SCOTUS Ruling: a set back for Obama Care

[carlfense]

I don't know his motive. Probably the federal regulation's definition was used because of the nature of the issue they were discussing - Regardless of definition or source of definition, the court by it's ruling sided with Hobby Lobby's definition and ruled accordingly. With a 5/4 decision - it probably reflects the polarization of opinion outside of the court - as also reflective in our discussion today.

Some things aren't a matter of opinion.

[carlfense]

In fairness, pro-choice activists don't much care about what medicine and scientists have to say about fetal pain and viability. Politics > fact.

How so?

[LukeinNE]

 

In fairness, pro-choice activists don't much care about what medicine and scientists have to say about fetal pain and viability. Politics > fact.

How so?

 

 

The assertion that human life begins at the moment of conception is correct in the most technical sense (the cell is alive, it is human, and has its own DNA), though I disagree that this constitutes a human being to be vested with full human rights. After all, failed implantation isn't considered a miscarriage.

 

Where I do draw the line is once viability has been reached (23-24 weeks). At that point, to support abortion leaves you with two options: 1): explain why location alone determines whether or not a person is alive, or 2) explain why location allows a mother to kill her own child. These are strong words, yes, but there is no rational argument to be made that somehow a few inches of flesh should render a viable child a nonperson to be disposed of at the mother's convenience. And radical pro-choicers don't: they say it's the woman's body so it's her call, science be damned.

 

This is a clear case where a compelling government interest can and should overrule privacy concerns.

[Junior]

 

 

In fairness, pro-choice activists don't much care about what medicine and scientists have to say about fetal pain and viability. Politics > fact.

How so?

 

 

The assertion that human life begins at the moment of conception is correct in the most technical sense (the cell is alive, it is human, and has its own DNA), though I disagree that this constitutes a human being to be vested with full human rights. After all, failed implantation isn't considered a miscarriage.

 

 

If we are basing it on whether or not a cell is alive, then a sperm cell is quite clearly living and made up of human DNA. Masturbation must be considered abortion.

[sd'sker]

 

 

 

In fairness, pro-choice activists don't much care about what medicine and scientists have to say about fetal pain and viability. Politics > fact.

How so?

 

 

The assertion that human life begins at the moment of conception is correct in the most technical sense (the cell is alive, it is human, and has its own DNA), though I disagree that this constitutes a human being to be vested with full human rights. After all, failed implantation isn't considered a miscarriage.

 

 

If we are basing it on whether or not a cell is alive, then a sperm cell is quite clearly living and made up of human DNA. Masturbation must be considered abortion.

 

same with haircuts, if we are getting technical.

[carlfense]

 

 

 

In fairness, pro-choice activists don't much care about what medicine and scientists have to say about fetal pain and viability. Politics > fact.

How so?

 

The assertion that human life begins at the moment of conception is correct in the most technical sense (the cell is alive, it is human, and has its own DNA), though I disagree that this constitutes a human being to be vested with full human rights. After all, failed implantation isn't considered a miscarriage.

 

If we are basing it on whether or not a cell is alive, then a sperm cell is quite clearly living and made up of human DNA. Masturbation must be considered abortion.

 

Right.

[LukeinNE]

 

 

 

In fairness, pro-choice activists don't much care about what medicine and scientists have to say about fetal pain and viability. Politics > fact.

How so?

 

 

The assertion that human life begins at the moment of conception is correct in the most technical sense (the cell is alive, it is human, and has its own DNA), though I disagree that this constitutes a human being to be vested with full human rights. After all, failed implantation isn't considered a miscarriage.

 

 

If we are basing it on whether or not a cell is alive, then a sperm cell is quite clearly living and made up of human DNA. Masturbation must be considered abortion.

 

 

You just made my point nicely.

 

In this case, you, (deliberately or not) incorrectly conflated meiosis with mitosis. Human sex cells only have half the number of chromosomes required for human life to exist, and therefore they cannot be considered human life any more than a finger nail can be. A zygote has a complete set of human DNA unique to itself, and is therefore distinguishable from your example. I see you also neglected to address my second line of questioning directed at your side of the issue.

 

By my tally that answer included a straw man, a red herring, and a false equivalence backed by bad science. And that's my issue with both sides on this issue: nobody makes an attempt to argue honestly.

[TGHusker]

 

 

 

In fairness, pro-choice activists don't much care about what medicine and scientists have to say about fetal pain and viability. Politics > fact.

How so?

 

 

The assertion that human life begins at the moment of conception is correct in the most technical sense (the cell is alive, it is human, and has its own DNA), though I disagree that this constitutes a human being to be vested with full human rights. After all, failed implantation isn't considered a miscarriage.

 

 

If we are basing it on whether or not a cell is alive, then a sperm cell is quite clearly living and made up of human DNA. Masturbation must be considered abortion.

 

But it does not constitutes the beginning of another human life with its specific new DNA. It takes an egg and sperm - biology 101.

[Junior]

 

 

 

 

In fairness, pro-choice activists don't much care about what medicine and scientists have to say about fetal pain and viability. Politics > fact.

How so?

 

 

The assertion that human life begins at the moment of conception is correct in the most technical sense (the cell is alive, it is human, and has its own DNA), though I disagree that this constitutes a human being to be vested with full human rights. After all, failed implantation isn't considered a miscarriage.

 

 

If we are basing it on whether or not a cell is alive, then a sperm cell is quite clearly living and made up of human DNA. Masturbation must be considered abortion.

 

 

You just made my point nicely.

 

In this case, you, (deliberately or not) incorrectly conflated meiosis with mitosis. Human sex cells only have half the number of chromosomes required for human life to exist, and therefore they cannot be considered human life any more than a finger nail can be. A zygote has a complete set of human DNA unique to itself, and is therefore distinguishable from your example. I see you also neglected to address my second line of questioning directed at your side of the issue.

 

By my tally that answer included a straw man, a red herring, and a false equivalence backed by bad science. And that's my issue with both sides on this issue: nobody makes an attempt to argue honestly.

 

 

But a zygote cannot continue to live outside of the host. Is a skin cell "alive" because it as a full set of chromosomes? Am I guilty of manslaughter if I scrape off some of my skin in a biking accident? No. When does a life begin? It's open to debate, but I can assure you, it isn't defined as "a human cell with 46 chromosomes".

 

Straw man? No. Red herring? Nope. False equivalence? Not really. Bad science? Not at all.

[Junior]

 

 

 

 

In fairness, pro-choice activists don't much care about what medicine and scientists have to say about fetal pain and viability. Politics > fact.

How so?

 

 

The assertion that human life begins at the moment of conception is correct in the most technical sense (the cell is alive, it is human, and has its own DNA), though I disagree that this constitutes a human being to be vested with full human rights. After all, failed implantation isn't considered a miscarriage.

 

 

If we are basing it on whether or not a cell is alive, then a sperm cell is quite clearly living and made up of human DNA. Masturbation must be considered abortion.

 

But it does not constitutes the beginning of another human life with its specific new DNA. It takes an egg and sperm - biology 101.

 

 

Neither does the fusion of a sperm and an egg. It takes implantation in the womb for life to form.

[carlfense]

But it does not constitutes the beginning of another human life with its specific new DNA. It takes an egg and sperm - biology 101.

It doesn't constitute the beginning of another human life any more than a fertilized egg that hasn't (or won't) implanted in the uterus.

[TGHusker]

 

 

In fairness, pro-choice activists don't much care about what medicine and scientists have to say about fetal pain and viability. Politics > fact.

How so?

 

 

The assertion that human life begins at the moment of conception is correct in the most technical sense (the cell is alive, it is human, and has its own DNA), though I disagree that this constitutes a human being to be vested with full human rights. After all, failed implantation isn't considered a miscarriage.

 

Where I do draw the line is once viability has been reached (23-24 weeks). At that point, to support abortion leaves you with two options: 1): explain why location alone determines whether or not a person is alive, or 2) explain why location allows a mother to kill her own child. These are strong words, yes, but there is no rational argument to be made that somehow a few inches of flesh should render a viable child a nonperson to be disposed of at the mother's convenience. And radical pro-choicers don't: they say it's the woman's body so it's her call, science be damned.

 

This is a clear case where a compelling government interest can and should overrule privacy concerns.

 

Junior's comment about right wingers ignoring science can be aimed back at left wingers when it comes to the whole abortion debate. What was the story line for so many years - it isn't a child but flesh. Science has proven them wrong with the technology that looks into the womb. Yes, lefties don't like to look at those pics of a baby/ fetus sucking his thumb because that contradicts their religion of Choice. Their religion of Choice states that a women's emotional, mental, physical health comes before any life (person) who happens to be in an unprotected location (womb) even if it is viable. Pretty narcissistic religion in deed.

(Abortion for the sake of a women's physical health and late term abortions are topics for a different discussion and would clearly take this thread way off topic even more than what it already is)

[TGHusker]

 

But it does not constitutes the beginning of another human life with its specific new DNA. It takes an egg and sperm - biology 101.

It doesn't constitute the beginning of another human life any more than a fertilized egg that hasn't (or won't) implanted in the uterus.

 

Carl, I won't continue to argue that point with you. The Supreme Court basically didn't address the science of it - they addressed the point that sincerely held religious beliefs of the owners of Hobby Lobby believed that life begins at conception and that the drugs mentioned would terminate the development of that life by preventing it from implanting in the uterus.

[knapplc]

Those "sincerely held religious beliefs" seem to come and go as needed. How sincerely can Hobby Lobby's owners hold those beliefs when:

 

---

 

Hobby Lobby's Hypocrisy: The Company's Retirement Plan Invests in Contraception Manufacturers

 

Hobby Lobby spent millions of dollars on an employee retirement plan that invested in the manufacturers of the same contraceptive products the firm's owners cite in their lawsuit.

 

Documents filed with the Department of Labor and dated December 2012—three months after the company's owners filed their lawsuit—show that the Hobby Lobby 401(k) employee retirement plan held more than $73 million in mutual funds with investments in companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, and drugs commonly used in abortions. Hobby Lobby makes large matching contributions to this company-sponsored 401(k).

 

These companies include Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, which makes Plan B and ParaGard, a copper IUD, and Actavis, which makes a generic version of Plan B and distributes Ella.

 

---

 

Hobby Lobby's Hypocrisy

How can the arts and crafts chain espouse Christian values when it imports products from China?

 

According to a new annual report from ChinaAid (a Texas based organization that monitors religious freedom), persecution of Chinese Christians not only continues, but increased this past year. There were 134 cases of persecution reported; many people fear retaliation if they make claims of their abuse.

 

Forced abortion, although technically frowned upon by the government, is still a regular practice in China. Is the disruption of creation of life only relevant as a Christian when it's an American life?

 

---

 

 

 

"Sincerely held," indeed.

[LukeinNE]

 

 

 

But a zygote cannot continue to live outside of the host. Is a skin cell "alive" because it as a full set of chromosomes? Am I guilty of manslaughter if I scrape off some of my skin in a biking accident? No. When does a life begin? It's open to debate, but I can assure you, it isn't defined as "a human cell with 46 chromosomes".

 

Straw man? No. Red herring? Nope. False equivalence? Not really. Bad science? Not at all.

 

 

It is a false equivalence because you incorrectly compared a zygote (genetically unique and complete). A skin cell is not genetically unique from the parent. A gamete cell is not genetically complete. Your science is bad for the same reason.

 

It is a red herring because the examples you bring up are irrelevant to my argument.

 

Finally it is a straw man because you are attempting to rebut an argument that I did not make (zygote = human being to be protected by law) and ignoring the argument that I did make (such a status can and should apply to viable fetuses).