I'm aware of various religious beliefs and have nothing against them. You're free to hold your opinion. Free to hold your religious beliefs about what is "a life"
You having a belief does not give you the magic power to exert your will over everyone else. That kind of zealotry and religious extremism is not to be tolerated in any free state
As this post should have made clear had you read it, the implications of the Dobb's decision go far beyond you having your religious sensibilities offended
Sincerely, I'm sorry you're offended by people having rights, but you're just gonna have to bottle that up and treat it as a "you" problem. The harms of your own countries old laws should still be fresh enough in your mind to know why it isn't ok. There are some religious states out there if you'd like to take up one of those, but neither you nor I live in one of them
Religious belief? You brought up religion.
I mentioned nothing about religion.
It was logic,
if you do not have a right to life. Any other right assigned after is already void.
As for free. I very much doubt there is a true free state that is in the power of the population.
Assigning the property "you" to a zygote requires religion or some other kind of mysticism. There is no logic there. Quite often, zygotes never attach to become embryos. Embryos may not develop into a fetus. Just natural occurrences in life that the woman may not ever even be aware of. It often looks quite similar to the normal monthly cycle when it passes out and doesn't look any different. These are also abortion, just not medically induced. It wasn't until quite recently in history that people, under the guise of religion, decided that a zygote was a "you" and should get any kind of rights. Of course it is absurd and doesn't result in any positive outcomes
Most mammals, and indeed for the majority of humans (pretty much all humans until recent history), consider life to begin and end with breath. When we take our first breath and give our last breath
Romantically, the heart has been linked to various properties of our spirits. This has no logical connection to our actual hearts, of course. That romantic connection has been used to manipulate religious believers into supporting restrictions on human rights - the rights of living, breathing, existing humans
How else do you arrive at giving zygotes the assignment "you"?
I am the furthest thing from any kind of religious zealot and I believe that life begins at conception. I base my belief purely on scientific fact that an egg and sperm combine and immediately begin to define the process of what will eventually replicate and combine new cells into a mini human. It's a natural,natural biological process that can be seen in the majority of species of life on our planet. Its Life no matter who looks as it and being a process of nature is where we get our bill of rights. Those rights listed are natural and not given to us by a government. The very fist right is "life". These are not things that only religious zealots believe or force upon others. Do not forget that founding fathers of the USA were all "religious". Many of them were in fact atheist and that was a driving factor as to why they left the English homeland. To get away from state sponsored religion. To practice or not practice what they personally chose.
Throwing out a generalization of it being a religion exclusive item is 100% false. I know many atheists in real life who would debate you till you drop on this.
All life on this planet is special and should be cherished, loved and cultivated. Whether its a tiny mushroom, African Elephant or a Homo Sapiens. It should not be thrown away for a little regret of sexual satisfaction last night.
Appreciate you weighing in! Cool to hear from a real celebrity :)
There are many, many reasons for what the states define as "abortion" that are not your example. Many states now have the same definition that Ireland had in 2012. There was no reason for Savita Halappanavar to die. Of course many see value in a zygote. Many women mourn the loss of every one they know about (many are lost without ever knowing they were there in the first place)
It takes religious zealotry to force a woman to death rather than let her doctors perform obviously needed medical treatment because a nonviable fetus has a heartbeat. Having a heartbeat after a partial disconnection of the placenta happens. The fetus won't develop tho. Won't get all the organs and brain that it needs to actually live outside the womb. At some point, the woman's body should engage natural processes and eject the fetus - heart still beating. This is an aborted pregnancy just as much as every zygote that doesn't attach to the uterine wall. It's just not a medically induced abortion, and it isn't the D&C that many somewhat falsely refer to as abortion
I'm not a zealot either. No hard line here. It seems obvious from history that the extremes do not work. Birth control fails. Rapes happen. Incest happens. Non-viable fetuses happen. And the list is probably longer. I'm a man. I'm not a doctor. It shouldn't be up to me. It shouldn't be up to politicians. It should be up to women and doctors. Those are just my beliefs tho. I'm not looking to force them on everyone
In the interest of compromise, rather than "first breath" I think "no harassment about it in the first trimester" or "no questions asked if it isn't viable" (cannot kill what cannot live), and some exceptions for the obvious issues is good enough. There needs to be some balance between the rights of zygotes (thousands of which are flushed down toilets every day) and the rights of the woman
Of course, none of that is relevant to the issues presented in the post, but I assume we're just having some separate, philosophical discussion here
The privacy concerns are on point though. At least Here in the US we have percoeved "sense" of privacy. But even that is slowly slipping away as the general public thinks it's better to have email, social media and other "free" apps and entertainment. If they only knew what they were actually giving up Roe v Wade wouldn't even have been on the radar.
There is this strange notion that the US is this bastion of freedom but its not and hasn't been for a very long time. While it may be free-er than some places. There are many aspects that it is less free than others. With only a perception of being the freeest of all.
While difficult, at least we could opt out of facebook. If we go back to the "trespass doctrine" style (constitution doesn't say "telephone", so you have no rights of assembly, speech, etc when you pick one up), we are all really effed
🤔 can I say "really effed" in a discussion about abortion?
praise Hive! ahahhaa
I will miss the freest perception
Lol
Celebrity my ass.
I wasnt mentioning the criminal acts and medical emergencies. Those are on a whole different level of discussion. I was merely speaking to the ones who get one just because they were too drunk or self indulged with their lust and was thinking with the wrong body parts and not the brain, lol.
I do not group people. That's your trick.
oh?
Where is the grouping?
Or what word should I use to imply more than one but no definitive number?
"as humans" refers to the group of mammals "humans" and is then later referenced with "you". That is grouping
"Those objection to the overturning of Roe Vs Wade..."
is a group. That is also grouping
I had to mention humans so you would know , I was not referring to all forms of life. This is not something I would do. I am well aware of the limitations to my knowledge about life forms and their methods of survival.
One category of life was mentioned and humans chosen as that animal seems to entitle itself to more and more rights.
At no point have I divided the species of animal to form two groups or more made from the same population.
You need to practise your playing with words a bit more. The path you took was were I hone the light.
End convo.
Curiosity. What religion do you think I am?
No idea. Just something that makes you think "you" is a sensible assignment to a zygote
I put "you" in quotes as I'm referencing the royal "you" as you used previously
I wrote you in the tense of the reader. Whomever the reader might be. Would be the you.
That be neither here nor there is real terms.
It does though open the door to interpretation of what we read. If there can be more than one interpretation. Then which one is right. And who then should decide what interpretation is right.
Can an interpretation be both right and wrong at the same time?
Only readers of this blog get rights? Why was the qualifier "as humans" used if you were only referring to readers of this blog?
I referred above to readers of what was wrote. How do you know where else this might appear?
I'm trying to follow along here.
Wouldnt "readers of the blog" naturally be human? Or are you considering bots to be "readers of the blog"? Considering that currently Humans are the only known species that actually "read" a blog with some form of conceiving the text into a thought process and there fore able to conceptualize the subject. Why would anyone question whether there is another species, be it biological or non-biological, outside of being another Human?
Fuck it, I need more coffee. This makes my brain hurt.
That must have been one helluva coffee! lol
Will keep the convo on the other thread if that's alright