3 ms·

To deprive someone of life is a crime, hence, someone who believes life begins at conception is advocating against unlawful killing, and crimes are certainly th

To deprive someone of life is a crime, hence, someone who believes life begins at conception is advocating against unlawful killing, and crimes are certainly the purview of the state and society.

Jason_Protell 4y ago
The issue here is that this belief is not based in reality. A fertilized egg is not a human.
- brigandish 4y ago
  > Someone believing life begins at conception That's the claim, not whether a fertilized egg is a human.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - Jason_Protell 4y ago
    14A gives protections to citizens and persons, not lives.
    - brigandish 4y ago
      Please don't quibble, it's not worth anyone's time, yours as much as anyone's. I'd like you to explain the personhood and citizenry rights of the non-living. Regardless, from section 1 of the 14th amendment[1]: > nor shall any state deprive any person of life, Did you not think to check it first? [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv
      - Jason_Protell 4y ago
        I've entertained this discussion in good faith, yet now you're belittling my diction and accusing me of wasting time. I'm done here. Have a nice day.
- dpbriggs 4y ago
  Are you willfully misrepresenting other arguments? There's a curious pattern in these threads of you ducking out of conversations when nuance is attempted. The remainder of the reasonable discussion around this topic is centered around the blurry point between inception and when viable birth is possible. The vast majority of people would classify a fetus, minutes before birth, being aborted as murder. As well, in most countries restrictions occur at some point in the pregnancy (recognition of the trade-off between bodily autonomy and the rights of the unborn). In my country that happens to be nine weeks unless there's an emergency.
gobrewers14 4y ago
I don't give a shit what other people believe. People believing in things is not a sufficient condition for the government to prohibit something.
- brigandish 4y ago
  This ruling does not prohibit anything. Regardless, in a democracy other people's beliefs are entirely a sufficient condition in what the government will do. Maybe not sufficient reasoning for you, but again, it's a democracy, not your fiefdom.
  - gobrewers14 4y ago
    > This ruling does not prohibit anything Missouri just banned abortion as a result of this being overturned, so yes, it does. > other people's beliefs are entirely a sufficient condition in what the government will do False. Other people's beliefs are a necessary condition. If I convince 51% of the populace geminis are evil and should be imprisoned, this is not a sufficient condition for the government to implement this policy. We would need to scientifically demonstrate that astrology is in fact true. This is the sufficient condition. The necessary condition is a majority believing it. Likewise, having an objective, unambiguous, scientific definition of what life is and when it begins is the sufficient condition for outlawing abortion and a majority believing that is the necessary condition. A characteristic of a free society is not one where the government creates laws based on the whims of particular religious groups.
    - brigandish 4y ago
      > > This ruling does not prohibit anything > Missouri just banned abortion as a result of this being overturned, so yes, it does. No, it doesn't, Missouri's laws have prohibited abortion. > If I convince 51% of the populace geminis are evil and should be imprisoned, this is not a sufficient condition for the government to implement this policy. We would need to scientifically demonstrate that astrology is in fact true. Government is not bound by what is scientifically demonstrated, thus making this statement and the rest of what you wrote, incorrect. > A characteristic of a free society is not one where the government creates laws based on the whims of particular religious groups. Hundreds, if not thousands of years of fairly consistent belief that life is sacred is hardly a whim, neither is the opposition to Roe v Wade from certain religious groups. It's also not characteristic of free society, governments put in place plenty of silly laws "on a whim" in free societies.

To deprive someone of life is a crime, hence, someone who believes life begins at conception is advocating against unlawful killing, and crimes are certainly the purview of the state and society.

Jason_Protell 4y ago

The issue here is that this belief is not based in reality. A fertilized egg is not a human.

brigandish 4y ago
> Someone believing life begins at conception That's the claim, not whether a fertilized egg is a human.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- Jason_Protell 4y ago
  14A gives protections to citizens and persons, not lives.
  - brigandish 4y ago
    Please don't quibble, it's not worth anyone's time, yours as much as anyone's. I'd like you to explain the personhood and citizenry rights of the non-living. Regardless, from section 1 of the 14th amendment[1]: > nor shall any state deprive any person of life, Did you not think to check it first? [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv
    - Jason_Protell 4y ago
      I've entertained this discussion in good faith, yet now you're belittling my diction and accusing me of wasting time. I'm done here. Have a nice day.
dpbriggs 4y ago
Are you willfully misrepresenting other arguments? There's a curious pattern in these threads of you ducking out of conversations when nuance is attempted. The remainder of the reasonable discussion around this topic is centered around the blurry point between inception and when viable birth is possible. The vast majority of people would classify a fetus, minutes before birth, being aborted as murder. As well, in most countries restrictions occur at some point in the pregnancy (recognition of the trade-off between bodily autonomy and the rights of the unborn). In my country that happens to be nine weeks unless there's an emergency.

gobrewers14 4y ago

I don't give a shit what other people believe. People believing in things is not a sufficient condition for the government to prohibit something.

brigandish 4y ago
This ruling does not prohibit anything. Regardless, in a democracy other people's beliefs are entirely a sufficient condition in what the government will do. Maybe not sufficient reasoning for you, but again, it's a democracy, not your fiefdom.
- gobrewers14 4y ago
  > This ruling does not prohibit anything Missouri just banned abortion as a result of this being overturned, so yes, it does. > other people's beliefs are entirely a sufficient condition in what the government will do False. Other people's beliefs are a necessary condition. If I convince 51% of the populace geminis are evil and should be imprisoned, this is not a sufficient condition for the government to implement this policy. We would need to scientifically demonstrate that astrology is in fact true. This is the sufficient condition. The necessary condition is a majority believing it. Likewise, having an objective, unambiguous, scientific definition of what life is and when it begins is the sufficient condition for outlawing abortion and a majority believing that is the necessary condition. A characteristic of a free society is not one where the government creates laws based on the whims of particular religious groups.
  - brigandish 4y ago
    > > This ruling does not prohibit anything > Missouri just banned abortion as a result of this being overturned, so yes, it does. No, it doesn't, Missouri's laws have prohibited abortion. > If I convince 51% of the populace geminis are evil and should be imprisoned, this is not a sufficient condition for the government to implement this policy. We would need to scientifically demonstrate that astrology is in fact true. Government is not bound by what is scientifically demonstrated, thus making this statement and the rest of what you wrote, incorrect. > A characteristic of a free society is not one where the government creates laws based on the whims of particular religious groups. Hundreds, if not thousands of years of fairly consistent belief that life is sacred is hardly a whim, neither is the opposition to Roe v Wade from certain religious groups. It's also not characteristic of free society, governments put in place plenty of silly laws "on a whim" in free societies.