Probably instead of asking that I'd pose the question I posed about marsupials that got no takers.
Curious to know what CN's take is on what white dudes think about jellybean sized joeys.

In essence though, we have very placental-centric conceptions about life--at least as far as the abortion discussion goes. Marsupials--if they were able to conceptualize and communicate--would almost certainly have different ideas. Since the jellybean sized joey leaves the kangaroo vagina then crawls (in the open air) up to a pouch where it then spends several months developing. And I don't think anyone would deny that that joey isn't "life"--regardless of whether it could survive on its own or not. And I think discussions of "viability" serve to obfuscate the issue about "when life begins".

It has no relevance to the abortion rights discussion.

Why not?

Why does it? Why haven't you already said why you think it's relevant? Better yet, why don't you **** off with your pathetic and disgusting asinine attempts to direct the discussion into some twisted metaphorical gotcha.

Below is why I consider it relevant.
------

I mean I try to stay away from normative discussions and so pretty much the only thing I ever say is "don't kill people". If I thought about it for a little bit I could probably add a few more, but not killing people seems like a good start.
And so--for me at least--the question of "what is people? and "but can they actually be killed?"--seems fairly relevant.

Remember when I said I trolled you because you make it too easy?
Well you're doing that now.
Now can you actually address my argument or are you just going to get all angry and curse at me?

But you also have to accept that for most people their stance on abortion (and most other things) is bundled into their ideological beliefs, based more on tribal identity than any ethical first principle, so the act of thinking about their beliefs At all is more or less an irrelevant distraction.

I'm a hypocrite too so I don't think I'm any more special than anyone else. Maybe I try to think just a shade more logically. But if I actually followed what I thought I'd be a vegetarian and I'm not.

Do you think your take on me being easy to troll excuses you from the forum rules?

Your argument is this, as far as I can tell. I wish to pinpoint when a human embryo becomes a person, so I am going to ask others in an abortion-rights thread to state their position on whether they think a kangaroo embryo at a certain stage is ... life? Really?

I think if WN has a problem with my posting about marsupials he can tell me to stop, but this thread is about framing the debate and talking about the differences between placental vs non-placental mammals seems totally appropriate.
And we aren't talking about kangaroo embryos but kangaroos that have left their mother’s vagina (usually we call that birth) and entered a pouch where they continue development. Just as humans continue developing after they leave the vagina.

Actually, assuming no civilization ending apocalypse happens, the way we raise and consume animal based products is definitely something people in a couple hundreds of years are going to look back and say “what in the world were those *******s thinking”.

So do you agree Max that it's relevant based on my response and if not, why not? Or is life so different between placental mammals vs marsupials (or humans even separately) that we can't make analogies to other forms of life?

I can state with a high degree of confidence that a kangaroo joey is not, in fact, people.

But is it a kangaroo and would killing a jellybean sized joey that has already left its mother’s vagina but is still jellybean sized and far from "viable" be considered killing?

Sure.

Ok. Great. That's my only argument so you guys can go back to whatever other stuff you've been discussing.
[Actually I have another things I could say about Margaret Sanger but WN doesn't like it when I make those arguments so I'll abstain].

Do you mean “to each woman” or “to women” as a group?

Assuming it’s the former, that’s definitely the correct answer if you don’t believe that there is any countervailing interest whatsoever (namely the fetus). I’m ultimately pro-choice at the end of the day, but I think that there has to be at least *some* interest in the life of the fetus, even if that interest falls short carrying the issue. And if there’s any countervailing interest whatsoever, I think it’s reasonable for society/government/other people to weigh in (even if, in my opinion, they should ultimately determine that the government can’t force one person to save another, whether that’s via donating blood or leasing out a womb for nine months).

Personally I find the most interesting thing to think about right now (w/r/t abortion) to be how different the conversation would be it wasn’t just women who got pregnant. How many people would have a different opinion (on both sides) if we weren’t talking about government (which has historically been largely male) telling women what to do, but instead were talking about government (which today is elected by everyone) telling “pregnant people” what to do?

The invention of the roomba removes the responsibility to sweep the floor. There isn't some serious moral consideration involved. I highlighted the point that the majority of abortion is just unwanted pregnancy/babies at the beginning for a reason. Other issues such as complications for the mother, rape, and birth defects are relevant but can be dealt with separately from the core and most common issue

When people talk about ending the heartbeat of something that looks like a baby and will become a baby, it becomes a moral issue which isn't similar to the use of other technology. Treating unborn babies as unwanted or inconvenient is far too close to a mob boss viewing witnesses as loose ends for my taste.

Things get tricky when you get very specific about the actual time or beginning of life or when you would be comfortable with abortion, which is why my legal perspective isn't the same as my personal one, but I'm talking about babies with a heartbeat that would be viable outside the womb. AFAIK the mainstream left position is perfectly comfortable in ending those babies life for the simple reason that they are unwanted.

I brought up history, technology, and social norms because I think people are warping the seriousness of sex because we have technology that can mitigate the perceived seriousness. It doesn't remove it though. Pregnancy becomes an "accident" because of the failure of birth control etc instead of a known consequence of your behavior. And if tech makes abortion easy and convenient, it doesn't change the moral questions.

Margaret Sanger was an unapologetic racist, but since she is a heroine of the Leftties, I assume that's why she is off-limits in this Forum.

*sigh*

Sanger is not a hero to any lefties I know, she's not off-limits, and I'm pretty sure the only time I ever expressed any displeasure it was because it was way off-topic. That said, it's still actually pretty off-topic in this thread as well. Sanger was a racist eugenicist. This has roughly zero relevance to this conversation; modern abortion rights are not a eugenicist plot and I'm not very interested in debating that.

No. Why would the analogy be relevant? What inference or conclusion are you drawing from it? State your ****ing thesis instead of playing these games.

+1

Thanks for clarifying.

Man you are dense.
Thesis: our views on life are placental-centric and marsupials shatter those placental-centric views.
Discuss.
This "thesis" is pretty obvious from reading my posts.

Baby kangaroo. It belongs in a pouch and not next to a penny but it's already born and has a lot of development to do. Another part of the thesis: the focus on "viability" is a very placental sort of concept that doesn't have relevance as far as "life" goes.
I really didn't know this was English class though where I need to fully spell out my thesis. But I suppose when dealing the super dense it's necessary.


The bolded is the thesis Max.

You keep requesting discussion without offering any viewpoint. Why should it be discussed? Okay, so you think there's something to discuss about the usefulness of using viability as a measure of when abortions should be allowed and considering some type of non-placental analog has something interesting to add to that discussion. ****ing go for it. I think it's irrelevant but the ship has already sailed on keeping this thread on point and **** free, so just go ****ing nuts instead of JAQing off.