I've already made all my points and I don't think anyone has any disagreement. Wookie even agreed with me so I don't have anything more to say. Viability isn't a valid standard to judge whether something is being killed or not.
I was responding to an IndyIrish post about when life begins when I brought up marsupials and you've decided to not understand and take offense--which is what you do and that's fine. Perhaps we need to replay the tape.

Both Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi have been proud recipients of the Margaret Sanger Award.

Said Clinton: "I admire Margaret Sanger enormously.". In her acceptance speech for the award, she favorably recommended a biography of Sanger titled, " Woman of Valor"

So, at the very least, we all agree that Hillary And Nancy are racist, right?

Replaying the tape: I'm mentioned directly by name. I respond, give an actual thesis, you don't understand and then continue to pretend like you don't understand.
I can't help you Max. My suggestion to you is that you make an argument for why it isn't relevant if you want to continue.

I've seen Sanger defended as a "hero of feminism" on 2p2 but Clinton is fortunately (at least now)- no longer considered a friend of the left.
But as far as whether or not Sanger has relevance to this thread--I could make an argument for why she does. But needless to say, understanding the history of something is always relevant, especially when people's viewpoints are so easily molded.

OK, fair enough. I think I've heard this before but forgotten about it. I won't bother with a "no true leftist," mostly because that wasn't really the point.

The point is really that no one valorizes Sanger's support for eugenics, or her tolerance (at minimum) for working with racists to pursue her goals. People don't support Planned Parenthood because they think she's a hero for those things. They do think abortion rights are a really important accomplishment. This is why I said it's mostly off topic: it's almost always just an obnoxious attempt to associate support for abortion rights with support for eugenics, and the accusation is nonsense.

On the other hand, if you want to criticize Planned Parenthood for the use of Sanger's name on that award as doing too much to white-wash her actual history then I won't object too much to that. I think that it's a reasonable complaint up to that point. But I do disagree with interpreting the comments you quoted from Clinton as support for Sanger's odious views, because it's not a reasonable reading at all.

The other point was just that I meant people I know or have interacted with. I've heard plenty of people voice support for Planned Parenthood but pretty much never hear about Sanger except from people that want to disingenuously equate support for abortion rights with support for eugenics.

Sanger was a eugenicist who thought black people should be exterminated and it was understood even in her day that expressing those views was unsavory and abortion was seen as a way of limiting the black population Today, abortion effects the black population moreso than any other--which is exactly how it was intended. There is no claim that support for abortion equates to support for eugenics, but the two are absolutely linked.

Not linked by Sanger who supported a form of eugenics but was totally opposed to abortion.

Ok one link. She was wrong about both.

Hobbes posted this in the other abortion thread and I thought it was very informative that the third trimester still is close to the relevant benchmark of viability. As these heartbeat bills push the "concept" of viability back from 24-20 weeks to 6 weeks because of a fetal heartbeat, I am not sure these bills will win many appeals in the courts when the actual science gets discussed. But I also think they are worded to win the war of public opinion and more people will jump on the pro life side of the political divide when everyone believes science has advanced much further than reality.

ok but many do not view a fetus as a baby. So it's not about unborn babies at least until very late on.

Another moral issue is forcing a women to carry a fetus she doesn't want and can safely terminate. That's pretty horrific morally.

The precise moment is the usual fallacy but just about everyone becomes uncomfortable once it's baby and not just a fetus. Once it's a baby we normally talk about delivery rather than abortion.

I don't know why you want sex to be serious in that way. Pregnancy is often an accident but I can't fathom why as well as trying to avoid accidents we shouldn't avoid avoidable consequences when we can reasonably do so.

So instead of making people uncomfortable it's best to just play word games? Not sure I understand this.

Comparing the anatomy of kangaroos and opossums etc to human beings is by far the dumbest thing itt so far. It has zero relevance, and you haven’t proved anything beyond a much higher likelihood that you’re in some way developmentally delayed. Leave it to Alex Jones lite to bring up some random unrelated animal when discussing women.

Basically what you're describing is why dehumanization is something that is done in war, fwiw. As nobody wants to kill actual humans it's necessary to consider them as something else--animals, savages, etc.

Why is it dumb?

You agree this is alive right? And I'm not talking about women, the discussion is about when life begins
Like is it your opinion that humans occupy some special place in nature? You and lagtight might have something in common.

And it’s so hard to say if what lagtight is doing here is one of those obnoxious attempts. I guess we’ll never know.

Honestly, I think people who bring up lobsters and starfish and gorillas etc as “gotcha” arguments in discussions about women’s sociability or intelligence or sexuality or health are themselves very much demonstrating the case for abortion.

When does life begin, crossnerd?
That is the question that I'm dealing with. You can deal with your own questions but please don't think that anything I'm saying relates to women's health.
But can you give a valid reason why we should limit ourselves to humans when attempting to answer this question?
Is it your opinion that the question of when life begins needs to be addressed on a species by species basis?

Here's one possible answer: this is a politics forum, and a thread about abortion as a political debate. I don't think the political questions (or the moral ones, for that matter) actually hinge on some general answer to "when does life begin" as a science question. I think it's reasonable to say that an embryo is alive but I support abortion rights. Notice that saying it's alive is not quite the same as saying it's a person, but then defining when "personhood" begins is rather more a metaphysical or moral question than a scientific one, but that's to the point.

Although it is clearly relevant to the thread title at least that the anti-abortion rights side of the debate frames things as though the question "when does life begin" is very important. In the same way that it's relevant that I said "anti-abortion" instead of "pro-life." But I don't find it hard to understand why crossnerd would consider it irrelevant to the politics.

It's not word games. I don't believe a fetus is the same thing as a person or a baby. This is not about words at all. So I agree with your dehumanisation point but it doesn't apply here.

I appreciate you might see it differently but then we disagree about a fetus being a baby and there's no possibility of understanding each other if we insist that we do agree about something that we don't agree about

Just because we have three different forums on 2p2 for politics, science/philosophy, and religion--doesn't mean that those can actually be separated.
But in this case much of the discussion surrounding abortion--from both a political and moral standpoint--absolutely centers on that question. But to be sure, I've never claimed the debate is all about that--and if I focus on it then it's because I think it's the one area where we can actually reach some sort of agreement.

I wonder why it’s so simple for some and so challenging for others.

I don't think it's necessary to consider a fetus a baby. It probably is necessary to consider it a human though. Fetus/Baby/Toddler/High school student/middle aged/geriatric....those are all just terms for people that we use to make it easier to talk about them in different stages of life. So I definitely don't have a problem with fetus as a term. But it is still important to note that people are fine to use baby. No doubt many cultures don't differentiate in common usage.

She did give a whole spiel about fetal heartbeat, which would indicate it isn't completely irrelevant to her politics.

That being said, I think answering metaphysical questions from Luckbox is not particularly high on the her interest list, so hopefully his expectations are sufficiently low.

Or how certain men can’t figure out why women to animal comparisons are particularly reductive, derogatory, and offensive.

Nobody compared women to animals. The comparison was fetuses to joeys.
And I don't see why that should be considered offensive. No doubt the fetuses would appreciate my argument even. (How the joeys might feel idk).

The “spiel”, or as I’d characterize it- clarification of scientific facts- regarding fetal “heartbeats” was entirely related to the intentional misuse of language and terminology among the forced-birth movement.

The doctors in 1984 who discovered fetal pole cardiac activity and it’s relationship to future viability certainly didn’t intend for it to be used against their own patients by sky-fairy ideologues in the senate.