I would assert you are in the vast vast minority if you’d let children die to save embryos that have a slim chance of developing anyway.
So, the goal posts first got switched from “embryos”, that anyone would by default assume to be growing in a womb, to being “frozen”, which doesn’t fundamentally change much except for the discounted future returns argument (cash in hand today has more value than cash coming in the future), and presumably the parents freezing their embryos are doing so to grow them into their children are some point.
Now the ridiculous setup has changed to most of the embryos have a slim chance anyway, so sure, if they only have 1% chance of survival and there’s nothing anyone can do about it in this stupid setup, their value goes down by 99x, but what’s the point of such questions. They are meaningless for policy.
The only purpose appears to be to call people who make moral choices different from yours heartless murderers.
So, the goal posts first got switched from “embryos”, that anyone would by default assume to be growing in a womb, to being “frozen”, which doesn’t fundamentally change much except for the discounted future returns argument (cash in hand today has more value than cash coming in the future), and presumably the parents freezing their embryos are doing so to grow them into their children are some point.
Now the ridiculous setup has changed to most of the embryos have a slim chance anyway, so sure, if they only have 1% chance of survival and there’s nothing anyone can do about it in this stupid setup, their value goes down by 99x, but what’s the point of such questions. They are meaningless for policy.
The only purpose appears to be to call people who make moral choices different from yours heartless murderers.
The original question was posed in a fertility clinic. The embryos have just as much a chance and any of becoming a fully-grown human provided they receive the appropriate care.
As this thread shows, the view of the Right is that the nation's founders wrote the Constitution with every item in the present-day Republican wish-list in mind. Furthermore, as the abortion issue shows, there are none more expert on the subject of women's rights than a bunch of guys. So much wisdom beneath their turbans.
I'm pro-choice, but unlike many pro-choice people, I do understand and give significant weight to pro-life arguments regarding sanctity of life.
However, I really don't understand this South Dakota position, where they will not prosecute the pregnant woman who aborts a pregnancy. This seems to turn the pro-life arguments I'm reading here into just hypocritical politics, rather than a moral belief in the sanctity of life.
If abortion is murder, why wouldn't the primary actor in the murder be prosecuted? The murder does not happen unless the pregnant woman initially contacts the doctor to commit the murder. It's like the murder for hire conspiracies we read about all the time. The pregnant woman wants someone killed, and conspires with someone more experienced to commit the murder. I really can't figure out the rationale for not prosecuting the pregnant woman responsible for murder, but rather ONLY prosecuting the doctor. Anyone?
Is it a belief that pregnant women are only having abortions because they are being coerced or unduly influenced to commit the murder, and therefore have no criminal intent? That seems an incredibly flimsy theory. A million pregnant women a year were incapable of making that decision, and only did so because these criminal doctors they contacted took advantage of their emotional condition and talked them into it? Just seems so far-fetched to me.
This irreconcilable South Dakota policy on abortion has me re-thinking whether most pro-lifers really believe abortion is the murder of an innocent baby.
1) It’s hardly uncommon for prosecution to go after what they see are the highest value targets and let off co-conspirators or just give them a rap on the hand usually because they need their cooperation. Seems like smart prosecution and PR tactics by Noem.
2) You are mixing law with moral principles. Law doesn’t work knee-jerk. Until last week, abortion was legal. All abortions = murder is just not what the state law says, so that’s a false equivalence, and not all murder is equivalent anyway even outside of the abortion context.
I'm pro-choice, but unlike many pro-choice people, I do understand and give significant weight to pro-life arguments regarding sanctity of life.
However, I really don't understand this South Dakota position, where they will not prosecute the pregnant woman who aborts a pregnancy. This seems to turn the pro-life arguments I'm reading here into just hypocritical politics, rather than a moral belief in the sanctity of life.
If abortion is murder, why wouldn't the primary actor in the murder be prosecuted? The murder does not happen unless the pregnant woman initially contacts the doctor to commit the murder. It's like the murder for hire conspiracies we read about all the time. The pregnant woman wants someone killed, and conspires with someone more experienced to commit the murder. I really can't figure out the rationale for not prosecuting the pregnant woman responsible for murder, but rather ONLY prosecuting the doctor. Anyone?
Is it a belief that pregnant women are only having abortions because they are being coerced or unduly influenced to commit the murder, and therefore have no criminal intent? That seems an incredibly flimsy theory. A million pregnant women a year were incapable of making that decision, and only did so because these criminal doctors they contacted took advantage of their emotional condition and talked them into it? Just seems so far-fetched to me.
This irreconcilable South Dakota policy on abortion has me re-thinking whether most pro-lifers really believe abortion is the murder of an innocent baby.
1) It’s hardly uncommon for prosecution to go after what they see are the highest value targets and let off co-conspirators or just give them a rap on the hand usually because they need their cooperation. Seems like smart prosecution and PR tactics by Noem.
Yeah, I know how prosecution commonly works. This South Dakota policy seems completely backwards to that.
Why isn't the person who initiates the murder, often pays for it, and without whose participation the murder cannot occur, considered the highest value target? And even if they are somehow (and I can't imagine how) considered a lower value target, why would there be no prosecution at all? This is murder we are talking about. When has it ever been prosecution practice to let someone off completely with murder? South Dakota can't at least charge the de facto principal player in the murder conspiracy with, for example, some lower degree of manslaughter?
It makes no sense. Your explanation makes no sense. I can't figure out the policy or factors behind deciding not to charge a murderer with murder. Like I guessed before, it must be some theory that women are being coerced or unduly influenced to commit the murder, but that is factually wrong and seems hypocritical.
Why are pro-lifers NEVER at IVF clinics? There's literally a dozen embryos destroyed for every woman there.
The pro-choice spin on that is it’s because of a dishonest morality and wanting to control women’s bodies, presumably because they have blinders on and publishing articles with that spin gets more eyeballs for their audience.
How about it’s a matter of competing but synergistic principles: sanctity of life and the undeniable goodness of motherhood (and apple pie)? Women wanting to have children but can’t without IVF is an understandable situation but we just don’t know how to make that happen without producing several times more fertilized eggs than implanted. If we could, we would.
Jumping from there to saying being anti-abortion is primarily to control women’s bodies and punish them for having had sex is a leap not in good faith, one that’s made in the humanities and social sciences hallways, and one that seems oblivious to the fact that the consequences of parenthood impacts fathers too.
As this thread shows, the view of the Right is that the nation's founders wrote the Constitution with every item in the present-day Republican wish-list in mind. Furthermore, as the abortion issue shows, there are none more expert on the subject of women's rights than a bunch of guys. So much wisdom beneath their turbans.
I’m confused. Is Amy Coney Barrett a “guy”? I thought she was a female Supreme Court justice. Maybe a bit of misogyny to disregard her opinion on the matter?
This thread proves that a lot of people are unable, or unwilling, to agree with a principle while simultaneously understanding that a ruling regarding that principle can be on shaky ground.
Why is it that someone as pro-choice and pro-feminism as Ruth Bader Ginsburg could see this, yet most people in this thread refuse to? She knew Roe could not hold up long term under the right to privacy argument.
1) It’s hardly uncommon for prosecution to go after what they see are the highest value targets and let off co-conspirators or just give them a rap on the hand usually because they need their cooperation. Seems like smart prosecution and PR tactics by Noem.
Yeah, I know how prosecution commonly works. This South Dakota policy seems completely backwards to that.
Why isn't the person who initiates the murder, often pays for it, and without whose participation the murder cannot occur, considered the highest value target? And even if they are somehow (and I can't imagine how) considered a lower value target, why would there be no prosecution at all? This is murder we are talking about. When has it ever been prosecution practice to let someone off completely with murder? South Dakota can't at least charge the de facto principal player in the murder conspiracy with, for example, some lower degree of manslaughter?
It makes no sense. Your explanation makes no sense. I can't figure out the policy or factors behind deciding not to charge a murderer with murder. Like I guessed before, it must be some theory that women are being coerced or unduly influenced to commit the murder, but that is factually wrong and seems hypocritical.
What’s not to understand? It’s much higher value to go after doctors because it would stop them and other doctors from doing illegal abortions for any woman.
“This is murder” *you* ”are talking about”, not we or SD law as I said in my second bullet that you omitted.
As this thread shows, the view of the Right is that the nation's founders wrote the Constitution with every item in the present-day Republican wish-list in mind. Furthermore, as the abortion issue shows, there are none more expert on the subject of women's rights than a bunch of guys. So much wisdom beneath their turbans.
I’m confused. Is Amy Coney Barrett a “guy”? I thought she was a female Supreme Court justice. Maybe a bit of misogyny to disregard her opinion on the matter?
This thread proves that a lot of people are unable, or unwilling, to agree with a principle while simultaneously understanding that a ruling regarding that principle can be on shaky ground.
Why is it that someone as pro-choice and pro-feminism as Ruth Bader Ginsburg could see this, yet most people in this thread refuse to? She knew Roe could not hold up long term under the right to privacy argument.
None of these decriers have actually even read the majority opinion, which is why they can’t articulate substantive legal objections to the arguments therein. Six scotus justices’ comprehensive decision justification is way more compelling than virtue signaling by Roe apologists. All they know is they have to be against the decision, but they don’t care to understand and conscientiously refute the decision.
The “right to privacy” argument never made sense to me long before 2022 even back when I considered myself a supporter of Roe. It’s not hard to see why. If it is, Alito’s report explains why in simple language, and I have as well several times in this thread.
I’m confused. Is Amy Coney Barrett a “guy”? I thought she was a female Supreme Court justice. Maybe a bit of misogyny to disregard her opinion on the matter?
This thread proves that a lot of people are unable, or unwilling, to agree with a principle while simultaneously understanding that a ruling regarding that principle can be on shaky ground.
Why is it that someone as pro-choice and pro-feminism as Ruth Bader Ginsburg could see this, yet most people in this thread refuse to? She knew Roe could not hold up long term under the right to privacy argument.
None of these decriers have actually even read the majority opinion, which is why they can’t articulate substantive legal objections to the arguments therein. Six scotus justices’ comprehensive decision justification is way more compelling than virtue signaling by Roe apologists. All they know is they have to be against the decision, but they don’t care to understand and conscientiously refute the decision.
The “right to privacy” argument never made sense to me long before 2022 even back when I considered myself a supporter of Roe. It’s not hard to see why. If it is, Alito’s report explains why in simple language, and I have as well several times in this thread.
Supreme Court: "We don't have the authority to decide this. It should be decided by the people's elected representatives."
Liberals: "It's the end of democracy!"
People who read beyond headlines: "Enhancing democracy ends democracy?"
Why are pro-lifers NEVER at IVF clinics? There's literally a dozen embryos destroyed for every woman there.
The pro-choice spin on that is it’s because of a dishonest morality and wanting to control women’s bodies, presumably because they have blinders on and publishing articles with that spin gets more eyeballs for their audience.
How about it’s a matter of competing but synergistic principles: sanctity of life and the undeniable goodness of motherhood (and apple pie)? Women wanting to have children but can’t without IVF is an understandable situation but we just don’t know how to make that happen without producing several times more fertilized eggs than implanted. If we could, we would.
Jumping from there to saying being anti-abortion is primarily to control women’s bodies and punish them for having had sex is a leap not in good faith, one that’s made in the humanities and social sciences hallways, and one that seems oblivious to the fact that the consequences of parenthood impacts fathers too.
So you basically leave it up to the women to decide that IVF is necessary and, thus, the murdering of embryos is necessary. You have to trust that they aren't going about this process frivolously and condemning embryos to death needlessly. You're so close to getting it.
Why are pro-lifers NEVER at IVF clinics? There's literally a dozen embryos destroyed for every woman there.
The pro-choice spin on that is it’s because of a dishonest morality and wanting to control women’s bodies, presumably because they have blinders on and publishing articles with that spin gets more eyeballs for their audience.
How about it’s a matter of competing but synergistic principles: sanctity of life and the undeniable goodness of motherhood (and apple pie)? Women wanting to have children but can’t without IVF is an understandable situation but we just don’t know how to make that happen without producing several times more fertilized eggs than implanted. If we could, we would.
Jumping from there to saying being anti-abortion is primarily to control women’s bodies and punish them for having had sex is a leap not in good faith, one that’s made in the humanities and social sciences hallways, and one that seems oblivious to the fact that the consequences of parenthood impacts fathers too.
This is exactly what I expected to be honest. You approve the decision of the women at the IVF clinic because they're trying to be mothers and the women at the abortion clinic aren't.
Its entirely about control and women's role in society. The decision to be mothers is theirs, not yours.
The pro-choice spin on that is it’s because of a dishonest morality and wanting to control women’s bodies, presumably because they have blinders on and publishing articles with that spin gets more eyeballs for their audience.
How about it’s a matter of competing but synergistic principles: sanctity of life and the undeniable goodness of motherhood (and apple pie)? Women wanting to have children but can’t without IVF is an understandable situation but we just don’t know how to make that happen without producing several times more fertilized eggs than implanted. If we could, we would.
Jumping from there to saying being anti-abortion is primarily to control women’s bodies and punish them for having had sex is a leap not in good faith, one that’s made in the humanities and social sciences hallways, and one that seems oblivious to the fact that the consequences of parenthood impacts fathers too.
This is exactly what I expected to be honest. You approve the decision of the women at the IVF clinic because they're trying to be mothers and the women at the abortion clinic aren't.
Its entirely about control and women's role in society. The decision to be mothers is theirs, not yours.
Incorrect, the part in the bold is the only part of your text I can agree with for the reasons I already explained (but I understand it never had any chance of changing your thinking).
This is exactly what I expected to be honest. You approve the decision of the women at the IVF clinic because they're trying to be mothers and the women at the abortion clinic aren't.
Its entirely about control and women's role in society. The decision to be mothers is theirs, not yours.
Incorrect, the part in the bold is the only part of your text I can agree with for the reasons I already explained (but I understand it never had any chance of changing your thinking).
So you agree that you get to decide what what is moral for women and you don't think it's about control? I've seen your posts, you shouldn't have that much hubris. Actually, you shouldn't have any
So you agree that you get to decide what what is moral for women and you don't think it's about control? I've seen your posts, you shouldn't have that much hubris. Actually, you shouldn't have any