Tunnelcat wrote: ↑Tue Dec 14, 2021 12:53 pmHowever, is it a baby once the 2 gametes get together during conception and form the zygote containing all the genetic programming to become a human, or only after a certain amount of growth and it starts looking like a human being during the gestation period? Many of these conservative states are attempting to push that point closer and closer to the actual conception, so close that a woman can't even tell she's pregnant. Some people even believe that the separate gametes constitute a potential human being and even those shouldn't be interfered with by using contraception.
"Looking like" is a highly subjective position, which is why many laws try to use a more definable point, i.e. the famous two-week heartbeat laws. Babies are known to have functional developing organs such as a heart and brain by 6-7 weeks. I would argue that for sure by this point a baby should be considered a person. Personally I subscribe to the conception theory (which, fun fact, does not mean immediately after sex) because by that point the mother's and father's DNA have joined together and the embryo has begun its own development process, largely independent of the mother apart from food, shelter, and hormone supplements which serve in large part to make the womb more hospitable. For this same reason, I do not accept the theory that separate gametes constitute a person - the separate DNA has not joined and no development has begun. There isn't even a fetal cell at this point.
Tunnelcat wrote: ↑Tue Dec 14, 2021 12:53 pmYou have to remember that it's the woman who has to carry the fetus, not the man. She's using her body as an incubator for 9 months, not the man. She has to go through the extreme pain and even possibility of death during gestation and birth, not the man. She also has to pay to keep her body alive and healthy during that time, not the man. Do you see a trend here? So at what point does the
government tell that woman that removing that fetus at any point during it's gestation period is murder? At what point does a government infringe upon a woman's right to privacy between her and her doctor or even her own reproductive freedom?
I will answer the second half now, and the first half when I discuss the role of men.
Essentially, murder is murder. If you actively kill a defenseless person, you are committing murder. End of story. The only issue is that people cannot agree on is whether the fetus is or is not a person - this is an issue of fact, not freedom. Freedom is about the ability to choose or abstain a given action. Society has already decided and government affirmed, through both law and constitution, that people do not have the freedom to murder. Fact is simply about what is; killing a fetus either is or is not murder.
Tunnelcat wrote: ↑Tue Dec 14, 2021 12:53 pmThe best solution would be to have free contraception and easy availability of a morning after pill, so that NO WOMAN gets pregnant after unprotected sex when they don't want to actually have a baby. But the human sex drive and people's idiocy is what it is and unwanted pregnancies will still occur.
Free by whom? I have no problem with these - I don't even mind the morning after pill, provided it targets fertilization, not implantation - but I do not believe the government should be involved in making these free. There are already many private entities offering these things completely free of charge on their own; why not follow their example?
Tunnelcat wrote: ↑Tue Dec 14, 2021 12:53 pmMaybe we should chemically neuter men until they are wiling to support and raise a baby and put some of the responsibility of pregnancy on them as well? A lot of them cut and run. They are the second half of this equation too and I don't see anti-abortion foes saying squat about that. How would men like the prospect of the government forcing chemical castration on men in order to prevent unwanted pregnancies? I'm willing to bet that would go over like a lead balloon. Heaven forbid a man loses the ability to be fertile, even temporarily.
Alright, time for the part about men.
I actually don't have an issue with chemical neutering of men, provided it is
completely voluntary, just like birth control for women. I do have a problem with forced castration or sterilization for both men and women. I dare you to talk about the government forcing sterilization on women to prevent unwanted pregnances.
I do happen to agree that men have a responsibility for the child, both before and after birth. It is 50% their DNA, after all. Enforcing they take 50% of the child's financial responsibility, especially if they cut and run, would probably stop a lot of unwanted pregnancies, and even serve to curb cases of rape. So yes, 50% DNA, 50% responsibility.
Tunnelcat wrote: ↑Tue Dec 14, 2021 12:53 pmBesides, even if SCOTUS supports Mississippi's case and overturns Texas', other states can still provide abortion services in this country and I'm willing to bet that if we get a full Conservative government some day in the future, abortion will be outlawed federally in ALL states. I'm even willing to bet a conservative government would go so far as to outlaw even contraception as well. How's that for "freedom"?
Your 'full Conservative government' would only be able to do so if the court strongly defines abortion as murder, rather than simply finding states are allowed to regulate it in such a manner. As for the contraception argument, I have high doubts about that; there are very few groups who oppose contraception. The main group I can think of are Catholics, which are
a minority among Christians. Maybe regionally this may occur, but never at a state or federal level, at least not any time soon.
Tunnelcat wrote: ↑Tue Dec 14, 2021 12:53 pmAs to the 2nd Amendment protecting gun rights, even it has a murky history and contradictory definitions. First off, absolutely NONE of the crazy militias currently running around the U.S. these days are regulated by the states nor are they members of the National Guard. Militias were supposed to be a
state's protection against a tyrannical federal government. However, most of the current militias are unregulated groups loosely bound by either fascist tendencies, racist white supremacy and Antisemitism. They are not sanctioned by the 2nd Amendment and are technically illegal, and yet they parade around armed to the teeth like they're patriots. NOT. Then you've got the South's slave history and the 2nd Amendment. The South wanted to maintain slavery and protect themselves against a slave revolt. The Southern States would have never ratified the 2nd Amendment if it actually gave the right to bear arms to ALL people, including slaves. So that's where the "well regulated militias" section was added. They didn't want a bunch of slaves arming themselves and starting a freedom revolt. They only wanted white people to have arms, and so made sure to add that passage. The way it's worded to this day is still contradictory. Can everyone can bear arms without that right being infringed upon by the federal government, or only those who are white and join a regulated militia like the States National Guards? You tell me.
Last I checked, slave-owning states didn't even fully consider slaves as people and rammed that assumption into any parts of the constitution they saw relevant. Otherwise, the 8th Amendment would have likely been cause for concern. Or how about the fifth amendment? Ninth? Tenth? I'm also willing to bet that any white southerner
not in a militia would have gotten quite angry had someone come for their guns. So no, the right to bear arms was not limited to militias. (I will say I am surprised that people who demonstrated a good command of English wrote such a grammatically weird clause.) The only reason this right was denied to blacks was because they were not considered citizens, people, or anything else protected under the constitution. (There is the 3/5 clause, a compromise where the southern states wanted to classify slaves as people for representation purposes; that was just those states being massive hypocrites. The only reason a compromise was even necessary was because the north called them out on it.)
Whatever I just said, I hope you understood it correctly. Understood what I meant, I mean.
#AllLivesMatter