Supreme Court upholds Texas Abortion Ban after 6-weeks of pregnancy.

[Akar]

Given sufficient time they have the potential to become humans. They are not humans are the very moment of fertilization. This isn't hard to understand.

It wasn't amino acids it was nucleic acids.

Blagh, rookie mistake. Thanks for the correction.

[Ludicus]

The fetal period starts from the 10th week, not before.These religious and sexist laws are a by product of a sexist ideology and endorsement of men's control over women’s decisions in reproductive health.

. A sample of 5,502 biologists from 1,058 academic institutions assessed statements...‘a human’s life begins at fertilization’.

From a biological point of view the life of a new human being starts at the moment when the sperm penetrates the egg. That is what they mean, not to say that all 5502 biologists are against abortion. It turns out that it is as alive as the sperm itself. I advise you not to waste sperm, because you are killing potential lives.

[Lord Thesaurian]

From a biological point of view the life of a new human being starts at the moment when the sperm penetrates the egg. That is what they mean, not to say that all 5502 biologists are against abortion. It turns out that it is as alive as the sperm itself. I advise you not to waste sperm, because you are killing potential lives.

No, it isn’t “as alive as sperm,” biologically speaking. The fact that scientific consensus has established a human life begins at fertilization means that human life does not begin as sperm, obviously. Nor does it have anything to do with ethical considerations on when or whether it is acceptable to euthanize that human life through abortion.

[antaeus]

What you're debating is a subjective, and polling biologists doesn't change that. There is nothing wrong with someone considering that a new human life begins at conception. It has a very clean unambiguous logic. There is no need to count cells or poll biologists.

[Ludicus]

But either way, what you're debating is a subjective, and polling biologists doesn't change that.

Exactly, that's what I'm saying.
--
Here, termination of pregnancy can be performed in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy, calculated from the date of the last menstrual period.

A national referendum was held in 1998 on the question of decriminalization of voluntary termination of pregnancy. First, in 1984, the Assembly of the Republic ruled to allow legal abortion in situations of serious maternal and fetal disease, rape, and in a broader sense, crimes against sexual self-determination.
----
Our experience is lesson for America: the possibility of accessing safe abortion services has not led to an increase in the number of abortions performed.
Before decriminalization, the estimated number of abortions performed in Portugal (with a population of over 10 million) was 20,000 per year.This number has never been exceeded since decriminalization. These situations have thus been accepted for 35 years in Portugal’s health services

A second referendum was held in 2007 on decriminalization of abortion at the woman’s request, and the pro-choice movement won with 59.3% of the votes. Based on this result, voluntary abortion was no longer illegal when performed up to the 10th gestational week in official or officially accredited health services.

[swabian]

The fetal period starts from the 10th week, not before.These religious and sexist laws are a by product of a sexist ideology and endorsement of men's control over womenÂ’s decisions in reproductive health.


From a biological point of view the life of a new human being starts at the moment when the sperm penetrates the egg.

This is one of those things when there is no clean line to be drawn but everything and everyone calls for one.

"Technically" human "life" is also every living cell that i lose when a mosquito sucks out my blood.

What matters here of course is that the early embryo could develop
into a baby and nobody wants to kill an actual fully developed baby. So there is the glaring potentiality of the existence of another fully developed human being that is supposedly murdered by abortion.

I think this is absolutely correct. It is the killing of a potentially birth ready baby and society has to rationalize that for the greater good.

Killing a person that could become a person is not and cannot be murder. I think that's easy to agree upon.

What this implies, though is far less agreeable. It means newborn babies might also fall under that category. And i think that is what causes all the irritation and the outrage.

Where is the line to be drawn between the early fetus and the actual born baby - to think of this question alone is what can drive some people mad.

Well, the line between fetus and child is of course drawn more or less arbitrarily. There really is no method to determine that in an objective way and, of course, culture has to have a say in it, because reasons.

Sorry girls, it will never be "only" your body. This is about jealous, angry males who want to ensure their DNA is passed on. And nobody wants to have dead babies on the title of their newsletter to their morning coffee.

It's in fact about procreation and therefore about the very existence of the human species. Sorry girls, only you can get pregnant. Nobody said life is fair. It isn't. It just is.

Ugh can't we have artificial uteruses already? Get it done, science, how hard can it be...

[antaeus]

Our experience is lesson for America: the possibility of accessing safe abortion services has not led to an increase in the number of abortions performed.
Before decriminalization, the estimated number of abortions performed in Portugal (with a population of over 10 million) was 20,000 per year.This number has never been exceeded since decriminalization. These situations have thus been accepted for 35 years in Portugal’s health services

I don't think this matters tho. If someone's religion suggests something, and there is enough science that allows or confirms that same perspective, the number of abortions is irrelevant, because even one is the loss of a potential human life. So the issue you need to address isn't whether it encourages them, or how many are performed, but whether performing them at all is morally justifiable - from both the mother, and the potential child's perspectives.

[Heathen Hammer]

I look forward to the eventual raising numbers of back-alley and coat hanger abortions that cause health problems in Texas's already staggeringly poor healthcare system.

If it goes anything like their power grid...or just like abortions before Roe... This is going to be entertaining.

Or they could just like you know... do it out of state. Back-alley abortions isn't really an argument in the context of this topic.
But again, thank liberals in blue state for creating a precedent where government can regulate your private medical procedures.

[Ludicus]

If someone's religion suggests something,the number of abortions is irrelevant...

Yes, but the fact that the number of abortions does not increase when there are safe conditions for doing them, pragmatically shows that it is better to choose this solution, because abortions will continue to be done, as has been proven, even if it means an increased number of health complications for women, which can be easily avoided.
And if the matter is irrelevant for those who have religious objections, it is not irrelevant for those who have no objections, even if they are religious.There are many Catholics who are pro-abortion (for example my country is Catholic, and in the US there are also many Catholics who are pro-abortion)
Those who have religious objections are not obligated to have abortions, but they should not prevent those who do not have religious objections from having them. After all, religion is a private matter.
-------
The Pope is against abortion, but does not accept the punishment of those who do not think the same way,

Vatican Warns US Bishops About Denying Communion To Supporters Of Abortion Rights

The Vatican's top enforcer of doctrine has sent a warning to U.S. bishops about a potential proposal by some conservative clergy to deny communion to Catholic elected officials who support legislation allowing abortion.
The possible plan could affect President Biden, among other Catholic political figures.
Along with Biden, there are 158 Catholics in Congress, most of them Democrats who favor abortion rights. National polls have consistently shown that a majority of U.S. Catholics believe abortion should be legal in at least some cases.

------
God doesn’t know, but he has a prolific offspring.Trump and Bolsonaro were chosen by God.
belief that Trump was chosen by God is shared by many in a fast-growing Christian movement

Bolsonaro is the Brazilian messenger of God, Fears of violence on Brazil's streets as millions rally to back

His rural voters see the embattled president as a ‘messenger from God’...More than 5,000 police officers will reportedly be deployed to protect congress amid fears that it could suffer the same fate as the US Capitol after Trump’s defeat.

Bolsonaro criticizes Argentina's abortion

"deeply regrets the lives of Argentine children,”
Brazilian Minister for Women, Family and Human Rights Damares Alves wrote that she "thanks God that our country is mostly pro-life." Alves was harshly criticized a few months ago when a 10-year-old girl became pregnant after being raped by her uncle. Alves’ team was accused of trying to interfere and prevent the child's abortion, which in this case is considered legal in Brazil

[antaeus]

Saying abortion should be done because it is going to be done anyway is flawed logic. Murder and rape are also going to happen, but we're not about to try to make it safer to do. And the Trump/God/Pope etc stuff isn't particularly relevant either - and seems to be an attempt to tar the anti-abortion movement with the lunitic leader brush, further exacerbating difference between people. Not all people^TM who dislike abortion are Christian, Republican or agree with any of those leaders.

But none of that addresses whether abortions are morally justifiable, at all. From either the mother or the potential child's perspective. Can you address this point?

[AqD]

But none of that addresses whether abortions are morally justifiable, at all. From either the mother or the potential child's perspective. Can you address this point?

The discussion is simply irrelevant because making laws based on morality is childish.

You think you can codify morality, but Texas is not the only state in US and US is not the only country in the world.


What would this law achieve exactly? Would it make people safer? happier? richer? healthier? Would high income groups be attracted to there by lower abortion rate? Or they'd say it and move out when they want abortion? What's the estimate of long term impact?

[Heathen Hammer]

Plenty of laws are based on moral arguments and aren't "practical" from some edgy materialist perspective, but are there to stay nonetheless.
Its not "childish" to base laws on morality. Basing laws on emotion is childish, but morality simply represents values of majority of population.

[chilon]

Biology is a science, so yeah, it is like climate change. And like climate change, there are those who deny science to fit an agenda because it makes them feel better. Again, people’s opinions are an ethical question, not scientific.

Whatever the public believes about abortion is not relevant to biology. The fact human life begins at fertilization is based on scientific consensus, and that consensus is nothing new. If that makes you uncomfortable….well…..that’s for you to consider. Science denial has no place in the discussion, however.

Abortion legality isn't a scientific issue, its a philosophical and legal issue. Especially not an issue that can be reduced to a mere poll of biologists regarding "life" (a subjective demarcation point that you've arbitrarily selected).

[Lord Thesaurian]

Abortion legality isn't a scientific issue, its a philosophical and legal issue.

That’s what I said.

Especially not an issue that can be reduced to a mere poll of biologists regarding "life" (a subjective demarcation point that you've arbitrarily selected).

Again, the “large and robust scientific consensus on the biological view that ‘a human’s life begins at fertilization’” is not something I’ve arbitrarily selected. It’s a basic fact that forms the premise of any honest discussion, legal, ethical or otherwise, about when or whether a mother has the right to unilaterally end that human life. SCOTUS got around that fact by arbitrarily deciding certain human lives don’t legally count as people. If you want to argue that the ethics of euthanizing human lives shouldn’t be based on factual premises in the first place, then at least admit it.

[Cope]

Abortion legality isn't a scientific issue, its a philosophical and legal issue. Especially not an issue that can be reduced to a mere poll of biologists regarding "life" (a subjective demarcation point that you've arbitrarily selected).

There is no scientific case for rejecting zygotes as living humans (assuming the progenitor gametes were human). The disagreement is about the point at which human beings attain a right to life, not whether zygotes/embryos/fetuses are alive.

[sumskilz]

Yes, but the fact that the number of abortions does not increase when there are safe conditions for doing them, pragmatically shows that it is better to choose this solution, because abortions will continue to be done, as has been proven, even if it means an increased number of health complications for women, which can be easily avoided.

It may very well be irrelevant to the point you're attempting counter, but simply as a factual matter, this seems unlikely. You're claiming that the number of abortions does not increase when abortion is legal and is not reduced when abortion is illegal. How are you arriving at that conclusion?

There are many Catholics who are pro-abortion (for example my country is Catholic, and in the US there are also many Catholics who are pro-abortion)

I seriously doubt there are many Catholics who are pro-abortion. I assume they simply see legalization of abortion as a lesser evil.

Those who have religious objections are not obligated to have abortions, but they should not prevent those who do not have religious objections from having them. After all, religion is a private matter.

Just like those who have a religious objection to murder are not obligated to murder anyone, but they should not prevent those who do not have any religious objections from murdering people. I don't think you're going to get anywhere with that argument.

As has already been pointed out, objection to abortion isn't necessarily connected with traditional religion. For example, I know an atheist/agnostic guy who has a strong objection to abortion, which I assume is at least somewhat related to the fact that he was born with a condition that leads to many fetuses in his home country being aborted - a condition that is nothing more than a very mild cosmetic issue once corrected by surgery.

[chilon]

That’s what I said.

Again, the “large and robust scientific consensus on the biological view that ‘a human’s life begins at fertilization’” is not something I’ve arbitrarily selected. It’s a basic fact that forms the premise of any honest discussion, legal, ethical or otherwise, about when or whether a mother has the right to unilaterally end that human life. SCOTUS got around that fact by arbitrarily deciding certain human lives don’t legally count as people. If you want to argue that the ethics of euthanizing human lives shouldn’t be based on factual premises in the first place, then at least admit it.

You arbitrarily selected a definition of "life" as the point you believe is relevant in determining law. To myself and many others, that isn't a relevant boundary for determining legal personhood. Rather its sapience or independent viability. Hence, why in cases like the Terry Schiavo case, it wasn't "life" that determined the result.

[Lord Thesaurian]

You arbitrarily selected a definition of "life" as the point you believe is relevant in determining law. To myself and many others, that isn't a relevant boundary for determining legal personhood. Rather its sapience or independent viability. Hence, why in cases like the Terry Schiavo case, it wasn't "life" that determined the result.

You choosing arbitrary premises =/= the scientific consensus is arbitrary. Furthermore:

To determine which is more prevalent, 2,899 American adults were surveyed and asked to select the group most qualified to determine when a human’s life begins. 81% selected biologists as the most qualified because they are scientists who objectively study life. This suggests Americans likely have a descriptive interpretation of ‘when life begins’. Biologists were then recruited to participate in a study

Inb4 >what are representative samples.

Also, as I said, Roe v Wade was argued on this basis. SCOTUS got around that by deciding certain human lives don’t legally count as people. It had nothing to do with viability. You’re thinking Planned Parenthood v Casey. In any case, nowhere did the courts reject the scientific consensus. In establishing the viability precedent, SCOTUS specifically left the decision to the states, within the context of “burdens and benefits” that include those of the fetus, as determined in a court of law.

[chilon]

You choosing arbitrary premises =/= the scientific consensus is arbitrary. Furthermore:

Inb4 >what are representative samples.

Also, as I said, Roe v Wade was argued on this basis. SCOTUS got around that by deciding certain human lives don’t legally count as people. It had nothing to do with viability. You’re thinking Planned Parenthood v Casey. In any case, nowhere did the courts reject the scientific consensus. In establishing the viability precedent, SCOTUS specifically left the decision to the states, within the context of “burdens and benefits” that include those of the fetus, as determined in a court of law.

Your poll of biologists is irrelevant because as you seem to recognize, the key concept is "personhood" not "life". So its meaningless what a poll finds about "life". And legal personhood dates back much further than Roe v Wade, its not a concept invented for that case.

[Cyclops]

...I seriously doubt there are many Catholics who are pro-abortion. I assume they simply see legalization of abortion as a lesser evil....

Not sure how you'd quantify that though. [edit: I bet we get True Scotsmanned to death for this]

In Australia 70-80% of people who identify as Catholic support the right to abortion (the number wobbles depending on who does the asking), closer to 90% support the use of contraception, tolerance homosexuality etc etc. and close to 100% are against flipping tables in banks (how far we have strayed from God's Light). The only serious anti-abortion movements are imported US evangelists (thanks Obama).

As a lapsed Catholic let me tell you Australian Catholics are extremely liberal, many gradients to the liberal side of the clergy.