Post Roe - abortions increase

“I don’t need a piece of paper to prove I was born, I’m right here!”. Congrats, you just solved our illegal immigration problem.

 

That is literally what that paper does from a legal perspective.

Yep, it is documentary evidence of the existence of a separate person. If we really were separate for 9 months, it is strange that we decided nobody needed documentary evidence of their existence during those 9 months.

 

This country began at conception, everyone in Louisiana is now French and Floridians are hereby Spanish citizens

 

First, there is no "IF that is an event"--you can't possibly dispute that. Birth is an event. That is what your BC documents.

Second, it's used because it is easily and objectively identified, while conception and development are far more speculative. Also worth noting--ain't no going back. It may have happened idk, but I've never heard of a baby being born, and a doc saying "wait...this one's not done yet...let's put 'er back in the oven, check back in a week or two...";

Third, we didn't even let women vote until after we freed the slaves, and after they got to vote, so clearly we didn't want pregnant women getting to vote twice, when it was like pulling teeth to let them vote at all.

(Jk about that last one--sadly, I have to spell that shit out around here).

 

Conversely--before America declared independence, there was no one. No one fought for independence. Where there were indians and colonists...a nation just manifested from the woods upon a spontaneous declaration.

 

Or consider that in any American history course, it never starts with the Declaration of Independence, or the Articles of Confederation. It begins with the arrival of British colonists long before the idea of America or a nation outside the British empire was in anyone's heads, perhaps even before with all that crazy "woke" history accounting for the original inhabitants of the land who had never met an Englishman. The life of America begins before its conception, if you will.

 

When as a country we ban the act of killing the most innocent for convenience. You will see the number of abortions decline like you have in the states that have moved to protect the most innocent.

It really is heartbreaking that you support the legal killing of the most innocent.

 

And there it is. You just described why all of this is an issue. The rest is speculative. It relies on our metaphysical understanding of the concept of life.

And that is why the state shouldn't be jumping into this: because it is jumping into a speculative process and substituting somebody else's morality for individual morality.

 

But we celebrate her birthday as when the colonists declared independence, while still acknowledging that there was a whole lot of development that preceded that event. That's just when the rebs put their nuts on the line officially. Like when a baby is born--he is committed to relying on his own lungs to oxygenate his own blood...but the lungs and blood were already there, and already his own.

 

Oh, so your argument is now that people will travel to anither state but not another country? Or have it done illegally? Or whatever the easiest approach at the time is. Again, you backed a policy that resulted in increased abortions and now your only solution is more of that same policy. Is that because you want even more abortions?

 

The standard was “unique DNA”.

There is nothing inherently special about DNA material on its own, human or otherwise. We can literally create embryos with unique dna through artificial means. That doesn’t make each one as “precious” as a born human.

I mean this should be obvious even to a zealot. If a fertility clinic goes up in flames it’s not human tragedy on the same level like if dozens of babies are killed (or even just one baby). That’s actually happened a few times. Thousands of embryos lost, whether through negligence or arson at such a facility. Do you think in those cases the person responsible should have full legal culpability as taking a life? It’s mass murder under your standard. I think in some cases it can be tragic on a personal level (like if someone is infertile or a spouse is deceased, those embryos would have special value), but i think sane people can recognize the overall differences, recognize that life is a complex process (not a binary switch), and thus don’t go down the “life begins at conception” legal rabbit holes.

 

I didn't just do that--that's been well understood from time immemorial. Even the flawed opinion in Roe readily acknowledged that (then proceeded to bury the issue and remove it from the public forum for half a century--well beyond their ecplicit authority...).

 

No doubt but it is an important admission while you have somebody on here trying to claim a definitive answer from science that all of this is specilative.

And now you have the state deciding people's metaphysical positions for them rather than saying the state should generally stay out of that decision.

 

When has human DNA yielded a pig, or a frog, or a salmon?

When has roach, worm, pig, or whale DNA yielded a human being?

The DNA material may not be special by itself, but when you have a fertilized human egg, you have a special DNA combination that's hard programmed to yield a unique, distinct human being.

 

So?

 

I think we celebrate our independence from England not "America's birthday," if we celebrated the formation of an American nation as its birth, February 2nd or June 21 would be our national holidays, when either the AoC or Constitution were ratified. But whatever the case, its clear that people believe our existence predates our actual conception.

 

Well, what about the whole democracy thing? Oughtn't the people specific states be permitted to subscribe to their agreed upon definition, rather than having it dictated from on high, by 9 men in black robes who were never elected, and never subjected to re-election?

...and if we as a nation can agree on a starting point/standard, then let the nation so declare it, through her elected reps. Subject to scrutiny, review, accountability to the ballot box, etc.

 

So the DNA in a fertilized egg is unique and special due to its development according to its programming, while the DNA extracted from a hair or finger nail clipping are negotiable, bc they're programmed to die off apart from their parental being.

(...and the fertilized egg is therefore a human being--in the earliest state of BEing--it will never be anything else-not a roach, worm, bird, pig....it will always be what is is--a distinct specimen of humanity).

 

We don't democratically decide on all sorts of issues involving individual morality. And that is how it should be. I don't think the state should decide all issues of individual morality. We are supposed to have a relatively limited government as well.

 

The argument is we should do what is right and protect the most innocent from being killed legally for convenience.

It is heartbreaking that you fight to legally kill the most innocent for convenience. We disagree on this issue for sure!