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

WT actual F
I'm sorry, did not lions kill lions. Apes kill apes. Try to take a position and stick to it. You keep on and on about humans killing humans and now you take this position? No sense.

 

I have read livescience enough to know that it does not contain any science. It is a religious publication that poses as "science". Thus, it gets dismissed on sight as a source.

The inverse of this is true.

Yes it is and yes a good deal of people are. You, on the other hand, are stuck in paradox regarding this issue, unless you wish to clear it and unequivocally state for this forum that a fetus with a heartbeat is a living human.

I'm sorry to hear that science based truth is annoying you.

I did not misquote it.

No, it doesn't, and you are purposely skimming over the word permanently. --- A brain dead human who has a heartbeat is still a living human.

Humans ARE animals. Now you're doubling down on science denial...

 

The word 'living' as I present it in my argument is defined by the medical community, not by me. I personally define 'living' differently, as I personally consider life to begin at fertilization ("conception).

The word 'human' is defined via logic (proof of identity) and is a part of science. It refers specifically to the homo sapiens species (or in reference to humans like you and I, homo sapiens sapiens).

No, that is the extension of your reasoning on this issue. It strictly adheres to logic. You just don't like being told the truth on this matter.

Nope, that is truth.

 

Stop evading and answer the questions put to you.

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...

 

Continued avoidance of discussing 'living humans'.

IOW, they are KEEPING THE HUMAN ALIVE...

Keeping a human alive is not murder.

Holy crap.

 

I've thought this about your posts as well.

Yes, but that's not what we're discussing... I'm not talking about Joe Biden (Lion A) killing Donald and Melania Trump's (Lions B & C) child (Lion BC). I'm talking about Donald and Melania Trump (Lions B & C) killing their own child (Lion BC).

Honest discourse is important, and you're not holding it.

I suggest that you take your own advice.

Nope, just a strawman on your part. See above.

 

It's not a human until it has a mind. I cannot even imagine where you're coming from. What is your rationale for valuing things with no capacity to suffer, no capacity to feel, no capacity to think? You might as well get emotionally attached to a jellyfish or a plant. We could even use CRISPR to give them human genes, but unless we gave them a mind, they still wouldn't be beings that are morally relevant.

To harvest their organs, they're keeping the tissue alive. The person is already dead. If they weren't, then there would be an ethical issue with allowing them to die to harvest their organs. Brain death must occur, i.e. no possibility of recovery, i.e. death. The heart stopping, about 10% of them are revived in time TO SAVE THE BRAIN, i.e. save the person.

 

Who is telling couples they "must" have children? Personally, I'd prefer if those who weren't ready to be parents yet were not, but the way I'd prefer to reach that desired outcome is not by killing all the kids they conceive until they feel ready. I'd rather they either practice safe sex or abstinence.

 

You do realize that citing the Guttmacher Institute for abortion data is like citing the NRA for data on gun violence, right?

 

Safe sex doesn't always work and abstinence never works.

I agree abortion should not be used indiscriminately, and I don't believe most women use it that way.

 

What is a human being is a legal concept. Human fetuses are not legal human beings under the Constitution of the United States

 

According to you that happens when it has a heartbeat. That's not science. That's fantasy. What was it before? Dead?

 

That person is me and your statement is a lie. I didn't "simultaneously" claim any such thing yet you say it's not alive before a heartbeat.

 

What I'm saying is your basis of being "human" is wrong. That's a fact.

 

No, the medical community says life begins at conception. It's a medical fact. The denier here is you and I'm frankly getting tired of proving it just to have your false premise being your counter.

 

Completely false. Prove it.

Again, for like the hundredth time, I have admitted that. Does nothing to prove anything you say. You present circular arguments that go nowhere.

You left out the word "or" which I pointed out. That one word dismisses your point and you know it.

Completely disingenuous, false and tiresome

I didn't say they weren't but we kill animals indiscriminately and you don't seem to have a problem with that.

 

Oh please. This comes from the campion of dishonest discourse.
So because they don't kill their own, it's ok. Noted. Not surprised you miss a point. Lion/Ape murder is just fine with you.

 

So you don't know what a strawman argument is and you don't know what an analogy is. Noted

 

So if you have sex with someone in a coma it is not rape?

Can you cite me a medical textbook that says the organism in the womb of a human female is not a human being until it has a mind? And what exactly does "have a mind" mean. How do you measure the exact moment a human being has a mind?

 

So you don't want to follow the science you want to go with the partisan politics. And

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

I think that implies at the time of creation, conception, not some undefined when they have a "mind".

 

Do you equate human beings with all other life forms on the socio/economic/moral standard scale? And actually we have laws against indiscriminate killing of animals don't we. And before you go off on hunting, hunting is a key part of game management. Hunting is encouraged to control animal populations so that they survive better. Nature sorta made us smarter than the others and designed us to consume them too. I don't think it designed us to kill our offspring merely for conveyance sake.

I simply find it concerning one would simply equate human life with every other life form. We kill plants too.

 

When you say 'science says so.....' your statement only has significance if you can cite a court case predicated upon it.

But there is none.

Otherwise, scientists say a lot of things, and don't always agree with each other. For every scientist you claim that says a fetus is a human, I can deliver you one that says science doesn't make such a claim. Here's one by a professor of biology.

https://www.swarthmore.edu/news-events/when-does-personhood-begin

The fetus up to the first stage, as far as I know, has not been ruled as a 'human' in a court of law, and until it is, you are entitled to your opinion, you may wax philosophical all you want, cite opinions by scientists, who are also waxing philosophical giving you the illusion it's science ( when science does not make that claim because there is no consensus, theory, establishing it as fact, just opinions by ad hoc scientists many of whom disagree), but, that is all it is, opinions.

Because your entire premise is predicated on opinions, your rebuttal is dismissed.

Until then, the right to body autonomy rests with the woman, and the woman, only.

Sorry. That's just the way it is.

 

You have to think whether the protests on this will go on and on.

 

So far, organized opposition is all this law has accomplished. Anti-abortionists got kicked off GoDaddy, New Mexico is geared up for increased demand, and nobody has been sued. Looks like a total failure, and political suicide. The far right is very out of touch.

 

Yes it is. Sex requires consent, and comatose persons cannot consent. Being asleep or even most forms of comatose is not the same as not having a mind, except in extreme cases where the brain is so damaged that the mind is gone. In that case, it would be more similar to abuse of a corpse.

A mind means has thoughts, not just reflexes. Experiencing anything. Pain is the most basic example. But I don't have fetal neurology textbooks lying around, so here's JAMA, the most widely circulated medical journal:

"Pain perception requires conscious recognition or awareness of a noxious stimulus. Neither withdrawal reflexes nor hormonal stress responses to invasive procedures prove the existence of fetal pain, because they can be elicited by nonpainful stimuli and occur without conscious cortical processing. 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://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/201429