prevailing opinion of what happens inside the uterus during the first 22 weeks.

You can look up the stages of development on line that will break down what happens when during gestation. Again that isn’t opinion. It is documented fact.

 

[TCurtis75]

Clump of cells is usually a defense mechanism in this argument, which i do not think helps that side...but when does the clump of cells morph into something more?

I would say when it changes from a zygote to a fetus.

 

[catlanta33]

You can look up the stages of development on line that will break down what happens when during gestation. Again that isn’t opinion. It is documented fact.

I actually posted some of it yesterday but you're claiming it's opinion but suddenly around 22 weeks, things became factual.

Are you really not following along with this?

 

[catlanta33]

You can look up the stages of development on line that will break down what happens when during gestation. Again that isn’t opinion. It is documented fact.

Almost forgot, stages of what development?