Page 56 of 76 FirstFirst ... 646545556575866 ... LastLast
Results 551 to 560 of 752

Thread: Roe v Wade is on deck

  1. Top | #551
    Content Thief Elixir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Mountains
    Posts
    17,532
    Archived
    707
    Total Posts
    18,239
    Rep Power
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhea View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Elixir View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    You realise that it's the empirical data in the study that I'm referring to not the opinions about what those facts might mean.
    I realize that you are trying to say that you are better able to interpret what you read in the report, than are scientists who have studied and practiced for years specifically for that task.
    Basically you are saying "I don't care about the science, I know what I think it means".

    Yeh, there are nerve endings much earlier than 24 weeks. You seize upon that, and conflate the existence of nerve endings with the experience of pain.
    That's not reality, it's religious fantasy.
    There are nerve endings in severed fingers. But like in a fetus, there's no cortical connection. They're not connected to anything so they can't feel pain.
    Why can't you get that?
    Religion...
    This is par for the course in women’s rights issues. Unqualified poeple proclaiming their opinion as fact.
    Religious people, men who are not physicians, politicians who are not knowledgeable in biology.

    They try to throw in emotional appeals and misquote educated voices to try to sway the policy.
    It is often said that Teh Stoopid™ should hurt more, and it's hard to disagree with that. But dishonest malevolence deserves a whole other level of pain.
    Males trying to exert control over women's bodies while claiming to do so on behalf of non-sentient blobs of protoplasm, is the epitome of dishonest malevolence IMHO.

    I believe an honest person who cited the article that Lion linked to as authoritative evidence regarding the question of fetal experience of pain, would either accept what the cited "authority" has to say about it or admit that it is not in fact authoritative and that it was a mistake to cite it as if it supported their a priori belief.
    Here is what it actually said:

    "There is good evidence that the fetus is sedated by the physical environment of the womb and usually does not awaken before birth"

    This is neither a highly technical nor an ambiguous statement. It is how the article to which Lion refers as an authority, concludes. Yet, although this has been pointed out, Lion STILL wants to use the article as an authority, and represent that it actually says something other than what it says, intimating that he is somehow better educated on the subject than the 57 professionals and groups of professionals credited in the article's References section. This is the essence of religiosity and typifies its associated egotistical malevolence.

  2. Top | #552
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Burnsville, MN
    Posts
    6,477
    Archived
    2,911
    Total Posts
    9,388
    Rep Power
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by Elixir View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhea View Post

    This is par for the course in women’s rights issues. Unqualified poeple proclaiming their opinion as fact.
    Religious people, men who are not physicians, politicians who are not knowledgeable in biology.

    They try to throw in emotional appeals and misquote educated voices to try to sway the policy.
    It is often said that Teh Stoopid™ should hurt more, and it's hard to disagree with that. But dishonest malevolence deserves a whole other level of pain.
    Males trying to exert control over women's bodies while claiming to do so on behalf of non-sentient blobs of protoplasm, is the epitome of dishonest malevolence IMHO.
    People trying to exert control over other people's bodies on behalf of any non-sentient anything is pretty fucked up, no doubt. This is just one of the many things that fit the pattern.

  3. Top | #553
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    33,048
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    129,800
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post

    No, I understand their jargon and semantics quite well.
    No, because you cherry-pick the numbers you want out of it.

    ...without looking the conclusions they draw from the information. And that conclusion is still 24 weeks for pain to be possible.
    You realise that it's the empirical data in the study that I'm referring to not the opinions about what those facts might mean.

    They do not conclude that pain is impossible before 24 weeks.
    You are focusing in the receptors, you're ignoring the fact they're not hooked up.

    You are also making the invalid jump from "respond to external stimuli" as "feel pain".
    It's perfectly valid to infer that the external stimuli of touch, temperature and vibration can be either painful or pleasant.
    And you don't realize that there is a specific sensation of pain. No pain nerves = no pain. I've had a sensation of extreme temperature without the slightest pain when the dentist's needle hit the nerve.

    I have dropped a pot holder on the counter and heard the fire under the pot react.

    The fire on my stove feels pain?!
    Gee. Is that the best you got?
    Disproof by counterexample. You are making the jump from "responds to external stimuli" to "feels pain". I presented an example of a reaction to an external stimuli in a situation where pain is obviously not a meaningful concept.

  4. Top | #554
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    NOT laying back and thinking of England
    Posts
    12,465
    Archived
    3,655
    Total Posts
    16,120
    Rep Power
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post

    No, I understand their jargon and semantics quite well.
    Apparently not, unless you are being deliberately dishonest. I don't think that you are.

    ...without looking the conclusions they draw from the information. And that conclusion is still 24 weeks for pain to be possible.
    You realise that it's the empirical data in the study that I'm referring to not the opinions about what those facts might mean.
    No, you are not doing that. You are misinterpreting words to mean what you want them to mean, without understanding (unless you are pretending you don't understand) what the words mean.
    They do not conclude that pain is impossible before 24 weeks.

    They conclude that there is a difference between damaging and non-damaging external stimuli. Sure. Non-damaging touch, vibration, temperature might not be painful. So what?

    They conclude that early/immature nociceptor nerve endings needed to feel pain are detected to already exist in the skin of 6 week old fetuses and these increase in number from 6 weeks onwards.
    You do not seem to understand the concept of necessary but not sufficient. A sperm is necessary to create a human being. An ovum is necessary to create a human being. Neither are sufficient, separately or even together to create a human being. Both are necessary but not sufficient. Just as precursor structures are necessary for actual nerve endings to develop.


    It's perfectly valid to infer that the external stimuli of touch, temperature and vibration can be either painful or pleasant.
    But immaterial.

    Here is an image of a 6 week old human embryo (the woman is 8 weeks pregnant)


    https://www.sciencephoto.com/media/3...yo-6-weeks-old

  5. Top | #555
    Loony Running The Asylum ZiprHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Do you like my pretty crown?
    Posts
    26,014
    Archived
    3,034
    Total Posts
    29,048
    Rep Power
    100
    Catholic Monsignor Who Wanted to Deny Biden Communion Resigns After Cellphone Links Him to Gay Dating App

    The General Secretary of the USCCB, Monsignor Jeffrey Burrill read the voting results to the conference back in June. Burrill has now resigned from his position after cell phone data revealed that he used the gay dating app Grindr and regularly visits gay bars.
    Don't throw stones in a glass house.
    When conservatives realize they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will abandon democracy.

    Poverty exists not because we cannot feed the poor but because we can't satisfy the rich.

  6. Top | #556
    Content Thief Elixir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Mountains
    Posts
    17,532
    Archived
    707
    Total Posts
    18,239
    Rep Power
    65
    Just wondering about how @Lion sees it.
    Which one is more "human"?



  7. Top | #557
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    NOT laying back and thinking of England
    Posts
    12,465
    Archived
    3,655
    Total Posts
    16,120
    Rep Power
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by Elixir View Post
    Just wondering about how @Lion sees it.
    Which one is more "human"?


    I'm assuming that the images are of human embryos. The top one is, for certain. It's the same image I posted. At that stage of development, it is difficult to tell what species an embryo is by sight.

    I assume those embryos are both human and I see them as human.

    I also see it as a woman's choice whether or not to continue to carry any pregnancy. Full stop.

  8. Top | #558
    Contributor Trausti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Northwest
    Posts
    8,622
    Archived
    372
    Total Posts
    8,994
    Rep Power
    68
    Not quite like the child sacrifice in Carthage, but it’ll do.


  9. Top | #559
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Located 100 miles east of A in America
    Posts
    32,633
    Archived
    42,473
    Total Posts
    75,106
    Rep Power
    100
    link

    Quote Originally Posted by article
    In a few months, the Supreme Court will hear a case that gives the conservative justices an opportunity to overrule Roe v. Wade, allowing states to ban abortion at early stages of pregnancy. But Texas can’t wait that long. In May, the state’s Republican lawmakers passed a law known as SB 8 that outlaws abortion after six weeks. But SB 8 is unique: It empowers private citizens, not government officials, to enforce it. The measure allows any random stranger to bring a lawsuit in state court against any individual who “aids or abets” an abortion in Texas after six weeks. Anyone in the country may file such a suit against abortion “abettors” in any state court within Texas. If the plaintiff wins, they collect a minimum of $10,000 plus attorneys’ fees. And if they win a case against an abortion provider, the court must shut down that clinic. If the provider somehow prevails, they collect nothing, not even attorneys’ fees.
    And we are at the precipice again. Tomorrow the Texas law is supposed to go into effect. As I think was previously stated, the new anti-abortion law puts the power in the hands of citizens to ban abortion... which umm.... is complete and utter bullshit.

    But so was Plessy v Ferguson. And we await to see if SCOTUS will hold this law up. Troubles exist. Depending on how anal SCOTUS wants to be, there might be no standing for complaining about this law upon launch, Texas has thoroughly muddled this law up to make it technically harder to appeal. Certainly if SCOTUS allows this to run, we are seeing the enshrinement of a Radical Christian SCOTUS. And this ignores the whole 6-week thing, although I think it is 6-weeks to allow birth control pills to be legal, and of course, that'd be next. The only way SCOTUS can approve this going into effect is standing. There are no SCOTUS rulings that remotely say this legislation is legal.

    I would say this, there is maybe one other out. Standing... again. This third party, in what universe can they have standing? Can a State Legislature say that an unimpacted third party can sue for anything? Can I sue the police over the shooting of someone I don't know?

  10. Top | #560
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Located 100 miles east of A in America
    Posts
    32,633
    Archived
    42,473
    Total Posts
    75,106
    Rep Power
    100
    And SCOTUS doesn't even shrug as wildly illegal bill goes into effect. All things equal, Federal Court would likely say it isn't legal, but I feel for the first doctor/staff that gets sued by a third party.

    I'd be interested in what the legal eagles, including James Madison (not the founding father... he's dead, the Member here, who I believe is quite alive) here think about this concept of providing an unharmed third party the right to sue someone. It seems like a cheap parlor trick.

    SCOTUS is supposed to rule on another case on Roe v Wade so maybe they are thinking they can just roll it together.The writing appears to be on the wall, the only question is how useless will precedence become. SCOTUS has ruled repeatedly in favor of the right of a woman to have an abortion. To overcome each of those rulings will take an incredible amount of finesse I think this court simply lacks. And really, I'm not certain it can be ruled easily on without leaving a lot of frayed fabric. I see no avenues to repeal Roe v Wade to state level that doesn't risk Griswold v Connecticut, and states get to choose what birth control options women can use.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •