dave42, the restriction does apply to the states. #14:"No State shall make or enforce any law abridging the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States..."

The sperm is made of human, living DNA, even before conception. So is the ovum. That does not make either one of those a person (a human, rational being), nor a virgin who refuses to have sex a murderer because of letting her unfertilized ova come out once a month and flushing them down the toilet--just because they could have been fertilized; when in fact, they weren't.

And what about the Ninth Amendment?

Birth control doesn't always work. However, there is one sure way to avoid it (absent being forcibly impregnated with a syringe, or something).

+1

It does mean a pre-sentient human is not sentient, and sentience is one of my features of a human. For example, a brain dead human (like my father-in-law last November) is no longer a human. His wife, a catholic, 60 year practicing floor nurse pulled the plug, and he died peacefully after being on life support for a week.

I have trouble handling a helpless sick animal, so I would definitely have trouble killing off an unborn baby. I would think that if one really thinks about killing an unborn human being, it would be kind of devastating to ones psychological health. (unless you didnt care about human life anyway)

I specifically stated, "humans generally develop a more sentient mind during the life cycle.". That does not mean a developing pre sentient human is not human.

"1. a zygote is not a human being. That is religion..." I say this first assertion (actually 2 assertions) of yours to be false and have explained my position.

Oh wait, if you are saying you religiously believe a living human zygote is not human, then your faith has given you a revelation I don't have.

But your argument against "servatude" is that it is not the basis of the ProChoice platform. I don't care about them. As you note, I disagree with the other 90% of their platform, welcoming forced altruism with other's money.

I maintain it is forced servitude, regardless of the transition from erotic idea to walking human being. If it is a human at conception, it is servitude to a human. If it is human at 16 weeks, it begins as servitude to a thing, and transitions to servitude to a human.

I agree, it was voting along religious lines, and SCOTUS should know better. Even Scalia did better than that.

If abortion becomes illegal, the ProChoice community is going to force free care and income for the mother throughout pregnancy and the option for adoption following pregnancy. We are going to have a bunch more babies we don;t need, and more taxes to pay for these unwanted children, and little doubt there will be more crime.

I disagree. Here is where/why:

It is technically human life (life, human DNA), this is objective. What is really at hand here is whether it is a human life "worthy" of "protecting" - and that is a non-scientific question. It doesn't require religion, there can be a philosophical reasoning behind that - because it is a philosophical question.

Fundamentally that is a discussion had in other areas. For example, citizens are almost universally afforded more rights than non-citizen residents.

As I see it there are two base positions, given the acceptance of human rights at all: "worthy" from conception vs "worthy" at some other point. In a way it is a bit like the old joke of "madam, we've already established what type of woman you are now we're just haggling over price."

The question of where that point is, will be largely philosophical and thus vary. For example, many people commonly accept "at birth" - though recent evidence shows many don't even accept birth but conceivably some other later point. Christian religious philosophy does have a basis in the at-birth with the phrase "And I shall breathe the breath of life into them" as something that can be interpreted that way.

Historically, christian position pre-Roe was the "quickening" - when mom can feel movement. Again, this is not an objective point in time. This is part of why Roe was a bad decision from the onset - regardless of one's perspective on the points above.

Now, as to the servitude angle. For the "pro-choice" group it isn't really about servitude. If it was, they would be "pro-choice" for everyone - men included. That would mean giving the male the option to not be forced into decades of servitude to support a person he did not want to. Yet, in my experience, raising this notion with them pushes them into rage over the idea that the man wouldn't "do his share" to support the child he didn't want.

As hard as it may be to imagine, this was not a major/controversial issue before Roe was handed down. Roe became a rallying point for both sides, and they've each cashed in on it since. The decision by the conservative appointed Justices was largely in-line with the religious and generally accepted view on it. If you swap "viability" and "the quickening" it is pretty much the same vague "standard." Which only demonstrated further that it is a philosophical assertion as to where human biological life becomes "worthy" of "protection" and rights.

That's something I've often thought about, especially when contemplating women I've known who should have considered that factor. Most are now single moms whose partners are no longer present.

Sounds good to me. I was gravitating to Jonathan Swift's definition from "A Modest Proposal" until rereading this.

Wow, this one took off. My official position is...I would never get one. But I’m what was formerly known as a guy. So, it’s a moot point.
If what was formerly known as a woman wants to get one....she has to answer to her conscience. And probably her creator. So, if the conditions are so egregious that those terms are acceptable to her....so be it. Generally speaking anyone who values life that little probably wouldn’t make a good parent anyway. I have 2 daughters that both say they aren’t having kids. And say it in an aggressive way trying to hurt their mother and I. I told them that in their case....that’s probably a good thing. I literally don’t care.
The whole thing is just kicked back to the states anyway.
If THEY want to burn something down...THEY can start locally.

I'm not generally one to quote Ayn to make an argument, but cognitive dissonance is an issue here in my view. People are seeking arguments to support a conclusion, not looking for an answer.

No idea what you are talking about. I've explained this here, and twenty times before.

You seek to compel a human adult against their will
You believe they are murdering a human being, and that human being's life begins at conception; therefore you have asserted a zygote is a human being.
It is up to you to prove this, and then have a valid reason to FORCE another person against their will.

I have provided comprehensive distinction between a zygote and a human being and an animal. I assert and demonstrate that sentience, self-awareness, feeling, and all things descriptive of sentient life are common to humans and animals and disparate from a zygote. Yet we willfully kill animals for food and sport.

The basis for the a zygote being a human being is religious, not logical.

Ayn was an atheist, and we have First Amendment protections against Government intrusion into personal religion, including atheism. John Galt's pledge:
"I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

Yet here we are arguing about forcing a person to serve a single cell.

The hypocrisy and irony is absolutely nuclear.

None of which is infallible.

A liver or skin cell meets all these criteria, yet we kill them all the time. That a zygote "can" grow into something is evidence in itself that it is not yet that thing.

The first question is: "Is this a human being?" Until then, morality of killing is irrelevant, unless one is also a vegetarian.

Funny - I am Canadian, and I notice that our left wing legacy media are making a big fuss about this bit of American news. Its not like government funded abortion is under threat here.

I have already completed both thought exercises I suggested. I found both impossible. I seek concurrence or invalidation regarding my theory - if it is to be had.

You openly called for thought and introspection. Were you including yourself or merely insisting that others agree with you?

I was noting that you already told me, and I trust you implicitly, even though we disagree regularly.

It's not a strawman at all. It gets to the definition of what is human: how one first recognizes it and then whether or not one respects it. (I cover this in the first few of chapters of my book.)

As for proving a single cell is human, can it be ascertained that the cell functions and has the appropriate number and structure of chromosomes? Yes. It respirates, it excretes, it ingests, and it multiplies. It is life. Is it mature? Not in the slightest. It requires nurture and care. It will be many years - including time outside the womb - before it reaches maturity. But it will not become a cat. Or a fish. Or an insect. Or anything other than human.

I think that the real conflict on abortion is the method by which that life is terminated. If an accident or result of natural consequences, no one claims malfeasance. It is when another human being is involved in terminating that life that the moral dilemma arises: is such an event morally justifiable? One can divert into any minutiae, but that is the real question at hand.

Once again if you like to find out that it wasn’t me down voting your comments. I could down vote your comments now and you would see it wasn’t me. We agree on many issues but don’t on a few others. If that disagreement , in your mind means I am the one doing it well so be it. I get down voted
Regularly by a few , I suspect because I will argue
My point just like you do.

I'm not taking homework assignments, particularly to prove a negative.

You seek to compel a woman to your ethics (religion). You do the homework.

You were the one who said that to you the key point is sentience. I don't necessarily disagree, I simply point out the obvious course of action: validate your position with scientific evidence. Prove sentience either exists or does not by building a machine to detect it. Do that and you have a virtually unassailable intellectual fortress. Without that, however...

"no thinking is involved" ???

Show me how you can derive the principle of equal rights from the position of extrinsic value you have espoused. Seriously. That's a pure thought exercise.