Sooooo.... Texas?

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Yes!

Life: the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.

Abortion stops life.

Where did you get that is "science's" accepted definition of life? Some define life as starting at conception. Some at birth. Most, somewhere in between. When did "science" decide which of those definitions is correct?

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

According to the definition an embryo any embryo is alive and if the embryo is human it is a human life.

I doubt many scientists would claim an embryo is "alive."  And the dictionary definition of embryo doesn't include the word "alive."

The problem is that "life" really isn't a switch that is turned on at a given point.  It's a process.

[Galway Eagle]

I never said a fetus with terminal condition should not be aborted. I never said a pregnant woman diagnosed with a life threatening condition should be denied an abortion, but those are very few.

So what if the law said the state/ hospital is not required to provide a COVID patient with a respirator because his /her ability to breathe on their own is not fully functional would that sit well with any of us?

According to the definition an embryo any embryo is alive and if the embryo is human it is a human life.

I didn't say you did. I wanted confirmation on where you stand in the "having to carry it to term" argument. Glad we're on the same page. 

That's different as that person is objectively human prior to that. They have the full capacity to do all those things, the medical intervention is to keep that objectively human person alive.

Again I'm not arguing that an embryo is alive. In the same sense I'm not arguing that any single cell organism or simple multi-cell organism isnt alive. But you make a big jump with the "if the embryo is human it is a human life" statement. Plenty of things in a human can meet that life definition so it seems like you're working from a logic statement of "if something alive comes from humans then it is a human life" which is obviously false. Or "if a human embryo has human potential then it is a full human life" which in itself acknowledges that a human embryo isn't a full human life at that time. Nothing wrong with the belief, its just that it acknowledges it's not a human life at that moment which then voids your science argument about human life beginning at conception.

[Pakuni]

So what if the law said the state/ hospital is not required to provide a COVID patient with a respirator because his /her ability to breathe on their own is not fully functional would that sit well with any of us?

That's a pretty bad analogy.
A woman is not a ventilator for a fetus. She's not a medical device. She does not exist solely to further the existence of another.

That's where this turns for me. If you outlaw abortion, you're telling every woman that her bodily autonomy is subservient to the health of another, and that subservience will be enforced through the power of the state.
I suspect we'd all be outraged if the government forced us to surrender our bodily autonomy to provide kidney, liver or bone marrow transplants to preserve the lives of others. Yet some don't blink at - and in fact wholly embrace - the idea of the government forcing women to surrender their autonomy for another.

Brother dgies ... what you wrote was thoughtful and eloquent. But we don't live in a theocracy, Your faith guides your moral compass and the way you live your life, and that's worthy of respect. Also worthy of respect is that not everyone shares your faith nor should they be required to live under its tenets. 

[Galway Eagle]

Brother dgies ... what you wrote was thoughtful and eloquent. But we don't live in a theocracy, Your faith guides your moral compass and the way you live your life, and that's worthy of respect. Also worthy of respect is that not everyone shares your faith nor should they be required to live under its tenets.

This was my logic for being pro choice when I was still somewhat religious. The separation of church and state outweighs any discomfort I have with the procedure

[Jockey]

If Greg Abbott has a plan to eradicate rape from Texas, I’m confident he can end man-cow love.  A great day for cows in Texas except the ones we eat

If he has a plan to eliminate rape in texas, it brings up a couple of points:

1. He has been governor for several years. If he knows how to eliminate rape, but hasn't done it, doesn't that make him a rape enabler?

2. He is not talking about putting rapists in jail. That does not eliminate rape - only punishes rapists. To eliminate rape, as he said he would, you have to stop it before it happens. How does he plan to do this? Go full Minority Report? Put cameras covering literally every square foot of the state? Tell rapists "just say no"?

[Uncle Rico]

If he has a plan to eliminate rape in texas, it brings up a couple of points:

1. He has been governor for several years. If he knows how to eliminate rape, but hasn't done it, doesn't that make him a rape enabler?

2. He is not talking about putting rapists in jail. That does not eliminate rape - only punishes rapists. To eliminate rape, as he said he would, you have to stop it before it happens. How does he plan to do this? Go full Minority Report? Put cameras covering literally every square foot of the state? Tell rapists "just say no"?

He’s going to have Mexico do it

[TSmith34, Inc.]

2. He is not talking about putting rapists in jail. That does not eliminate rape - only punishes rapists. To eliminate rape, as he said he would, you have to stop it before it happens. How does he plan to do this? Go full Minority Report? Put cameras covering literally every square foot of the state? Tell rapists "just say no"?

As Charles says,
Conservative Politicians Have Realized They Don't Even Really Need to Try Anymore
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a37511800/greg-abbott-texas-abortion-law-rape-exception/

"For a while now, it's been obvious that America’s conservative politicians have decided that they don’t have to try very hard, and that their audience of voters will swallow just about anything as long as it has the desired effect of owning the libs and conforming to whatever the fantasy conflict du jour is. ’Twas not ever thus. For example, supply-side economics is as fundamentally kooky as anything Alex Jones ever has exhaled into the ether, but there was at least a semblance of thought behind it. OK, so its founding document is a cocktail napkin. But there was at least a semblance of a kind of thought that grew out of that napkin. There was an attempt to defend the crackpottery on its merits. Now, all that is necessary is to spout off in public, full in the confidence that most of your audience is safely in the bag before you ever say a word."

[Lighthouse 84]

I doubt many scientists would claim an embryo is "alive."  And the dictionary definition of embryo doesn't include the word "alive."

The problem is that "life" really isn't a switch that is turned on at a given point.  It's a process.

I know you're Sultan and all, so there's that, but actually, many scientists do claim that an embryo is a human  life.

https://www.epm.org/resources/2010/Mar/8/scientists-attest-life-beginning-conception/

https://www.liveaction.org/news/life-begins-at-conception-science-teaches/

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/pro-life-pro-science/549308/

It's true that one can find some scientists who claim otherwise, but there's oodles of scientists who claim an embryo is a human life from inception.

[forgetful]

I know you're Sultan and all, so there's that, but actually, many scientists do claim that an embryo is a human  life.

https://www.epm.org/resources/2010/Mar/8/scientists-attest-life-beginning-conception/

https://www.liveaction.org/news/life-begins-at-conception-science-teaches/

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/pro-life-pro-science/549308/

It's true that one can find some scientists who claim otherwise, but there's oodles of scientists who claim an embryo is a human life from inception.

I agree, you wouldn't be hard-pressed to find scientists to find plenty of scientists agree that an embryo is alive.

But most would also agree that we really don't have a firm definition of what life is, nor do we understand the concept of life. Instead, there decisions on a embryo being a human life largely stems from personal beliefs, often rooted in religion.

The fact of the matter is the concept of life and consciousness is beyond the scope of current science.

[muwarrior69]

That's a pretty bad analogy.
A woman is not a ventilator for a fetus. She's not a medical device. She does not exist solely to further the existence of another.

That's where this turns for me. If you outlaw abortion, you're telling every woman that her bodily autonomy is subservient to the health of another, and that subservience will be enforced through the power of the state.
I suspect we'd all be outraged if the government forced us to surrender our bodily autonomy to provide kidney, liver or bone marrow transplants to preserve the lives of others. Yet some don't blink at - and in fact wholly embrace - the idea of the government forcing women to surrender their autonomy for another.

Brother dgies ... what you wrote was thoughtful and eloquent. But we don't live in a theocracy, Your faith guides your moral compass and the way you live your life, and that's worthy of respect. Also worthy of respect is that not everyone shares your faith nor should they be required to live under its tenets.

OK, but ask anyone suffering from a parasitic infection if the parasite is not a living organism.

[forgetful]

OK, but ask anyone suffering from a parasitic infection if the parasite is not a living organism.

Actually, parasites are considered living organisms. Viruses, on the other hand, usually are not.

But again, the definitions are fluid.

[dgies9156]

Brother dgies ... what you wrote was thoughtful and eloquent. But we don't live in a theocracy, Your faith guides your moral compass and the way you live your life, and that's worthy of respect. Also worthy of respect is that not everyone shares your faith nor should they be required to live under its tenets.

Brother Pakuni:

First of all, my posts and my personal beliefs generally support your view of a theocracy. I actually lived in one, in Nashville from the 1960s through the time I left for Marquette. Before it became the hot growth spot of America, Nashville was the "Buckle on the Bible Belt." We Catholics were truly outsiders and we were treated that way by the local Baptists and Church of Christ, who sought to impose their will on the broader city. The Bible Belt culture of Nashville was one of the big reasons I never really wanted to go back for the rest of my life.

That said, all societies have as a core certain "Positive Moral Values" that govern how we live. Those values are not just ingrained in our religion, but in our American Society as well. Nondiscrimination is one example. Our theology teaches to "love your neighbor as yourself." Our Constitution says all of us are created equal. There's linkage between the two. If you question me, take a good hard look at the photos and videos of the Selma to Montgomery march. The people in the front of that march were religious leaders emphasizing the need for understanding of what is a positive moral value. Likewise, when Dr. King was supporting striking garbage workers in 1968, our Bishop, Joseph A. Durick, was out there with him. He was there afterward as well with Mrs. King and Rev. Abernathy.

Why was he there -- because our Bishop believed in the notion that all men are created equal before God and Government.

Our abortion debate centers on one thing -- a conflicting view of when legal personhood should be conveyed on a living being. It's a legitimate debate that encompasses positive moral values related to rights and responsibilities. To your point about a theocracy and as I said earlier, people who support government action against abortion clinics are asking government to do what the moral authority of this country has been unable to do -- use the scientific, cultural and theological values to which this country largely subscribes to teach in a way that reduces demand for abortion.

Gosh, am I sounding like Dr. Beach. I doubt he ever knew who I was, sitting in the back of the classroom and all, but he sure had an impact! I still hear him saying, "I'm dictating... it would behoove you to take notes..."

[muwarrior69]

Actually, parasites are considered living organisms. Viruses, on the other hand, usually are not.

But again, the definitions are fluid.

...and a fetus is not a virus.

[Lighthouse 84]

Gosh, am I sounding like Dr. Beach. I doubt he ever knew who I was, sitting in the back of the classroom and all, but he sure had an impact! I still hear him saying, "I'm dictating... it would behoove you to take notes..."

  I still hear him saying, "It says in the Wall Street Journal.....", as he peered out over the paper, seated in the front of the room....

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

P.S. -- before you get too hung up on voter suppression, read past the headlines and try to understand what's being legislated. In my new home state of Florida, the ugliness about our voting rules has rained down about as hard as a late afternoon tropical thunderstorm. Our voting rules in Florida under the new law are some of the most liberal in the United States. Far more so than, say, Pennsylvania, Delaware or a number of other eastern states. Keep in mind though that in our last election, both our governor and U.S. Senator won by less than 1 percent of the vote. The 2000 Presidential election hung on Florida and, given the hell our state has gone through over the years, we want to be sure we get it right.

Yes, we require IDs and no, we do not permit ballot harvesting. But if you want to vote early or, as in my case, vote by mail, it's easy. Even for people with physical ailments. Short of hiring election officials to walk a ballot to a person's door and filling it out for them (which should be as illegal as hell), we do a good job. And it will be better next time because we have a new election commissioner in Palm Beach County. If Broward County can get it's act together, we'll be a model for election administration nationally.

To your point, True Blue Connecticut has some of the strictest voting laws in the USA. 
We also interestingly have some of the highest voting percentages in the USA.

The main reason is that the laws are in the state constitution and there's a long process to open them up.
There is no early voting.
You need to show an ID (although I think a credit card or utility bill is sufficient).
You need a "legit excuse" to vote absentee.  Last year, per Governor emergency powers COVID was deemed a valid excuse so everyone got mailed a "Do you need an absentee ballot to remote vote because of COVID?" card that you had to return.

To change some of these laws, it needs to be voted by a majority for two separate state congresses and then it only goes to a referendum where it has to pass.  The state is trying to open up, but nothing will change until 2024 for some and 2026 for others.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

I know you're Sultan and all, so there's that, but actually, many scientists do claim that an embryo is a human  life.

https://www.epm.org/resources/2010/Mar/8/scientists-attest-life-beginning-conception/

https://www.liveaction.org/news/life-begins-at-conception-science-teaches/

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/pro-life-pro-science/549308/

It's true that one can find some scientists who claim otherwise, but there's oodles of scientists who claim an embryo is a human life from inception.

A lot of the quote you provided here don't say what you think they say.

[Lighthouse 84]

A lot of the quote you provided here don't say what you think they say.

Judging from just one of the quotes provided,

"It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception...."

It's safe to say you have no clue what I think they say.

[naginiF]

Brother Pakuni:

First of all, my posts and my personal beliefs generally support your view of a theocracy. I actually lived in one, in Nashville from the 1960s through the time I left for Marquette. Before it became the hot growth spot of America, Nashville was the "Buckle on the Bible Belt." We Catholics were truly outsiders and we were treated that way by the local Baptists and Church of Christ, who sought to impose their will on the broader city. The Bible Belt culture of Nashville was one of the big reasons I never really wanted to go back for the rest of my life.

That said, all societies have as a core certain "Positive Moral Values" that govern how we live. Those values are not just ingrained in our religion, but in our American Society as well. Nondiscrimination is one example. Our theology teaches to "love your neighbor as yourself." Our Constitution says all of us are created equal. There's linkage between the two. If you question me, take a good hard look at the photos and videos of the Selma to Montgomery march. The people in the front of that march were religious leaders emphasizing the need for understanding of what is a positive moral value. Likewise, when Dr. King was supporting striking garbage workers in 1968, our Bishop, Joseph A. Durick, was out there with him. He was there afterward as well with Mrs. King and Rev. Abernathy.

Why was he there -- because our Bishop believed in the notion that all men are created equal before God and Government.

Our abortion debate centers on one thing -- a conflicting view of when legal personhood should be conveyed on a living being. It's a legitimate debate that encompasses positive moral values related to rights and responsibilities. To your point about a theocracy and as I said earlier, people who support government action against abortion clinics are asking government to do what the moral authority of this country has been unable to do -- use the scientific, cultural and theological values to which this country largely subscribes to teach in a way that reduces demand for abortion.

Gosh, am I sounding like Dr. Beach. I doubt he ever knew who I was, sitting in the back of the classroom and all, but he sure had an impact! I still hear him saying, "I'm dictating... it would behoove you to take notes..."

Leaving the abortion argument out of it, I think it is extremely dangerous to tie morality with religious beliefs, specifically as it relates to US Government for two reasons: A) It does not give credit to the individuals - writers of the constitution, those who fight for amendments/civil liberties/equal rights may or may not be religious but they certainly are people of high moral character. and B) the people who oppose civil liberties and equal rights almost always do so because of their religious beliefs - the people on the other side of the bridge in Selma, or those that fight desegregation, or oppose LGBTQ+ rights (even here on Scoop) primarily do so because of their interpretation of their beliefs.

Equating faith and moral authority gives a tremendous amount of cover for people who use faith to support positions of hate and oppression.

We've said it before, there is very little difference in intent or action between a religious person who truly has faith and an atheist who is truly thoughtful. I don't care why a person is of strong moral character, there are many paths to being so and faith can certainly be one of those paths but faith can also be a path to standing on the other side of the bridge (or enacting laws limiting LGBTQ+ rights).

[forgetful]

...and a fetus is not a virus.

But living, really isn't the moral question. A human cell is living, we do all kinds of tests on human cells that result in death of the cell. No one is screaming pro-life when someone gets a blood test, or a Pap smear, or a biopsy, or even an amputation of a limb that was previously living and now dies when excised from the human body.

The real question is , when is something a "human life"? As I mentioned above, that is a question beyond the scope of current science. What makes something "life" and "conscious" right now is a philosophical and moral question.

[dgies9156]

Leaving the abortion argument out of it, I think it is extremely dangerous to tie morality with religious beliefs, specifically as it relates to US Government for two reasons: A) It does not give credit to the individuals - writers of the constitution, those who fight for amendments/civil liberties/equal rights may or may not be religious but they certainly are people of high moral character. and B) the people who oppose civil liberties and equal rights almost always do so because of their religious beliefs - the people on the other side of the bridge in Selma, or those that fight desegregation, or oppose LGBTQ+ rights (even here on Scoop) primarily do so because of their interpretation of their beliefs.

Equating faith and moral authority gives a tremendous amount of cover for people who use faith to support positions of hate and oppression.

We've said it before, there is very little difference in intent or action between a religious person who truly has faith and an atheist who is truly thoughtful. I don't care why a person is of strong moral character, there are many paths to being so and faith can certainly be one of those paths but faith can also be a path to standing on the other side of the bridge (or enacting laws limiting LGBTQ+ rights).

Brother NaginiF:

Interesting comments. You are right, the guys on the "other side" of the Edmund Pettus Bridge back in 1965 often used religious beliefs to justify their very sinful actions. People have invoked the name of God for eternity to justify everything from war to slavery to limiting the role of women and hatred of gays and lesbians. The first time I was in Europe, I was appalled by the amount of torture that was used to advance the cause of the Roman Catholic faith back in the middle ages.

My gosh, we're still feeling the fallout from the Crusades, which were a morally suspect series of wars fought over the right to control modern-day Israel and Palestine.

I'd also agree that the religious do not hold a monopoly on goodness. We see that every day. I used to argue this day in and day out with a good friend of mine who is a very devout Muslim.

Nonetheless, the values and beliefs that underlie our culture, laws and social expectations come from somewhere and in America, those core beliefs represent a very forward thinking view of the religious values our founders held, coupled with a really nasty dislike of the King of England. I'd also argue that as our views about such things as who our brothers and sisters are, how we should treat them and how we view ourselves in the context of a greater society, change, that change is in part driven by a better understanding of what our Judeo-Christian beliefs really teach.

For example, when I was in early grade school, we were taught the "thunder and lightening" version of God found in the Baltimore Catechism. It was such a rote process that even now, 59 years later, I can STILL recite the questions and answers in that catechism. God was, in effect, the big KPMG in the sky! Around the time I was in middle school, the catechism we learned was more "God the hippie love child" where our love for one another arising from adherence to the Great Commandment drove a better appreciation for civil rights, equality and appreciating our neighbor.

The point is that things evolve. Our religious views in this country mostly abhor slavery, segregation and abuse of women. We're evolving -- probably too slowly -- on gays and lesbians. Maybe in a generation if we don't evolve to the true teachings of Jesus, our churches will be nonexistent and our religious practices will be more like Europe. But even Europe, where participation in religious congregations is at all-time lows, there is no denying the link between society at large and the influence of Christian religions.

[Pakuni]

Leaving the abortion argument out of it, I think it is extremely dangerous to tie morality with religious beliefs, specifically as it relates to US Government for two reasons: A) It does not give credit to the individuals - writers of the constitution, those who fight for amendments/civil liberties/equal rights may or may not be religious but they certainly are people of high moral character. and B) the people who oppose civil liberties and equal rights almost always do so because of their religious beliefs - the people on the other side of the bridge in Selma, or those that fight desegregation, or oppose LGBTQ+ rights (even here on Scoop) primarily do so because of their interpretation of their beliefs.

Equating faith and moral authority gives a tremendous amount of cover for people who use faith to support positions of hate and oppression.

We've said it before, there is very little difference in intent or action between a religious person who truly has faith and an atheist who is truly thoughtful. I don't care why a person is of strong moral character, there are many paths to being so and faith can certainly be one of those paths but faith can also be a path to standing on the other side of the bridge (or enacting laws limiting LGBTQ+ rights).

Well said.
Faith drives people to do many wonderful things. But not all people who do wonderful things are people of faith.
Faith also drives people to do many terrible things. And, of course, not all people who do terrible things are people of faith.


Brother dgies,
I didn't mean to imply you are in favor of a theocracy. I was pointing out that the religious beliefs that inform your stance on abortion should not be the basis of our laws on abortion or anything else.

[naginiF]

Brother NaginiF:

.......

For years I used to debate the nature vs nurture element of human morality with a good friend of mine and it eventually devolved into him telling me "you're doing gods work" work every time I cleared the hurdle of being a decent person and me telling him "you're a good man" every time he did. In the end it doesn't matter whether the country was founded by people who used their faith as their guiding principle or if it was founded by people who were innately moral (for their era) and happened to be Christian......what matters is where we go from here and, as you stated, we continue to evolve in a positive manner.

Thank you for your perspective - the more people with your approach to faith the less problem I'd have with the role of religion in our society

[dgies9156]

You know guys, this is one of the more interesting discussions I've had on politics and morality. It's clear we all have strong, well-developed beliefs that, in many cases, conflict with each other.

We're able to air those beliefs intelligently and rationally.

I may not always agree with you folks, but I admire the thought that went into many of the discussions here and the respect shown toward each other.

Brothers NaginiF, MU82, MUFan, Lighthouse and Pakuni, I've truly enjoyed this back and forth.

[MU82]

The Justice Dept. sues Texas over its new restrictive abortion law

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/09/us/politics/texas-abortion-law-justice-department-lawsuit.html?campaign_id=60&emc=edit_na_20210909&instance_id=0&nl=breaking-news&ref=headline&regi_id=108420427&segment_id=68510&user_id=d36dcf821462fdd16ec3636710a855fa

The Justice Department sued Texas on Thursday over its recently enacted law that prohibits nearly all abortions in the state, the first significant step by the Biden administration to fight the nation’s most restrictive ban on abortion and a move that could once again put the statute before the Supreme Court.

The department argued that the law was unconstitutional because it allowed Texas to essentially prohibit abortion while technically complying with Supreme Court rulings that forbid such a ban by deputizing private parties to enforce the new restrictions.

Attorney General Merrick B. Garland called Texas’ enforcement mechanism “an unprecedented” effort whose “obvious and expressly acknowledged intention” was to prevent women from exercising their constitutionally protected right to have abortions.

“This kind of scheme to nullify the Constitution of the United States is one that all Americans — whatever their politics or party — should fear,” Mr. Garland said in a news conference at the Justice Department. “If it prevails, it may become a model for action in other areas, by other states, and with respect to other constitutional rights and judicial precedents.”

Yep. Those cheering this law might not be so happy with other laws that might be crafted to deputize vigilante citizens.