Texas 6-week abortion ban takes effect after Supreme Court inaction

The TX law recognizes that. Bear in mind it does not outlaw abortions. It operates as a limiting law. She can have any abortion earlier than heartbeat.

 

The human body constantly is changing as you accurately pointed out.

 

Heartbeat is a stupid standard - the kind of thing you get when lawyers with no understanding of biology meddle with medicine. 6 weeks is quite early - earlier than many women realize they're pregnant.

 

Which is great, except you have no idea if their insurance will cover this scenario (most likely for coverage of medical issues, not political ones) and the majority of people who can be sued here extends well beyond the doctor...

Do we need helper insurance now??

 

In fact, if a person or fetus is nothing more than a collection of cells going through chemical changes, where do you get off telling one clump of cells it can kill another clump of cells?

 

I think most of the drafters realized that you can detect heart activity at about 6 weeks.

 

And yet you and others still ignore the crux of the issue. An embryo has no mind. How can you call something with no mind a person? Do you not know what a mind is?

 

Your point is that it's an objective and measurable standard? Objective and measurable is nice, but not when it indicates something with no moral relevance. Again - personhood is in the brain, not the blood pump.

 

No moral relevance is your opinion. Not scientific fact. So you'll need to do much better with your arguments, since your own worldview negates your point.

 

Not opinion, just logic. Don't know what you mean by worldview. Scientific facts don't tell us what to value. But there is no other logical secular foundation for morality other than harming other beings (persons if we restrict it to humans). If you know of one, please present it. And something with no mind is not a being and no more morally relevant than a jellyfish.

 

It will only cause more problems.

 

There's literally no consistent logic in your position. None.

 

If a law creates problems, then it sounds like Democrats should love it. They love laws that create problems.

 

Your statement is supported by absolutely nothing, just mindless dismissiveness. WHAT is the non-religious alternative to harm to other beings as a foundation for morality? If there is none, there can be no argument with my position. If you insist on religious justification, you run into the 1st amendment. This is not a theocracy.

 

Your post makes no sense. You're claiming that your subjective opinion is right just because you believe it. Sorry, you'll need to do better.

 

We are trying to determine whether a policy is moral. So I am trying to figure out where you even get the idea that abortion is wrong. I contend that "harm to others" is the foundation for secular morality as a fact. Do you dispute that or not? If so, details please.

 

Why would they be it is a miscarriage and why murder where does the Texas law allow for that?

 

Treat others as you would want yourself treated a moral principle that transcends religious faith. We shall not indescriminately kill other humans because they cause an inconvenience.

 

The state doesn't have to "provide" that option it exist outside the government nor does the government have an obligation to pay for it but then adoption agencies do pay for those expenses.

 

In America, we call that contraception....

 

So you don't follow the science when it comes to killing unborn babies. How self-serving of you.

 

Lol. I don't much agree with Beto's politics, but he's got spunk. Reminds me of a male Texas version of Stacey Abrams.

Who woulda thunk the Mormons would be more hip than the cowboys? Utah destroys any argument for voter fraud, and any argument against expanded voting. Utah is very conservative. Solid POT country. Which destroys the "Democrats cheat by mail" narrative.

Good for Beto. I wish him luck. I'd have a beer with him, but I don't think I'd vote for him.

 

The golden rule is a good principle and does indeed transcend faith. And it is based upon harm to others as moral principles should be. Though there is a slightly better variation known as the platinum rule, which involves treating people as they want to be treated, and in medicine we must at least meet that standard.

It's good that we start at the same foundation of "harm to others," but then we need to define "other humans." The essential attribute of what makes a human being is in the mind. If you give somebody a heart transplant, or even give them an artificial heart, they don't cease to be who they are. They don't become the person whose heart they received, or a machine just because an artificial pump is standing in for the biological one. While it's beyond our capabilities now, if we could instead move the brain from one body to another, the person inhabiting the body would be defined by that brain. Personhood lies in the brain. And so when abortion becomes immoral should be determined by whether the brain is developed enough to support a mind. Not necessarily a sophisticated mind, but any mind at all. This happens to approximately coincide with current viability. So Roe v. Wade turns out to be right, albeit for the wrong reasons. Outlawing abortion before this point is immoral because the mother is an actual person with a mind whose interests are undermined, unlike the mindless embryo/early fetus.

 

I know this is a bit of an aside, but I'm mildly curious about your thoughts on the morality / immorality of alimony and / or child support payments, or for that matter child neglect laws.

 

Having a hard time discerning whether a law that protects life is moral, are ya?