1498
Ohio voters add abortion rights to state constitution
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2023
1498 points (99.4% liked)
politics
19148 readers
1950 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The definition of "human enough" would be a social and legal issue, not a scientific one, because there is no scientific definition of 'human enough.' Scientists can tell you what is going on with a fetus at any given time in the pregnancy, but not if that means it is too advanced to abort. Theoretically, you could abort at any time in the pregnancy and it is not up to or possible for science to tell you when.
To accentuate the argument, relying on science here is not a good idea because concepts like “viability” will very likely change with technological advancement. In 100 years, it could be perfectly possible for a fertilized egg to grow into a baby outside a mother’s womb. Eggs or sperm could be genetically modified to correct for disorders and syndromes. What would viability really mean in this scientific context?
This argument tormented one of the SCOTUS justices on the original Roe vs. Wade decision.
Could I have a source for the viability dilemma with Roe V. Wade?
Would love to hear more about this
I highly recommend people read / listen to The Brethren by Woodward. It is a political narration of the inner workings of the Supreme Court by one of the same reporters who took down Nixon.
Just added to my reading list, thanks for the suggestion
Yet concept of "feeling" to make the decision is accepted. I see few problems with it. 1st mood change. 2nd everyone feels different. 3rd anthropomorphism . 4th feelings change much faster than scientific progress.
Well i still find it much worse deciding based on feelings than lets say based on level of cognition or consciousness of fetus by properly defined and tested rules.
Since we can't define or explain consciousness, that would be difficult.
You can't, but it doesn't mean people in the field should not try to make educated conclusion. It also doesn't mean that random dude out there is wiser.