Roe vs Wade possibly to be overturned

[Davnasty]

Of course, the biblically supported solution for abortion is for pregnant women to get into more fights.

“When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman’s husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine.” - Exodus 21:22

As long as the husband doesn't complain, a person who injures a pregnant woman enough to miscarry through fisticuffs should be subject to no penalty.  But I mean . . . that's only if those pro-lifer's are interested in the word of God.

That's quite a stretch of that reading. I interpret it as recognizing that causing a miscarriage (i.e. killing an unborn person) is a crime and there is a penalty associated with it. Which is something many states in the US have also ruled as a crime. If you kill a pregnant woman you can be charged with two counts of murder because you're killing two people.

This passage doesn't indicate that causing a miscarriage is murder, it's a stretch to even read this as calling it a crime. Like GuitarStv said, it's only punished if the husband says so. Even then, it can only be a fine. So what it really says is monetary punishment to be determined by the husband and somehow that translates to bible says it's murder? Nevermind the fact that this passage, as well as many others, makes it clear that men are in charge and women are more of a possession of men than a human with their own rights. But I guess you can just ignore those parts?

The fact is, the bible doesn't determine the beliefs of people.  They come in with a belief and Roshach blot the Bible to fit.

[Michael in ABQ]

Can someone who knows more about US Constitutional law than me explain how forcing a woman to carry an unwanted foetus isn't "involuntary servitude" and banned by the 13th Amendment?

No "State's rights" for the 13th Amendment, I think.

By that logic, all parents are involuntary servants. When parents kill their children, or they die from abuse or neglect they go to jail because we recognize it as a heinous crime. But somehow, it's all perfectly fine if that same child isn't wanted and it happens out of sight behind closed doors in an abortion clinic.

The entire fault with this logic is that it relies entirely on defining all life stages post-conception as "a child", regardless of biology, viability and circumstance. That's an enormous leap to make on theology alone, and might explain why even a majority of catholics in the US support abortion in its current form.

Fine, replace the word "child" with person. An unborn child is still a person are they not? They're a human being moments after birth and they're a human being moments before birth. Biology dictates that life begins at conception - not just theology. It doesn't say that human life begins at implantation, or viability (a constantly moving target), or birth. A unique new human life is created the moment an egg is fertilized and a zygote is created.

I can't speak for all Catholics, especially not the ones who choose to ignore one of the most basic tenets of the faith. There's about 70 million in the US, so it's not exactly a monolithic group. A lot of people identify as Catholic because they go to a relatives Baptism and maybe attend Mass on Easter. When you look at the breakdown between those who are practicing Catholics (i.e. attend church weekly) it shifts from about a 50/50 split on abortion to about 25/50.

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/religious-tradition/catholic/views-about-abortion#attendance-at-religious-services

[nereo]

As a fairly new parent it has been eye opening how little support we give to families of children age 0-6, despite constant political rhetoric about “helping struggling middle class families”

Maternal leave is short or non existent, paternal leave is even less. There is a tax break which predominately helps high-income wage earners, but that’s about it. I’ve been shocked at the number of people who have either hunted or directly told my wife she should put her career on pause until our daughter is in elementary school - yet no one has suggested this to me even though she has just as much training and education and a similar salary.

Somehow every daycare has at least a 4-6 month waiting list, and the good ones can be well over a year. When our jobs forced us to move we were told we were just SOL. Moving to a new town when your kid is too young for kindergarten is deeply frowned upon, even if it’s for “a better life”

Health care for pregnancy and postpartum is riddled with holes and large unexpected expenses. There’s an outright expectancy from the medical community that most women will not be able to return to pre-pregnancy level of function, ever, unless they are able to take time off (which few get) and do a bunch of PT (which isn’t covered by most insurance).

I’ve watched Dems try to plug many of these holes for the last 10+ years but get repeatedly blocked. I’ve listened to the GOP talk about being about the family and then constantly take decisions and options away from mothers and families.

We can’t claim to be a society that supports families and young children until we have these basic needs provided for. Arguing that it’s for “the unborn children” wreaks of hypocrisy

[nereo]

Can someone who knows more about US Constitutional law than me explain how forcing a woman to carry an unwanted foetus isn't "involuntary servitude" and banned by the 13th Amendment?

No "State's rights" for the 13th Amendment, I think.

By that logic, all parents are involuntary servants. When parents kill their children, or they die from abuse or neglect they go to jail because we recognize it as a heinous crime. But somehow, it's all perfectly fine if that same child isn't wanted and it happens out of sight behind closed doors in an abortion clinic.

The entire fault with this logic is that it relies entirely on defining all life stages post-conception as "a child", regardless of biology, viability and circumstance. That's an enormous leap to make on theology alone, and might explain why even a majority of catholics in the US support abortion in its current form.

Fine, replace the word "child" with person. An unborn child is still a person are they not? They're a human being moments after birth and they're a human being moments before birth. Biology dictates that life begins at conception - not just theology. It doesn't say that human life begins at implantation, or viability (a constantly moving target), or birth. A unique new human life is created the moment an egg is fertilized and a zygote is created.

Good lord no. Hence the problem. You wish to categorize a newly fertilized egg as a “person” or a “child” based on religion and not science.
Eggs and sperm are by definition “alive”. Your argument seems to require a distinction between being “alive” and being a “life”. Which is where it all falls apart.

[simonsez]

Can someone who knows more about US Constitutional law than me explain how forcing a woman to carry an unwanted foetus isn't "involuntary servitude" and banned by the 13th Amendment?

No "State's rights" for the 13th Amendment, I think.

By that logic, all parents are involuntary servants. When parents kill their children, or they die from abuse or neglect they go to jail because we recognize it as a heinous crime. But somehow, it's all perfectly fine if that same child isn't wanted and it happens out of sight behind closed doors in an abortion clinic.

The entire fault with this logic is that it relies entirely on defining all life stages post-conception as "a child", regardless of biology, viability and circumstance. That's an enormous leap to make on theology alone, and might explain why even a majority of catholics in the US support abortion in its current form.

Fine, replace the word "child" with person. An unborn child is still a person are they not? They're a human being moments after birth and they're a human being moments before birth. Biology dictates that life begins at conception - not just theology. It doesn't say that human life begins at implantation, or viability (a constantly moving target), or birth. A unique new human life is created the moment an egg is fertilized and a zygote is created.

I can't speak for all Catholics, especially not the ones who choose to ignore one of the most basic tenets of the faith. There's about 70 million in the US, so it's not exactly a monolithic group. A lot of people identify as Catholic because they go to a relatives Baptism and maybe attend Mass on Easter. When you look at the breakdown between those who are practicing Catholics (i.e. attend church weekly) it shifts from about a 50/50 split on abortion to about 25/50.

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/religious-tradition/catholic/views-about-abortion#attendance-at-religious-services

As to the bolded - um, no?!?!  Life* can begin at conception, sure - but you're slapping on a label of human/person immediately then?  That's not how our society normally defines a person.  You can make up whatever definitions you want for your personal life, but I'm not going to hold my breath for the IRS and SSA to start counting fetuses as humans - but hey, if they do then I suppose I've grossly overpaid past taxes and under-received insurance bennies in years that coincided with miscarriages.

* Whatever "life" means, we don't have a consensus on what that means either, thus easier to start all the clocks at birth and go from there.

[seattlecyclone]

Can someone who knows more about US Constitutional law than me explain how forcing a woman to carry an unwanted foetus isn't "involuntary servitude" and banned by the 13th Amendment?

No "State's rights" for the 13th Amendment, I think.

That one's easy!

The Supreme Court of the United States is made up of far right conservatives (how it will most likely stay for the majority of the rest of our lifetimes) . . . and they're the highest voice in the land on legal matters.  They have decided to ignore any inconvenient any facts that contradict their socially conservative agenda.  So if they say it's not involuntary servitude - it's not!  The end.

Have they actually said that it's not?  Or has the Roe v Wade reliance on the 14th Amendment mean that the point hasn't been litigated yet?

I'm not aware of any abortion-related challenges under the 13th Amendment. If one were to pop up I'd expect the Selective Draft Law Cases (where it was decided that the 13th Amendment didn't prohibit involuntary military service) would figure strongly in the decision.

[GuitarStv]

Can someone who knows more about US Constitutional law than me explain how forcing a woman to carry an unwanted foetus isn't "involuntary servitude" and banned by the 13th Amendment?

No "State's rights" for the 13th Amendment, I think.

By that logic, all parents are involuntary servants. When parents kill their children, or they die from abuse or neglect they go to jail because we recognize it as a heinous crime. But somehow, it's all perfectly fine if that same child isn't wanted and it happens out of sight behind closed doors in an abortion clinic.

The entire fault with this logic is that it relies entirely on defining all life stages post-conception as "a child", regardless of biology, viability and circumstance. That's an enormous leap to make on theology alone, and might explain why even a majority of catholics in the US support abortion in its current form.

Fine, replace the word "child" with person. An unborn child is still a person are they not? They're a human being moments after birth and they're a human being moments before birth. Biology dictates that life begins at conception - not just theology. It doesn't say that human life begins at implantation, or viability (a constantly moving target), or birth. A unique new human life is created the moment an egg is fertilized and a zygote is created.

Good lord no. Hence the problem. You wish to categorize a newly fertilized egg as a “person” or a “child” based on religion and not science.
Eggs and sperm are by definition “alive”. Your argument seems to require a distinction between being “alive” and being a “life”. Which is where it all falls apart.

Thank you!

It's very frustrating when discussing these things with people who steadfastly refuse to acknowledge the definition of terms because they want to misuse things for emotional impact.

An unborn child is still a person are they not?

There's no such thing as an 'unborn child'.  A child exists after birth and before puberty.  A fertilized human egg that develops and grows inside the uterus is a 'fetus'.

There are a variety of hazy definitions for 'person', which makes it a poor term to try to use in these discussions.

[CodingHare]

Whether a fetus is 'alive' or not is irrelevant.  Even if you choose to extend it personhood*, it still doesn't give it the right to use the host body's organs without the parent's consent.

* We don't extend fetuses citizen status, social security numbers, or life insurance policies until they are outside the birth canal, funny how pro-lifers only care about giving them the right to override bodily autonomy of the parent.

You can believe whatever you want about what counts as alive enough, or person-y enough.  It is irrelevant in the framework of consent.  You can't harvest a kidney from a dead corpse to save a dying man without the corpse's prior consent from when they were a living person.  But pregnant people have less rights than the dead, according to the forced birth crowd.

[Just Joe]

Ding ding ding.  Which means we get to order pills from Mexico.  Definitely won't be cut with rat poison or anything.

See also all the bills Texas is passing to make it possible to sue anyone involved in helping a person get an abortion.  Send them meds? Sued.  Buy them a plane ticket to a blue state? Sued.

Fire up the Abortion Underground Railroad. Me and the Missus would happily give a 500 mile ride to a young lady who needs a ride to a safe state. No, I have no idea why she is going there. Probably to see a cousin or a job interview. Just needs a ride. Someone else could give her a ride home in a few days.

[RetiredAt63]

As a fairly new parent it has been eye opening how little support we give to families of children age 0-6, despite constant political rhetoric about “helping struggling middle class families”

Maternal leave is short or non existent, paternal leave is even less. There is a tax break which predominately helps high-income wage earners, but that’s about it. I’ve been shocked at the number of people who have either hunted or directly told my wife she should put her career on pause until our daughter is in elementary school - yet no one has suggested this to me even though she has just as much training and education and a similar salary.

Somehow every daycare has at least a 4-6 month waiting list, and the good ones can be well over a year. When our jobs forced us to move we were told we were just SOL. Moving to a new town when your kid is too young for kindergarten is deeply frowned upon, even if it’s for “a better life”

Health care for pregnancy and postpartum is riddled with holes and large unexpected expenses. There’s an outright expectancy from the medical community that most women will not be able to return to pre-pregnancy level of function, ever, unless they are able to take time off (which few get) and do a bunch of PT (which isn’t covered by most insurance).

I’ve watched Dems try to plug many of these holes for the last 10+ years but get repeatedly blocked. I’ve listened to the GOP talk about being about the family and then constantly take decisions and options away from mothers and families.

We can’t claim to be a society that supports families and young children until we have these basic needs provided for. Arguing that it’s for “the unborn children” wreaks of hypocrisy

It's as if there is a group somewhere saying "our birth rate is going down, we have to DO SOMETHING!!!  But let's use the stick, not the carrot.  So forget good pre and post natal health care, good daycare, good maternity and paternity leaves, general support for families with young children, that would cost us money.  So we will make it really hard for young women to not have babies, we will limit sex ed, we will limit access to birth control, we will eliminate abortions, they are stuck having those babies.  And if we have a high maternal death rate for an OECD country, so what?  Job accomplished."

What if my imaginary group chose the carrot?

My extended family and DD's friend group is exploding with babies.  They all got married over the last 5-6 years.  They are in their late 20s and early 30s, have good jobs with good parental leave (blue collar/skilled trades as well as white collar jobs).  EI supplements paid leave.  Their pregnancy health costs were minimal, OHIP covers it all.  They have daycare (Ontario has just signed a deal with the feds for $10/day daycare, not implemented yet, but DD had several choices for daycares).  But they had those babies when they were ready to have them, not because they were stuck.  World of difference.

[partgypsy]

Of course, the biblically supported solution for abortion is for pregnant women to get into more fights.

“When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman’s husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine.” - Exodus 21:22

As long as the husband doesn't complain, a person who injures a pregnant woman enough to miscarry through fisticuffs should be subject to no penalty.  But I mean . . . that's only if those pro-lifer's are interested in the word of God.

That's quite a stretch of that reading. I interpret it as recognizing that causing a miscarriage (i.e. killing an unborn person) is a crime and there is a penalty associated with it. Which is something many states in the US have also ruled as a crime. If you kill a pregnant woman you can be charged with two counts of murder because you're killing two people.

It explicitly says that there's only a fine if the husband complains . . . no complaint, no crime.

exactly. The woman and the (unborn) are property of the male. Up to the male to decide if he considers it a loss.significant enough to be worth a find. And if so, a fine is assessed. Correct me if I'm wrong, back in Biblical times murder/homicide was not punished with a fine. Based on the Bible, doesn't sound like loss of an unborn was considered murder. The whole, every sperm is sacred, a fertilized zygote= human born baby is a later development of catholicism (one Pope in particular) that since Roe vs Wade then got spread to other evangelical, charismatic and Fundamentalist sects of Christianity. In general Christianity, abortion while not favored, was lumped into sins like, infidelity, masturbation, drunkenness and gambling, other personal failings that are not ideal but between you and God regarding your personal salvation. 

[PDXTabs]

Biology dictates that life begins at conception - not just theology.

I don't believe that this is a true statement. What is life?

I think that there are many metrics of biological life that the Roe v Wade case aligned well with when they chose viability as their test.

[Morning Glory]

Can someone who knows more about US Constitutional law than me explain how forcing a woman to carry an unwanted foetus isn't "involuntary servitude" and banned by the 13th Amendment?

No "State's rights" for the 13th Amendment, I think.

By that logic, all parents are involuntary servants. When parents kill their children, or they die from abuse or neglect they go to jail because we recognize it as a heinous crime. But somehow, it's all perfectly fine if that same child isn't wanted and it happens out of sight behind closed doors in an abortion clinic.

The entire fault with this logic is that it relies entirely on defining all life stages post-conception as "a child", regardless of biology, viability and circumstance. That's an enormous leap to make on theology alone, and might explain why even a majority of catholics in the US support abortion in its current form.

Fine, replace the word "child" with person. An unborn child is still a person are they not? They're a human being moments after birth and they're a human being moments before birth. Biology dictates that life begins at conception - not just theology. It doesn't say that human life begins at implantation, or viability (a constantly moving target), or birth. A unique new human life is created the moment an egg is fertilized and a zygote is created.

Good lord no. Hence the problem. You wish to categorize a newly fertilized egg as a “person” or a “child” based on religion and not science.
Eggs and sperm are by definition “alive”. Your argument seems to require a distinction between being “alive” and being a “life”. Which is where it all falls apart.

This is a matter of religion, not government.  Many religions forbid dietary items like pork or alcohol or even caffeine. Even some atheists choose not to eat meat for non-religious moral reasons.  Some faiths forbid divorce,  or remarriage after divorce,  or working on the sabbath (which can be Friday or Saturday or Sunday), or a host of other things.  They all have different fast and feast days, and different opinions about which point in gestation does a fetus become a baby and when abortion is OK or not ok. Each pregnant woman should be able to decide this for herself based on medical advice and her own religious beliefs (if applicable), just like we let each individual decide what to eat and when or whether to worship.

And I agree if this was really about the babies then there would be funding for prenatal and childbirth care, parental leave, and all the rest.

[jnw]

Just want to say everyone eats meat including vegans.  Insects are animals and have muscles and therefore have meat.  There are plenty of insects in grain products like bread, etc..  I don't think it's immoral to eat meat. I think it's natural.

[Morning Glory]

As a fairly new parent it has been eye opening how little support we give to families of children age 0-6, despite constant political rhetoric about “helping struggling middle class families”

Maternal leave is short or non existent, paternal leave is even less. There is a tax break which predominately helps high-income wage earners, but that’s about it. I’ve been shocked at the number of people who have either hunted or directly told my wife she should put her career on pause until our daughter is in elementary school - yet no one has suggested this to me even though she has just as much training and education and a similar salary.

Somehow every daycare has at least a 4-6 month waiting list, and the good ones can be well over a year. When our jobs forced us to move we were told we were just SOL. Moving to a new town when your kid is too young for kindergarten is deeply frowned upon, even if it’s for “a better life”

Health care for pregnancy and postpartum is riddled with holes and large unexpected expenses. There’s an outright expectancy from the medical community that most women will not be able to return to pre-pregnancy level of function, ever, unless they are able to take time off (which few get) and do a bunch of PT (which isn’t covered by most insurance).

I’ve watched Dems try to plug many of these holes for the last 10+ years but get repeatedly blocked. I’ve listened to the GOP talk about being about the family and then constantly take decisions and options away from mothers and families.

We can’t claim to be a society that supports families and young children until we have these basic needs provided for. Arguing that it’s for “the unborn children” wreaks of hypocrisy

It's as if there is a group somewhere saying "our birth rate is going down, we have to DO SOMETHING!!!  But let's use the stick, not the carrot.  So forget good pre and post natal health care, good daycare, good maternity and paternity leaves, general support for families with young children, that would cost us money.  So we will make it really hard for young women to not have babies, we will limit sex ed, we will limit access to birth control, we will eliminate abortions, they are stuck having those babies.  And if we have a high maternal death rate for an OECD country, so what?  Job accomplished."

What if my imaginary group chose the carrot?

My extended family and DD's friend group is exploding with babies.  They all got married over the last 5-6 years.  They are in their late 20s and early 30s, have good jobs with good parental leave (blue collar/skilled trades as well as white collar jobs).  EI supplements paid leave.  Their pregnancy health costs were minimal, OHIP covers it all.  They have daycare (Ontario has just signed a deal with the feds for $10/day daycare, not implemented yet, but DD had several choices for daycares).  But they had those babies when they were ready to have them, not because they were stuck.  World of difference.

The stick is so much cheaper!!! Remember they are also trying to forbid teachers from talking about racial inequality,  because fixing the inequality would involve rich people paying more taxes.

[sui generis]

On the topic of the leak vs. the substance of the draft opinion (so here I go falling into the trap of letting the right-wing Repubs set the terms of the argument, which is a no-no)....I actually suspect it was a conservative, not a staff or clerk of one of the liberal judge's, that leaked it. 

This is great for them. Get the opinion out there early in all its ugly vehemence and soften the ground for when the real opinion comes out at the end of June, when further editing will have buffed out some of the hardest edges (e.g., let's see if Alito does not take out the term "abortionists").  And then the conservatives will be able to say, "look how good you have it!  It could have been so much worse.  Ah, you see?  All is well!"  And you know what?  All *will* be well for most voting Americans.  They will be happy that there was what looks to them like "compromise" (but is really mostly a change of tone), they will be generally unhappy with abortion being outlawed in most of the land, but with the general sense of compromise around it they will think it will probably work out, and then when voting comes around, they are going to vote with inflation and war at the top of their minds and will not be moved overmuch by this issue.

I think conservatives know that it's terribly unpopular to make abortion illegal in most of the land and that this opinion would do that, but they are going to do it anyway and this is the best way to make sure the furor dies down before elections.  Win-win for them.  They can focus on the leak and between that and the 24 hour news cycle most people will have forgotten about it and will feel better, instead of terrible, in June when the final opinion comes out.

[PeteD01]

Biology dictates that life begins at conception - not just theology.

I don't believe that this is a true statement. What is life?

I think that there are many metrics of biological life that the Roe v Wade case aligned well with when they chose viability as their test.

Biology got nothing to do with it, it's more about when a soul is starting to inhabit the embryo/fetus. And even there is no consistency over time in how the catholic church has seen the issue. It is unproductive to have a scholarly debate about philosophical/theological aspects of the issue as that is really a debate in the catholic church that has been going on for millenia but is meaningless if one doesn´t buy into the soul thing. Another thing is that the bible is not important but the church position is. A catholicism goes, there are numerous strikingly differing opinions regarding abortion and anyone pretending to have figured out what the true catholic position is either delusional or has an agenda.
All that self-righteous holding forth that relegates women to wallpaper, in an issue that is clearly of existential importance for them, betrays one thing: the narcissistic project that individuals who try to be a good person are inevitably engaging in.
And as the source of narcissism is pride and as pride in turn is the most severe of the seven deadly sins according to catholic teachings, the individual engaging in narcissistic projects has much more serious spiritual problems than can be resolved in an honest debate with non-believers.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12178868/

[simonsez]

Just want to say everyone eats meat including vegans.  Insects are animals and have muscles and therefore have meat.  There are plenty of insects in grain products like bread, etc..  I don't think it's immoral to eat meat. I think it's natural.

And everything comes from stardust, so we're all astrophagic.

Anyway, let's stick to the topic at hand.

[partgypsy]

I should out myself, that I am prejudiced on the Catholic church, based on my personal history. My grandmother was very close with one of her sisters. Her sister was being domestically abused. She was devout and asked for help from the church. Rather than helping her or advising her to leave, told her to "pray for understanding". She died. Nothing happened to the husband. After that happened my grandmother left the church and moved away from her community. That is what I think about when the Catholic church says it's "pro-life".

[PDXTabs]

Biology dictates that life begins at conception - not just theology.

I don't believe that this is a true statement. What is life?

I think that there are many metrics of biological life that the Roe v Wade case aligned well with when they chose viability as their test.

Biology got nothing to do with it, it's more about when a soul is starting to inhabit the embryo/fetus. And even there is no consistency over time in how the catholic church has seen the issue. It is unproductive to have a scholarly debate about philosophical/theological aspects of the issue as that is really a debate in the catholic church that has been going on for millenia but is meaningless if one doesn´t buy into the soul thing. Another thing is that the bible is not important but the church position is. A catholicism goes, there are numerous strikingly differing opinions regarding abortion and anyone pretending to have figured out what the true catholic position is either delusional or has an agenda.

I don't disagree with anything that you have written, until people start arguing that there is a biological basis for life beginning at conception. Also, as you clearly pointed out, this is a theological argument. Doesn't/shouldn't the 1st Amendment protect my family from an over-domineering Catholic church? We're not Catholic.

[PeteD01]

Biology dictates that life begins at conception - not just theology.

I don't believe that this is a true statement. What is life?

I think that there are many metrics of biological life that the Roe v Wade case aligned well with when they chose viability as their test.

Biology got nothing to do with it, it's more about when a soul is starting to inhabit the embryo/fetus. And even there is no consistency over time in how the catholic church has seen the issue. It is unproductive to have a scholarly debate about philosophical/theological aspects of the issue as that is really a debate in the catholic church that has been going on for millenia but is meaningless if one doesn´t buy into the soul thing. Another thing is that the bible is not important but the church position is. A catholicism goes, there are numerous strikingly differing opinions regarding abortion and anyone pretending to have figured out what the true catholic position is either delusional or has an agenda.

I don't disagree with anything that you have written, until people start arguing that there is a biological basis for life beginning at conception. Also, as you clearly pointed out, this is a theological argument. Doesn't/shouldn't the 1st Amendment protect my family from an over-domineering Catholic church? We're not Catholic.

When they talk about the beginning of "life" in the context of pregnancy, they really talk about "ensoulment" and when they talk about the embryo/fetus being a "person" they mean "soul". So substitute the tems appropriately and the absurdity of their propositions becomes apparent.

[OtherJen]

Biology dictates that life begins at conception - not just theology.

I don't believe that this is a true statement. What is life?

I think that there are many metrics of biological life that the Roe v Wade case aligned well with when they chose viability as their test.

Biology got nothing to do with it, it's more about when a soul is starting to inhabit the embryo/fetus. And even there is no consistency over time in how the catholic church has seen the issue. It is unproductive to have a scholarly debate about philosophical/theological aspects of the issue as that is really a debate in the catholic church that has been going on for millenia but is meaningless if one doesn´t buy into the soul thing. Another thing is that the bible is not important but the church position is. A catholicism goes, there are numerous strikingly differing opinions regarding abortion and anyone pretending to have figured out what the true catholic position is either delusional or has an agenda.

I don't disagree with anything that you have written, until people start arguing that there is a biological basis for life beginning at conception. Also, as you clearly pointed out, this is a theological argument. Doesn't/shouldn't the 1st Amendment protect my family from an over-domineering Catholic church? We're not Catholic.

And that is the crux of the issue. We have a religious minority forcing their beliefs and practices on the rest of us.

[mastrr]

Lord have mercy on the little innocent babies.

You mean the teenagers that will be forced to give birth when their bodies are still developing, right?

May He have mercy on them as well.

@mastrr I'd like a clear opinion from you please, no ambiguity. Do you believe that abortion should be legal or illegal?

I believe it is reasonable and correct for there to be laws that protect human life within the womb like we protect human life outside the womb.  However, I'll leave those details of what is legal or illegal up to the lawmakers.

I believe that the morality component of abortion is much more important than if it is illegal or not.  It's very sad to me that many view a fetus as not a human which allows them to rationalize and decide to commit an act of violence against their child.

[Captain FIRE]

I should out myself, that I am prejudiced on the Catholic church, based on my personal history. My grandmother was very close with one of her sisters. Her sister was being domestically abused. She was devout and asked for help from the church. Rather than helping her or advising her to leave, told her to "pray for understanding". She died. Nothing happened to the husband. After that happened my grandmother left the church and moved away from her community. That is what I think about when the Catholic church says it's "pro-life".

I think there are many stories out there of BS support for "pro-life" that can or will kill more lives.  My devout Catholic friend (also multiple scientific advanced degrees) talked to her priest regarding her ectopic pregnancy.  She needed to terminate the much wanted pregnancy to save her life, but was very torn up because he declined to provide her the support she felt she needed. 

[PoutineLover]

Lord have mercy on the little innocent babies.

You mean the teenagers that will be forced to give birth when their bodies are still developing, right?

May He have mercy on them as well.

@mastrr I'd like a clear opinion from you please, no ambiguity. Do you believe that abortion should be legal or illegal?

I believe it is reasonable and correct for there to be laws that protect human life within the womb like we protect human life outside the womb.  However, I'll leave those details of what is legal or illegal up to the lawmakers.

I believe that the morality component of abortion is much more important than if it is illegal or not.  It's very sad to me that many view a fetus as not a human which allows them to rationalize and decide to commit an act of violence against their child.

The issue of whether or not a fetus is human is not why we should or should not allow abortion. I happen to think that abortion is very sad, and I hope never to be in a position where I would need to have one, but I fully believe they should be legal and available. If lawmakers have decided that health care, affordable daycare, contraception, and education are not priorities, but that banning abortion is, I'm pretty sure they don't care if fetuses are human either.

[CodingHare]

I believe it is reasonable and correct for there to be laws that protect human life within the womb like we protect human life outside the womb.  However, I'll leave those details of what is legal or illegal up to the lawmakers.

I believe that the morality component of abortion is much more important than if it is illegal or not.  It's very sad to me that many view a fetus as not a human which allows them to rationalize and decide to commit an act of violence against their child.

It's very sad to me that many view a fetus as a human that has more rights to my body than I do, which allows them to rationalize and order a doctor commit an act of violence against me (medical trauma).

[RetiredAt63]

And who says we have souls?  The various religions, that is who.  We are self-aware, sort of, but does that mean we have something called a soul?

So discussing abortion re souls and when the developing embryo has one is still a religious discussion.

What I have seen when abortion and birth control were difficult and mostly illegal is a lot of coerced marriages that eventually ended in divorce.  Given the agenda of those pushing for pro-life legislation, those divorces would also be harder to get.  So 2 people yoked together because of an unwanted pregnancy will stay yoked together because they can't divorce.  Let's just make more misery in the world, shall we? 

[mastrr]

I believe it is reasonable and correct for there to be laws that protect human life within the womb like we protect human life outside the womb.  However, I'll leave those details of what is legal or illegal up to the lawmakers.

I believe that the morality component of abortion is much more important than if it is illegal or not.  It's very sad to me that many view a fetus as not a human which allows them to rationalize and decide to commit an act of violence against their child.

It's very sad to me that many view a fetus as a human that has more rights to my body than I do, which allows them to rationalize and order a doctor commit an act of violence against me (medical trauma).

Just want to mention that I don't think that people should have forced pregnancies or procedures imposed upon them either.

[Sibley]

Lord have mercy on the little innocent babies.

You mean the teenagers that will be forced to give birth when their bodies are still developing, right?

May He have mercy on them as well.

@mastrr I'd like a clear opinion from you please, no ambiguity. Do you believe that abortion should be legal or illegal?

I believe it is reasonable and correct for there to be laws that protect human life within the womb like we protect human life outside the womb.  However, I'll leave those details of what is legal or illegal up to the lawmakers.

I believe that the morality component of abortion is much more important than if it is illegal or not.  It's very sad to me that many view a fetus as not a human which allows them to rationalize and decide to commit an act of violence against their child.

Well, that was a very neat way of evading my very direct question. You could have said yes or no. You didn't. Which leads me to conclude that you are not wholly in favor of abortion rights.

Which means that you're ok with women dying. Noted.

[Sibley]

Can someone who knows more about US Constitutional law than me explain how forcing a woman to carry an unwanted foetus isn't "involuntary servitude" and banned by the 13th Amendment?

No "State's rights" for the 13th Amendment, I think.

By that logic, all parents are involuntary servants. When parents kill their children, or they die from abuse or neglect they go to jail because we recognize it as a heinous crime. But somehow, it's all perfectly fine if that same child isn't wanted and it happens out of sight behind closed doors in an abortion clinic.

The entire fault with this logic is that it relies entirely on defining all life stages post-conception as "a child", regardless of biology, viability and circumstance. That's an enormous leap to make on theology alone, and might explain why even a majority of catholics in the US support abortion in its current form.

Fine, replace the word "child" with person. An unborn child is still a person are they not? They're a human being moments after birth and they're a human being moments before birth. Biology dictates that life begins at conception - not just theology. It doesn't say that human life begins at implantation, or viability (a constantly moving target), or birth. A unique new human life is created the moment an egg is fertilized and a zygote is created.

I can't speak for all Catholics, especially not the ones who choose to ignore one of the most basic tenets of the faith. There's about 70 million in the US, so it's not exactly a monolithic group. A lot of people identify as Catholic because they go to a relatives Baptism and maybe attend Mass on Easter. When you look at the breakdown between those who are practicing Catholics (i.e. attend church weekly) it shifts from about a 50/50 split on abortion to about 25/50.

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/religious-tradition/catholic/views-about-abortion#attendance-at-religious-services

Right. So it sounds like you're not in favor of abortion. Which means you're ok with women dying. Noted.

[PeteD01]

And who says we have souls?  The various religions, that is who.  We are self-aware, sort of, but does that mean we have something called a soul?

So discussing abortion re souls and when the developing embryo has one is still a religious discussion.

...

Of course, any discussion involving souls is a metaphysical or religious discussion.
The deception the religious right is engaged in is to use seemingly non-religious terminology to facilitate engagement of the unwary political opponent in an, upon closer examination, clearly religious debate. So what on the surface appears as an interaction in good faith is anything but.
It´s no different than "intelligent design" and other deceptions.

[former player]

Can someone who knows more about US Constitutional law than me explain how forcing a woman to carry an unwanted foetus isn't "involuntary servitude" and banned by the 13th Amendment?

No "State's rights" for the 13th Amendment, I think.

That one's easy!

The Supreme Court of the United States is made up of far right conservatives (how it will most likely stay for the majority of the rest of our lifetimes) . . . and they're the highest voice in the land on legal matters.  They have decided to ignore any inconvenient any facts that contradict their socially conservative agenda.  So if they say it's not involuntary servitude - it's not!  The end.

Have they actually said that it's not?  Or has the Roe v Wade reliance on the 14th Amendment mean that the point hasn't been litigated yet?

I'm not aware of any abortion-related challenges under the 13th Amendment. If one were to pop up I'd expect the Selective Draft Law Cases (where it was decided that the 13th Amendment didn't prohibit involuntary military service) would figure strongly in the decision.

Thanks for the answer, that's very helpful.

I think the Draft Law cases are distinguishable because they rely on:

1.  the express powers in Article 1 of the Constitution to raise armies and call forth the Militia, and
2.  the argument that the 13th Amendment wasn't intended "to destroy the power of the Government to compel a citizen to render public service."

Neither of which is relevant to the banning of abortion.

So I think the argument can still be made that a State ban on abortion is contrary to the 13th Amendment.

[Michael in ABQ]

Can someone who knows more about US Constitutional law than me explain how forcing a woman to carry an unwanted foetus isn't "involuntary servitude" and banned by the 13th Amendment?

No "State's rights" for the 13th Amendment, I think.

By that logic, all parents are involuntary servants. When parents kill their children, or they die from abuse or neglect they go to jail because we recognize it as a heinous crime. But somehow, it's all perfectly fine if that same child isn't wanted and it happens out of sight behind closed doors in an abortion clinic.

The entire fault with this logic is that it relies entirely on defining all life stages post-conception as "a child", regardless of biology, viability and circumstance. That's an enormous leap to make on theology alone, and might explain why even a majority of catholics in the US support abortion in its current form.

Fine, replace the word "child" with person. An unborn child is still a person are they not? They're a human being moments after birth and they're a human being moments before birth. Biology dictates that life begins at conception - not just theology. It doesn't say that human life begins at implantation, or viability (a constantly moving target), or birth. A unique new human life is created the moment an egg is fertilized and a zygote is created.

I can't speak for all Catholics, especially not the ones who choose to ignore one of the most basic tenets of the faith. There's about 70 million in the US, so it's not exactly a monolithic group. A lot of people identify as Catholic because they go to a relatives Baptism and maybe attend Mass on Easter. When you look at the breakdown between those who are practicing Catholics (i.e. attend church weekly) it shifts from about a 50/50 split on abortion to about 25/50.

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/religious-tradition/catholic/views-about-abortion#attendance-at-religious-services

Right. So it sounds like you're not in favor of abortion. Which means you're ok with women dying. Noted.

That is a logical fallacy - specifically a False Dilemma/False Dichotomy.

I can be opposed to abortion and opposed to women dying. Women die during childbirth and pregnancy, but they also die during abortions - in fact 100% of abortions end in death. But that's not the main issue because of the 50 million or so abortions performed in the US since Roe v. Wade was decided, only a small fraction could be argued to be done "for the life of the mother".

https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2005/reasons-us-women-have-abortions-quantitative-and-qualitative-perspectives
"While a small proportion of women who have abortions do so because of health concerns or fetal anomalies, the large majority choose termination in response to an unintended pregnancy."

[jim555]

Theology, religion and politics all in one thread, what could go wrong?  Popcorn engaged.

[jeninco]

I believe it is reasonable and correct for there to be laws that protect human life within the womb like we protect human life outside the womb.  However, I'll leave those details of what is legal or illegal up to the lawmakers.

I believe that the morality component of abortion is much more important than if it is illegal or not.  It's very sad to me that many view a fetus as not a human which allows them to rationalize and decide to commit an act of violence against their child.

It's very sad to me that many view a fetus as a human that has more rights to my body than I do, which allows them to rationalize and order a doctor commit an act of violence against me (medical trauma).

I also find it very sad that a bunch of ignorant (of biology, at least) politicians (and their enablers) view their religious beliefs as something that's appropriate to impose on my bodily autonomy, even though it may kill me. And that mastrr and others don't appear to view me as a human adult who should have the right to make decisions about what happens to my own body.  Go learn some biology, you!

[Michael in ABQ]

Can someone who knows more about US Constitutional law than me explain how forcing a woman to carry an unwanted foetus isn't "involuntary servitude" and banned by the 13th Amendment?

No "State's rights" for the 13th Amendment, I think.

By that logic, all parents are involuntary servants. When parents kill their children, or they die from abuse or neglect they go to jail because we recognize it as a heinous crime. But somehow, it's all perfectly fine if that same child isn't wanted and it happens out of sight behind closed doors in an abortion clinic.

The entire fault with this logic is that it relies entirely on defining all life stages post-conception as "a child", regardless of biology, viability and circumstance. That's an enormous leap to make on theology alone, and might explain why even a majority of catholics in the US support abortion in its current form.

Fine, replace the word "child" with person. An unborn child is still a person are they not? They're a human being moments after birth and they're a human being moments before birth. Biology dictates that life begins at conception - not just theology. It doesn't say that human life begins at implantation, or viability (a constantly moving target), or birth. A unique new human life is created the moment an egg is fertilized and a zygote is created.

Good lord no. Hence the problem. You wish to categorize a newly fertilized egg as a “person” or a “child” based on religion and not science.
Eggs and sperm are by definition “alive”. Your argument seems to require a distinction between being “alive” and being a “life”. Which is where it all falls apart.

My liver cells are alive, that doesn't make them a separate life distinct from me. I am a multicellular organism, and they are one of my cells with the same DNA as all my other cells. A zygote is alive, and it is a separate life from the mother and father. Before conception there was not separate and distinct living being with that unique DNA that is able to metabolize, grow, maintain homeostasis, and all the other biological tests that determine if something is alive (human, plant, bacteria, etc.) or not alive (flame, rock, etc.)

[former player]

Can someone who knows more about US Constitutional law than me explain how forcing a woman to carry an unwanted foetus isn't "involuntary servitude" and banned by the 13th Amendment?

No "State's rights" for the 13th Amendment, I think.

By that logic, all parents are involuntary servants. When parents kill their children, or they die from abuse or neglect they go to jail because we recognize it as a heinous crime. But somehow, it's all perfectly fine if that same child isn't wanted and it happens out of sight behind closed doors in an abortion clinic.

The entire fault with this logic is that it relies entirely on defining all life stages post-conception as "a child", regardless of biology, viability and circumstance. That's an enormous leap to make on theology alone, and might explain why even a majority of catholics in the US support abortion in its current form.

Fine, replace the word "child" with person. An unborn child is still a person are they not? They're a human being moments after birth and they're a human being moments before birth. Biology dictates that life begins at conception - not just theology. It doesn't say that human life begins at implantation, or viability (a constantly moving target), or birth. A unique new human life is created the moment an egg is fertilized and a zygote is created.

Good lord no. Hence the problem. You wish to categorize a newly fertilized egg as a “person” or a “child” based on religion and not science.
Eggs and sperm are by definition “alive”. Your argument seems to require a distinction between being “alive” and being a “life”. Which is where it all falls apart.

My liver cells are alive, that doesn't make them a separate life distinct from me. I am a multicellular organism, and they are one of my cells with the same DNA as all my other cells. A zygote is alive, and it is a separate life from the mother and father. Before conception there was not separate and distinct living being with that unique DNA that is able to metabolize, grow, maintain homeostasis, and all the other biological tests that determine if something is alive (human, plant, bacteria, etc.) or not alive (flame, rock, etc.)

Hey, since you are carrying on with part of this conversation, how about answering the part of it where you have ignored the difference between "voluntary" and "involuntary"?  Thanks.

Can someone who knows more about US Constitutional law than me explain how forcing a woman to carry an unwanted foetus isn't "involuntary servitude" and banned by the 13th Amendment?

No "State's rights" for the 13th Amendment, I think.

By that logic, all parents are involuntary servants. When parents kill their children, or they die from abuse or neglect they go to jail because we recognize it as a heinous crime. But somehow, it's all perfectly fine if that same child isn't wanted and it happens out of sight behind closed doors in an abortion clinic.

The entire fault with this logic is that it relies entirely on defining all life stages post-conception as "a child", regardless of biology, viability and circumstance. That's an enormous leap to make on theology alone, and might explain why even a majority of catholics in the US support abortion in its current form.

And apart from that it ignores the word "involuntary".  Voluntary servant to a post-conception minnow/foetus/child is fine by me and the USA Constitution.  Involuntary servant is a slave by any other name.

[GuitarStv]

My liver cells are alive, that doesn't make them a separate life distinct from me. I am a multicellular organism, and they are one of my cells with the same DNA as all my other cells. A zygote is alive, and it is a separate life from the mother and father. Before conception there was not separate and distinct living being with that unique DNA that is able to metabolize, grow, maintain homeostasis, and all the other biological tests that determine if something is alive (human, plant, bacteria, etc.) or not alive (flame, rock, etc.)

Are you OK with removing a zygote from the mother so that it can live it's own separate life on it's own terms?  If not, why not?  You just said that the zygote is a separate and distinct living being . . . did you mean instead that a zygote is a dependent non-separate living being that cannot metabolize, grow, or maintain homeostasis without a mother?

I agree that your liver cells are alive, but not distinct life from you.  But sperm and ova are alive and are definitely distinct life from the parent.  Exactly like a zygote, each sperm is capable of metabolizing, growing, and maintaining homeostasis - when given ideal conditions.  Exactly like a zygote, a sperm is a random mixture of DNA from the father.  Also exactly like a zygote, without very specific favorable conditions (contact with an ovum, gestation period, etc.) each sperm will die.


It really feels like you're drawing arbitrary lines to support your faith here.

[Michael in ABQ]

Hey, since you are carrying on with part of this conversation, how about answering the part of it where you have ignored the difference between "voluntary" and "involuntary"?  Thanks.

A parent is required by law to take care of their children. That sounds like involuntary to me. There are mechanisms in place to take away parental rights and responsibilities for those that fail to do so - or for parents to give up those rights (i.e. adoption). But just because most parents willingly (voluntarily) take care of their children, doesn't change that they are required by law to do so.

[CodingHare]

Hey, since you are carrying on with part of this conversation, how about answering the part of it where you have ignored the difference between "voluntary" and "involuntary"?  Thanks.

A parent is required by law to take care of their children. That sounds like involuntary to me. There are mechanisms in place to take away parental rights and responsibilities for those that fail to do so - or for parents to give up those rights (i.e. adoption). But just because most parents willingly (voluntarily) take care of their children, doesn't change that they are required by law to do so.

And yet, I am not required by law to give my kidney to my ailing son if it is compatible.  Bodily autonomy is not overwritten in that case.  Only fetuses seem to have the magic right to steal organs without consent.

[nereo]

Can someone who knows more about US Constitutional law than me explain how forcing a woman to carry an unwanted foetus isn't "involuntary servitude" and banned by the 13th Amendment?

No "State's rights" for the 13th Amendment, I think.

By that logic, all parents are involuntary servants. When parents kill their children, or they die from abuse or neglect they go to jail because we recognize it as a heinous crime. But somehow, it's all perfectly fine if that same child isn't wanted and it happens out of sight behind closed doors in an abortion clinic.

The entire fault with this logic is that it relies entirely on defining all life stages post-conception as "a child", regardless of biology, viability and circumstance. That's an enormous leap to make on theology alone, and might explain why even a majority of catholics in the US support abortion in its current form.

Fine, replace the word "child" with person. An unborn child is still a person are they not? They're a human being moments after birth and they're a human being moments before birth. Biology dictates that life begins at conception - not just theology. It doesn't say that human life begins at implantation, or viability (a constantly moving target), or birth. A unique new human life is created the moment an egg is fertilized and a zygote is created.

Good lord no. Hence the problem. You wish to categorize a newly fertilized egg as a “person” or a “child” based on religion and not science.
Eggs and sperm are by definition “alive”. Your argument seems to require a distinction between being “alive” and being a “life”. Which is where it all falls apart.

My liver cells are alive, that doesn't make them a separate life distinct from me. I am a multicellular organism, and they are one of my cells with the same DNA as all my other cells. A zygote is alive, and it is a separate life from the mother and father. Before conception there was not separate and distinct living being with that unique DNA that is able to metabolize, grow, maintain homeostasis, and all the other biological tests that determine if something is alive (human, plant, bacteria, etc.) or not alive (flame, rock, etc.)

Again, you are giving life-stages attributes based on your religious beliefs, not on biology or science.
We can both agree that a zygote is alive, as are eggs and sperm.
You choose to define a zygote as having "life" here because it is different from the mother and father. There are so many things wrong with that from a scientific perspective that it's hard to know where to start. Clearly a zygote is not viable, so independence cannot be your criteria.  Each of a woman's eggs and sperm are genetically distinct from all other cells, so clearly the unique DNA you claim isn't a prerequisite either. Then there are instances when multiple life forms share the same DNA (twins, parthenogenesis) so it doesn't work the opposite way either. While you might be morally opposed to cloning a human, I suspect you'd attribute the baby clone with "life" even if the creation of said clone you considered to be an abomination.

you have a religiously held belief that the existence of a person begins at conception, and that's fine. But there is no biological distinction between being 'alive' and the presence of 'life'.  It gets even more complicated when you step away from the human-centric view of life and start looking at all the variations which exist in just the kingdom animalia. 

[seattlecyclone]

I'm not aware of any abortion-related challenges under the 13th Amendment. If one were to pop up I'd expect the Selective Draft Law Cases (where it was decided that the 13th Amendment didn't prohibit involuntary military service) would figure strongly in the decision.

Thanks for the answer, that's very helpful.

I think the Draft Law cases are distinguishable because they rely on:

1.  the express powers in Article 1 of the Constitution to raise armies and call forth the Militia, and
2.  the argument that the 13th Amendment wasn't intended "to destroy the power of the Government to compel a citizen to render public service."

Neither of which is relevant to the banning of abortion.

So I think the argument can still be made that a State ban on abortion is contrary to the 13th Amendment.

Yes, that is certainly a reasonable argument. I think you'll find that cases tend not to make it to the Supreme Court if only one side has a reasonable argument. The other side's argument would be something like:

1) Pregnancy is not something to ask someone to go through lightly. It lasts nine months and can result in disability or death to the mother, among other restrictions on the mother living their chosen lifestyle during that time.
2) Military service is not something to ask someone to go through lightly. It usually lasts even longer than nine months and (at least in wartime) has an even greater chance of resulting in disability or death, among other restrictions on the draftee living their chosen lifestyle during that time.
3) If the 13th Amendment applies to pregnancy, then surely it also applies to military service, but established precedent says otherwise.

Which of these two completely reasonable arguments do you think would gain more traction with the current membership of the Supreme Court?

[Michael in ABQ]

My liver cells are alive, that doesn't make them a separate life distinct from me. I am a multicellular organism, and they are one of my cells with the same DNA as all my other cells. A zygote is alive, and it is a separate life from the mother and father. Before conception there was not separate and distinct living being with that unique DNA that is able to metabolize, grow, maintain homeostasis, and all the other biological tests that determine if something is alive (human, plant, bacteria, etc.) or not alive (flame, rock, etc.)

Are you OK with removing a zygote from the mother so that it can live it's own separate life on it's own terms?  If not, why not?  You just said that the zygote is a separate and distinct living being . . . did you mean instead that a zygote is a dependent non-separate living being that cannot metabolize, grow, or maintain homeostasis without a mother?

If/when the technology exists to bring a zygote to full term without a mother (i.e. an artificial womb) I'm sure there will be vigorous debate on the legal, ethical, and health concerns raised by such a technology. In the absence of such technology however, I am opposed to the idea because I do not think it could replicate the human experience.

A newborn baby can no more take care of itself than a zygote or fetus. It is just as dependent on it's mother (or a substitute) as a zygote or fetus in the womb. Both will die without nutrition, warmth, etc. The only difference is we have the technology to care for a newborn baby without a mother (i.e. formula, NICU, etc.). At some point we will likely have the technology to care for a fetus in the womb. Just because viability has moved from approximately 28 week to approximately 22 weeks of pregnancy since Roe v. Wade was decided, hasn't changed the underlying fundamental issue.

I agree that your liver cells are alive, but not distinct life from you.  But sperm and ova are alive and are definitely distinct life from the parent.  Exactly like a zygote, each sperm is capable of metabolizing, growing, and maintaining homeostasis - when given ideal conditions.  Exactly like a zygote, a sperm is a random mixture of DNA from the father.  Also exactly like a zygote, without very specific favorable conditions (contact with an ovum, gestation period, etc.) each sperm will die.

A sperm or egg cell will not grow into a multi-cellular organism on their own. They will not develop into a mature adult human until they combine to form a zygote. That zygote will grow and develop into an adult human given the required inputs of life (food, water, oxygen, warmth, etc.). No other human cells will. While they are specialized cells, eggs and sperm are still just cells of a multicellular organism.

It really feels like you're drawing arbitrary lines to support your faith here.

I feel like others draw arbitrary lines to dehumanize the unborn to make it easier to justify killing them. Just as slaves and other groups throughout history were dehumanized to justify treating them as less than human.

[Michael in ABQ]

Hey, since you are carrying on with part of this conversation, how about answering the part of it where you have ignored the difference between "voluntary" and "involuntary"?  Thanks.

A parent is required by law to take care of their children. That sounds like involuntary to me. There are mechanisms in place to take away parental rights and responsibilities for those that fail to do so - or for parents to give up those rights (i.e. adoption). But just because most parents willingly (voluntarily) take care of their children, doesn't change that they are required by law to do so.

According to your metaphor outlawing abortion is the equivalent of removing the mechanism for parents to give up their kids. So you also want to end adoption and giving kids up when parents can't care for them? Because while that sounds absurd it is the logical conclusion of what you just said. Why can the parents of living breathing children give up their kids but not the host of a fetus?

Giving up children for adoption or foster care doesn't kill them.

[PeteD01]

My liver cells are alive, that doesn't make them a separate life distinct from me. I am a multicellular organism, and they are one of my cells with the same DNA as all my other cells. A zygote is alive, and it is a separate life from the mother and father. Before conception there was not separate and distinct living being with that unique DNA that is able to metabolize, grow, maintain homeostasis, and all the other biological tests that determine if something is alive (human, plant, bacteria, etc.) or not alive (flame, rock, etc.)

Are you OK with removing a zygote from the mother so that it can live it's own separate life on it's own terms?  If not, why not?  You just said that the zygote is a separate and distinct living being . . . did you mean instead that a zygote is a dependent non-separate living being that cannot metabolize, grow, or maintain homeostasis without a mother?

I agree that your liver cells are alive, but not distinct life from you.  But sperm and ova are alive and are definitely distinct life from the parent.  Exactly like a zygote, each sperm is capable of metabolizing, growing, and maintaining homeostasis - when given ideal conditions.  Exactly like a zygote, a sperm is a random mixture of DNA from the father.  Also exactly like a zygote, without very specific favorable conditions (contact with an ovum, gestation period, etc.) each sperm will die.


It really feels like you're drawing arbitrary lines to support your faith here.

Biologically, from the zygote to birth, the developing human is in the parasitic stage with birth marking the transition to autonomous albeit dependent status.
So that would be a non-arbitrary line. The concept could also easily accommodate emerging potential autonomous existence while being in the parasitic stage.
Understanding human gestation as a parasitic developmental stage also effortlessly describes the effects of pregnancy on the host, which are rather similar to a serious disease causing loss of autonomy, leaving behind lifelong scars if not resulting in death.
So from a medical ethical and biologic point of view, the default is to get rid of the parasite unless the host decides to accept the infestation. If so, of course, there is the issue of emerging potential autonomy which inevitably leads to further encroachment on the hosts autonomy as gestation progresses.
Good reproductive health care assures that host autonomy is respected and that a host who makes the decision to accept the infestation does so with eyes wide open and in the absence of coercion.
So that´s where biology might get you.

[RetiredAt63]

"While a small proportion of women who have abortions do so because of health concerns or fetal anomalies, the large majority choose termination in response to an unintended pregnancy."

"Unintended pregnancy" means those women didn't want to be pregnant at that time.  Because if they wanted that baby it would be an intended pregnancy, or an accidental one that they were OK with so were not seeking an abortion.  In other words, all those requested abortions were for unwanted babies.


So "being allowed to have an abortion" saves those women who could get an abortion "because of health concerns or fetal anomalies".  But a portion of women who have a baby die.  So some portion of the 23.8% of American women giving birth in 2020 who died having a baby (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/maternal-mortality/2020/maternal-mortality-rates-2020.htm), and the many others who have serious complications, were women who did not want that baby in the first place.   Who may have wanted the abortion because they were not financially able to care for themselves in pregnancy, pay for proper health care, and knew that the best thing for them (and that potential baby and their future wanted babies) was to not have that baby.

The current infant mortality rate for the U.S. in 2022 is 5.547 deaths per 1000 live births (https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/infant-mortality-rate)(The current infant mortality rate for Canada in 2022 is 4.055 deaths per 1000 live births, which still sucks but is not as bad)(https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/CAN/canada/infant-mortality-rate).  How many of those dead babies died because their mothers were not able to have proper prenatal are and would have chosen abortion if available?  We don't know.  But some of them.

So denial of abortion kills some women.  How many?  I don't know.  But definitely a non-trivial number.  It probably sets up some babies to die, babies whose mothers did not have the proper resources.


Oh, and you know what one big side effect of illegal abortions was, back in the day?  Infertility.  Because so many were botched, and caused infections.  So some women who may want abortions now but babies later, may never be able to have those later babies.  Sucks to be female.

 

[CodingHare]

Michael in ABQ, you get to believe whatever you want. That's awesome! You enjoy freedom of religion! But so do I, including freedom from your religion. You can skip having abortions as much as you want, that's cool. But what gives you and your political bros the right to legislate what other people do? Your beliefs around zygotes and embryos are nice and frankly read as nonsense to a lot of other people. Why should your beliefs dictate what other people have legal access to?

Yeah, I think the whole debate thing is a sideshow.  I doubt there is anything that could convince Michael in ABQ that bodily autonomy rights trump the right to life of a fetus/zygote.  Just as there is currently nothing that could convince me that a fetus has more rights than non-fetuses do to organs.

Broadly, American's support abortion with restrictions.  The general rule has been that you can have an abortion anytime before viability (when a fetus can support itself outside the womb) without restriction, for any reason.  After viability, the bar tends to be raised to include medical health issues that would debilitate or kill the parent.

Anything less than this means enslaving women to fetuses, granting fetuses more rights than actual out of the womb babies, and destroying the lives of familes.  As usual in this debate, the effect on women is relegated to an "unfortunate" side effect of the "real" discussion on the rights of a blob of cells that can't type on this keyboard.  Women are second class citizens whose suffering doesn't matter and should be thrown under the bus for even the potential of a baby.  Tut tut, how unfortunate that your life could be ruined.  Oh well!

[Michael in ABQ]

Michael in ABQ, you get to believe whatever you want. That's awesome! You enjoy freedom of religion! But so do I, including freedom from your religion. You can skip having abortions as much as you want, that's cool. But what gives you and your political bros the right to legislate what other people do? Your beliefs around zygotes and embryos are nice and frankly read as nonsense to a lot of other people. Why should your beliefs dictate what other people have legal access to?

I am neither a legislator nor a judge. My opinion holds no more weight in determining our laws than yours does. I'm sure both of us disagree with other laws that are on the books that are advocated for by other groups. But we live in a representative republic, and we all have the right to vote for representatives to enact laws and policies we agree with.

I understand I'm the minority on this forum which skews heavily left and secular. That's fine. I don't like living in an echo chamber and perhaps someone reading this thread will think a little bit more about their beliefs. I used to be a strong advocate of abortion until my wife finally changed me heart and brought me back to the Catholic faith. So I know that opinions can change and perhaps me arguing for my opinions will change some minds.

[PeteD01]

If/when the technology exists to bring a zygote to full term without a mother (i.e. an artificial womb) I'm sure there will be vigorous debate on the legal, ethical, and health concerns raised by such a technology. In the absence of such technology however, I am opposed to the idea because I do not think it could replicate the human experience.

A newborn baby can no more take care of itself than a zygote or fetus. It is just as dependent on it's mother (or a substitute) as a zygote or fetus in the womb. Both will die without nutrition, warmth, etc. The only difference is we have the technology to care for a newborn baby without a mother (i.e. formula, NICU, etc.). At some point we will likely have the technology to care for a fetus in the womb. Just because viability has moved from approximately 28 week to approximately 22 weeks of pregnancy since Roe v. Wade was decided, hasn't changed the underlying fundamental issue.

You are pretty good talking about wombs without even mentioning the owners of such. "Mothers" are contrasted with "artifical wombs"... so mothers are "natural wombs" or what. As creepy as it gets.


I feel like others draw arbitrary lines to dehumanize the unborn to make it easier to justify killing them. Just as slaves and other groups throughout history were dehumanized to justify treating them as less than human.

Dehumanized like treating women as incubators or what?

[nereo]

=

A sperm or egg cell will not grow into a multi-cellular organism on their own. They will not develop into a mature adult human until they combine to form a zygote. That zygote will grow and develop into an adult human given the required inputs of life (food, water, oxygen, warmth, etc.). No other human cells will. While they are specialized cells, eggs and sperm are still just cells of a multicellular organism.

No, a thousand times no! 
Your arbitrary definition makes a zygote sound like more like a seed than anything. It's not this independent, autonomous entity which just happens to be residing inside someone's uterus. From a biological perspective it seems absurd to say eggs are "just cells of a multicellular organism" but claim the opposite is true for a zygote. Your faith might say otherwise, and that's fine.  But recognize it's faith, not biology.