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

The idea of a soul predates Christianity by a couple millennia.

 

Surely you're not so obtuse that you can't see how child support / alimony are demanding a man's time / energy to sustain the life of another, right? Surely you can grasp the similarities between demanding that a woman see a pregnancy through and demanding that a man support a child he sired through their first 18 years of life.

 

"forbidden" by SCOTUS, but not in this case.

 

I'm pretty sure women have died / been injured as a result of botched abortions even after RvW. What's your point?

 

I'm not making anything up. You defined 'living' as "at birth". That means that all throughout the nine month pregnancy process, the "not baby" is dead (as it is not 'living' yet, per your definition). Are you now amending that definition??

--- How does a doctor determine whether or not someone is alive? Why does he bother with checking for a pulse?

I'm still making a scientific point. I'm just slowly working through the reasoning with you, and want to get certain words clearly defined before I continue onward with the reasoning.

To this point, we have the word 'human' defined, and have established that definition as fact. We have unambiguously defined 'human' as the homo sapien sapien species.

Right now, we are working on the word 'living'. You first defined it as "at birth", but now seem to be questioning that definition after I brought up to you that the "not baby" would thus be dead for all of those months inside the womb before it suddenly "comes to life" after it gets birthed. Since this is a medical/science based discussion, I am now asking you about doctors and how they check for life... I'm now asking you why doctors bother checking for a pulse.

It seems to me like doctors are checking whether or not someone is still alive ("has life"), would you agree? You do agree with the standard medical definition of 'living', right? IOW, if there is a heartbeat, then there is life.

 

The "point"?

Lemme see...Hmmm...

Most likely that these "butcherings" will rise astronomically (without access to safe and legal methods in a sterile medical environment).

^That concept should be very easy to grasp.

 

Yes it's alive, but until it can survive outside the womb, it's the woman's body. That's just natures way. Nothing we can do about it.

 

Once the SCOTUS actually hears the case, the new Texas law will be unconstitutional.

Rowe v. Wade is bad law. It federalizes abortion and takes away State's Rights ignoring the 10th Amendment. But, the Texas Law has all sorts of issues, such as the enforcement in the law.

I expect nothing to change in the end.

 

So he/she is a human? Got it.

Completely irrelevant. Your appendix is a body part. We're not talking about body parts; we're talking about humans.

You have your tenses wrong... He/she already IS a new human, dude... What species is the zygote/embryo/fetus/etc if not the homo sapiens sapiens species? You're still claiming that he/she is some sort of different species, yet simultaneously claiming that he/she is a human... You are locked in paradox. You are being irrational.

 

But don't the murderous little Jezebels deserve death for killing their offspring? Illegal abortionists and painful deadly infections thus become part of the plans of a Just God. Praise the Mercy of Jesus.

 

Nooo, Conservative Christians always know better than nature.

Something like half of all conceived pregnancies abort spontaneously in the womb before the mother even knows she's pregnant. Doesn't this new law make these unknowing mothers liable to prosecution as unwitting co-conspirators with God Himself?

 

So? That means a soul exists and in not just a belief?

Not even all CHRISTIAN sects believe in the soul and this is whether the soul EXISTS AT ALL let alone whether it is present in an unborn fetus.

 

OMGAWD! You don't know what bodily autonomy is nor what pregnancy entails ???....did you know that gestation involves using one's inner body parts to sustain a life?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

That is quite different from supporting a born child...

 

No, I mean consciousness. Consciousness (being "aware" of anything, having a mind) requires thalamocortical connections. For example: "Fetal awareness of noxious stimuli requires functional thalamocortical connections. Thalamocortical fibers begin appearing between 23 to 30 weeks' gestational age, while electroencephalography suggests the capacity for functional pain perception in preterm neonates probably does not exist before 29 or 30 weeks. For fetal surgery, women may receive general anesthesia and/or analgesics intended for placental transfer, and parenteral opioids may be administered to the fetus under direct or sonographic visualization. In these circumstances, administration of anesthesia and analgesia serves purposes unrelated to reduction of fetal pain, including inhibition of fetal movement, prevention of fetal hormonal stress responses, and induction of uterine atony." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16118385/

And: "Preterm infants may be conscious to a limited degree from about 25 weeks, when the thalamocortical connections are established." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20494736/

So, to be on the safe side, viability which is currently 23-24 weeks seems about right as the point at which abortion constitutes killing an actual person.

 

Personhood, being "a" human instead of "of human origin," is defined by the mind, not the new and unique genetic code you get at conception. It is possible to take one of your skin cells and clone a new person with the same DNA as you. They would have the same genetic code as you, but at the point at which they develop a mind is the point at which it's a new person, just like identical twins have (essentially) identical DNA but are two independent persons.

 

What evidence do you have to support this conclusion?

 

It's two-thirds. I've brought it up several times without reply. And then there are fertility clinics. I guess it's okay to kill babies if one of them takes.

 

So, you've chosen to move the goalposts instead. Okay, fair enough. We will strike your previous argument from the record as stupid and irrelevant. You didn't mean what you posted earlier, which is typical of leftists. When called out, you change your definitions.

Well, allow me another scientific fact that obliterates your stupid point here.... Brains continue to develop AFTER BIRTH. So, your entire point here is subjective, and as usual, in line with your leftist philosophy.

Maybe get a better argument next time. This one failed miserably. And you killed your own argument. How embarrassing.

 

No, I was just pointing out that life after death was not a Christian invention. To my knowledge, the Egyptians were first to believe this, 2000 years before Christ.

 

Or ... and this might be crazy talk ... they could just follow the law and not get an abortion after six weeks in Texas, and thus avoid the whole "painful deadly infections", death, injury, etc. Criminal activity often entails certain risks.

 

lol, people sure get defensive when they're losing. I've been extremely consistent on this point for about 20 years. I didn't say fully developed, I said have a mind. A basic mind is good enough. Moral relevance from a secular perspective requires something to exist mentally, to be able to suffer, or else it might as well be an inanimate object or, at best, a jellyfish.

 

As you've amply demonstrated. Thanks for that candid admission.

I addressed your "have a mind" argument and you skirted it, ignored it, and here you are talking crap about it. But you've never once refuted it.

You might considering starting there if you want to be taken seriously.

 

How do you think you've addressed it? By pointing out that the brain starts developing early? That's not addressing it. The brain does a lot more than provide consciousness and the more basic functions start to develop earlier than thalamocortical projections, which are the structures relevant to the mind. If you're referring to something else, let me know.

 

I've got three kids, so I'm pretty well-acquainted with "what pregnancy entails". What I don't get is the distinction you and others see as so paramount between "inner body parts" and using, for example, the fruits of one's labors to support others. We demand people use their bodies in various ways to support various people and organizations all the time. Parenthood in general is an example, as are paying taxes, and the selective service. It's inoffensive to society at large in those contexts. But somehow, if it's inner body parts, suddenly it's supposed to be off-limits? I'm as-of-yet unconvinced by this seemingly arbitrary distinction. Go ahead and make you case though. I'm listening. Why was it ok for the government to put the bodies of Vietnam-era draftees at risk but not ok for the government to expect a pregnant woman to see the pregnancy through to the end?

 

Criminal activity isn't often akin to paring your fingernails.