Mississippi Abortion

Is 15 weeks a reasonable limit? Is anyone in favor of this?

“The Supreme Court should return the issue of abortion to the states, which would mean overruling Roe. “The Constitution is neither pro-life nor pro-choice,” he said, adding that the Court should “return to a position of neutrality.”—Justice Brett Kavanaugh


Overturning Roe would not be a neutral act. The Constitution protects liberty, but if women cannot make decisions about their own pregnancies, then they will never have equal status under the Constitution.

At least if the court takes a stance of neutrality, many states would still be available for safe and legal abortion. Either way this is pretty exciting drama.

Author: jimoeba

Alternatives to big box religions and dogmas

254 thoughts on “Mississippi Abortion”

  3. Exciting drama is putting it mildly. I have strong feelings about abortion but as you said, “but if women cannot make decisions about their own pregnancies, then they will never have equal status under the Constitution.” The decision about whether or not to get an abortion should be entirely up to the woman and her doctor. Instead we have a government made up largely of fat old men who know nothing about biology, medical science, nor do they understand the trauma an unwanted pregnancy can cause to the woman involved, and who are misogynistic jerks, making the decisions about women’s mental and physical health in DC and in the state capitals. Remember that it isn’t all that long ago that one of our lawmakers stated that abortion shouldn’t be allowed in cases of rape because he believed that women could somehow magically keep from getting pregnant if it was a “real” sexual assault.

    Liked by 5 people

    Reply

    1. Exciting may be the wrong word. Intense? I wonder what type of correctional facilities we will need to build separate the guilty from their families?
      What continues to be troubling is that complete lack of understanding (as you stated) is the very reason it is being revisited and that ignorance is going to make a decision based on feelings.

      Like

      Reply

      1. “exciting” would not be inappropriate in the sense that the term can mean “the arousal of intense emotions”

        Complete lack of understanding and ignorance is exactly right. One thing that bothers me is how the most rabidly “pro life” people have a total lack of empathy for the women involved. They don’t give a damn about the emotional trauma an unwanted pregnancy can cause. And once a child is born, they wash their hands of both mother and child, leaving the woman to struggle to try to bring up that child by herself and even actively working against any attempt at providing her and her newborn with health care, food and other necessities. The woman and her child could starve to death and they don’t give a damn as long as the child is actually born.

        Even more troubling is that they are unwilling to do anything that might reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and even vehemently resist things like birth control and proper sex education.

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

        1. One way to reduce the number of abortions is to vote Democrat (if they really cared about the numbers) since far fewer abortions are performed during those terms.

          Liked by 3 people

          Reply

          1. Yep, and that’s because during those periods spending on things like birth control access and real sex education programs increase. The best way to reduce the need for abortion is universal access to inexpensive birth control and better education, both of which the “pro life” crowd opposes vehemently

            Liked by 3 people

            Reply

            1. Possibly inappropriate, but one thing the pro-Lifers want is to stop poor people from having sex because the possible consequences are much too high to bear. Sex is good for rich people, no doubt, but poor people should live without it. There are already far too many poor people in the world, according to them.
              I will never live to see the rich get rid of all the poor and have to wipe their own asses, but I wish I could. (JIM, delete this comment if you like. I had my say. It doesn’t matter if anyone else reads it.)

              Liked by 1 person

            2. When the total shit hits the fan it will likely be the whacky ones on the fringes who will survive—and they will tell the stories and perpetuate the myths again, that god destroyed the wicked. It’s the bunkered down uber religious nuts that will win and will keep the nonsense alive.

              Like

  4. Is anyone really surprised? These are the attendant consequences of voting for others to rule over you: they will immediately seize that opportunity to impose all manner of sanctions and rules you may not like.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Well, maybe we’ll see the same level of consistency that was argued here for vaccines be argued in favor now for Mississippi? Common good, science, and the impeccable track record of mandates?

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

        1. On the flip side these learned people will ignore the law anyway, so what’s to worry for them?
          I have a very staunch Catholic coworker who is by the book pious on these issues. His daughter just came out of the closet and he had to take time off work to cope with it. He is also excited about this potential reversal in the abortion front, but I don’t think he really has thought it through when the real world hits home.
          “In times of change, learners inherit the earth, while the learned find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists —Eric Hoffer

          Like

          Reply

        1. But of course it becomes a slight problem when there is no evidence of any “god” and thus boils down, once again, to the male perspective.

          You won’t win this one, David, because I’m a woman AND a non-believer.

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

            1. I’m not from Missouri, but I sure would like someone to “show me.” Truth be known, David, the ONLY “evidence” you have for the existence of a “god” is your own personal belief.

              And if abortion is murder, then I suggest you don’t have one.

              Liked by 2 people

            5. Really? Of course you would think that because that’s all you know is the biblical narrative. Why was Adam brought on the scene after billions of years of preparation just so he could test his clay gadget? For his pleasure? Millions of years of animal civilizations come and go just in preparation for you, a speck of dust only to prove yourself a failure, so he provided a way to save you from himself. Makes perfect sense.

              Like

            11. Yes, you think for yourself! That’s why your ideas fall in line with the 6 day earth creation and the bogus flood fossilization method that put crystalline fossils on Mount Everest. Not just imprint fossils in sediment mind you, but full blown rock. Amazing.

              Liked by 2 people

            15. Now with the word god there is nothing to which it refers, so each man can create his own image of that for which there is no reference. You are a product of your environment. Had you been born in Afghanistan you’d be supporting sharia law. That is just your personality flaw and attachment to self preservation.

              Liked by 1 person

            18. And all men and women are required to obey God or spend eternity in Hell. In God’s eyes, there is no such thing as freedom of religion. You either follow Him or suffer everlasting consequences.

              Like

            21. You certainly did say that people don’t have the right to freedom of religion. You flat out said there was no such thing. You said “And all men and women are required to obey God or spend eternity in Hell. In God’s eyes, there is no such thing as freedom of religion. You either follow Him or suffer everlasting consequences.”

              Liked by 2 people

            29. Of course, no games. This is a serious business the christian plays. All the chips are on the table and you get one roll to choose the correct belief. You MUST be right, right—or else!

              Liked by 3 people

            30. Does your God not require you to be honest? Because if that is the case, don’t you owe it to him to be straightforward with us? If everyone is allowed religious freedom, then no one needs to follow your god.

              Liked by 1 person

            34. Those “consequences” are between an individual and an alleged god, correct? Not between an individual and you?
              What I’m getting at is the freedom you have to follow the religion of your choice is the same freedom you should respect when it applies to other people. If a Muslim called your mother or wife a whore for not wearing a headscarf, that would interfere with your freedom not to follow their religion. Consider that before threatening people with consequences that exist only in the context of belief in your particular ideology.

              Liked by 4 people

            37. Good luck with that reply. David appears to only have the capacity for three or four word sentences. Which is to say, the mental dexterity of an amoeba.

              Liked by 2 people

            43. Belief for accreditation as some sort of godly gain is stupid. It’s a premise that rests in nothing whatsoever but a thought. Belief is not a virtue, it’s stupidly the opposite.

              Liked by 1 person

            45. You speak as if you mean to you. There’s something somewhat not quite right if you feel you need to look at the world through a spectrum whereby people “will bow” to your ideology. A psychologically healthy person wouldn’t see the world in terms of domination and submission.

              Liked by 2 people

            47. Anyone that believes this crap deserves the self deprecating struggle. I suppose you’ll be first in line to watch all the sinners burn. But with your smug bullshit attitude you’ll be right there with em.

              Liked by 2 people

            49. Because it is the truth. God’s law. Ultimate law. You don’t have to believe, that is up to you, and no one can force you to do so. But choices have consequences.

              Like

            54. David is going to hell for not supporting our current leaders. Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Romans 13:1 (NASB)

              Liked by 2 people

            3. Types? Are you distinguishing between male “type” or female “type”? And if so, why does it make a difference?

              Like

            7. But even married (Christian) WOMEN can face the reality of an undesired pregnancy. Based on your aversion to abortion, wouldn’t the morning after pill be acceptable since, as Ron pointed out, it technically STOPS things before they can even happen … so no “killing” is involved.

              Liked by 1 person

            8. Pregnancy doesn’t occur until the fertilized egg is fully implanted in the uterus. The morning after pill prevents implantation. Thus, it is considered a contraceptive because it prevents pregnancy from occurring.

              Liked by 5 people

    2. Does that prohibition also apply to God? Because I seem to recall reading about a great flood and rains of burning sulfur that purportedly killed large numbers of people, including babies and unborn children.

      Liked by 4 people

      Reply

            4. But that runs counter to your initial claim that “nobody should have the right to murder.” To argue for exceptions (“the wicked”) is to admit that you don’t really believe in moral absolutes, and to argue for the exception of God’s actions is to admit you don’t subscribe to moral universalism.

              Like

            14. So every person that died in your “Great Flood” was wicked? Remember, only 8 people survived, and wickedness survived with them. Yup, a damn good argument why people who believe in your avenging God have no idea what they are talking about!

              Liked by 2 people

            16. Let me see. God made man in His own Likeness. Man is inherently wicked. Ergo, God is inherently wicked. Thank you for speaking the truth once in your life.
              But, having said that, speak for yourself. Most of us atheists are not wicked. So what”s your problem?

              Liked by 3 people

            21. You’re still off-base, David. Try — “as in all HUMANkind.” (Indoctrination often does funny things to your perspective.)

              Liked by 2 people

            22. He just hangin out with those that are going to suffer in hell. It will be quite a treat to look on all the endlessly burning souls. See, see, I told you so!! Many Christians look forward to that show.

              Liked by 1 person

            24. ….and ever! What would you do forever, knowing everything and what you don’t know, just sit on fathers knee and he’ll explain it to you—for no practical use whatsoever.

              Like

            27. No, it shows I’m a woman who demands the same respect as any other human being. Perhaps you’ve forgotten Acts 10:34 where it tells you that your God is no respecter of persons.

              BTW, I don’t like to get into this kind of dialogue, but you asked for it with that last comment. Hardy a demonstration of your Christ’s love.

              Liked by 2 people

            29. You just did it again!!!! “MANkind does not show disrespect to women.” You are more indoctrinated that I thought! Even beyond religious indoctrination!

              Liked by 1 person

            31. It has improved since the world has become more secular even though the churches have resisted equal rights every step of the way.
              But even today a corpse has more say over their body than a pregnant woman under christianthink.

              Liked by 2 people

            35. a baby is not a parasitic organism. And when she decided to do what was necessary to create the baby in the first place…well…. Again, sex is for married coupoles.

              Like

            38. Nice fable. As you already conceded, sin is completely arbitrary. Everything is as it could possible be, given the tools we have.
              No immutable attribute of oneself can be considered a sin. If you were born a sinner, you are completely excused by birth, for that is gods fault.

              Liked by 1 person

            39. You are one sick puppy, David. Since I was supposedly born a Christian, an idea I totally refute since I had no say in the matter, maybe I was “born in sin.” However, since I stopped believing in your “God,” all that wickedness has fallen off my shoulders. My conscience is now free and clear. I’m sorry yours isn’t.

              Like

            40. Whoever believes this crap deserves the self deprecation. He’ll come out of it and say wow! They really had their hooks in me. What a load of crap.

              Liked by 1 person

            42. Three weeks alone, no electronics, some time away from the noise and chatter of group belief will do it.

              Like

            47. To deceive oneself is to believe. Belief as a virtue is the greatest religious koan (barrier to spiritual achievement) of all time. Christianity makes men self righteous for something they can’t really help but do. The natural man is no enemy to god—the natural man is actually the believer, and you get points for doing what you’ve been naturally doing since words had you captivated. Everyone is now stuck in belief mode and then we deceive ourselves, believing-in because the world is deceptive. The word is a sleight of hand distraction that prohibits one from seeing things the way they really are.
              The origin of “be-lief” is to wish. We wish by casting a spell (by spelling, the word has the mind spellbound) and the mind can only contemplate one thing at a time. As long as it is contemplating ideas one can never know the great secret. It is by decluttering your mind of ideas that opens the window to realization.

              Liked by 1 person

            50. Indeed they were, Rawgod. And let’s not forget that a significant number of those killed in the flood, and in Sodom and Gomorrah were children and even infants who were totally innocent of any sin, sent bears to kill some children whose crime was teasing an old man about his bald head. Oh, and while we’re on the subject of Sodom and Gomorrah let’s not forget that almost as soon as God finished saving that “righteous” man Lot and his daughters, he almost immediately got both of his daughters pregnant.

              Liked by 3 people

            51. Can’t have sex with a pillar of salt, can you? What did it do for God to dessicate Lot”s wife? What lesson did it teach Lot? That he should have controlled his woman better? Fat lot God knew about women, eh?

              Liked by 2 people

            52. good point about sex with a pillar of salt. That would be, well, painful, I’d think. Under the circumstances I can’t blame her for looking back. I mean if an entire city was being obliterated by God just behind me I’d want to watch too. You don’t see something like that every day.

              Liked by 1 person

            54. Yeah, but in his defense, they got him drunk to the point that he couldn’t give informed consent. It’s the first recorded case of incestuous date rape where the women are guilty.

              Liked by 2 people

            55. Actually you and I are god. How else wouldn’t you know it? Self discovery is the most illusive discovery

              Like

            57. How would you know without self inquiry, vs blind belief? You think you are a separate soul ego, separate from the environment, yet your body is covered in little tubes that the world and universe pass through. In and out, death and life all intrinsically combined as a single, complete organism, yet consciousness remains through and through. That is the indisputable constant

              Like

  6. One of the justices (Alito, I think) asked if there was a history of abortion on demand in the US. The answer is Yes. It wasn’t until the 20th Century that the current contentious debate arose. People used to actually have some privacy in medical matters.

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

    1. But wasn’t such privacy to protect self image and piety? I agree with you though. Drug laws ring a bell too and we see how useful those turned out to be.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  8. I have not had this much fun in ages, Jim. I don’t mean that perversely, but Dave is a died-in-the-wool (not “dyed”-in-the-wool) throwback to pre-Rennaisance Europe. It is like talking to a member of the Court of the Spanish Inquiisition. He would rather flagellate himself than take a look at the real world. It’s like, this guy has to be putting us on, but, he seems, well, almost “Biblical!”

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  10. What? Has the chicken escaped from the fox den? No comment from the peaNUT gallery for 4 hours? Maybe his daddy has scolded him for associating w it non-Christians! And we were having such a nice feast…

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  11. The constitution clearly does not include a right to abortion. Roe was an abuse of power by the court.

    Nature/reality makes it so women, but not men, can become pregnant. If that makes men and women unequal in an unfair way then your issue is with nature/reality. The law won’t be able to change that reality.

    Like

    Reply

    1. That sounds like religion making laws, not nature. Can you separate the mental health and mind of the woman from the organism of the woman? In my opinion, not wanting a baby is every bit as natural as a miscarriage as it affects the mental health and well being of the mother, and if you look at a list of common reactions to becoming pregnant, anxiety is at the top.
      You’re virtually saying that these men of the court have more say over women than than men because of religious beliefs. It’s only unfair because religion can’t leave anyone alone.

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

      1. Religious views influence our moral views and the law is based on morality. I am against killing innocent human beings because human life is a sacred gift from God. It is not a violation of the first amendment for me to vote in favor of laws banning the killing the of innocent human beings just because my view of our place involves God. To take that position is discriminating against religious people.

        I am not saying pregnant women (or women that recently gave birth or mothers that have older children) do not have anxiety. But being anxious is not grounds to kill an innocent human being.

        Do you agree with the scientific consensus that human life begins at conception?
        https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3211703

        And yes my view that all human beings have rights is based in my view that we are all made in the image of God. That view was not held by the Nazi’s or the communists or any of the other leaders that thought it was fine to kill humans. I hope non-religious people would accept some view that protects innocent human beings but I recognize the reasons why Nazis seemed not to recognize that human life is different than animal life.

        I am not saying that everyone that is pro-choice or animal rights is a Nazi. I am just asking that non-religious people consider history and make sure they have a good solid understanding of why killing millions of people in the holocaust is worse than killing billions of broiler chickens.
        https://trueandreasonable.co/2019/06/05/animal-rights-follow-up-morality-based-on-evidence/

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

        1. Good morning Joe.
          So, it isn’t abortion that that makes you anti abortion, it is your belief in god that makes it so. The law is based on morality? Which comes from a belief in the supernatural?
          So the religious’ feelings (religious people) are more important than the single mother or the mentally challenged. You didn’t address my comment. This isn’t about you or your feelings, but about separating mental health and well being aside from the organism. An abortion is no different than a miscarriage unless you are willing to divide one segment of the organism from what actually makes a person a person.

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

          1. “So, it isn’t abortion that that makes you anti abortion, it is your belief in god that makes it so.”

            I am not sure what you mean. Abortion is the taking of an innocent human life. IMO that is morally wrong. I believe that is wrong because I believe all humans are made in the image of God. Many atheists also believe it is wrong to take innocent human life for other reasons. I believe we should all be able to vote for people based on what we think is right and wrong. Just because I think the moral order involves God that doesn’t mean I can’t vote.

            I do not think non-religious people have to accept my reasons but I do not need to accept their reasons either. For example some non-religious people may think it is wrong to take another human life because if you allow that then someone may take your life. Or something like that. That is not why I believe killing innocent human beings is wrong. I would be lying if I said it was. But if someone wants to vote for a politician that wants to keep murder laws on the books that is their choice. I will vote to keep laws against murder on the books for my own reasons.

            “So the religious’ feelings (religious people) are more important than the single mother or the mentally challenged. You didn’t address my comment. This isn’t about you or your feelings, but about separating mental health and well being aside from the organism. An abortion is no different than a miscarriage unless you are willing to divide one segment of the organism from what actually makes a person a person.”

            I did respond. I don’t doubt that all sorts of women have anxiety before and after birth. That does not give them the right to kill their child.

            A miscarriage is not the intentional killing of a human being. Abortion is. I don’t know why you think that means I am “dividing one segment of the organism from what actually makes a person a person.”

            I take it you are trying to draw a distinction between a “person” and a “human” correct? You would say that perhaps not all “humans” are “persons”? Only “humans” with certain traits or features are “persons” correct? I am not saying all such views are unreasonable. I am just saying that is not how I look at it.

            Like

            Reply

        2. Hi Joe — I’m curious. You keep using the word “killing.”

          How can you “kill” something that cannot “die”?

          Here is the legal/medical/scientific definition of death:

          In 1979, the Conference of the Medical Royal Colleges, “Diagnosis of death” declared: “brain death represents the stage at which a patient becomes truly dead.”

          This was updated in the 1980s and 1990s to state that brainstem death, as diagnosed by UK criteria, is the point at which “all functions of the brain have permanently and irreversibly ceased.”

          Further still updated in 1995 (to present), “It is suggested that ‘irreversible loss of the capacity for consciousness, combined with irreversible loss of the capacity to breathe’ should be regarded as the definition of death’

          This is mirrored in US law:

          U.S’s Uniform Determination of Death Act (§ 1, U.L.A. [1980]) states: “An individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory function, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, is dead.”

          It is also mirrored in Australian law:

          The Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society (ANZICS) Statement on Death and Organ Donation define death as: a) Irreversible cessation of all function of the brain of the person; or b) Irreversible cessation of circulation of blood in the body of the person.

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

            1. You didn’t answer the question.

              Regarding your link–Sorry Joe, but the title of this incredibly sloppy piece of work is simply clickbait for people like you. Let me explain:

              First, just 12% of biologists responded to the questionnaire. This is extremely low, and the reason why is explained in the next point.

              Second, the questionnaire is by Jacobs’ own admission, descriptive, which renders it virtually useless for anything other than clickbait. When you get through all the misleading language, it’s also rather uncontroversial… which probably also explains why nearly 90% of those asked to participate thought it so stupid they couldn’t be bothered responding to three emailed questions.

              Third (and this is the clickbait part), the incredibly sloppy paper makes the horrendous error of continually saying “life begins at fertilization.” It does not. Life began on earth 3.8 billion years ago and has not been interrupted since. A foetus was never inorganic and suddenly becomes organic. This is irrefutable. Buried in the report is the rider where Jacobs says by “life” he means “a life,” and by “a life” he means a genetically unique individual. That’s unbelievably misleading… But it makes for good clickbait for people like you.

              So, No Joe, the study does not say what you think it says.

              Simply put: There is no controversy in saying a fertilised egg contains a unique human genome (which is essentially all Jacobs is asking). This is basic genetics. But we’re not talking about maps, which is all a genome is. We’re talking about a complete human being.

              So, again—you use the word “killing.” Can you put some actual facts behind that language?

              There’s a very good reason why the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the U.S. National Library of Medicine call natural abortion after week 20 “preterm deliveries,” while before that date it is labelled “miscarriages.” There is a line demarking the onset of a human organism.

              So Joe, please answer the question: How can you “kill” something that cannot “die”?

              I’ve provided you the legal/medical/scientific definitions of human death from the US, Australia, New Zealand, and the UK. Or as stated quite clearly in Nature Reviews, Neuroscience: Death, unconsciousness and the brain

              Brain death means human death

              Or from the NYT’s: ‘The Ethical Brain’

              A survey published in the journal Neurology in 2000 compared worldwide standards and regulations for declaring brain death. The concept of brain death is accepted worldwide: even in the most religious societies no one argues that human life continues to exist when the brain is irreversibly unable to function.

              Or UCLA Pacific Basin Law Journal: Acceptance of Whole-Brain Death Criteria for Determination of Death: A Comparative Analysis of the United States and Japan

              In the United States, laws on brain death vary by state, but all states recognize that death can be determined by the irreversible cessation of brain function

              I look forward to reading your answer…

              Liked by 3 people

            2. “How can you “kill” something that cannot “die”?”

              You can’t kill something that cannot die. But of course fetuses and even zygotes can die – that is the point of an abortion. To kill the unborn human.

              I asked if you believe you can kill a plant. You are the one that has not answered. Are weed killers not really killing anything?

              The fact that survey is descriptive does not make it irrelevant. What is in fact happening is often the first step in deciding whether the act is moral. Are we in fact talking about taking an human life? That is asking a descriptive question.
              But for many people that is an important question. If we are not talking about taking a human life, if for example it is just part of the woman like her finger, then that descriptive answer would yield a different view of the morality of the action for most people.

              It is shows what 5,502 biologists think, and 5,212 think human life begins at conception. You can try to say that it is irrelevant and try to make weak arguments about human life beginning 3.8 billion years ago as if that is relevant. Of course he means “a life” that is not misleading that is the morally relevant question. We consider each human life individually. And the question is not misleading in that regard. You can be covicted of murder for taking “a human life” you don’t have to kill all human life that started thousands of years ago.

              You are the one turning from science to politicians when you talk about laws. Laws are not passed by scientists.
              Just because Joe Biden Donald Trump , or some state governor says something it doesn’t make it so.

              But even what you quote that human life does not continue to exist after brain function irreversibly stops is not even in conflict with human life beginning at conception. Because that does not even address what happens before brain function begins. I tend to agree with those statements that once brain function starts and then stops irreversibly the human life ends. But that does not mean something is not alive or can not be killed unless it has a brain. That is illogical and obviously false since many living things do not have a brain.

              Liked by 2 people

            3. But of course fetuses and even zygotes can die – that is the point of an abortion. To kill the unborn human.

              No, the purpose of an abortion is to end an unwanted or dangerous pregnancy. No human is being “killed” because until full bilateral synchronisation (week 28) a foetus cannot even meet the universally recognised definition of human death.

              What is being stopped is potential. What is critical to the debate is determining the onset of a complete human organism—and that is full bilateral synchronisation.

              But rather than take my word for it, here is Professor of Cell and Developmental Biology, James Goldenring (an anti-abortionist) confirming this position in his paper, Development of the Fetal Brain:

              “When the coordinating and individuating function of a living brain is demonstrably present, the full human organism exists. Before full brain differentiation, only cells, organs, and organ systems exist, which may potentially be integrated into a full human organism if the brain develops. After brain death what is left of the organism is once again only a collection of organs, all available to us for use in transplantation, since the full human being no longer exists.”

              Are weed killers not really killing anything?

              We are not talking about weeds. But yes, a weed can experience a weed death. An amoeba can experience an amoeba death. Neither a weed nor an amoeba is a human being.

              The fact that survey is descriptive does not make it irrelevant.

              Yes, it does make it irrelevant. But that’s not even the point—the questionnaire is not controversial. Once you finally find what Jacobs is actually saying when he says “life” the results are entirely unsurprising.

              The word choice Jacobs has used is clickbait for people like you, Joe. That’s all that paper is–Clickbait for the Joe’s of the world.

              It is shows what 5,502 biologists think

              No, it doesn’t. Period.

              What it shows is what 5,000 biologists think about genetics. It says NOTHING about what 5,000 biologists think about the onset of a complete human organism.

              But that does not mean something is not alive or can not be killed unless it has a brain.

              I’m afraid it does when we’re discussing human beings, and in particular, your thoroughly erroneous language.

              Theoretically, I can remove the heart from an adult human, and for just as long as I keep blood flowing, that person will remain being a living person because their brain is still functioning naturally. You cannot do the reverse of this experiment.

              What does that tell you about the human organism, Joe?

              Now, as demonstrated, “life” is a nonsensical measure. At no stage does “life” magically appear in a zygote, a blastocyst, embryo, or foetus. Life began on earth 3.8 billion years ago and hasn’t been interrupted since.

              Recognised universally in science, in law, and in medicine, that measure is consciousness. Human consciousness requires hardware. The physical presence of, or absence of that hardware (thalamocortical and corticothalamic pathways most importantly), and the continuous flow of information between it, is the measure. Without the hardware (and a continuous flow of information through it) there is no complete human organism, and if there is no complete human organism then there is no ethical dilemma, which is further evidenced by the fact that until bilateral synchronisation a foetus cannot even meet the universally recognised scientific/legal/medical definition of human death.

              You’re free to at any moment present an alternative measure to identify the onset of a complete human organism, and have it considered on its merits. If you cannot present an alternative measure, then you are not contributing to the actual subject, merely expressing a substanceless opinion. Noise.

              So, do you have an alternative measure to identify the onset of a complete human organism?

              Liked by 3 people

            4. John this is a much more thoughtful response and I appreciate that.

              “No, the purpose of an abortion is to end an unwanted or dangerous pregnancy.”

              It ends the pregnancy by killing the fetus. Doctors are very careful to kill the fetus before removing it because if it is removed alive it might then be considered murder to then take the life. (I think it is a human life but since that is under dispute I will just leave it at “the life”)

              Lets consider your “definitions.” I do not think those are definitions of death so much as they are accepted ways to recognize death in a person *that has developed brain function.* From your relevant quotes:

              “…no one argues that human life continues to exist when the brain is irreversibly unable to function.”

              That is true. If the brain is irreversibly unable to function then someone is dead. “Irreversibly” suggests it is only dealing with entities that if you went in reverse had brain function in the past. It is not making any sort of claim about entities that do not yet have brain function. It does not mean only things with brains can be “killed.” Nor does that mean that something that does not yet have a brain is not a human. You are simply adding those claims. Your claims are not implied in what is said.

              Let’s look at this quote which I will modify with numbers so we can see which claims we are talking about and perhaps see if one follows from the other or if he is just making a series of claims.

              “ 1) When the coordinating and individuating function of a living brain is demonstrably present, the full human organism exists. 2) Before full brain differentiation, only cells, organs, and organ systems exist, which may potentially be integrated into a full human organism if the brain develops. 3) After brain death what is left of the organism is once again only a collection of organs, all available to us for use in transplantation, since the full human being no longer exists.”

              Ok so do you think he is suggesting that statement 2 follows from statement 1? Because it doesn’t. Statement 2 is just a completely different claim. I can accept statement 1 and have no reason to think Statement 2 is true.

              Do you think 2 arms are part of a “complete human organism”? Is a thyroid gland part of a complete human organism? I think they are. But that does not mean if someone is missing an arm or a thyroid gland they are simply a collection of organs or cells and no longer human.

              Is statement 1 true? I am not sure. I wonder what he means by “demonstrably present.” Presumably this is the last part of the human organism that he thinks is developed.

              Is statement 2 true? Again it is unclear what he means. We are a collection of cells and organs now. I consider the collection of cells and organs that are sitting in this chair a human being. If I did not have an arm would I be a full human organism? No I would be missing part of a full human organism. But I would still be a human.

              So if he is trying to say until the brain exists we shouldn’t consider the living organism a “human” then he is just begging the question.

              What ever it is it can be killed. And it is not a dolphin or a dandelion. It is not just part of the mother either. It is a human in the earliest stages of life. To try to say well it is not “human” fetus or a “human” life is really just begging the question and I believe special pleading.

              I think it is unreasonable to think the first claim follows from the second claim in the above quote.

              But if you just assert that you think an organism should not have moral rights until brain functions start, I do not think that assertion is unreasonable. Honestly, if I did not believe in God (and believe human life was a sacred gift from God) I am not sure how I would draw lines on the morality of killing humans and/or other animals.

              Liked by 1 person

            5. It is not making any sort of claim about entities that do not yet have brain function. It does not mean only things with brains can be “killed.”

              Oh yes it does, and when it comes to humans, and if you want to use words like “kill,” then that is exactly what it means. Exactly.

              You see Joe, you choose this language, and you’re having a hopeless time at trying to defend it. Why—because you can’t. You sound smart enough, you *know* nothing is being killed, but you just can’t stop using that language because without it you have nothing that grants you permission to as much as offer your opinion to someone who has not asked for it… which is what you’re doing. You’re meddling in another person’s life, and you’re desperate to rationalise that unwanted interference. You’re trying to be factual, but the fact just aren’t on your side.

              Seriously—if you ACTUALLY thought babies were being murdered en masse you would be morally bankrupt if you did not immediately drop what you were doing and storm the nearest women’s health clinic. Literally storm it, and kill (if necessary) the doctors inside to stop the carnage.

              But you’re not doing this, are you, Joe? You’re just tapping away at a keyboard, whispering to yourself that you’re doing so, so, so good.

              Nor does that mean that something that does not yet have a brain is not a human.

              Yes, it does. The map is there, but the complete human organism is not.

              Here again is Professor of Cell and Developmental Biology, James Goldenring (an anti-abortionist) confirming this position in his paper, Development of the Fetal Brain:

              “When the coordinating and individuating function of a living brain is demonstrably present, the full human organism exists. Before full brain differentiation, only cells, organs, and organ systems exist, which may potentially be integrated into a full human organism if the brain develops. After brain death what is left of the organism is once again only a collection of organs, all available to us for use in transplantation, since the full human being no longer exists.”

              As to your rather odd dissection of Goldenring’s words, I will simply refer you back to my last comment (which you failed to answer), as that addresses everything you wrote:

              Theoretically, I can remove the heart from an adult human, and for just as long as I keep blood flowing, that person will remain being a living person because their brain is still functioning naturally. You CANNOT do the reverse of this experiment.

              What does that tell you about the human organism, Joe?

              Well Joe, what does that tell you about the human organism?

              It is not just part of the mother either.

              Actually, if you ignore the fact that a foetus acts essentially as a parasite and consider just metabolism (which is UNIQUE to every individual human being) then that is exactly what it is. The foetus shares the same metabolic rate of the mother. It behaves, therefore, as an organ, part of a larger whole, rather than an individual. A mammal the size of a foetus has a metabolic rate equal to that of, say, a possum. At birth a switch is thrown and the baby’s metabolic rate goes through the roof (becoming that of a mammal its same size). In this sense, babies literally transition from being an organ to being an individual in mere hours.

              I’m not using this argument, I don’t have to, but it throws a huge spanner into your thinking, doesn’t it?

              It is a human in the earliest stages of life.

              No, it’s a potential human organism. It is a building project working off a plan, using pilfered resources. That is all. A complete human organism can, amongst other things, breathe by itself (ATP synthesis), regulate its temperature, and hold memories.

              A foetus (until a certain point) can do none of these things. In case you didn’t know, it is not until week 32 that the foetal brain has developed enough to control respiration… and without reparation these is no ATP synthesis… and without ATP synthesis there is no life.

              So, back to your word choice, Joe: How can you “kill” something that cannot “die”?

              Liked by 4 people

            6. “You see Joe, you choose this language, and you’re having a hopeless time at trying to defend it. Why—because you can’t. You sound smart enough, you *know* nothing is being killed,…”

              No the unborn human is obviously being killed. You know this as well. You are the one playing semantic games by special pleading as though killing means something different for humans than it does for every other form of life. But the reality is obvious killing a life is what is happening in an abortion just like it is killing when you kill a weed or an virus or a born human or an pig – born or unborn.

              No I shouldn’t storm abortion clinics. We need to change how people view this and that is not how to do that. Abortions per person are actually going down since Roe. This is because people are understanding that it is indeed killing a human being and they are understanding that is morally untenable. The pro-choice side has been hopping from argument to argument to justify it but no argument works.
              https://www.lifenews.com/2022/01/07/63459781-babies-have-been-killed-in-abortions-since-roe-v-wade-in-1973/

              The abortion rate has been going down even after abortion was forced to be legal in every state because of the brute moral fact that we shouldn’t kill and innocent human beings.

              “So, back to your word choice, Joe: How can you “kill” something that cannot “die”?”

              Of course the unborn can die. If they couldn’t die abortion would be impossible.
              You know this as well as I do.

              Liked by 1 person

            7. Why do anti-abortionists (generally Republicans) make such a HUGE fuss over “killing” a blastocyst, yet raise little fuss when black people are killed without cause … and even support a 17-year-old who illegally carried a weapon and killed two people?

              The way I see it, there is a HUGE difference between the death of a fully grown and developed human than a collection of cells.

              Liked by 2 people

            8. I can only speak for myself. But yes you are correct in trying to question the very early stages of development and focusing on that. I admit that I am less certain that an early stage human life deserves protection as a later stage human life.

              I think people should be able to protect themselves. So if you are talking about Rittenhouse I do believe he was within his right to defend himself as shown on video. He did seem to be acting out of a genuine concern for the safety of others. I would not have advised my own son to go there, but the real problem was the police would no longer protect people from violence so of course individual citizens had to do that themselves. Given all the riots over the summer of 2020 I am surprised there were not more people getting shot in circumstances like that. I also purchased a gun for protection during that time. I think the judge ruled he was not illegally carrying a weapon.

              Democrats seem to care about black people getting killed by white police but not black people that are killed by other black people or black police. Or about white people killed by police. Look at the Tony Timpa case and video. It seems pretty clear that many people never heard of him because he was white.

              The increase in the numbers of black people being killed due to democrat policies to reduce policing has lead to many many more black people dying and living in bad circumstances. Some democrats are starting to at least acknowledge this but others just don’t seem to care. I care about all people and all Americans. If I thought black people’s biggest threat was from the police I would say so. But I won’t say it if I think that is a lie. I want all Americans and people to prosper so if people ask me how they can do that I will tell them honestly. And I think increase police presence will save many more black lives compared to defunding the police. It will also benefit many neighborhoods that have large black populations. I do actually care so I am honest.

              Liked by 1 person

            9. I admit that I am less certain that an early stage human life deserves protection as a later stage human life.

              There you go. That’s it. That’s exactly it. Although it is not until week 28 (full bilateral synchronisation) when a foetus can be considered a near complete human organism (it’ll be another 4 weeks before the brain can fully regulate breathing and temperature), it is reasonable to push that point back to week 24/25 as the cut off for all legal abortions. Of course, medical emergencies may deem an abortion necessary after this point, and those cases should be taken on their merits, with the woman’s life being the single most important thing in the equation.

              Does that sound reasonable to you, Joe?

              Liked by 1 person

            10. “Does that sound reasonable to you, Joe?”

              John I am not saying being pro-choice is always unreasonable. So that is correct I am not saying your outline here is unreasonable. (Although i do think it is unreasonable to say only things with brains can die and that an abortion procedure does not kill anything.) You want to base everything on when the brain starts to do these processes. Ok. I do not see that as a morally relevant event. It is like when I spoke with a natural law thomist. I asked why do you think humans deserve rights but not other animals. And he said because we are rational and by that he meant we could understand abstract concepts. Have the idea of something being taller or shorter etc. So he said if certain animals such as dolphins or parrots can do that then they get the rights as well.

              To me that just seemed strange and arbitrary. I mean people like Peter Singer say well the relevant trait is whether something can suffer or feel pain. I disagree with that view as well but at least it seems more of a morally relevant trait.
              But the whole aristotle Thomistic natural law bit seems a trait unrelated to the moral domain. Likewise with your view of brain activity of some sort or other. I just don’t see why that particular trait should matter. Ok maybe it is the last thing to develop before we have a complete human. Let me ask you this. If that weren’t the case would it matter? If say growing a big toe was the last part to getting a full human would that be the point we get all our rights?

              Now from my own view there is the question of when God made something in his image thus meaning it should have this infinite value. What exactly does that mean? Does that mean he gives it a soul? Does it happen at conception? Does that happen when you say? I don’t know for sure. But I am playing it safe. Its just like if you are not sure if there is a bullet in the chamber you shouldn’t shoot at someone.

              You think this brain activity is the stage where suddenly the entity should have full human rights? So are you going to storm abortion clinics doing partial birth abortions? Are you morally abhorrent if you didn’t?

              I am willing to say there are questions I don’t have answers to but admit I am hedging my bets one way or another. I think the abortion debate could be much more reasonable and less hostile if others did the same.

              Liked by 2 people

            12. Again it doesn’t matter if something is a complete human organism. I think a complete human organism has two legs. That does not mean if someone loses a leg they should no longer have rights.

              Whether we consider someone is a “complete human” seems an arbitrary standard. What you are really saying is I think humans of this sort should be given rights and those of this sort shouldn’t. But they are all human life forms that can obviously be killed. Claiming nothing at all is killed/dies in an abortion procedure is pure special pleading.

              Let me ask you: Do you think if an unborn horse is aborted before its brain develops nothing “died”? I would say of course the unborn horse died. If the mother horse lost a leg and the cells died I would say that leg and/or the cells of the mother died. But if the mother horse lived I would not say a horse died.

              Like

            13. Again it doesn’t matter if something is a complete human organism.

              Um, yes, it does. It’s all that matters. That is exactly what informs our ethical position.

              The horse? Yes. A developing horse stopped developing. It’s a mammal, and the same realities apply.

              Liked by 1 person

            14. Whether something is a complete human (whatever you mean by that) informs your ethical view. But I think a complete human has 2 arms. And just because a person may only have one arm that does not mean it is ethical to treat them differently.

              I ask:
              “Do you think if an unborn horse is aborted before its brain develops nothing “died”? ”

              you said:
              “The horse? Yes. A developing horse stopped developing. It’s a mammal, and the same realities apply.”

              So you think nothing “died” if an unborn horse is aborted?
              It just stopped developing right?

              Is this just a rule for mamals or does it apply to other forms of life?

              Normally when a living thing stops developing and starts to decompose I say it died. That is the case for skin cells or mammals or insects etc.

              But you are singling out mammals as being different than all other forms of life?

              Liked by 2 people

            15. Yes, technically you’re right – but again, we are talking about a human being. We have laws and strict definitions in place because we are not horses.

              And again – “Life” is a nonsense measure. It is meaningless to this discussion. The foetus was never inorganic and suddenly becomes organic.

              How many times do you want me to repeat this?

              The measure we use, because it is the ONLY measure we have, is consciousness. Conscious requires hardware. That hardware is either there or it isn’t.

              Period.

              Now, as I have said, you’re free to present an alternative measure.

              Can you?

              Liked by 1 person

            16. “Yes, technically you’re right – but again, we are talking about a human being. We have laws and strict definitions in place because we are not horses.”

              Ok but this view is not based on science. It is based on your ethical views. There is nothing wrong with that. Again I do not think people that disagree with my view that zygotes should be protected are unreasonable.

              Life is an important part of saying something is a “human life.” For something to be a human life it needs to be human and it needs to be alive. Both are required.

              Consciousness is the standard now? You say you have to keep repeating this but I don’t remember you saying that is the standard. Because I am not sure what sort of consciousness a child has right before or right after birth. I suspect many animals have a more developed consciousness than a new born child. This is why Peter Singer argued that parents should be allowed to kill their child for some amount of time after the child is born. As I recall he argued a mature pig likely has a more developed consciousness than a new born.

              You obviously don’t like that so you try to draw the line earlier to the creation of the organ that is necessary for consciousness. But again if consciousness is the measure why go back before it exists?

              My measure is all human life is a sacred gift from God. We are made in God’s image and therefore have infinite worth. This view of human life changed the world. The oldest existing tract giving an extended argument against the institution of slavery was by a bishop employing this standard.
              https://trueandreasonable.co/2019/07/01/slavery-and-christianity-the-first-known-abolitionist-speech/

              John I appreciate your discussion and your views. And I know this is an atheist blog. But other atheists such as Douglas Murray have at least acknowledged that when we take away the notion that humans are made in the image of God and it is therefore human life is sacred it does create a gap in our values. Murray is being intellectually honest and therefore can at least embark on the project of trying to garner decent reasons to uphold those moral values. I have thought long and hard about these issues and I think if we are indeed just like other animals then our morality is way off. But I am open to these ideas that work to preserve morality and encourage atheists to think this through as you have. But if you find the lines are arbitrary about basic moral views such as humans should not be treated the same as pigs then don’t try to gloss over it. I dislike many of the conclusions of Peter Singer but I do applaud his intellectual honesty to follow his views to their ultimate conclusions even when that means he would justify the killing of new born babies.

              Like

            17. Ok but this view is not based on science.

              Umm, that is ALL it is based on – quantifiable Science.

              Consciousness (the presence of it) has always been the measure. You have just chosen not to recognise what I have been saying.

              Consciousness requires hardware, and that hardware is either there or it isn’t. Period.

              So, once again:

              Theoretically, I can remove the heart from an adult human, and for just as long as I keep blood flowing, that person will remain being a living person because their brain is still functioning naturally. You CANNOT do the reverse of this experiment.

              What does that tell you about the human organism, Joe?

              Please don’t avoid this question another time.

              Like

            18. Ok so now I see you are just trying to waste my time. I did specifically respond to those points both about what that means and also addressed your claim that this is all about consciousness. You ignored my answer.

              Like

            20. And Joe… “The oldest existing tract”…. seriously?

              Are you really that uninformed?

              The first formal abolition of slavery was enacted in India, by Ashoka, emperor of the Maurya Dynasty, who abolished slavery in the 3rd Century BCE.

              In China, the Qin Dynasty eliminated slaves in the late 200’s BCE.

              In Europe, the first abolition of slavery occurred in Venice, 960 CE, when the Magistrate (Doge) of Venice, Pietro IV Candiano, banned it. Doge’s were men of the Law, not of religion. Venice was, of course, antagonistic to the Vatican.

              It was not until 1102 when we see the church in London condemn slavery during the Council of London.

              Liked by 1 person

            21. John
              I said “The oldest existing tract giving an extended argument against the institution of slavery was by a bishop employing this standard.”

              If you think I am wrong it is very easy to prove I am wrong. Give me an earlier existing tract giving an extended argument against the institution of slavery.

              This is exactly what I did when you said all the laws universally do not consider killing a fetus a death. I gave you a link to many laws that proved you wrong. So please give a link.

              You can say Ashoka abolished slavery in the 3rd century. Peer reviewed articles disagree with you.
              https://www.jstor.org/stable/3632125
              Where the author indicates Ashoka wanted better treatment of slaves not the abolition.

              And you can go sifting through the various articles and accounts mentioned in wikipedia:
              “Megasthenes states that there were no slaves in India, but the Arthashastra attests to the existence of slavery in contemporary India;[36] Strabo also counters Megasthenes’s claim based on a report from Onesicritus. Historian Shireen Moosvi theorizes that slaves were outcastes, and were not considered members of the society at all.[37] According to historian Romila Thapar, the lack of sharp distinction between slaves and others in the Indian society (unlike the Greek society) may have confused Megasthenes: Indians did not use large-scale slavery as a means of production, and slaves in India could buy back their freedom or be released by their master.[38]”
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indica_(Megasthenes)#Society
              Megasthene’s work no longer exists but we do have bits and pieces that were put together later.
              “From the Qin dynasty to Tang dynasty, slavery expanded beyond criminals and war captives. The Qin used large scale slave labor for public works such as land reclamation, road construction, and canal building. ”
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_China

              But again there is no extended argument or attack on the institution. It is one thing to find a law (and I don’t think the weight of scholarship even supports that on india’s Ahoka or China’s Qin dynasty) it is another to find reasoning for the immorality of an action. The reasoning is important to rational people. They want to know the reasons for the laws or beliefs. If you have an tract that gives an extended argument attacking slavery then give the link.

              Liked by 1 person

            23. What even is that? Is that a tract that predates Bishop Gregory of Nyssa’s 4th centrury extended attack on the institution of slavery based on judeo and christian scripture? Like I offered:
              .https://trueandreasonable.co/2019/07/01/slavery-and-christianity-the-first-known-abolitionist-speech/

              I give you a wikipedia quote that details about ancient sources and peer reviewed articles and you offer some sort of screen capture from a wikipedia that is not even addressing India or the ancient author that made the claim.

              And it appears it has since been corrected as that chart is no longer even on the wikipedia article for slavery in Medieval Europe which the screen grab seems to claim. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_medieval_Europe

              John Christians did plenty of bad things in history. I don’t deny that. But they have also done many good things that have improved morality. You are completely grasping at straws to try to deny that.

              Like

            24. Joe, I am not going to get into a discussion concerning your fantasy version of Christian anti-slavery on this post about abortion.

              Like

            25. John,
              The Bishop actually wrote what I quoted. It’s not fantasy. But that is fine that you don’t want to discuss it. My point is simply that our religious views have shaped our moral views including the religious view that all humans are made in the image of God. When you take that away you leave a potential hole in your moral views. Just because I found that hole impossible to adequately fill with a naturalist view of the universe that does not mean others can’t do it, or at least try to do it. I applaud your efforts. But I do think you should at least acknowledge that understanding humans as being made in the image of God undergirds our traditional notions of all humans having worth beyond material things. And then you can at least see if you can reconstruct a new foundation under these beliefs or if the notion that humans have this value can no longer be supported.

              Liked by 1 person

            26. If I may …

              Joe, you wrote that a person should at least acknowledge the understanding humans as being made in the image of God undergirds our traditional notions of all humans having worth beyond material things.

              Acknowledging something means that one declares or admits something is true. For many, to acknowledge your statement is simply impossible. Primarily because the existence of “God” cannot be proved/verified/substantiated.

              Liked by 1 person

            27. Yes I worded that poorly. I am not saying that people should acknowledge God exists. What I am saying is they should acknowledge that this notion of human life being a sacred gift from God of infinite value because we are made in God’s image traditionally supported our cultural view that places great value in human life.

              Other cultures such as ancient roman culture where people would watch other people kill eachother for entertainment, or commit infanticide, or certain views such as those of Hitler or Stalin that strongly rejected Christianity obviously departed from this view that human life is supposed to be greatly valued. Hitler viewed humans pretty much as other animals and this lead to both Nazis passing laws that increased animal rights but also laws that decreased protection of human life.

              Now I am not saying all atheists will end up like Stalin or Hitler – not at all. I am saying that they should think about this traditional basis and if it does go away what if anything should replace it?

              Like

            28. …when we take away the notion that humans are made in the image of God … it does create a gap in our values

              Not at all. Total fallacy.

              Liked by 2 people

            29. No the unborn human is obviously being killed.

              Wrong. A complete human being is not being killed. The development of a potential complete human organism is being stopped.

              And again, you’re using language which you simply have not been able to defend. Fact: Until week 28, the foetus cannot meet the legal, scientific, medical definition of human death.

              If you don’t like the universally recognised legal/medical/scientific definition of human death, then I suggest you get busy trying to find another measure for it, and by default, the measure for the onset of a complete human being.

              Until then, you are just making noise.

              No I shouldn’t storm abortion clinics.

              Then you’re morally abhorrent. A true monster.

              You see, you don’t actually believe the crap you’re writing. You’re just right-wing Christian play acting… and your script is full of utter bullshit.

              The abortion rate has been going down … because of the brute moral fact that we shouldn’t kill and innocent human beings.

              Errrrum, no. You’re living in alternate reality there, Joe. The number of people supporting abortion rights has steadily increased in the US. Abortion rates have decreased in direct proportion to a decreasing birth rate (see Guttmacher study).

              Gallup polls show Americans’ support for abortion in all or most cases at 80% in May, only slightly higher than in 1975 (76%).

              https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2021/11/30/how-americans-really-feel-about-abortion-the-sometimes-surprising-poll-results-as-supreme-court-weighs-overturning-roe-v-wade/?sh=3bdff85536c9

              Of course the unborn can die.

              And if that were possible Joe, you would have already demonstrated how…

              Liked by 1 person

            30. look you keep saying this legistlature or group of people says a human death is defined this way therefore it must be true. That is not how reality works. If all of these legislatures changed their opinion the reality would still be the same. But just to show that you are wrong to say this is universal I offer you this link where 38 states have various laws against homicide of the unborn.

              https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx

              So your view is not universal. You can see many states say regardless of development a person can be convicted of killing the unborn. So you are just wrong.

              And you can watch any abortion procedure and see how the unborn can die. Lots of things that do not have brains can die. You are simply special pleading because you want to say the unborn can not die unless it has a brain even though you recognize plenty of other life forms that do not have a brain can also die. John your argument is a rare one for a reason.

              We already went through the complete human being bit before. If someone loses part of their body such as a leg that may mean they are no longer a complete human being in some sense but that does not mean they should no longer have the full rights of a human being.

              Liked by 1 person

            31. And there you go again, simply ignoring what has already been presented to you.

              I’ve provided you the legal/medical/scientific definitions of human death from the US, Australia, New Zealand, and the UK. Or as stated quite clearly in Nature Reviews, Neuroscience: Death, unconsciousness and the brain

              Brain death means human death

              Or from the NYT’s: ‘The Ethical Brain’

              A survey published in the journal Neurology in 2000 compared worldwide standards and regulations for declaring brain death. The concept of brain death is accepted worldwide: even in the most religious societies no one argues that human life continues to exist when the brain is irreversibly unable to function.

              So no, Joe, not just some ‘groups.’

              Recognised universally around the world.

              And you never did address my question to you:

              Theoretically, I can remove the heart from an adult human, and for just as long as I keep blood flowing, that person will remain being a living person because their brain is still functioning naturally. You CANNOT do the reverse of this experiment.

              What does that tell you about the human organism, Joe?

              Well Joe, what does that tell you about the human organism?

              Don’t worry, I KNOW you will not answer this, because you cannot answer it.

              I see no point going around and around with you, Joe. You have failed to present a coherent argument because it is patently clear that you do not have a coherent argument to present. You have not countered a single point of mine, and I’m tired of repeating them to you.

              You see, this is the problem with right-wing Christian play actors like you, Joe – you do not take the information/facts patiently provided to you and adjust your thinking, your arguments, your orientation, your language accordingly. You refuse to engage the subject matter on a rational, coherent, adult level. You’re like a talking doll—pull the string and repeat the same words… and you do this because all you’re doing is play acting. You’re not serious. You’re not serious at all.

              And I’ll give you an example of you not being serious:

              By the information given about the success of contraceptive measures (made possible through Obamacare), it is clear that the real fight is against those who want to take away healthcare… which leads to an increase in abortions. If you were actually serious about the subject and genuinely cared (which clearly you don’t), then you should be out there CAMPAIGNING VIGOROUSLY for universal healthcare and covered contraception.

              Do that, and you’d really be fighting the good fight against abortion.

              But you won’t do that, will you, Joe? No. You’ll just sit there in your room tapping away at the keyboard… Play acting.

              Liked by 1 person

            32. And Joe, US federal law trumps state law.

              1 U.S. Code § 8 – “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

              (a)
              In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
              (b)
              As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
              (c)
              Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.

              Liked by 1 person

            33. US law trumps state law when they conflict. (the constitution trumps federal law when they conflict and it is very questionable whether the federal government has the power to force the states to try to accept their definition of a human life even if they tried.) But the law you quoted does not even attempt to trump state law. It makes it clear that it only applies to federal law.

              ” In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States,…”

              So by its own language this law does not trump any state laws it only applies to Federal laws and agencies. Those laws I quoted and you ignored are indeed valid laws in the USA.

              Again what some legislature says is not important to my moral view. But you really should not keep claiming your view is universally accepted when it clearly is not and I showed you the proof.

              Like

            34. Joe, your country once had a law that stated black people were five-eighths of a human being.

              Facts don’t give a shit about “laws.” And just because a few US states snuck in some weirdly written supplements to thrill their religious base doesn’t change the hard, quantifiable facts of foetal development.

              This is why I keep asking you this question, and why you keep avoiding answering it. I think you’ve avoided it five times now…

              Theoretically, I can remove the heart from an adult human, and for just as long as I keep blood flowing, that person will remain being a living person because their brain is still functioning naturally. You CANNOT do the reverse of this experiment.

              What does that tell you about the human organism, Joe?

              Well Joe, what does that tell you about the human organism?

              Liked by 1 person

            35. Ok John you start out quoting laws and telling me how important it is and I tell you I don’t care what laws the government pass. But you keep at it so I show you laws that contradict your view and suddenly you are saying who cares what the laws say. Well at least we can finally agree on that right? It doesn’t matter what some politician decides. Or are you going to say their views have weight if and only if they agree with you?

              You say:
              “Theoretically, I can remove the heart from an adult human, and for just as long as I keep blood flowing, that person will remain being a living person because their brain is still functioning naturally. You CANNOT do the reverse of this experiment.

              What does that tell you about the human organism, Joe?”

              It tells me what you quote. That is all. I am not sure what you mean by the “reverse of this experiment.”

              But you seem to be saying that if a person reaches a stage where they need a certain organ to continue living then before they develop that organ they are not deserving of rights of human beings. But this is just an assertion on your part.

              I admit that I am just asserting that once we have an organism that has a dna that shows it is not simply a part of the mother we have a new human. But at least I don’t have to create ad hoc rules for my understanding of what it means to “die” to accommodate my view. On my view death for that human is just like death of every other form of life.

              Liked by 1 person

            36. I am not sure what you mean by the “reverse of this experiment.”

              Are you serious?

              It means removing the brain and then seeing if the person continues to live.

              One last time:

              Theoretically, I can remove the heart from an adult human, and for just as long as I keep blood flowing, that person will remain being a living person because their brain is still functioning naturally. You CANNOT do the reverse of this experiment.

              What does that tell you about the human organism, Joe?”

              Liked by 1 person

            37. Ok I would think the “reverse” of removing a persons heart and keeping the blood flowing would be adding a heart and stopping the blood from flowing. But yes I agree if someone’s brains dies they die. I also think if someone’s entire spine dies below the brain they die as well. If true does that mean you think the development of a spine is when human life begins?

              https://flo.health/pregnancy/pregnancy-health/fetal-development/fetal-brain-development

              you see you are using two different arguments – bot are non-sequiturs. One is that since a human needs a brain to live the creation of the brain is when a human should get rights. But if they also need a spine to live why not use that instead?

              The other argument seems to be the brain is the last part to make someone a “complete human” therefor it should be when a human gets rights. But again the importance of being a complete human seems questionable. Since a “complete human” has 2 arms but we don’t think someone should lose their human rights if they lose one or both of their arms. Both standards seem arbitrary.

              Like

            39. “Can you think with a spine?”

              Yes presumably you have a spine and are thinking with a spine. Do you mean to ask can you think without a spine? I don’t believe you would be able to think if you had no spine at all.

              “Does it store memories?”
              I don’t know if your spine has a role in that. If you had no spine at all you would not have memories.

              “Does it regulate temperature, breathing, blood flow?”

              Yes all of your nerves come out of you spine so of course those nerves are involved in he regulation of temperature breathing and blood flow. Again you would not have any of those things if you had no spine.

              Like

            41. And yes, I did read the laws. Most are un-defendable drivel clearly designed to placate their religious base. They are also contradictory, as in the case of Idaho

              These laws do not apply to conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law, or to any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her embryo or fetus.

              So, it’s murder, but it’s also not murder.

              Thoroughly clear, huh?

              Like I said, drivel to please the religious base.

              Liked by 1 person

            42. John
              My view was from the beginning that we should not just adopt the view of a certain legislature. But you kept saying all the laws agree. I just proved that was not the case so you would stop making that claim. I did not post this because I think we should just believe whatever a certain political body says.

              All laws are passed to please certain political bases.

              Liked by 1 person

            43. Granted – some states in the US have slipped in wording to appease their religious base. But have you actually read these so-called ‘laws,’ Joe.

              I don’t think you have.

              If you did you’ll see none actually apply to women/abortion… which is what you *think* they do.

              They don’t.

              The writers seem to be fully aware that they cannot defend those ‘laws’ in an actual court.

              Read them. I couldn’t be bothered looking up each individual law, but by the descriptions your link provides it’s clear these are all nonsense.

              I gave you Idaho (These laws do not apply to conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman), but there’s also

              Alabama: nothing in the act shall make it a crime to perform or obtain an abortion that is otherwise legal.

              And Alaska: The law does not apply to acts that cause the death of an unborn child if those acts were committed during a legal abortion

              And Arkansas: these provisions do not apply to an act that causes the death of an unborn child in utero if the act was committed during a legal abortion

              And Illinois: The laws also specify that these provisions do not apply to acts which cause the death of an unborn child if those acts were committed during any abortion to which the pregnant woman has consented or to acts which were committed pursuant to usual and customary standards of medical practice during testing or treatment.

              And Indiana: states that killing a fetus at any stage of development is murder unless the woman terminates her own pregnancy or obtains an abortion

              And Kentucky: These laws do not apply to acts performed during any abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman has been obtained or for which the consent is implied by law in a medical emergency.

              And Louisiana: The offense of feticide shall not include acts which cause the death of an unborn child if those acts were committed during any abortion

              And Mississippi: The law excludes acts committed by the mother, a medical procedure performed by a medical professional or lawfully prescribed medication.

              And Montana: exemptions for this crime that include groups such as a woman with respect to her fetus, a provider performing an abortion and a provider performing other authorized medical procedures.

              And New Hampshire: This does not apply to “any act committed by the pregnant woman” or “at the request or direction of the pregnant woman or for the benefit of the pregnant woman,” nor does it apply to actions by a “medical professional in the course of . . . professional duties.”

              And North Carolina: These provisions do not apply to lawful acts that cause the death of an unborn child as defined in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-45.1, acts that are committed in the usual standards of medical practice or acts committed by a pregnant woman that result in a miscarriage or stillbirth.

              And Oklahoma: Homicide does not include legal abortion or instances of death during normal medical, therapeutic or diagnostic testing.

              And South Carolina: The law does not apply to conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law, or to a person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child.

              And Virginia: No cause of action for the death of the fetus may be brought against the mother of the fetus.

              So Joe – these “laws” you cite do not actually apply to what you think they apply to.

              Sorry, but any fool can see they’re nothing but lip-service to the religious right. It is play acting… just like what you’re doing here.

              Liked by 1 person

            44. John the laws do hold up in court. People are convicted under these laws.

              Yes they make an exception for abortions but they treat the killing of the fetus when the mother does not consent as a homicide. You can’t have a homicide if nothing died. I think if a defense lawyer tried to argue nothing died when a fetus was shot or stabbed and “stopped developing” as a result they would not fair well.

              You don’t like these laws but they are actual laws and the majority of the US has them even blue states.

              Like

            46. John I don’t think you understand the American constitutional structure. Our supreme court has said the states can’t outlaw abortion where the mother consents to the killing of the fetus. So it is not “play acting” that they make that exception to the homicide laws. They have to due to the Supreme courts ruling.

              Liked by 1 person

            47. Regarding the decreased in birth/pregnancy rates:

              From the Guttmacher report

              Because both abortions and births declined, it is clear that there were fewer pregnancies overall in the United States in 2017 than in 2011. The big question is why.

              …

              Since 2011, contraception has become more accessible, as most private health insurance plans are now required by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to cover contraceptives without out-of-pocket costs. In addition, thanks to expansions in Medicaid and private insurance coverage under the ACA, the proportion of women aged 15–44 nationwide who were uninsured dropped more than 40% between 2013 and 2017. There is evidence that use of long-acting reversible contraceptive methods—specifically IUDs and implants—increased through at least 2014, especially among women in their early 20s, a population that accounts for a significant proportion of all abortions. Another study suggests that the use of IUDs might have increased in the wake of the 2016 presidential election, spurred by fears that such methods could become more expensive to access in the future.23 Notably, contraceptive use has driven the long-term decline in adolescent pregnancies and births, which continued through the 2011–2017 period.

              Surprise, surprise, surprise!

              Liked by 2 people

            48. Likely the fact that birth control has been more widely available has had an impact. That is a good point.

              I also strongly suspect that the view that abortion is morally just like any other form of birth control is not as common as it was when the supreme court thought Roe followed from Griswold.

              Like

            49. Published and easily accessible public opinion polling says you’re wrong.

              Listen, I’m not sure where you get your arguments from, but they’re not only poorly formed (you NEVER discus actual foetal development), they’re also consistently wrong, and often (such as here) running completely contrary to reality.

              Liked by 1 person

            50. Polls vary depending on how the question is asked. But can you find a single poll that says people do not think anything at all dies during an abortion procedure? You claim not to know where I get my views from but they are just your typical pro life views. A fetus is an innocent human being and therefore it is wrong to kill a fetus. I am not creating this view in my own kitchen.

              But your whole view that nothing “dies” in an abortion is indeed an odd homecooked meal you want other to swallow.

              Like

            52. John that is fine. But the very notion that we would “keep” the Roe standard just demonstrates their ignorance. The Roe standard has not been followed since the Casey decision in 1992. So the obvious question is what do the people mean by “keep Roe.” I would think that simply means that about 65% of people think some abortions should be legal and constitutionally protected. I don’t dispute that.

              Like

            53. I was merely pointing out that you have no grasp of the actually reality of public opinion on the matter. In fact, you seem to be living in some sort of fantasy land where you make up your own facts, then pretend that is what the world looks like.

              Like

        3. human life is a sacred gift from God … all made in the image of God

          Thing is, Joe, as much as you want to believe these statements, you are unable to prove either one of them. Humans are not here because of some non-descript being said to exist somewhere in the great beyond.

          Contrary to your personal beliefs, the facts are that humans are responsible for themselves. THEY will have to personally deal with any legal and/or emotional consequences that might result from their actions. NOT some guy-in -the-sky.

          Liked by 4 people

          Reply

          1. “Thing is, Joe, as much as you want to believe these statements, you are unable to prove either one of them.”

            Prove them to whom? You? Whether I can prove that to you is not something I care about.

            “Humans are not here because of some non-descript being said to exist somewhere in the great beyond.”

            I’m not sure exactly what you are saying but it is likely you can’t prove that to me. Should you care? No. Just because you can’t prove something to me or someone else doesn’t mean it is false.

            ” Contrary to your personal beliefs, the facts are that humans are responsible for themselves. THEY will have to personally deal with any legal and/or emotional consequences that might result from their actions.”

            Is that your view? How in your view did Hitler have to personally deal with any legal or emotional consequences of his actions?

            “NOT some guy-in -the-sky.”

            That is your personal opinion.

            Liked by 1 person

            Reply

        4. A few points to consider:

          1. While it’s true that the laws of theocratic nations are closely tied to their moral beliefs, such is not the case in secular nations, where only three of the ten commandments are recognized in common law: the prohibition against murder, the prohibition against theft, and the prohibition against perjury.

          2. I’m not sure an appeal to God’s moral edicts is a winning strategy given the number of instances in which the OT records this same God commanding or directly participating in the complete and utter annihilation of human life.

          3. I agree that the Holocaust and the Holodomor serve as stark reminders of what happens when we classify certain members of society as subhuman, but contest the notion that belief in a moral lawgiver is required to recognize this fact. Otherwise, how do you account for the non-religious who granted sanctuary to the oppressed? Or the religious who aided (and in some cases even abetted) the immoral actions of the oppressors?

          Liked by 3 people

          Reply

          1. As to point one, my saying all law is based on morality is not the same as saying all morality should be law. We both agree that all morality should not be enforced by government. But secular laws are also based on morality at some level. We are valuing things and using the law to protect those things and not others.

            As for your second point I think you are taking a literal view of the OT. That is not how I read it. I read it how God/Jesus says to read it.
            https://trueandreasonable.co/2019/11/12/anti-theists-and-pharisees-can-interpret-the-old-testament-the-way-they-want-i-will-interpret-it-the-way-god-wants/

            As for your third point it is unclear to me why humans should be given any more value than other animals if we are not made in the image of God. If we are just animals that sprung from the same process as other animals why should we be treated differently? I would try to account for different cases on an individual basis. Many “secular” cultures are so steeped in Christian morality it is silly to think they just shook it off in the last century. I am not saying that other cultures could not arrive at the same or similar values. But I am just pointing out that Christians and Jews believe humans are made in the image of God so they are different than other animals. Hitler strongly rejected both Christianity and Judaism and tended to blur that line. He was likely some sort of pantheist. Nazis gave many rights to animals as they took rights from people.

            Like

            Reply

    2. You’re right. It doesn’t include a right to abortion. In fact, it doesn’t address it at all. So why is abortion even an issue? Because, as Jim said, religious belief.

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

      1. “You’re right. It doesn’t include a right to abortion. In fact, it doesn’t address it at all.”

        Therefore it should be left to our democratic process.

        The constitution states:

        “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
        Tenth amendment

        So while we may disagree about whether abortion should be legal perhaps we can both agree that the US supreme court should not circumvent our constitution in order to act like the ultimate judge of all that is right and good by claiming anything they disagree with is a violation of the constitution when it plainly isn’t. That is an abuse of power.

        Like

        Reply

          1. I accept Roe as the law even though it is an abuse of power. It does in fact truly push the boundaries. Is there any limit that you have? I mean can you even imagine the supreme court saying something you disagree with is in the constitution or federal law when it seems to you it is obviously not there? Is there a point where you would say hold on don’t listen to the court this is just an abuse of power! Lets say the supreme court just said yep Trump won the election! I would likely be involved with peaceful civil disobedience if that happened. I think I would be active in peaceful civil disobedience if Catholic hospitals were required to provide abortions. At what point does the abuse amount to a coup and demand more? Let’s just vote for people that are responsible and will nominate responsible judges that will follow the law instead of make up the law as if they are some sort of king.

            Liked by 1 person

            Reply

            1. Actually I mind my own business and don’t freak out over supposed moral issues that have no bearing on how I live my life.
              Many things have no moral value that are culturally distasteful, even unbelievable to other cultures, like Korea eating dog as a food crop. Is it wrong? No, not really. If your fettish is trans men, is that something that would affect me personally? Not at all, so I couldn’t care less.
              There was a study a while back about this. People with “high morals” were offended by gross things that had no impact on their life, even stated those things were immoral. They’re not.

              Liked by 3 people

            2. I tend to follow the same view. I will offer my views on morality and vote my conscience but I am not out to act as some sort of know it all judge.

              The studies tend to show that pretty much all moral views are tied to emotional centers of the brain. Sociopaths act immorally quite a bit and they seem not to have the same sort of emotional – empathy that others have. It is not an issue of being able to reason or be logical.
              https://trueandreasonable.co/2015/02/03/emotion-reason-and-truth/

              Liked by 1 person

            3. –”The studies tend to show that pretty much all moral views are tied to emotional centers of the brain. “
              So does this mean the sociopaths are not evil, simply different than allowed social structures?

              Liked by 1 person

            4. I think it at least means we may want to consider this for their culpability acting in an evil way and our own praiseworthiness for acting morally.

              Wehn a normal person refuses to take an evil action that is in part out of self interest caused by empathy. We won’t beat an old man to take his watch because we will in effect feel the pain of that old man (due to emotional empathy) and our selfish desire to avoid pain means we are less likely to act that way. Thus our decision not to take that evil course of action may not be as praiseworthy as the sociopaths decision not to do that if the sociopath is doing good for “goodness sake.”

              It is a complicated question but good one and one that I have been thinking through. BTW I am not saying we should have two justice systems on earth for psychopaths and non psychopaths. Rather I am suggesting that if there is an all knowing God he may have a different view of things.

              Like

      2. If that’s true, how do you account for non-religious people like myself who consider abortion morally wrong, despite opposing state intervention in the matter?

        Like

        Reply

        1. I would say the reason behind your personal reasoning has to do with choice or force.

          As to why you believe abortion is “morally” wrong becomes the true question. Who or what determines what is “moral”? Humans at large? If so, then we are back to square one and the “everlasting” question of what (or who) are our moral beliefs based upon.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

          1. Morality concerns standards and principles and codes of conduct in relation to self and others. Whether an action is deemed right or wrong is dependent on whether or not it aligns with our personal values; and for most people the highest value is life itself. It therefore stands to reason that any action which denies others the right to life is morally wrong. And that’s why I believe abortion is wrong: it deprives another human being the right to life.

            Like

            Reply

            1. Your definition of morality: Morality concerns standards and principles and codes of conduct in relation to self and others.

              However, the definition of “morality” that I have encountered is this: Concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct — which is a bit different from your definition. Possibly a case of semantics, but …

              You added: Whether an action is deemed right or wrong is dependent on whether or not it aligns with our personal values. And there is lies the core of the debate. Personal values.

              You added: … and for most people the highest value is life itself. (Interestingly, Mormons agree with you: Human life is God’s highest value; preserving it is the object of his work, but I digress.) In actuality, judging from the many and several events in today’s world, there are many who place little to no value in human life.

              In any case, the topic of abortion is like so many other debatable issues in life. It comes down to our individual perspectives … and rarely is either side declared a winner.

              Liked by 1 person

            2. Wouldn’t you agree that attempting to stay alive constitutes our highest value or priority? And that moral principles must be universal in order to be meaningful and valid? (IOW, a functional code operates under that presumption there will be full reciprocity and that everyone agrees to extend others the same courtesies that they expect for themselves.)

              Like

            3. Overall, sure, I would tend to agree with you. Especially the part about the priority of one’s own life — even though I still contend there are those who give it a LOW priority. As for moral principles … I find they often differ among classes, nationalities, religions, etc. However, I suppose the core principle is as stated by you … AND in the Good Book … “Do unto others as you have them do unto you.” 🙂

              Liked by 2 people

    3. I submit that the United States Constitution was only binding upon the original 39 signers and those who voluntarily swear an oath to uphold it as a condition of assuming public office, but there is no legal or moral obligation upon anyone else to do so — least of all those who reside outside the USA and its possessions. I also consider it a weak argument because it relies upon an appeal to authority rather than moral integrity. That is to say, our moral obligation is to do what’s right, not what we are told.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      1. Ron you then have the problems I gave above. If no one is bound by governmental law you will end up with tribes/mafias feuding.

        The libertarian view is that government has a place but it should be very limited. It is much preferable to anarchy.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

        1. So I’m told. But it’s plain to see that the “limited” government envisioned by the US founders has grown into a bureaucratic juggernaut, while the gangs and turf wars continue unabated despite all the laws and agencies created to eradicate them.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

          1. I do agree that the limited federal government has grown into a juggernaut. I think the answer is to elect lawmakers that will respect our constitutional structure. But I agree that is a hard sell to most of the public that is much more concerned about having the law substantively require what they want rather than concern themselves with the proper place of authority.

            I would not say that the gangs and turf wars are unabated. I think state and local government do a decent job or reducing the influence of gangs and turf wars. I think if you the government had even less power we would see cartels and tribalism gain in power similar to what we see in other countries. I think it is over simplistic to say we should give all power to the government (totalitarianism) or no power to the government.(anarchy) Limited government that prevents and addresses things like violent crime and theft and prevents other countries from taking over is a good thing. When we get much beyond that we should really scrutinize if we want to give that control away.

            Like

            Reply

  12. Just a quick FYI to anyone who cares (and I’m giving the very short version here):

    Abortion is protected as a fundamental right under the right to body autonomy. That is, a person has a right to make his or her own decisions regarding medical issues. This right has been read to mean a lot of things, but it protects a person from government interference in specific medical care. So, a cancer patient can get chemotherapy and tumors excised without having to worry about a state banning the procedures. A person can get an amputation if a limb is gangrenous and toxic to the host. Anyone can get a tooth extracted without a government saying which ones are off limits.

    Therefore, anyone who argues for illegal abortions in the US is also arguing for restrictions on people to make decisions about their own medical care. Just one consequence of this: states could forcibly sterilize entire communities if legislatures wrote laws about it.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  13. When Presidents of the United States put forth religiously aligned justices to the Supreme Court in order to change a matter that is important to the most religious of the country, on the pretext that it’s somehow unconstitutional, while nothing relevant has changed in the constitution since the matter was decided, tells me that this is about bringing politics and religion into the Supreme Court, rather than about the matter being “unconstitutional.”

    All I hear is “stare decisis be damned, we really don’t want anyone to be allowed to have an abortion” is what this is about.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    1. Agreed. There is a need for everything there is a need for, but really a lot of the fear about this is from misinformation or no information.
      When I stopped believing in god, abortion was a difficult transition because of all the bad, knee jerk info. I see the necessity of it though, and could never make that decision for another person.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      1. I … could never make that decision for another person.

        THIS is the part about the battle over abortion that makes blood run from my eyes! NO ONE has the right to decide for others. They can offer advice. They can present their “case.” They can threaten. They can beg.

        But when the chips are down, EACH WOMAN MUST have the freedom to make her own choices/decisions … as well as suffer any and all consequences that might result.

        Anti-abortionists claim they are defending the “child”(???), but in essence, they’re simply forcing their personal beliefs on another human being.

        Liked by 3 people

        Reply

Leave a comment