I’m not religious at all. Although Omni likes to strawman a lot by bringing religion religion religion even though no one here, as far as I’ve seen, has used religion to justify any sort of policy.

I look at it from a human rights perspective. If you believe a fetus is a human then that fetus deserves the same protection as my 1 day old newborn.

Omni does not fundamentally understand anything which is why every thread he participates in is 50 pages too long.

FIFY

But birth control is OK ?
Because we’re just getting rid of two halves of the human ?
Preemptive strike ?
Should jerking off be illegal?
You know those sperm. One had chance.
Also.
Welfare ? Starving ? No housing ? Abandoned to whoever ? Society pays for it ? Severely disabled , etc…..
Why is it societies choice?

.

That's my opinion, too.

You don't need religion to know what's right and wrong.  Most people learn early in life regardless of culture or teaching that life is important, and that the taking of life is wrong without justification.

Unfortunately this is obviously not one of those times and arguable on both sides.
Are they taking a “life”?  Without justification?
What about the woman ? No regard ?
Back to square one if no religion is involved.

They should ban abortion and make the father raise the kid.
Never mind. It’d still be messed up.

It’s all gonna come back to 24 weeks.
Key question I been saying. When is it murder ?
That’s my opinion.

But birth control is OK ?
Because we’re just getting rid of two halves of the human ?
Preemptive strike ?
Should jerking off be illegal?
You know those sperm. One had chance.
Also.
Welfare ? Starving ? No housing ? Abandoned to whoever ? Society pays for it ? Severely disabled , etc…..
Why is it societies choice?

.
Unfortunately this is obviously not one of those times and arguable on both sides.
Are they taking a “life”?
Back to square one if no religion is involved.

Science defines life.  Much has changed since the 1970s.

We study single cell organisms and have no qualms about designating that as "life".

All children continue to develop after birth -- no one is ever born fully developed.  So, why is a developing embryo any different?  The DNA of an embryo is unique and distinct from the parents' and any other humans', so why is that not considered a living organism?

Arguments against religion are the crutch of people who don't believe in right or wrong -- just in their own wants and needs.  If religion didn't exist, they'd find another way to attack people who judge their actions as wrong.

Key question I’ve been saying. (And curiously no one has yet answered.)
When is it murder ?
Follows the logic.
Even the Texas law states at moment of fetal heartbeat.
Which can’t be 6 weeks as embryo has no cardiovascular system at that point.

Never mind civil lawsuits. Charge the doctor, nurses and formerly-pregnant woman with murder if it’s definitive.
Based on your logic.

You’ve said your crap, I said my crap.
Let others speak/post.

When is it murder ?
Should it be illegal before then ?
Illegal, not right or wrong in one persons view.

It’s all gonna go back to 24 weeks.
In my opinion.

When is it murder ?
Before murder, who has the Right to say shit.

Science defines life.  Much has changed since the 1970s.

We study single cell organisms and have no qualms about designating that as "life".

All children continue to develop after birth -- no one is ever born fully developed.  So, why is a developing embryo any different?  The DNA of an embryo is unique and distinct from the parents' and any other humans', so why is that not considered a living organism?

Arguments against religion are the crutch of people who don't believe in right or wrong -- just in their own wants and needs.  If religion didn't exist, they'd find another way to attack people who judge their actions as wrong.

Let's pose it this way.  Who's life is more important?

yet you constantly post your views on abortion, church, freedom, politics, consensus, court of law
over and over and over and over and over

And have any of those that I say lessen your freedom unless it effects others freedoms?  🤔

And have any of those that I say lessen your freedom unless it effects others freedoms?  🤔

is that sentence in English?

Mac,

Instead of being an English professor, could you answer my question?
You’re a Dr.
( I gotta say that because my daughters in pharmacy school and I’ll apparently have to call her Dr. at graduation. Pharmacist Dentist same same. Still both Dr.s I say with respect.)

Or you can just delete this post.
To provocative.
(Did I use one too little bit o’s ? )

Science defines life.  Much has changed since the 1970s.

We study single cell organisms and have no qualms about designating that as "life".

All children continue to develop after birth -- no one is ever born fully developed.  So, why is a developing embryo any different?  The DNA of an embryo is unique and distinct from the parents' and any other humans', so why is that not considered a living organism?

Arguments against religion are the crutch of people who don't believe in right or wrong -- just in their own wants and needs.  If religion didn't exist, they'd find another way to attack people who judge their actions as wrong.

I think debating whether it is life is not really hitting the right note, the question should be whether it is life worth keeping/saving/protecting. We choose to allow loved ones to pull the plug on people who are completely brain dead so I think the question is whether the embryo at whatever number of weeks is a human life worth protecting is the right question, not simply whether it is alive.

And on the last note, there is an atheist pro-life group. People always want to resort to the angle of "you are forcing religion on me" but I rebut it by pointing at pro-life atheists and illustrating that being against abortion isn't a position inherent to religion.

when is it murder ?
And if it’s not murder, what crime is being committed ?
Legally.

I think debating whether it is life is not really hitting the right note, the question should be whether it is life worth keeping/saving/protecting. We choose to allow loved ones to pull the plug on people who are completely brain dead so I think the question is whether the embryo at whatever number of weeks is a human life worth protecting is the right question, not simply whether it is alive.

And on the last note, there is an atheist pro-life group. People always want to resort to the angle of "you are forcing religion on me" but I rebut it by pointing at pro-life atheists and illustrating that being against abortion isn't a position inherent to religion.

You really ought to go back and read the first 30-40 pages of this thread.  Few arguments you can add will be something we haven't seen before.

The "what about coma patients" issue was discussed in-depth.  The final thought I had was, "brain dead adults have an almost 0 chance of returning to a sentient state.  An embryo that is developing normally has a nearly 100% chance of achieving that state."  Present state is not the only factor.  Have to consider predicted state if allowed to remain living.

Let's pose it this way.  Who's life is more important?

Be more specific.  Whose lives are you talking about?

Be more specific.  Whose lives are you talking about?

The mother or the potential baby. 


And for a bonus the father.

The mother or the potential baby.  And for a bonus the father.

Funny.  I remember my mother and father both surviving my birth.

I was unaware having a child required a human sacrifice.

Funny.  I remember my mother and father both surviving my birth.

I was unaware having a child required a human sacrifice.

Lets be more specific.  The mothers choice and potential harm.   Having to carry the "child" for 9 months and give birth.  Then spend X amount of time caring for said child.   Or the child who has not yet formed yet.

AKA if the mother does not want the child do you force them to have it?
Or other scenarios a bit more spicy like if the child was a product of rape do you force the mother to live the rest of her life having that as a reminder.
Or what if giving birth could compromise the mothers life?

*bonus*
What say does the dad say?


Obviously we will never agree if its alive etc.  But I want to see your views on freedoms and how its ranked.

Lets be more specific.  The mothers choice and potential harm.   Having to carry the "child" for 9 months and give birth.  Then spend X amount of time caring for said child.   Or the child who has not yet formed yet.

AKA if the mother does not want the child do you force them to have it?
Or other scenarios a bit more spicy like if the child was a product of rape do you force the mother to live the rest of her life having that as a reminder.
Or what if giving birth could compromise the mothers life?

*bonus*
What say does the dad say?


Obviously we will never agree if its alive etc.  But I want to see your views on freedoms and how its ranked.

Big difference between "doesn't want" and "potential harm."

Go back and re-read all the many pages that we created discussing "life of the mother vs. life of the child" scenarios.

Do you not retain information?  Or do you only retain talking points to use to argue with anyone who dares to engage you?

when is it murder ?
And if it’s not murder, what crime is being committed ?
Legally.

just answer the fawkin’ question.

Anyone, because that’s what we’re really talking about at this point.
In my opinion. (As Flapp noted. Seems like alll the other crap has been hashed out.)

P.S. and the answer is not sentience.
Is it 10 weeks + or - because the fetus has a cordiovascular system (and presumably heartbeat that works)?
Is it 24 weeks + or - because it’s viable outside outside the womb ?
Is it never ? (Because when it has one cell it could be life (science). Like my swimming sperm, which I hope had more than one cell. (At least they swam) Go back to birth control, pre-emptive strike, illegal jerking off comment)

How do you measure sentience ? Don’t answer. I’ll go back 40 pages. (That means you Umni. Start catching the drifts of a lot of prior posts in a lot of different threads.)

just answer the fawkin’ question.

Anyone, because that’s what we’re really talking about at this point.
In my opinion. (As Flapp noted. Seems like alll the other crap has been hashed out.)

P.S. and the answer is not sentience.
Is it 10 weeks + or - because the fetus has a cordiovascular system (and presumably heartbeat that works)?
Is it 24 weeks + or - because it’s viable outside outside the womb ?
Is it never ? (Because when it has one cell it could be life (science). Like my swimming sperm, which I hope had more than one cell. (At least they swam) Go back to birth control, pre-emptive strike, illegal jerking off comment)

How do you measure sentience ? Don’t answer. I’ll go back 40 pages. (That means you Umni. Start catching the drifts of a lot of prior posts in a lot of different threads.)

Aiea, I think the question has been answered already.

If you believe it is a human being from the moment of conception (pro life) then that fetus has all the rights a newborn would have. If you rip apart a newborn (abortion) I would consider that murder. It’s the same for a fetus, at least from a pro life perspective.

As for your swimming sperm I don’t consider that a human being. Unless you can find me an example of a male that grows babies in his ball sack without needing a female egg I don’t consider it to be human. An unfertilized egg doesn’t grow into anything the same way sperm doesn’t.

As for your swimming sperm I don’t consider that a human being. Unless you can find me an example of a male that grows babies in his ball sack without needing a female egg I don’t consider it to be human. An unfertilized egg doesn’t grow into anything the same way sperm doesn’t.

Science defines life.  Much has changed since the 1970s.

We study single cell organisms and have no qualms about designating that as "life".

Gotta go back and read Flapp’s prior post.
Your sperm could be life as defined by science.
( Where’s the sarcasm emoji? )

Aiea, I think the question has been answered already.

If you believe it is a human being from the moment of conception (pro life) then that fetus has all the rights a newborn would have. If you rip apart a newborn (abortion) I would consider that murder. It’s the same for a fetus, at least from a pro life perspective.

I get what you’re saying but…..if you believe ?
That’s what I’m trying to get away from
Legally?
Where’s the bar?
And what makes it legal or illegal ?
Murder ?
When can you be charged with two murders for killing a pregnant woman ?
Shouldn’t it be the same standard ?

Just asking questions.

38 states have homicide laws that protect unborn victims.

That's 38/50 states that recognize an unborn child as "life" LEGALLY, or 2 shy of 4/5.  33 states out of 50 would be a super-majority in the context of Congressional votes.

30 states have no gestation limit on the protection.  8 have minimal gestation times for the law to apply.  For example, CA law says:

“Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.” 

The words “or a fetus” were added by the legislature in 1970.  The California Supreme
Court later interpreted “fetus” to apply “beyond the embryonic stage of seven to eight
weeks.”

So, even CA (not a religious or Conservation state by any stretch) considers a 2-month-old fetus a person who qualifies for legal protection.

Of course, for all the times AHole demanded others answer the question, he could have just Googled it instead -- took 3 seconds.

https://www.nrlc.org/federal/unbornvictims/statehomicidelaws092302/