Outcomes of Overturning Roe Vs. Wade

[Josh]

Scientifically speaking (and I note we are big on science when it comes to defining male and female) there is no beginning to a human life. Life is not linear, it is a cycle. Every living cell including human zygotes come from the division of other living cells. Sperm and eggs are just as alive as a fertilized zygote.

Ken, it’s disappointing some of these basic scientific “facts” you promoted aren’t even scientific facts. Let’s begin.

First off, it is clearly defined when a distinct human life begins at the moment of conception. That is the point at which the cell is distinct from both mother and father and is also the only way it is possible to develop into a new, unique grown human being. Life is not a “cycle”. People start as a single cell that is uniquely them. Eventually, all of their cells die, and then they are dead.

Eggs are not in a “cycle” either. All of the eggs a woman will ever have are formed quite early before she is even born. It is a bit of sophistry to claim “all cells come from other cells” as a means to then claim a one-celled human isn’t a human being.

When are they a human being? 2 cells? 20? 50? 2,000? 2 million? A trillion?

[HondurasKeiser]

Is a single microscopic cell a human being?

Obviously. What else would it be?

You kill thousands of human cells every time you scratch your nose or sneeze. Your body sheds about 50 billion human cells every day. Does that make you a mass murderer? Those cells have a nucleus with chromosomes, a cell membrane, organelles like mitochondria and ribosomes exactly like a human zygote. Genetically speaking they are identical to a human zygote with the same number of chromosomes and DNA. They can even be cloned and induced to reproduce.

Scientifically speaking (and I note we are big on science when it comes to defining male and female) there is no beginning to a human life. Life is not linear, it is a cycle. Every living cell including human zygotes come from the division of other living cells. Sperm and eggs are just as alive as a fertilized zygote. And they all came from the division of other living cells in an endless cycle back to the dawn of time.

So again, what makes a human zygote different from any other human body cell, or from sperm and egg cells for that matter? It is just a cell with a nucleus and DNA like any other. It has no tissue, no sensory organs, no nervous system, no brain cells. It is not self-aware. Functionally speaking it is no different from a protozoa. And about three fourths of them die naturally without any human intervention.

I wonder if when your wife first became pregnant with your daughters that you thought of them as akin to and of equal value with skin cells or with the similar disregard that we treat hair follicles?

[HondurasKeiser]

I don't have all the answers. I'm just pointing out that the notion that single cell human zygotes are uniquely human (while all other types of single human cells are not) is neither scientific nor Biblical. And adhering to such a belief leads us down some curious rabbit holes. For example, about 75% of all human zygotes perish naturally and are re-absorbed into the body or miscarried. Does that mean that 3/4 of the population of heaven is going to be single cell zygotes that have never experienced a human sensation, emotion, or thought? Is there any Biblical support for such a notion? I think not.

I've been thinking about how to respond to this because I find your rhetorical go-to move, that of comparing human life to sloughed-offed skin cells, and then when confronted, retreating to ambiguity and the moral morass of the question, to be both disingenuous and monstrous in a cool and calculating, even bloodless way. This quote from Bethel McGrew though describes your "middle position" and your refusal to face the fundamental question much better than I could. Incidentally, the "Eric" she's referring to is one, Eric Trump...so you're in good company:

The point is that truth doesn’t change just because some people in my social tribe are confused about it. Unborn human life, at any stage, must be confronted as it is, not as what would make us more comfortable. The hard-core pro-lifers and the hard-core pro-aborts do share an understanding to the extent that at some point, the honest hard-core pro-abort will fully admit exactly what we’re all talking about, exactly what they want. They just think it should be legal. In that sense, Eric is right that the clear Schelling point people are able to have one conversation, while everyone in the middle is having a different conversation. Where we differ is that I believe the middle conversation is kicking the can down the road. At the end of the day, the question to be answered is actually very straightforward: Are some pre-moral humans disposable, or not?

[Josh]

Interestingly this is an area where I strongly disagree with Trump, but Trump and Ken find themselves in agreement.

[Ken]

Interestingly this is an area where I strongly disagree with Trump, but Trump and Ken find themselves in agreement.

I'm not sure how anyone can agree with Trump. He is constantly flip-flopping and doesn't appear to have any coherent position. He just flip-flopped back to supporting Florida's 6-week ban after getting pushback from evangelical supporters. He doesn't appear to have any core beliefs. Everything is transactional and for sale, whatever gets him the most votes.

[temporal1]

I don't have all the answers.

^^agreed without condition.

HK:
I've been thinking about how to respond to this because I find your rhetorical go-to move, that of comparing human life to sloughed-offed skin cells, and then when confronted, retreating to ambiguity and the moral morass of the question, to be both disingenuous and monstrous in a cool and calculating, even bloodless way. This quote from Bethel McGrew though describes your "middle position" and your refusal to face the fundamental question much better than I could. Incidentally, the "Eric" she's referring to is one, Eric Trump...so you're in good company:

The point is that truth doesn’t change just because some people in my social tribe are confused about it. Unborn human life, at any stage, must be confronted as it is, not as what would make us more comfortable. The hard-core pro-lifers and the hard-core pro-aborts do share an understanding to the extent that at some point, the honest hard-core pro-abort will fully admit exactly what we’re all talking about, exactly what they want. They just think it should be legal. In that sense, Eric is right that the clear Schelling point people are able to have one conversation, while everyone in the middle is having a different conversation. Where we differ is that I believe the middle conversation is kicking the can down the road. At the end of the day, the question to be answered is actually very straightforward: Are some pre-moral humans disposable, or not?

imagine my shock when i read this thinking Josh wrote it. that’s ok. don’t worry, i’m ok now. a bit rattled, but ok.

[temporal1]

I wonder if when your wife first became pregnant with your daughters that you thought of them as akin to and of equal value with skin cells or with the similar disregard that we treat hair follicles?

The case is made for life at conception when the immediate, spontaneous joy, sometimes shock, sometimes fear or even horror (tests now only a few days after conception) - always without question - about a baby! A human being. A soul.

Following that comes happy, excited preparation for the new baby,
OR, desperate-desperate justification to exterminate the clump of unwanted cells. “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”

Conception is never “nothing.”
It’s never just an unsightly wart or benign cyst. Never.

No peoples on earth confuse this. Not without outside interferrence.
In the most remote jungles, people are not fooled or confused.

At its core, academia can be of the most serious ego-trips. It takes a special gift to not lose oneself in the trappings.
There’s a fragile line there.

Too much of what is called ‘education’ is little more than an expensive isolation from reality.
Thomas Sowell

[justme]

I'm not sure how anyone can agree with Trump. He is constantly flip-flopping and doesn't appear to have any coherent position. He just flip-flopped back to supporting Florida's 6-week ban after getting pushback from evangelical supporters. He doesn't appear to have any core beliefs. Everything is transactional and for sale, whatever gets him the most votes.

I 100% agree with the underlined parts of the above.

[Ken]

Obviously. What else would it be?

You kill thousands of human cells every time you scratch your nose or sneeze. Your body sheds about 50 billion human cells every day. Does that make you a mass murderer? Those cells have a nucleus with chromosomes, a cell membrane, organelles like mitochondria and ribosomes exactly like a human zygote. Genetically speaking they are identical to a human zygote with the same number of chromosomes and DNA. They can even be cloned and induced to reproduce.

Scientifically speaking (and I note we are big on science when it comes to defining male and female) there is no beginning to a human life. Life is not linear, it is a cycle. Every living cell including human zygotes come from the division of other living cells. Sperm and eggs are just as alive as a fertilized zygote. And they all came from the division of other living cells in an endless cycle back to the dawn of time.

So again, what makes a human zygote different from any other human body cell, or from sperm and egg cells for that matter? It is just a cell with a nucleus and DNA like any other. It has no tissue, no sensory organs, no nervous system, no brain cells. It is not self-aware. Functionally speaking it is no different from a protozoa. And about three fourths of them die naturally without any human intervention.

I wonder if when your wife first became pregnant with your daughters that you thought of them as akin to and of equal value with skin cells or with the similar disregard that we treat hair follicles?

My wife's first two pregnancies ended in miscarriages.

I don't have all the answers as to when in the cycle of life a single cell or cluster of cells becomes a self-aware human being with a soul. But then neither does religion or the law. I personally do not believe that a human being develops a soul until it is developed enough to be self aware and capable of thought and sensation. So no, I don't believe single cells or microscopic clusters of undifferentiated cells have souls. Any more than sperm or eggs have soul despite the fact that they are clearly living and human. But I also don't try to impose that view on anyone else. That is the difference.

[temporal1]

HK:
I've been thinking about how to respond to this because I find your rhetorical go-to move, that of comparing human life to sloughed-offed skin cells, and then when confronted, retreating to ambiguity and the moral morass of the question, to be both disingenuous and monstrous in a cool and calculating, even bloodless way. This quote from Bethel McGrew though describes your "middle position" and your refusal to face the fundamental question much better than I could. Incidentally, the "Eric" she's referring to is one, Eric Trump...so you're in good company:

The point is that truth doesn’t change just because some people in my social tribe are confused about it.

Unborn human life, at any stage, must be confronted as it is, not as what would make us more comfortable.

The hard-core pro-lifers and the hard-core pro-aborts do share an understanding to the extent that at some point,
the honest hard-core pro-abort will fully admit exactly what we’re all talking about, exactly what they want.
They just think it should be legal.

In that sense, Eric is right that the clear Schelling point people are able to have one conversation, while everyone in the middle is having a different conversation.

Where we differ is that I believe the middle conversation is kicking the can down the road.

At the end of the day, the question to be answered is actually very straightforward:
Are some pre-moral humans disposable, or not?

i’m easily confused with use of “the fars,” esp far-right, the term varies dependent on who is speaking.

wrt to far-left, i believe biden as POTUS demonstrated, there is no longer any such thing as a moderate Dem.
the label is deliberately misused to get votes, when successful, they do as they please. example, obama’s claims to be for traditional marriage to get elected - he famously abandoned this and more - and admitted doing so.

so, biden leading child mutilation on the White House lawn - is how they operate (no pun intended, but there it is).

amoral people have no boundaries, boundaries make no sense. “a win is a win,” and so on.
“the end justifies the means,” and the rest. Sam Harris / viewtopic.php?t=4987
so much of this is now taught in gov ed and state colleges. Not of Jesus Christ.

for myself:
1) i’m not dug-in about laws. what is wrong should be unthinkable, no matter law. law for or law against.
i’m not against human law. i agree with human laws against murder, murder is sinful. human law doesn’t alter God’s law.

2) as a Christian, i know life begins BEFORE conception. Jeremiah 1:5
i realize, for the secular world, this may be a bridge too far, i hesitatingly accept, human law may have to leave legal language “at conception.” i’m not sure God agrees. one day i expect to know.

the debate over “at conception” may not be the right debate. i hope Christians recognize it.