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

As your post demonstrates, the brain has not fully developed at birth, making it a poor point at which to call a fertilized egg a human being, whose life began at conception.

 

Fully developed isn't necessary. Having any kind of conscious experience at all is what matters. For the same reason, we feel bad about killing a dog but don't feel bad about killing plants. The dog might not be sophisticated, but she can suffer and have a conscious existence. Hence a dog is morally relevant. A plant is not, at least not as a being.

 

Many poeple in a coma lack conscious experiences. It's okay to kill them, too? Many times, people sleeping lack any conscious experience. Is it okay to kill someone in their sleep, then? If that is NOT okay, please explain why? Is it because they might wake up?

Just want you to apply your logic consistently here.

Your subjective standard fails.

 

It's the foundation of secular morality, harm to others. You confuse "being awake" with "having a mind." Not the same thing. Persons with comas (some kinds) and who are asleep have actively working minds - they dream, e.g. Somebody who actually has existed mentally becomes something that can be destroyed - not just "potential" persons like sperm, eggs, conceptions, or every cell in my body which could be used to clone a new person who is genetically identical to me.

 

IOW, there IS a mind present, but it isn't fully developed yet.

So now that we got that out of the way, are you ready to get back to the discussion at hand, which is about LIVING HUMANS and your support of killing them?

 

Yes, it IS true.

This is called "keeping a person alive", hence they are a "living human".

Precisely. It is how the medical community determines that fauna are alive.

Never said that it was, nor does it have to be. All that is relevant here is that, per the medical community, "if there is a heartbeat, then there is life". No fauna with a heartbeat has ever been considered to be dead.

Irrelevant. All that is relevant is that this is a "living human" because there is a heartbeat present.

Irrelevant. We are not talking about personhood... We are talking about living humans, as has already been defined.

You are supporting the choice to kill a living human who has not committed any crime nor has expressed any desire to die. --- You are supporting the notion that a living human does not have a right to life (or any rights for that matter).

A fetus in a womb is a living human just as you and I are. This is science.

 

It's that's true it's sad. That is wrong according to science.

To you maybe, but not to science.

Not medically

So now a living brain is relevant and an artificial heartbeat trumps everything. Odd stance.

Not true.
"In the United States and many other countries, a person is legally dead if he or she permanently loses all brain activity (brain death) or all breathing and circulatory functions."
https://www.livescience.com/42301-brain-death-body-alive.html

 

With a fetus the question of viability is all important. I have no desire to redo everything on this thread to prove that again. You can go back and check yourself.

 

No, we cannot agree on that. Science does not back your argument.

 

A living fetus is alive NO one has said it's dead.

It isn't a legal person until birth.
It has no rights , it is not a legal person, it hasn't been born , has no SSN, can't be a tax deduction, can't do anything that interferes with another's rights even if it was a "person"......is NOT a PERSON...

 

Not relevant to this discussion.

 

Nope, you didn't comprehend it. One key is when they say "premature babies," they're not talking about anything younger than about 23 weeks given viability. The rudimentary early mind COULD POSSIBLY be present after about 23 weeks. The fetus can clearly be conscious "during the 3rd trimester" given evidence that they recognize things they experienced in the womb like amniotic fluid, e.g. Before about 23 weeks, there cannot be a mind. No mind = no person.

Let me tell you the implication of this. My argument isn't about choice or life but about personhood. I am opposed to abortions after 23 weeks because at that point it kills an actual person, but there are some on the pro-choice side who argue from the perspective of the mother's autonomy/privacy who would argue it's still okay after this point. I disagree with them.

That's not true. The heart can beat for some time after brain death (real death). Brain Death | National Kidney Foundation

The heart is only relevant as a tool. It's not what indicates whether a being is present.

 

This is the whole basis of your argument but it is a false premise which has been addressed many times already here.

If that is true, why are there no arrests and claims of crimes being committed. The law is not on your side here.

Again, not true and you cannot prove that. See above statement.

Sorry, not true
Two come to mind. Lions and apes will kill all offspring when a new alpha male becomes dominant.

 

You are denying science.

You are denying science.

Yes, medically.

Strawman. My position is that all that is relevant is that there is a living human. Try to keep up.

Nope, it is ABSOLUTELY true.

livescience is dismissed on sight. I do not accept livescience as a source of anything. Let's stick with science.

That snippet is supporting my position BTW... "permanently loses all brain activity... permanently loses all breathing/circulatory functions" (such as a heartbeat).

As I said and you continue to ignore, the first thing that a medical professional does is check for a heartbeat. NO fauna that has a heartbeat has EVER been considered 'dead'.

 

That post proves nothing.

Wrong. I proved this in a different post to you.

 

Viability is not at all relevant. A fetus is a living human, per definition.

You are supporting the choice to kill a living human who has committed no crime nor has expressed any desire to die. --- You are taking the position that living humans do NOT have a right to life (including yourself and your family members).

That is morally abhorrent in any society.

 

A human with a heartbeat is not living?? You are not living?? Your family members are not living??

An odd (and science denying) position to take...

 

The person whom I am having a discussion with has claimed that it is dead (while simultaneously claiming that it is alive, which forms a paradox that he has yet to clear). You agree with me that a human fetus is a living human, yet attempt to deny your support for choosing to kill innocent living humans who don't wish to die. You also believe that you and your family members (as 'living humans') do not have a right to life.

Irrelevant. You so desperately wish to pull me into a rhetorical quagmire via your usage of the word 'person', attempting to avoid the topic at hand, which is LIVING HUMANS.

If you can't handle a discussion about living humans, then you can gracefully bow out now.

 

It was from a different discussion. Keep up.

 

Your refusal to discuss living humans is noted.

I am opposed to abortions after fertilization (or "conception") because at that point it kills a living human (as I define the term 'living').

Brain dead is not dead. As long as there is a heartbeat, there is life.

 

Of course you do, it doesn't support your position but it is a science based publication. Your objection is dismissed on sight.

No, I'm actually arguing science. You are not.

Not a strawman and no one is arguing against a fetus being a living human.

Ok, now your getting real close to being obnoxious.
To take a quote and misquote it is completely disingenuous. You purposely left out the word "or" between brain activity and breathing/circulatory functions. You did it because it makes your assertion false.

Yeah, you've said that alot and I've let it go but now with your actions I won't
"Fauna" refers to animals, not humans.

 

Nope, it is the premise that the medical community operates under. You are in denial.

There ARE claims of crimes being committed. I am claiming that murder is being committed.

Arrests are not being made because lawless Satanists are in positions of power atm. If a murderer doesn't get arrested for murder, did the murder event not happen?

I've already proved that.

Nope. They are not killing THEIR OWN offspring. They are killing the offspring of others. They want THEIR OWN genes to be passed on...

 

Per your definition. Not a scientific nor legal one.

THAT is a strawman argument

That is simply an opinion

 

You are conflating a lot of different issues and deny actual science (viability) to make a false point.

 

It's not what's morally relevant. All cells in the human body are alive. And, in fact, all nucleated cells could be used to make a clone of you. That clone would become a new person at the point that a mind exists and not before. The only thing you get at conception is a new recombined set of DNA. But, as clones and identical twins illustrate, unique DNA means absolutely nothing with regards to moral relevance as a human being. Just like sperm and eggs and every individual cell in your body on its own, a conception is not a human being because it is not a being (with a mind) at all.

You are medically incorrect. Doctors keep the heart beating after brain death to allow organ donation. I suppose you think that's murder, but it's not.