Abortion Rights May 2022 and why this should matter to you

[OliviaD]

Or to Congress, to create a law insuring the right to abortion.

That's right - and it will be interesting to see if this is taken up. A main argument I hear from the lawyers re R v W is that the decision had the judicial branch doing what should be the legislative branch's job.

 

[Regina]

Mark Kulacs, John O;Loughlin and David Underdown are having a very interesting conversation tonight where they delve into the characters surrounding Roe v Wade and motivations...


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFHjXR4V6Ao

 

[DDRB]

I'm divided, I'm not against abortion in absolute terms, it's objectively not a conscious being and his life has no objective value, but the logic "my body my right" seems to me deeply immature.
Western youngsters clearly have a growing tendency towards immaturity in general and that is why they are not attracted by the prospect of having a child, surely too many stimuli, which does not let the brain "slow down".

 

[Perry Staltic]

I'm divided, I'm not against abortion in absolute terms, it's objectively not a conscious being and his life has no objective value, but the logic "my body my right" seems to me deeply immature.
Western youngsters clearly have a growing tendency towards immaturity in general and that is why they are not attracted by the prospect of having a child, surely too many stimuli, which does not let the brain "slow down".

Your "objectivity" is simply a bias born of expediency and normalized by culture. It's really breathtaking hubris to claim a fetal human is not a conscious being. That's essentially saying they are not human. Really stunning.

 

[Orome]

Your "objectivity" is simply a bias born of expediency and normalized by culture. It's really breathtaking hubris to claim a fetal human is not a conscious being. That's essentially saying they are not human. Really stunning.

In one of the recent interviews Ray was asked "when life starts?" and he said something like "from the moment when the sperm meets the egg". And if I remember correctly even that there is some consciousness right from the start.

 

[Zsazsa]

Once I was in the audience in a theater to watch a demonstration of Hypnotic Regression Therapy. The therapist called for volunteers from the public, and someone who came with me took part in the demostration (he selected 10 people).

He kept going further back in time until 1 month in the womb, and people could remember historical events that their mothers had witnessed and their mothers's feelings and how it affected them.

When this person of my family reached a couple of days before being born, she started crying because her mother was very sad: JFK had been assassinated. Now one could argue that this is something she would have known of later in life from family conversations or from learning history.

But when she reached back to 2 or 3 months in the womb she cried because her mom and her grandma had an argument and described what they were arguing about. Her mom, who was sitting next to me in the audience, remembered it and could not stop crying. (ETA the subject of the argument was NOT abortion)

I think this whole discussion about when consciousness begins is BS and I agree with Peat.

In one of the recent interviews Ray was asked "when life starts?" and he said something like "from the moment when the sperm meets the egg". And if I remember correctly even that there is some consciousness right from the start.

 

[TheCedar1]

What type of world do we live in, that such women are concerned about getting pregnant?!? They resemble estrogenic blobs.

View attachment 36317

Thats what makes me laugh so hard, these pro-choice protestors protesting for abortion, but they know very well no one wants to impregnate them in the first place ???

 

[InChristAlone]

Once I was in the audience in a theater to watch a demonstration of Hypnotic Regression Therapy. The therapist called for volunteers from the public, and someone who came with me took part in the demostration (he selected 10 people).

He kept going further back in time until 1 month in the womb, and people could remember historical events that their mothers had witnessed and their mothers's feelings and how it affected them.

When this person of my family reached a couple of days before being born, she started crying because her mother was very sad: JFK had been assassinated. Now one could argue that this is something she would have known of later in life from family conversations or from learning history.

But when she reached back to 2 or 3 months in the womb she cried because her mom and her grandma had an argument and described what they were arguing about. Her mom, who was sitting next to me in the audience, remembered it and could not stop crying. (ETA the subject of the argument was NOT abortion)

I think this whole discussion about when consciousness begins is BS and I agree with Peat.

Wow that's amazing and really does point to when life begins, when a soul enters a body. And it is immediately upon conception. The 'clump of cells' thing is so deplorable.

 

[koky]

perhaps even before conception - possible that we even "choose" our parents

 

[-Luke-]

...

Wow, what a story. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Peatness]

Mark Kulacs, John O;Loughlin and David Underdown are having a very interesting conversation tonight where they delve into the characters surrounding Roe v Wade and motivations...


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFHjXR4V6Ao

Thank you for posting this Regina. This is significant - worth watching.

 

[tankasnowgod]

I'm divided, I'm not against abortion in absolute terms, it's objectively not a conscious being and his life has no objective value,

Ridiculous and obviously wrong.

First, there is no way to objectively measure consciousness, so any discussion of consciousness is going to be somewhat subjective.

Second, you can't prove a negative. You can't even prove that a rock isn't conscious. Indeed, there are some that think that consciousness pervades the entire universe, like the concept of ether, and that everything is conscious, to some degree.

All living things demonstrate behaviors that imply consciousness. The developing baby in the womb most certainly does, and these behaviors can be seen on ultrasounds, and felt by the mother and even third parties that feel the mother's stomach. Even individual sperm demonstrate behaviors that could indicate consciousness. I have also read about people being able to regain memories from the womb, up until the moment of conception.

As for a developing baby's life having "no objective value," even the Justices that originally decided Roe didn't think that. At least by the time the baby could be viable outside the womb, all the Justices agreed that the baby's life was at least valuable (if not conscious), and several of the Justices in all the cases (Roe, Casey, Dobbs) thought both could start earlier than that, even going to the moment of conception.

 

[Old Irenaeus]

In one of the recent interviews Ray was asked "when life starts?" and he said something like "from the moment when the sperm meets the egg". And if I remember correctly even that there is some consciousness right from the start.

That's terrific. Thank you for sharing!

 

[DDRB]

Your "objectivity" is simply a bias born of expediency and normalized by culture. It's really breathtaking hubris to claim a fetal human is not a conscious being. That's essentially saying they are not human. Really stunning.

Ridiculous and obviously wrong.

no + before continuing, the word conscience is badly chosen and confusing

First, there is no way to objectively measure consciousness, so any discussion of consciousness is going to be somewhat subjective.

The intuition to exist, and the ability to interpret information (intuition of the environment), in the case of abortion, it is misnomer to ask the question of the possible feeling of pain by the fetus.

Second, you can't prove a negative.

Yes, and it is for this precise reason that it is up to you to prove to me that a fetus is "conscious" and above all that it changes something about the way we should see abortion.
ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

You can't even prove that a rock isn't conscious.

Ditto

Indeed, there are some that think that consciousness pervades the entire universe, like the concept of ether, and that everything is conscious, to some degree.

Sounds like some weirdo bull****.

All living things demonstrate behaviors that imply consciousness. The developing baby in the womb most certainly does, and these behaviors can be seen on ultrasounds, and felt by the mother and even third parties that feel the mother's stomach.

What really interests me is what justifies that you are against abortion? why is the life of a simple fetus so precious to the point of wanting to keep its life against all odds?
Sensitivity and "awareness" obviously doesn't justify this, otherwise why aren't you a jain who only feeds on root and doesn't even slap mosquitoes?
My position is clear, I am a eugenicist and I only consider the life of a fetus to be of value if it is in the interest of the country, in one way or another.

Even individual sperm demonstrate behaviors that could indicate consciousness. I have also read about people being able to regain memories from the womb, up until the moment of conception.

This is obviously also an extremely primitive form of consciousness, does not justify abstaining to "avoid killing millions of sperm"

As for a developing baby's life having "no objective value," even the Justices that originally decided Roe didn't think that. At least by the time the baby could be viable outside the womb, all the Justices agreed that the baby's life was at least valuable (if not conscious), and several of the Justices in all the cases (Roe, Casey, Dobbs) thought both could start earlier than that, even going to the moment of conception.

Why is a baby's life precious? He's of no use to society, he's only potential to some degree, it's a person's usefulness to you that makes him valuable to you and that's the usefulness of a person for society which justifies his consideration.
That's why we'd rather save one person in our family than 100,000 people in the world, that's why we kill/eat pigs, beef etc but not pets etc.
Being conscious and "sensitive" does not give any value to your life, it is what you are supposed to internalize when you are a man.

 

[tankasnowgod]

no + before continuing, the word conscience is badly chosen and confusing

Well, you are the one who chose it in the first place, so maybe you should be more careful with your words before posting.

Yes, and it is for this precise reason that it is up to you to prove to me that a fetus is "conscious" and above all that it changes something about the way we should see abortion.
ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

Ridiculous. I'm not trying to change your opinion, but pointing out that the claim that your original opinion was "objectively" true is obviously false. The mere fact that someone else holds a different opinion proves that.

What really interests me is what justifies that you are against abortion? why is the life of a simple fetus so precious to the point of wanting to keep its life against all odds?

If you were really interested in such a thing, you'd read my other posts in this thread.

My position is clear, I am a eugenicist and I only consider the life of a fetus to be of value if it is in the interest of the country, in one way or another.

If this is the case, then why are you even on the Ray Peat Forum in the first place? This is basically in total opposition to many of the ideas we discuss here

And, how did you manage to get through the verification process? You apparently got approved in May. How do you get through, but Brad Marshall from Fire in A Bottle is hung up in limbo? Brad is actually interested in Ray's ideas, did an interview with the man, and is even raising Low PUFA Pork. Brad would obviously bring more value to the forum.

 

[DDRB]

Well, you are the one who chose it in the first place, so maybe you should be more careful with your words before posting.

That's what I meant, I didn't say it was someone other than me who chose the wrong word, whatever.

Ridiculous. I'm not trying to change your opinion, but pointing out that the claim that your original opinion was "objectively" true is obviously false. The mere fact that someone else holds a different opinion proves that.

the life of a living being without interest has no value, it is a fact

If you were really interested in such a thing, you'd read my other posts in this thread.

It was you who replied to my post, and I replied in turn, I don't know who you are and what you think.

If this is the case, then why are you even on the Ray Peat Forum in the first place? This is basically in total opposition to many of the ideas we discuss here

But either way I just like this forum to talk about steroids, and because people seem to have pretty high IQ's on average, there are regular interesting and/or wacky discussions.
It seemed to me that peat is deeply materialistic, which seems pretty poor to me.

And, how did you manage to get through the verification process? You apparently got approved in May. How do you get through, but Brad Marshall from Fire in A Bottle is hung up in limbo? Brad is actually interested in Ray's ideas, did an interview with the man, and is even raising Low PUFA Pork. Brad would obviously bring more value to the forum.

I've been hanging around here in ghost for a few months without having made an account and without the power because of the massive bot account creation problems that there have been.
Otherwise I did like everyone else, I said that I love milk, coconut oil and that peat is a living god, so I was accepted.

 

[Perry Staltic]

What type of world do we live in, that such women are concerned about getting pregnant?!? They resemble estrogenic blobs.

View attachment 36317

Thats what makes me laugh so hard, these pro-choice protestors protesting for abortion, but they know very well no one wants to impregnate them in the first place

View: https://twitter.com/ramzpaul/status/1541797481276751874

 

[InChristAlone]

They think going on a sex strike is a protest when that's exactly what we want these women to do! Don't be promiscuous, get married to good a man, then you can have sex the way God intended.

 

[AlaskaJono]

1) I think this R vs V case was re-examined now for the Chatter Class (This is us people) as it helps maintain a high level of Distraction in the current 'relaxed atmosphere from Convid'.... 'do not look at the man behind the curtains'.

2) I do believe it is not a RIGHT guaranteed from the US Constitution, but is correctly placed into the States jurisdiction.

3) My question is "what is the Supreme Court going to do next?".

 

[TheCedar1]

View: https://twitter.com/ramzpaul/status/1541797481276751874

LMAO, she has no shame at all