SCOTUS stops the election interference....cold!

Yes, I came across the concept many years ago as well but can’t recall the source to properly footnote it..

 

Thank you. You appear to have very thorough understanding of the human birth cycle and you communicate it clearly and concisely.

Please tell me if my understanding is correct. Once the fetal stage is reached, as long as it is on the upper end of the birth canal, it is still a fetus. Once it has passed through the birth canal and is outside of the mother, it is a baby. Killing a fetus (with the appropriate medical instruments of course) is a medical procedure. Intentionally killing a baby is murder. Is my understanding correct?

 

...

 

Please don't feed the bears? Worked for the park rangers, didn't it?

I mean again a little introspection on your part should yield some understanding about your behavior. Eh? Or is that just asking too much?

Calling out BS isn't trolling. Yes I'm a bit taken aback at personal attacks and whiny complaining about others posting their views. I don't take it personally, people who attack the messenger are a dime a dozen, but it's in bad taste and only casts doubts on the perpetrator's credibility.

 

It appeared as though they needed to win an argument. A cordial discussion of differing opinions did not seem to their liking. When the ad hominems didn’t work and the appeals to authority, with the lists of sources and citations, failed to have the desired effect, I think they may have decided take their marbles and go find another game.

So Tundra, what part of the world are you in?

 

Hehe looks like a good summary. I'm in rural America. You know, the segment of the country for which the freeloaders coined 'rural rage'. Cracks me up. We're not all the same in all manners of classic diversity, but there are not a lot of snowflakes. Mostly conservation learning or common sense as we see it. Law and order is a high priority. And you?

 

The distinction between the fetus above the birth canal and the baby below reminds me of transubstantiation. I could never quite wrap my head around that one either. The idea of killing either one seems quite distasteful to me. Your ability to find a distinction between the two, via a detailed classification of supposedly distinct developmental states, is an interesting perspective to witness. The experience of clearly understanding what you’re saying and not being able to comprehend the perspective is also interesting.

 

WTF?

That's as relevant a comparison as my saying I like oranges because lemons are yellow.
Financial wealth is in no way connected to intellect, knowledge or wisdom.

 

I was being sarcastic. But he does seem to think we're living in a matrix-style computer simulation.
What is the simulation hypothesis? Why some think life is a simulated reality

 

Yeah. To me, the entity is essentially the same on either side of the shoot. That's why I favor the old fashioned view that the critical question is whether or not it has a functioning brain and nervous system giving it rudimentary sentience and cognition.

Meagain's view, though, is close to the traditional Jewish position on the matter. According to the Talmud, the fetus becomes a nefesh when the head or "greater part" starts to emerge from the birth canal. The soul arrives when the first breath is taken at birth. Breath is important in Judaism, because God's breath brought Adam to life. Genesis 2:7 Maimonides and Caro add that if a limb is extruded and then retracted birth has occurred. Maimonides adds that anyone who kills a day-old child deliberately, must be put to death, but if the child is born before the normal nine-month gestation period, it is considered to be nephel (non-viable) until it survives for 30 days. Before that, anyone who kills it is not put to death, although a lesser penalty is warranted. The Hebrew Bible does not mention abortion, but it does say that if a woman is negligently battered causing a miscarriage, the penalty is fine instead of the punishment for manslaughter. Exodus 21:22-25 From this, rabbinic halakah deduces that the fetus in the womb has a lesser status than a born baby.
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-beginning-of-life-in-judaism/
When Does Life Begin? A Jewish View | Reclaiming Judaism
Abortion laws: Jewish faith teaches life does not start at conception

Interestingly, conservative Christians find support for the pro-life view in "proof texts" taken from the same Old Testament: Psalm 139:13 (You knit me together in my mother's womb). Psalm 51:5 ("in sin did my mother conceive me), Jeremiah 1:5 (Before I formed you in the womb I knew you) and Isaiah 44:24 (the Lord who made you, who formed you from the womb and will help you). None of these says what stage of pregnancy they're talking about. The Jeremiah passage indicates it was pre-pregnancy, possibly supporting the idea it occurred at the time of fertilization. But that's a stretch. God seems to be talking omniscience here. Christians might be interested in what Jesus and Paul had to say on the subject, which was --absolutely nothing. Isn't that strange, given the apparent importance of the matter? In the Middle Ages, Christians tended to embrace the Aristotelian view of delayed hominization: that human life began with ensoulment , which he thought occurred 40 days after conception for male embryos and 90 days after conception for female ones. Both St. Augustine and Saint Thomas Aquinas, the preeminent Christian theologians of their times, adopted this view. Saint Thomas accepted Aristotle's theory of three successive souls that animated the fetus: vegetable, animal, and human--corresponding to developmental stages. The language was quaint, and the gender distinction untenable, but I think they were on the right track.

 

Not anything. Only humans. Jeremy Bentham, utilitarian philosopher, extended his concerns to animals, and allowed mice free rein in his house to promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number. But current law and moral notions haven't caught up to that.

Yes, they do. In that sense, they are developmentally ahead of of a human blastocyst. But killing them isn't murder, as defined by law, cuz they aren't human. Humans are considered special.

 

I was only comparing it to transubstantiation in that, in one moment it is considered one thing and in the next it is something very different. I wasn’t trying to say that they are similar concepts.

I have also made no suggestion that religion or government should have any say in the matter. I have posed the question about whether the father should have any say since, should the child be born, he can be required to provide for it

 

Given people’s tendency to consider some or all people who are not part of their group as less than human, this last concept would seem to absolve them of murder so long as they have dehumanized the other.

 

Seems to me, the fact that the fetus is inside her body, connected to and dependent on her, and that she's the one expected to endure the pains of labor, her preferences on the matter should be given priority.

 

The gender distinction was the untenable part for you?

 

Unless she was raped she chose to engage in the one activity that she knew could result in pregnancy. The fetus should be the one to die in a game of sexual Russian roulette?

 

So her slightly longer obligation of 18 years and 9 months completely trumps his 18 year obligation? By that logic, shouldn’t ALL the decisions about the rearing of that child over the next 18 years be made exclusively by the mother?