You have much more faith in people than I do. There are too many examples of discrimination against non-Christian religions even here in KY for me to ever believe that a huge portion of our population would have politely leave him alone. Some would me included but there are far to many people (call them ignorant, call them rednecks, call them whatever you want) for it to be as accepted as it is for a Christian coach. That’s just a cold hard fact.
Roe v Wade
- Thread starter 812scottj
- Start date
You have much more faith in people than I do. There are too many examples of discrimination against non-Christian religions even here in KY for me to ever believe that a huge portion of our population would have politely leave him alone. Some would me included but there are far to many people (call them ignorant, call them rednecks, call them whatever you want) for it to be as accepted as it is for a Christian coach. That’s just a cold hard fact.
How would that have been this SCOTUS? ACB wasn't on the bench for the first decision. She joined Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor on the Christian decision. Thomas, Roberts and Kavanaugh dissented, yet Kavanaugh even wrote this: “it seems apparent that States that want to avoid months or years of litigation delays because of this RLUIPA issue should figure out a way to allow spiritual advisors into the execution room, as other States and the Federal Government have done.”
Alito/Gorsuch would have been the only potential flip/flop.
In between these two cases was a Buddhist - the SCOTUS also rule similarly as they did in the Christian case, delaying the execution.
Murphy v. Collier (2019), a case involving a Buddhist death row inmate sought to have a spiritual adviser present at his execution. In Murphy, the Court handed down a temporary order preventing the state from executing Patrick Henry Murphy “unless the State permits Murphy’s Buddhist spiritual advisor or another Buddhist reverend of the State’s choosing to accompany Murphy in the execution chamber during the execution.”
While the full Court did not explain its reasoning in Murphy, Justice Kavanaugh wrote a separate concurring opinion arguing that states are free to deny spiritual counsel to people being executed, so long as they don’t discriminate among faiths.
“The relevant Texas policy allows a Christian or Muslim inmate to have a state-employed Christian or Muslim religious adviser present either in the execution room or in the adjacent viewing room,” Kavanaugh explained, but Buddhist inmates could only have their adviser present in the viewing room. The state could cure this “denominational discrimination,” Kavanaugh argued, either by allowing people of all faiths to have a spiritual adviser present in the execution room or by allowing no one to have a spiritual adviser present in that room."
Seems pretty fair.
Last edited:
Looks like the debate on the legal ruling of abortion is now being abandoned and we're left with strawman arguments, ad hominem attacks, and non sequiturs.
So, your opinion about abortions is just faith and not premised on fact?
Last edited:
Definitely. He walked out to the 50 by himself when other coaches were making phone calls and taking care of personal business and he knelt and prayed. You only know his prayer was a Christian prayer, because he told you.
There is no fact other than a woman chooses to terminate. There is no concrete evidence to when life actually begins. Doctors have opinions but nothing to actually prove those opinions are anything but opinions. Those determinations are made on faith. We know milestones during gestation which are facts. We know when the heart forms. We know when the baby meets certain developmental levels. Those are facts and are the premise of my belief that late term abortions should not be an option except in certain situations. None of that changes my position that women have the right to make their own choices using whatever methods they desire (facts, faith, opinions, advice,etc) and I support their right to make that choice even if I disagree with that choice. No question you ask me will ever get me to change from that.
I don’t believe in getting an abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or to protect the mother. I think women should have the option because it’s their bodies. Just like with the vaccine or anything else in life. It’s your body you should be allowed to do with it what you please.
The biggest issue with this topic is that it’s yet another conversation where everyone wants to change the other persons mind instead of just having a conversation and listening to each other.
The biggest issue with this topic is that it’s yet another conversation where everyone wants to change the other persons mind instead of just having a conversation and listening to each other.
Look. Stop saying science does not know when life begins. That is wrong. There is no scientist that reviewing a dividing fertilized egg would say it is not life. You keep repeating that unscientific stuff and it needs to end. Don’t be a science denier.
You said you were against the act of abortion, but you have no facts to support your reasoning. Okay.
You don’t have to change any minds, but can you tell me why you don’t believe in getting an abortion, absent rare circumstances?
Except there is no consensus with 100% of scientists that agree with life begins.
And then there is this one.
Feel free to post whatever links you want but my point still stands as evidenced by these links. Scientists don’t all agree when life begins. That isn’t being a science denier. That is being a science promoter because it’s listening to all scientists not just the ones on a specific side of an argument.
Then Democrats shouldn't have a problem with a 20 week range cut off, with the exceptions, if abortion were to become federal law.
Yet, somehow they will.
Dude, this idea of “personhood” is ambiguous and not what I said. NO true scientist denies the existence of LIFE. Is this a purposeful attempt to dodge? Just say so, if that is what it is and we can just agree you don’t want to talk about it.
Those two articles are referencing the same person.
Why I'm responding is not to debate the start of life. I found this to be interesting.
Bell is wary of his research being appropriated by the debate over abortion. To doctors and scientists, the question of when life begins isn’t a matter of gathering more evidence. “The science has very little to do with the answer,” says Gilbert. Every iteration and advance in the lab make the question even more the purview of philosophers and theologians. And lawyers.
This is going to play out like it did with covid. It's going to be near impossible to get anyone to agree because they're going to be scared if their research emboldens one side or another.
Because the beginning of human life argument truly cannot be defended by pro-abortion advocates, we see them slip to a philosophical question that can be debated: when does personhood begin? It’s comical, and sad, because they are looking for any spot to hide from the scientifically obvious. Every unique human life begins at fertilization. A living cell has always been life. DNA makes it undeniably human. It can be nothing else.
Pro-abortion zealots have to work very hard to find a way to avoid the truth about life. So, they look to “personhood” and argue when a “person” exists. It’s ludicrous, it does not avoid the truth. Human life begins at fertilization. Embryology text books admit as much, because it’s not a complicated conclusion.
Now I'm in the when does life begin debate. This seems pretty straightforward.
When Human Life Begins, American College of Pediatricians, March 2004
"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being...[this] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence...." - Dr Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome, and Nobel Prize Winner, Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981
https://www.justthefacts.org/get-the-facts/when-life-begins/
Longer read and has good info.
Pay attention to the first part that I bolded. Also, Myth 7 is a wall of text and not pasting that.
What do the experts say?
"The American College of Pediatricians concurs with the body of scientific evidence that human life begins at conception - fertilization…. Scientific and medical discoveries over the past three decades have only verified and solidified this age-old truth. At the completion of the process of fertilization, the human creature emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is not one of personhood but of development. The Mission of the American College of Pediatricians is to enable all children to reach their optimal physical and emotional health and well-being from the moment of conception."When Human Life Begins, American College of Pediatricians, March 2004
"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being...[this] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, it is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence...." - Dr Jerome LeJeune, Professor of Genetics at the University of Descartes, Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down's Syndrome, and Nobel Prize Winner, Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981
https://www.justthefacts.org/get-the-facts/when-life-begins/
Longer read and has good info.
Pay attention to the first part that I bolded. Also, Myth 7 is a wall of text and not pasting that.
I. Introduction
The question as to when the physical material dimension of a human being begins is strictly a scientific question, and fundamentally should be answered by human embryologists�not by philosophers, bioethicists, theologians, politicians, x-ray technicians, movie stars, or obstetricians and gynecologists.
This part cuts to the chase.
Myth 1: "Prolifers claim that the abortion of a human embryo or a human fetus is wrong because it destroys human life. But human sperms and human ova are human life, too. So prolifers would also have to agree that the destruction of human sperms and human ova are no different from abortions�and that is ridiculous!"
Fact 1: As pointed out above in the background section, there is a radical difference, scientifically, between parts of a human being that only possess "human life" and a human embryo or human fetus that is an actual "human being." Abortion is the destruction of a human being. Destroying a human sperm or a human oocyte would not constitute abortion, since neither are human beings. The issue is not when does human life begin, but rather when does the life of every human being begin. A human kidney or liver, a human skin cell, a sperm or an oocyte all possess human life, but they are not human beings�they are only parts of a human being. If a single sperm or a single oocyte were implanted into a woman�s uterus, they would not grow; they would simply disintegrate.
Myth 2: "The product of fertilization is simply a �blob,� a �bunch of cells�, a �piece of the mother�s tissues�."
Fact 2: As demonstrated above, the human embryonic organism formed at fertilization is a whole human being, and therefore it is not just a "blob" or a "bunch of cells." This new human individual also has a mixture of both the mother�s and the father�s chromosomes, and therefore it is not just a "piece of the mother�s tissues". Quoting Carlson:
"... [T]hrough the mingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes, the zygote is a genetically unique product of chromosomal reassortment, which is important for the viability of any species."15 (Emphasis added.)
Myth 3: "The immediate product of fertilization is just a �potential� or a �possible� human being�not a real existing human being."
Fact 3: As demonstrated above, scientifically there is absolutely no question whatsoever that the immediate product of fertilization is a newly existing human being. A human zygote is a human being. It is not a "potential" or a "possible" human being. It�s an actual human being�with the potential to grow bigger and develop its capacities.
Myth 4: "A single-cell human zygote, or embryo, or fetus are not human beings, because they do not look like human beings."
Fact 4: As all human embryologists know, a single-cell human zygote, or a more developed human embryo, or human fetus is a human being�and that that�s the way they are supposed to look at those particular periods of development.
Myth 5: "The immediate product of fertilization is just an �it��it is neither a girl nor a boy."
Fact 5: The immediate product of fertilization is genetically already a girl or a boy�determined by the kind of sperm that fertilizes the oocyte. Quoting Carlson again:
"...[T]he sex of the future embryo is determined by the chromosomal complement of the spermatozoon. (If the sperm contains 22 autosomes and 2 X chromosomes, the embryo will be a genetic female, and if it contains 22 autosomes and an X and a Y chromosome, the embryo will be a genetic male.)"16
Myth 6: "The embryo and the embryonic period begin at implantation." (Alternative myths claim 14 days, or 3 weeks.)
Fact 6: These are a few of the most common myths perpetuated sometimes even within quasi-scientific articles�especially within the bioethics literature. As demonstrated above, the human embryo, who is a human being, begins at fertilization�not at implantation (about 5-7 days), 14-days, or 3 weeks. Thus the embryonic period also begins at fertilization, and ends by the end of the eighth week, when the fetal period begins. Quoting O�Rahilly:
https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html
The question as to when the physical material dimension of a human being begins is strictly a scientific question, and fundamentally should be answered by human embryologists�not by philosophers, bioethicists, theologians, politicians, x-ray technicians, movie stars, or obstetricians and gynecologists.
This part cuts to the chase.
Myth 1: "Prolifers claim that the abortion of a human embryo or a human fetus is wrong because it destroys human life. But human sperms and human ova are human life, too. So prolifers would also have to agree that the destruction of human sperms and human ova are no different from abortions�and that is ridiculous!"
Fact 1: As pointed out above in the background section, there is a radical difference, scientifically, between parts of a human being that only possess "human life" and a human embryo or human fetus that is an actual "human being." Abortion is the destruction of a human being. Destroying a human sperm or a human oocyte would not constitute abortion, since neither are human beings. The issue is not when does human life begin, but rather when does the life of every human being begin. A human kidney or liver, a human skin cell, a sperm or an oocyte all possess human life, but they are not human beings�they are only parts of a human being. If a single sperm or a single oocyte were implanted into a woman�s uterus, they would not grow; they would simply disintegrate.
Myth 2: "The product of fertilization is simply a �blob,� a �bunch of cells�, a �piece of the mother�s tissues�."
Fact 2: As demonstrated above, the human embryonic organism formed at fertilization is a whole human being, and therefore it is not just a "blob" or a "bunch of cells." This new human individual also has a mixture of both the mother�s and the father�s chromosomes, and therefore it is not just a "piece of the mother�s tissues". Quoting Carlson:
"... [T]hrough the mingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes, the zygote is a genetically unique product of chromosomal reassortment, which is important for the viability of any species."15 (Emphasis added.)
Myth 3: "The immediate product of fertilization is just a �potential� or a �possible� human being�not a real existing human being."
Fact 3: As demonstrated above, scientifically there is absolutely no question whatsoever that the immediate product of fertilization is a newly existing human being. A human zygote is a human being. It is not a "potential" or a "possible" human being. It�s an actual human being�with the potential to grow bigger and develop its capacities.
Myth 4: "A single-cell human zygote, or embryo, or fetus are not human beings, because they do not look like human beings."
Fact 4: As all human embryologists know, a single-cell human zygote, or a more developed human embryo, or human fetus is a human being�and that that�s the way they are supposed to look at those particular periods of development.
Myth 5: "The immediate product of fertilization is just an �it��it is neither a girl nor a boy."
Fact 5: The immediate product of fertilization is genetically already a girl or a boy�determined by the kind of sperm that fertilizes the oocyte. Quoting Carlson again:
"...[T]he sex of the future embryo is determined by the chromosomal complement of the spermatozoon. (If the sperm contains 22 autosomes and 2 X chromosomes, the embryo will be a genetic female, and if it contains 22 autosomes and an X and a Y chromosome, the embryo will be a genetic male.)"16
Myth 6: "The embryo and the embryonic period begin at implantation." (Alternative myths claim 14 days, or 3 weeks.)
Fact 6: These are a few of the most common myths perpetuated sometimes even within quasi-scientific articles�especially within the bioethics literature. As demonstrated above, the human embryo, who is a human being, begins at fertilization�not at implantation (about 5-7 days), 14-days, or 3 weeks. Thus the embryonic period also begins at fertilization, and ends by the end of the eighth week, when the fetal period begins. Quoting O�Rahilly:
https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html
I will add this. Anti-death penalty advocates for years have argued the “what if we got it wrong” argument, stating we should err on the side of life. But when it comes to admitting they don’t know when “personhood” begins, pro-Abortion advocates are fine with erring on the side of death. Note: there is great overlap in these two groups.
Well, I am pro-abortion and I also agree fertilization is the beginning of human life. But yeah, you can see a difference from recent articles from earlier ones where there was no real threat of R v W being overturned.
As I mentioned earlier, that's the covid playbook. Herd immunity existed pre-March 2020. It coincidentally ceased to exist during an election cycle.
what frustrates me, as someone who is pro choice and generally considered to be on the left, is that people don't really understand what the supreme court does.
Do you think women should have the right to have an abortion? Cool, I don't disagree with you. The question put in front of the Supreme Court was "Does the Constitution give women the right to have an abortion?"
Those are 2 different questions. I believe women should have the right to have an abortion (up to a point, once the fetus is viable outside the womb it should not be aborted). But the constitution simply doesn't state that. Thus you haven't seen me posting angrily about my opinion.
Sperm are alive. Science says so. The Bible even says whacking is wrong. Your rationale means every 13 year old boy is a murderer.
You may be a bit of a rare bird. Most people either don’t understand or purposefully conflate issues to be political.
No. This is an old tired spent argument that I am quite frankly really surprised to see in 2022. I said the fertilized egg was (1) life and (2) human. I don’t need the Bible to prove that as dispositively true. If you think back to an actual science class, you may recall that the sperm and egg each carry 23 chromosomes. It takes 46 to be human life. Hopefully, I don’t have to explain any further. So, if it is your inclination, whack away, because your desire has nothing to do with this discussion or my “rationale.”
Is that not the point of the ninth amendment? To say "just because something isn't explicitly listed here doesn't mean it's not a right." A 200 year old, relatively short document can't come close to creating a complete list of rights, especially as rights evolve with the times. It doesn't state I have the right to travel freely within the United States, but I surely can. Body autonomy would also fall under an unenumerated right.
If we're taking the Constitution literally, no where does it say the unborn have any rights at all. The 14th Amendment specifically mentions "All persons born or naturalized in the United States..."
Amend the constitution if you think you have the support nationally to accomplish your objective about “body autonomy” that does not apply to the unique individual body of the unborn human. If you cannot, then admit that the representative process is your and my outlet for what we think is correct.
Organogenesis is complete at 8 weeks, for those who care, and are trying to make determinations about when they think abortion, if ever, should be permitted.
We're not talking about amending the Constitution, we're talking about interpreting it as written. And if we're interpreting it literally, where in the document does and "unborn human" have any rights at all? The ninth amendment provides a stronger argument right for the unenumerated right to body autonomy than anywhere else in the document does for the rights of an "unborn human".
What about people who freeze their eggs when going through In Vitro? Should they be forced to use all those eggs since they are fertilized? If those frozen eggs are life and human, can they not be destroyed if they are never implanted? Do they have to remain frozen in perpetuity? Are they alive or is it only an egg that is fertilized inside a woman?
That’s something I was going to mention. I have friends who went that route to have children, they’ve been really successful but still have embryos in storage. They have a house full of kids but I’m sure it’s a dilemma they’re struggling with. Apparently abandoned embryos is a real problem at most fertility clinics. Some have embryos belonging to people who have died. Now what?
Are you wanting to discuss the ethics of freezing a life or are you pretending this is relevant to your position that we just don’t know what life is?
Because I believe that from the time of conception every person/child should have a chance to succeed and experience life. I’m not asking anyone else to feel the way I feel. I’m not saying everyone should. I have my own experiences and views on every topic.
I’m asking your thoughts on what to do with those frozen eggs since you have specifically said it’s a life. Can they be destroyed? They can’t remain frozen forever. They can’t be implanted in someone else. A couple who is trying for a family can’t be forced to use multiple eggs as they are made because many times they don’t implant. Should in vitro not be an option if the couple doesn’t want to implant all of the eggs. It’s a simple question.
I think you know these are valid ethical questions about unique human life. We all know in our hearts that if something akin to a fertilized egg was found on another planet, we would all declare that life beyond Earth had been discovered. I do not agree with creating life to destroy life.
Candidly, here is the problem I have with this position (admitting, as you suggest, that you do not have to feel as I). I agree with your reasoning for opposing abortion, but not the justification for not opposing the act. We have many laws that protect the very thing you have identified. I don’t understand relinquishing protection of these lives to the vocal angry opposition when we protect that very thing with other laws. If there was great contention over homicide and its legality, would we acquiesce to the disagreement and permit homicide? I have always hoped that had I lived in Nazi Germany that I would stand up to the Holocaust knowing it would be very difficult and dangerous. I would want to be that person. I suspect there were a lot of Germans who knew it was wrong, but acquiesced. Understandably, it was much safer to disagree, but not oppose.
BTW, thank you for answering.
Scientists don't get to make that decision for those of us who know when life begins.
You have a belief on when you think life begins. That doesn't make it correct. And my point was that there isn't a 100% consensus from all scientists about when life begins even though Caveman constantly said there was.
Last edited:
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.