JK230217-
#7,347 jknowgood • I can't say anything scientifically till the hearts starts beating. Then it's a living being and killing it is murder.
^^
Cplus6230217-
#7,348 CarsomyrPlusSix • The organism in question is already a living human being before it has the slightest start of a cardiovascular system. Murder charges should apply from jump
^^
JK230217-
#7,351 jknowgood • I agree, but you know who we are dealing with?
NFBW: Dealing with TRUTH a problem for you two and your savior of white European Western Civilization through Jesus friend
beagle9 Is it???? . . . . and where the hell is that proponent for female government nine month maximum bondage of woman (who have brains) to the living organism inside her
when it does not have a brain (
HeyNorm ) Is he hiding with
ding ?
Now that you biological geniuses and vagina cops are on the same page,
can we all agree that to be alive a human being must have a brain and if he or she does not have a physical brain and never had one, they will be dead.
AND do any of you know why the unique new DNA one of a kind
15 week fetus that does not have a brain when inside the body of an unplanned and potentially not wanting to be pregnant woman
is not considered dead? If you know please put it in writing.
END2302180627
BONUS THOUGHTS on MURDER 0132
sealybobo170306-
#132 • To be murdered under the US Constitution requires one be a "person." But that is not a scientific concept. Being a Homo sapiens is a scientific concept. But personhood is a vague popular term that is often used in reference to the essence of being human, rather than the facticity of being of our species. It is often admitted as a quality androids might have in the future. And it is something people who are brain dead are often said to be lacking.
The Supreme Court ruled it is indeed such a term. And then defined it as not including the early stages of human development that precede viability. There is no room for scientific rebuttal (except fine tuning the date of viability).
Killing members of our species has never been defined as murder for all purposes. There is war, self defense, and criminal punishment. And historically there was dishonoring ones parents, family, or tribe, believing in the wrong god, being allegedly in league with the devil (virtually never a true allegation). Indeed in Europe, death was reigned down on Jews and Muslim for centuries for worshipping the right god (they all worship the same god of Abraham) the wrong way.
Even if murder was plainly applicable, there is the question of when a pregnant woman becomes two individuals? Essentially, this is the question SCOTUS reflections on personhood involved.
And speaking from a theological perspective, there is the question why a woman should not stand in the stead of a demigod concerning any being living inside her body? It has never been clear to me why god alleges jurisdiction over me just because he played a causal role in my existence. My parents had a causal role in my existence, and a less speculative one, but do not have anything like the authority over me that god allegedly does. Nor does a farmer have such authority over his own livestock, which he likewise intervened in the conception of (artificial insemination is the norm concerning some modern livestock).
On top of this we have the fact that serious minded theologians, clerics, and worshipful people freely admit nothing like proof of god exists. This is the scientific problem of the greatest relevance to the abortion question.
So the question re abortion is actually purely legal and linguistic. There is no debate as to what species the tissue of a pre-personhood fetus or zygote is. There is no question as to whether the cells forming the pre-personhood fetus or zygote are alive.
There is debate as to whether it is ensouled, but that is not a scientific question. Rather it is a religious question and therefore legally irrelevant as religious propositions are forbidden from being enshrined in laws owing to the First Amenment. So this has no place in the legislature or in public policy either.
I am curious what you think pro-choice people believe and/or how you think the law works, such that you advocate there is something science can clarify in this debate?
In the end, your question makes no more sense than my query, "What is the mathematical evidence that the OP does not understand the abortion question or American law?"
Finally, the question I have never seen addressed is why, if abortion was murder based primarily on religious grounds, did it not come to be criminalized in toto until less than two hundred years ago in a religious traditions that are thousands of years old? Note to mention, the Bible enumerates countless reasons for legitimate murder that are far more spacious than abortion.
ENDbonus2302180644 credit to
sealybobo and
meaner gene for edifying conversation in 2017
