AndreusMaximus
Master
That kind of talk sounds pretty crazy from a pro-life perspective though. More important emergencies? There's nothing killing more people in Indiana right now than abortion, not even close.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Leaked/breaking:Roe v. Wade expected to be overturned
- Thread starter Cameramonkey
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Is there a definitive, objective, scientific distinction between "viability" and "pre-viability"?
Scientifically, the zygote is viable. It requires nothing more than environment and sustenance (n.b. the same things all humans require). Upon birth, that same human being remains 100% dependent upon the mother (or others) for those same requirements, environment and sustenance. Is a newborn merely "pre-viable" also?
It seems the context has shifted rather significantly here. We have moved from discussing a "pre-viable" human being (a zygote/embryo/fetus, dependent upon the mother for environment and sustenance in utero) to a human being at the moment of birth.
Is the human being "viable" or "pre-viable" at the point of (normal/natural) childbirth, the point at which you reference the life of the mother being jeopardized? Is the human being at the point of childbirth still dependent upon the mother ("...she eats for, respires for, and processes the waste for...")? If so, how? But if not, then how is the "viable/pre-viable" argument still relevant at the point of childbirth?
The woman faces those risks for no other reason (98% of the time) than as a result of her willing, consenting, intentional action to engage in the activity that leads to procreation. The developing human being created through that intentional act bears no responsibility whatsoever for finding itself inside the uterus. And given the state of current medical technology, there is almost no circumstance in which a live birth cannot be performed such that the life of both mother and child can be preserved. Nearly all instances of risk of life to mother that can only be resolved through terminating the pregnancy happen much sooner during gestation (such as ectopic pregnancy).
It seems that this argument conflates viability/non-viability in various stages of pregnancy, as well as risk of life to mother at those various stages.
Where those risks are legitimate, morality and the law allow a pregnancy to be terminated if necessary. Again, though, at the point of childbirth, there is almost no known circumstance that requires taking the life of the unborn human being to protect the life of the mother.
Is that unborn child in some other world than our own while in utero? Once it is conceived, it is already in our world. I still see no justification for the mother choosing to end the life of the unborn child, beyond legitimate circumstances in which the life of the mother is jeopardized and termination of the pregnancy is the only remedy.
I'm sure that's what they think but it's been an "emergency" for half a century and I like most Hoosiers care a lot more about trying to deal with the consequences of Biden's economy catastrophe than I do about a 50 year emergency.
Apparently, @maxipum thinks that the fetus bears some responsibility for finding itself in utero. The Party of Science never fails to amaze.
So you as a “unique individual“ are “entirely dependent on the cooperation of“ the earth “to survive”…
Since you are not capable of surviving independently of the earth… Always a bigger bear…
I prefer a well crafted law in 6 months over a
law tomorrow. Because that crap law could do more harm long term than the other.
On a related note, trolling ignorant PBS FB followers is really fun. 
AndreusMaximus
Master
I guess I just simply can't agree with this. From the perspective of believing that unborn children are human beings who are being murdered in vast numbers right now, to suggest that we need 6 months to come up with a law to protect them makes me feel like we're standing outside the school in Uvalde and the police are telling us that a better executed plan in an hour is going to save more lives that rushing in headlong right now. Okay, that analogy limps a little, but seriously, this has been a long time coming, and if they actually have to start from zero on writing up a law, I'd still rather we get something basic on the books which can be revised and improved down the road, than just sit back and watch children continue to die. And unlike 99% of the hyperbolic rhetoric about such or such law being needed to stop people from dying, this is actually 100% what is at stake here.I prefer a well crafted law in 6 months over a
All of this furor over a Supreme Court decision may lead a reasonable person to conclude that wholesale changes in the law should be made by elected representatives in statutes or amendments in the first place, not appointed judges.
Pretty sure I have said no such thing.
A baby that manages to clear the birth canal is no more "independent" than a baby in utero. The only difference is that others can participate in providing for this completely dependent individual. I fail to see a moral reason that justifies depriving one dependent being of life simply because only 1 person can care for it while protecting the rights of another dependent being because others can care for it.
In fact, I would think a humanist would see the protection of completely dependent humans as paramount....but perhaps I simply misunderstood the goal of humanism. I thought it had to do with promoting humanity.
In fact, I would think a humanist would see the protection of completely dependent humans as paramount....but perhaps I simply misunderstood the goal of humanism. I thought it had to do with promoting humanity.
The law should be nuanced and have certain carve-outs. Not some ham handed blanket law. you dont get nuance in 2 weeks.
Perhaps I misunderstood a laughing reaction to my prior comment regarding agency of the unborn vs the agency of the mother?
AndreusMaximus
Master
If I may be forgiven for speaking bluntly, even if it's ham-handed I think we at least need a little bit of legal protection for our children who are being dismembered alive daily while all the higher-ups are debating on exactly which children should still be allowed to be killed.
Legislators have had 48 years to consider appropriate legislation regarding abortion. IANAL, but I could likely draft suitable legislation in an afternoon. How much moreso, actual legislators (or, more likely, the lobbyists who draft most legislation, anyway)?
I have more faith in your logic than those clowns.
I think you would be surprised at how incorrect that assumption is if you researched it further
Many life processes go on as completely separate parallel systems operating within the gestating child, one example being that in a mother who is type 1 diabetic the growing child's endocrine system will produce enough insulin to regulate blood sugar for both of them, allowing the mother to reduce or eliminate insulin use during her term - to the extent that special precautions need to be taken immediately after birth to normalize blood sugar for both parties to prevent insulin shock
That is far from 'entirely dependent on the co-operation of its mother'
