crispy4000

No.

We’re both human beings. We started our lives as such, so I’d say trace it to our earliest living existence as a member of our species. And yes, the science points to this being before most would regard personhood to be a thing. What I believe does flow from it, in part. I consider those the facts, and a mistake to ignore in decision making on this issue. But as this thread shows, even basic biology can be denied. To be pro-choice, I would need to be convinced that ending innocent human lives intentionally is generally an appropriate recourse to reducing suffering that isn’t life threatening. And believe we could put limits on this type of thing as a society without being arbitrary and hypocritical.

No. An unfertilized egg isn’t a human being.

Personhood is a hypothetical development in its life. If that constitutes a new entity to you, it’s still one dependent on it being the same living organism.

You don’t care about a fertilized egg because it has no cognition, so it’s a hypothetical entity? I think you mean that’s when you consider it a person, and you don’t care what it was before then.

The difference is when you're choosing to infer a hypothetical. I'll go so far to say that calling something a human being is speculative before it can be illustrated to live as such. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd assume you'd say personhood should be attributed sometime after your life began.

It’s a difference in semantics, firstly. What you choose to call a hypothetical person I call a human being at an early stage of development. There’s biases inherit to both, but I do consider a material definition of human life much less subjective than personhood. As to ascribing value based on development and state of life, sure. Even the most staunch pro-life people do it, whether they admit it or not. The politics of today reflects it, sadly. The biggest difference between pro-life and pro-choice is still to what extent and circumstances it is considered moral to kill a human being.

Glad to hear you understood, appreciated. Can’t say I agree, because of how it essentially makes them second class citizens and pushes them further into poverty. But it is an option.

Let’s say that many people in your society still choose to have large families they can’t fully support, in part because of their own views on abortion. No incentive or encouragement can convince them to stop. To top it off, the society’s resources have become strained to where not everyone can be helped to a “just” degree. At what point do you resort to more draconian measures to keep them from procreating?

You’re talking to one now, technically. I’d say personhood is more an attribution we place on someone. So of course there can be a distinction, and like other general attributes of humans, one can grow into it. It just doesn’t have anything to do with what makes us individual human beings materially. Which is generally where the “potential life” view is mistaken.

I think it's the best shot families have right now. And I'd like to see it, to know they'd still vote in total opposition in light of recent developments.

A pro-life political party should support those items. The difference in the way I see it is that there is an immediate need for paid maternity leave, an extension of the child tax credits, and universal pre-K in a post-Roe united states. Heck, there's an immediate need for it now. It should be must-pass legislation. None of our politicians are treating it that way in practice, in spite of the courts. They don't have the balls to try this piecemeal.

I don't buy this with 100% certainty if maternity leave was brought up outside of BBB. If anything, I believe Republicans would cave on it if their favorite orange orangutan told them to.

What you value, yes. What exists, not so much. Most pro-lifers don't view unborn children principally as hypotheticals, but as material human beings. I think that's the least problematic place to begin a discourse on abortion, the material, but sadly the facts are too often contested. The best pro-choice arguments don't downplay it, IMO.

Nope, this isn't about equating both sides. It's about giving it the best chance to pass in our current political climate. And secondary to that, putting our politicians on record on these issues directly. Trump muddied the party waters on maternity leave in particular. I still have hope for a bipartisan resolution someday, but the current approach would only work when the Dems control everything.

Show me that Democrats care about more this in the wake of Roe leaks than vying for future political gains and package deals. I've said it before in this thread. Put Universal Pre-K and Materity Leave to vote directly. It's absurd that it hasn't happened yet.

What if a lack of follow through results in a society that cannot sustain as “just” as you envision it? On the flip side, we also don’t have an example of a country that views abortion as default rather than the exception AFAIK. I’d be curious to know why you think that perspective shift would be sustainable. Human existence isn’t as much of a moral question as a material one, IMO.

Facinating. What kind of #-child policy do you think the US should go with?

And stand by it? Not much more to say here if so. I wouldn’t call that truly pro-choice in the same way I wouldn’t call Republicans truly pro-life.

Relies on a moral judgment that the economics supersede other considerations. You could make an argument for forced sterilizations of different classes of society under those same pretexts. I also don’t think you could find any agreement on what constitutes economically “unwanted” that is fair to those who will want it regardless.

Agreed. But IMO, it’s still absolutely worth calling out the reducing suffering angle. It’s what leads some people to adopt a perspective on fetal pain as a litmus test on this issue.

This presumes that means to ensure a lesser amount of suffering outline the more sensible path. (or whatever else you meant by "moral") @sblfilms is right. Even in a hypothetical society where all basic needs are met, abhorrent decisions could still be made under the premise of reducing suffering and/or preventing it. Follow that rabbit hole far enough, and you effectively get to Jonestown. This is why I personally can't bring myself to view societal issues strictly from the lens of reducing suffering. We can sure as hell can do a better job of it though.

Eh, I still wouldn't pay $7.50 for it. There's a rogue-like extension of the game at the end, which could add some longevity, but only if you enjoy the combat. There's a browser demo here for anyone who might want to try it. Turnip Boy Commits Tax Evasion Demo WWW.NEWGROUNDS.COM Avoid paying taxes and journey to tear down a corrupt vegetable government!

Report - Prince Of Persia: The Sands Of Time Remake Debacle Was A Classic Case Of Ambition Over Ability WWW.THEGAMER.COM The development of the Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time Remake was filled with questionable decisions at almost every step.

I can't remember where I got it, probably in a bundle. But yeah, everyone should stay away from that one. Much more slapdash than the visuals suggest. I almost never get motion sick in games, but Unbox made me feel ill.