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

You've come back late to the party here. The discussion has gone way past the point you want to make.
In response to an earlier post I had said "For the sake of argument". That was said just to see what point you want to make. You made it and I concede that you want to say "living" is at conception.
Go on.

 

Wait, that's not what you said before.
What about brain activity. Someone could be brain dead and their heart is still beating. A heart can be artificially functioning with normal brain activity.
Where did you get that definition?

 

Not relevant. Who cares

 

No. That's the whole point

No, it's not. You've missed a lot in this thread.

 

Define "mind". How do you know that a living human in a womb doesn't have one?

 

Again, asked and answered many times. That is a false statement.

Again, this has been addressed and does nothing to prove a point that anyone is "killed".

Again, not true. Animals kill there young very frequently. You are being a science denier.

 

Then a waste of time to "debate" you. You came into this saying you can prove your point with science and have failed to do so and also denied actual science.

That is incorrect.
I answered you (a lifetime ago) about the use of the word "life". There are many meanings to the word (that I showed) and you arbitrarily picked a heartbeat as the beginning of life. That is wrong.

 

There was nothing before the Christian God. The Christian God has always existed, and always will exist.

 

Again denying science

 

Yes.

Not what I said. Re-read what I said.

They are philosophical. I am making use of philosophy. They are also scientific (based in science).

You don't get to bring up "rights" because your position is that living humans do not have rights, namely the right to life. You have taken the position that killing a living human (no crimes committed, no desire to die expressed) for sake of convenience is perfectly acceptable behavior. You have thus given up your "rights".

Yes, it does.

This is an abhorrent practice.

I am not discussing "personhood". I am discussing living humans.

I support the right to bodily autonomy, dude. That's why I OPPOSE the choice to kill a living human who has committed no crime nor has expressed any desire to die. That is what a fetus IS, dude. A fetus has separate DNA from the mother and father, thus a different identity. This is NOT about the "mother's body"... it is about the child's body. THAT child has just as much right to bodily autonomy as you and I do, and YOU are the one violating it. YOU are the one saying that living humans do not have such a right. YOU are the one who is taking a morally abhorrent position here.

I bet that you also support forced mask wearing and forced vaccinations, which are both violations of bodily autonomy. This is how the liberal "mind" works...

No, you don't. You support the choice to kill a living human who has committed no crime nor has expressed any desire to die. You have already expressed this sentiment.

And you express it yet again here.

 

In your mind. I prefer reality.

Reality says you're wrong.

 

Things are getting easier for women in Texas, since they no longer need to think about how to dress in the morning. Yes, I know it satire

Texas Republicans Back Statewide Dress Code for Women
https://www.newyorker.com/humor/bor...publicans-back-statewide-dress-code-for-women
A new bill moving swiftly through the Republican-controlled Texas legislature would institute a strict statewide dress code for women.

Governor Greg Abbott, a vehement supporter of the bill, said that the dress code would benefit women because “it will give them one less thing to think about when they get up in the morning.”

“I believe in the sanctity of human life, and the best way to protect that life, in the case of a woman, is to free her from the stress of having to choose what to wear,” Abbott said.

Abbott summarized the new dress code, which bars women from wearing skirts above the knee, sleeveless blouses, and most varieties of pants.

“Slacks are fine as long as they have cuffs,” he said. “However, if a woman is caught wearing jeans or dungarees, she will be sent home.”

Abbott dismissed comparisons between the state’s proposed dress code and that imposed by the Taliban, which has required women to wear burqas. “We are strongly opposed to masks of any kind,” he said.

 

Greg Abbott... the leader of Radical Muslims.....

Satire yet so in keeping with Texas's hatred and fear of women.

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++









I bet the women of Texass will be taking a lot of vacations in Mexico.


A country so much more enlightened than Texass....abortions are legal.

Of course , wealthy women never had to fear Texass as they can take a "vacation" anywhere outside Texass and have an abortion

 

I don't "want" to say anything. What I want is to establish a particular definition of 'living' as a fact between the both of us so that I can move onward with my argumentation.

I have described how 'at birth' does not make sense, since that argues that a "not baby" spends nine months being dead inside of a mother's womb before "magickally coming alive" at the moment that it gets birthed. --- Thus, I am asking you why doctors check for a pulse, and asking why a person is considered "dead" when they "flat-line". I am suggesting that the presence of a heartbeat is how the medical community defines 'living', and I am asking if we can agree that the word "living", for this discussion, can be defined as "has a heartbeat". Can we agree on this final word definition and move forward?

 

Lol. They got it wrong with the jeans, though.

 

Its always alive. Life is a continuum. Choosing the heartbeat would mean the fetus is dead until that moment. Isn't that what you're arguing against?

 

It's precisely what I've said all along.

Irrelevant.

Correct. This person is a living human (with a dead brain). If there is a heartbeat, then there is life.

This person is a living human (with a living brain and an artificially assisted heart which allows for the person to be "kept alive", hence "living"). If there is a heartbeat, then there is life.

The axiom "if there is a heartbeat, then there is life", as it is followed by the medical community. The first thing that any medical professional does is check for a pulse. No fauna with a heartbeat is ever considered to be "dead".

 

No, viability is not at all relevant... It doesn't matter what I've "missed". I am having a separate conversation with you. Past conversation does not matter. All that matters is the discussion between you and I.

 

That's regarding SCOTUS's failure to pause a case whose arguments have yet to be heard.

Let's wait until the arguments are heard, and the court rules, before any conclusions are made.

 

No, it isn't.

HUMAN: of the homo sapiens sapiens species... You and I have established this as a fact.

LIVING: has a heartbeat... I am working on establishing this as fact with you. You said "birth" is what defines living, and have since backpedaled on that after I brought up my objection. I then suggested that we establish as fact what the medical community considers to be 'living', which is the axiom "if there is a heartbeat, then there is life". The first thing that medical professionals do is check for a pulse. No fauna with a heartbeat has ever been considered to be "dead". --- Thus, I think that we can safely establish this definition of 'living' as a fact.

Given those definitions, we come to my statement: You are supporting the choice to kill a living human (see definitions above) who has committed no crime nor has expressed any desire to die.

That is very accurately portraying what you are supporting. It is morally abhorrent to support such a thing, as you are saying that a living human does not have a right to life. You are saying that I do not have a right to life. You are saying that YOU do not have a right to life. You are saying that YOUR FAMILY does not have a right to life. Let that one sink in for a moment...

You are claiming that only "the woman's body" is in question. I am telling you that Living Human #1 (a child) is NOT Living Human #2 (a mother). --- Living Human #1 (a child) is being killed. Aborting that child is killing a living human, as defined by the medical community and science.

No, they don't. They typically care for and nurture their young. They typically protect their young from predators. That is the way of nature. YOU are being a science denier.

 

We are not debating. We are having a discussion.

I have already proved my point with science. See my post #2196.

I did not arbitrarily pick that. It is my position that the axiom "if there is a heartbeat, then there is life" is what the medical community uses. No fauna with a heartbeat has ever been considered to be dead.

 

That is a religious assertion, not a scientific one.

 

Any part of the dictionary definition works: "the element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel; the faculty of consciousness and thought."

Consciousness requires an interaction between the cortex and the more primitive processing centers of the brain, traditionally the thalamus but some research suggests coordination between the cortex and even more primitive structures in the brainstem could be more important. Either way, we're talking about after 23 weeks or so. Here's a quote from a group that advocates for infant mental health:

"Last of all to mature is the cerebral cortex, which is responsible for most of what we think of as mental life–conscious experience, voluntary actions, thinking, remembering, and feeling. It has only begun to function around the time gestation comes to an end. Premature babies show very basic electrical activity in the primary sensory regions of the cerebral cortex–those areas that perceive touch, vision, and hearing–as well as in primary motor regions of the cerebral cortex. In the last trimester, fetuses are capable of simple forms of learning, like habituating (decreasing their startle response) to a repeated auditory stimulus, such as a loud clap just outside the mother’s abdomen. Late-term fetuses also seem to learn about the sensory qualities of the womb, since several studies have shown that newborn babies respond to familiar odors (such as their own amniotic fluid) and sounds (such as a maternal heartbeat or their own mother’s voice). In spite of these rather sophisticated abilities, babies enter the world with a still-primitive cerebral cortex, and it is the gradual maturation of this complex part of the brain that explains much of their emotional and cognitive maturation in the first few years of life." When Does the Fetus's Brain Begin to Work? • ZERO TO THREE

 

I mean, it's not really true. The heart can be stopped or replaced after arrest for an extended period of time because of ECMO. The heartbeat is only closely tied with being alive because it is such a vital tool to get oxygen to the rest of the body, but it is not life itself nor is it the person. If you gave somebody a fully artificial heart, they would still be fully a person. The only organ that could be replaced that would call their personhood into question is the brain - it would be a different person, certainly, and if artificial, unclear if it could be a being/person at all.