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

The Constitution does not offer a definition of "human being". It is silent on the subject.

 

The jury is still out on both these points. We'll see.

 

The founders didn't feel the need to address several things explicitly because they didn't think American citizens could ever become so ****ing stupid...

 

True, and this subject is prone to misuse of terms. I think we each know what we mean, but I agree this subject requires precise language.

What the SCOTUS did define is when a fetus reaches a state of viability outside the womb, which is the third trimester, and permitted abortion based on this.

You are correct, the Court famously remained silent on "when life begins" (another imprecise use of language), so it relied on the point where a fetus ceases being part of the woman's body, which obviously is the point where it can survive on its own.

 

Hey, hope is good. I'm not seeing it though.

Every backwards attempt at lawmaking has failed. Gays can marry, Derrick Chauvin is in prison, weed is legal, women can vote...

Good luck. It's 10-0 in the top of the first, though.

 

Just so. The test for any legal definition in the Constitution cannot be a religious one per the 1st Amendment

 

Who said anything about a religious test? Texas' fetal heartbeat is a perfectly valid scientific test without bringing religion into it.

 

There are a shitload of "backwards attempts at lawmaking" still in force today (some of them, you and I might even agree on - civil asset forfeiture, probably some abuses of qualified immunity, assault weapon bans, etc.), so I wouldn't treat that as some sort of foregone conclusion that whatever you label as "backwards" will ultimately be struck down / repealed.

 

I didn't say it was a foregone conclusion. I'm playing the odds.

 

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

,


NO, it is not A human...it is only human..that's an adjective not a noun..

Total hogwash...it's the "Imagination Kicks In When Anti-Choicers have Nothing Like Facts Syndrome """...LOL

LOL, yes, Anti-choicers sure like to think they rule over everything....I'll bow out when I damn well feel like it.



Maybe you could put your emotions on hold for a minute and tell me what rights you want a ZEF to have that do not interfere in the rights of the woman it's in????

 

No, not the point being made. The poster I answered always equates a heartbeat with all "fauna". I pointed out that "fauna" usually refers to animals and they pointed out that humans are animals.....which is true but maybe your question would be better served if addressed to that poster.

I hunt. I enjoy hunting

Interesting. Especially when talking about abortion.

We don't kill our offspring. That's against the law.

 

Why? We kill everything to excess.

 

Humans make up part of the fauna of a region, my question is addressed to you. And the person was correct about heartbeats in animals. The question is do you equate the life of a human with the life of all other animals?

[Rhetorical alert] Why do you promote killing humans and enjoy doing so? Should we regulate population by killing some humans?

In an abortion we do.

 

No, according to the medical community, that happens when it has a heartbeat. According to me, that happens at fertilization ("conception").

No, that's science (and truth). A fetus with a heartbeat is a living human.

Good question. And this is where my personal definition of 'living' differs from the medical community's definition of 'living'.

Per the medical community's definition, the fetus (before the presence of a heartbeat) would be dead.

Per YOUR (original) definition (that you have since walked back on), the fetus (during the entire nine month pregnancy term) would be dead (until it got birthed, then it would suddenly 'gain life').

Per my personal definition, the fetus would be living since the moment of fertilization ("conception").

 

No it isn't. Anyone can go back and see what you posted. It is there for all to read.

Yes, you did.

I have said no such thing. I am not the medical community. You keep confusing me for them. I say that it's alive at the moment of fertilization ("conception").

And dude, YOU are the one who is saying that it's not alive until it's birthed ... Are you now revising that and saying that it's alive before a detectable heartbeat?? You're all over the place dude...

 

CORRECT!

It is not a legal term. And neither is “person”, “human being”, “child”, or “individual”.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8

 

Continued science denial... If something is of the homo sapiens sapiens species, then it is a human.

 

The law says we don't.

Which was what

 

Interesting... so the medical community now agrees with me? (and apparently you now agree with it too??) SPLENDID!!! Let's use this medical fact as the basis for the definition of 'living'. I'm glad that you agree with me!

See above. We now agree on the definitions of both the words 'human' and 'living'. So, I will now outright ask you:

Do you support the choice to kill a living human who has committed no crime nor has expressed any desire to die?

Do you support the above-mentioned choice if the justification for it is to make some third living human's life more convenient?

No, it's you. You are denying science. You are denying biological truths.

 

That has not been your position.

I have never denied that and don't know why you keep saying that

What do I care about your personal definition what you made the claim to prove yourself correct with science.

Not true. it's in a different stage of development. The medical community says life begins at conception. You have never given any evidence of life beginning with a heartbeat. All you have provided is "if there is a heartbeat, there is life". That doesn't mean that's where life begins. Your logic is completely flawed.

 

I've only said it a dozen times

I support the choice to terminate the life of a human that is not viable. One that is unable to support life on it's own.

Under the conditions I have said.....yes.

No, it is you that denies the biological truth of viability.

 

Read any livescience article. The proof is right there.

Thank you. I will now consider you as completely discarding your prior position and adopting this new position that a fetus with a heartbeat is a 'living human'. --- That leads us to my question:

Do you support the choice to kill a LIVING HUMAN (now defined, BY YOURSELF, as a fetus with a heartbeat) who has not committed any crime nor has expressed any desire to die?

I haven't presented a single circular argument. I have presented definitions for the words 'living' and 'human', of which you have now openly agreed to for this whole board to see, and now I am asking you "the question that makes cowards out of leftists"... I now, logically speaking, have your back against the wall. You have no options left but to either admit that I am correct (that abortion is murder) or to return to various leftist paradoxes regarding this issue. The choice is yours.

I did not misquote it.

RAAA. (repetitious argumentation already addressed)

Now you're being completely dishonest. Anyone can go back to your previous comment, which reads:

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

and see for themselves that you thereby claimed that humans are NOT animals.

Please stop being completely dishonest towards me, yourself, and the other forum members.

I have a problem with indiscriminately killing any animal.

I do not have a problem with responsibly killing non-human animals for particular useful purposes, such as population control, food, fur/skin/hide, and other useful resources. I do not have a problem with killing non-human animals that are pests to human endeavors, such as gardening or maintaining a lawn.

Abortion, which is what this discussion is ACTUALLY about, is not indiscriminate killing. It is killing a living human to make some other living human's life more convenient. It is morally abhorrent.

 

Nope, that's you.

The point is that your comparison was completely faulty, as you were trying to compare a lion killing other lions' babies to a person killing their own baby. -- Additionally, we are not lions. We are humans. We are subject to moral code that lions are not subject to. For instance, lions are allowed to do what we would consider to be rape. Humans are not.

There is no such thing as "lion/ape murder". Lions and apes are not subject to the moral codes that we are subject to. While lions and apes DO kill, they DO NOT murder. While lions and apes DO have sexual intercourse, they DO NOT rape.

 

Your issues, not mine.