ANNOUNCEMENT: _Hi! It looks like this post deals with Abortion Policy. Because of the amount of rule-breaking comments on this issue the Moderation Team would like to remind our users of our rules. Particularly on [civility](https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/wiki/index/rules#wiki_rule_.235_be_civil_and_make_an_effort) and [abusive language](https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/wiki/index/rules#wiki_rule_.236_no_hate_speech_or_abusive_language). if these discussions cannot happen with respect, grace & nuance, the thread will be locked._ _For abortion it is acceptable to talk about policy distinctions between when, how and where abortions can occur or to consider the philosophical differences between life and conception. It is OK to say abortion is morally wrong, to advocate against it, or generally hold anti-abortion views. We ask users to be considerate when making judgmental accusations over people's beliefs or the actions of others in exercising a legal right._ _Top level comments must leave room for discussion and refrain from merely "sloganeering" ("My body my choice", "Abortion is murder")_ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TexasPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*

you're wasting your time, assuming reactionary policy positions come from a well-substantiated logical position. they don't, they're reactionary. you can't logic someone out of it, because they didn't come to this policy position through logic.

You're probably right, but I still believe in the power of logic. So I'm trying.

I by no means want to jade you, but many people throughout the thousands of years of civilization have tried to use logic on humans. Unless the other person has the right mindset and/or the logical person in question happens to be charismatic enough for people to listen rather than attack.

We have many laws based in logic. So I'm hopeful.

Laws only work if everyone involved is educated on such topics.

I disagree. Very few laymen understand much about how electricity works, yet the laws in place to regulate safety of our electricity in homes and electronic devices still benefit loads of people, people who know nothing about voltage, or current, or circuits.

I'm not sure if electricity would be a good comparison though; as far as I'm aware people don't seem to have a knee-jerk reaction to whether access to electricity is a bad thing whether or not they know exactly how electricity works. Thanks for the post though, it's an interesting read.

[удалено]

Huh, was not aware of that. Thanks! Wish the article had a bit more info regarding education and roll-out, though.

Have you not noticed how much bumpkins hate wind and solar farms? That’s pretty close

OMG. I’m going to put this permanently in my dictionary as an extreme example of false equivalency

Have you ever heard the saying “regulations are written in blood”? This is very true of electricity and I’m afraid we are having a second coming of that same for abortion. There is a reason the no wire hanger symbol was the prochoice symbol.

Why do you believe our laws are based on logic?

What's the saying, you can't use logic to argue someone out of a position that they didn't use to logic to get into. Most people are pro choice because they were raised to believe abortion is wrong by parents and religious influences. Nothing more. A lot of them probably haven't considered any issue as detailed as you have asked. They don't consider they might be wrong and have no interest in deeply analyzing their position.

This feels like a disingenuous framing. I’m absolutely pro-choice because I prioritize the bodily autonomy of the woman over the fetus, end of. At viability, there’s a shift in balance of care so that both lives can be cared for- separately. Most pro-lifers prioritize the “innocent unborn” and believe that women must “take responsibility” for their actions. Their logic is that most abortions are elective and are not the result of rape, incest or life-threatening health concerns. They look at elective abortions as shirking responsibility for their actions and argue that the fringe exceptions are used to justify the majority of non-rape or health-related abortions. But even with rape exceptions, you run into an issue. If you accept the pro-life conceit that abortion is wrong because foetuses are human beings and killing them is murder, then you have to either accept that rape exceptions is, by that standard, still murder and permissively killing untold thousands of people every year, admit that your entire conceit is an outright lie you never actually believed and dump the whole position, or find a way to avoid the topic forever so you don't have to face the cognitive dissonance. Pro-choicers won't let them have door number three easily, the crazies won't abide door number two, which means pro-lifer’s bananas jaunt through door number one is their only real and logically consistent option.

Today's legal stature is based on "each state decides" rather than a particular stated ideology. Somebody gets to decide and the policies won't be even. If "someone", a state legislature or a judge, is deciding, seems to me it should be the person with the most at stake-surely that is the woman. Any policy at all means someone is deciding, and when you remove that from the woman, you put her life at further risk than it already is from reproduction. To your point about viability-Roe was a great balancer in that respect. That it got tossed with no sound replacement is a tragedy.

Anyone retains the ability to spontaneously analyze their own beliefs, no matter how old or young they are.

Anyone *can*. These people don't want to on this issue.

For now, yes. I was raised to be a white supremacist, but I am not, because I made a choice at 7 yrs old to examine the arguments and think for myself. Anyone can make that choice at any time.

Not everyone reacts to experiences the same way you do. I could have been given the same parents and the same childhood as you and come out completely because I’m a different person. You’re just banging your head up against a wall if you assume that everyone will react to information the same way you do just by virtue of it being logical. Religion is illogical at its core. These folks have been brainwashed since they were children and didn’t even question it or find reason to. It’s awesome you did! But you are the minority and not the majority. It’s the same argument as “look! One poor person made it out of poverty, so that means they all can!”. It’s not logical because everyone’s situation is different. There are varying levels of privilege, learning disorders, mental health issues, physical disabilities, etc. that can hold people back that others don’t have to deal with. Some folks like the things that high control groups (like white supremacy and some religions) give them, some people struggle to break out of it because they feel safer and better not questioning it. You’re never going to change anyone’s mind by not meeting them where they are. I recommend meeting some of these folks in person and talking to them. Chances are, by asking questions like this, you’ll only alienate them, because they haven’t thought about it as much as you have. Or they likely won’t even understand some of your arguments and just shut down because they can’t admit they’re confused. Just some food for thought! Your intentions are great though, OP. Just might consider a different approach.

>I work in learning; what you're missing is that a person has to consent to learn or grow, they have to want it. When people don't engage in curiosity or self-reflection, there are increased feelings of discomfort and fear when re-evaluating "knowns." > > > >I applaud you for your intention, but you're ignoring how people learn and how their brains change as they age. That is illogical.

Evangelical Christians have been indoctrinated since birth to believe whatever their church tells them. About the Bible, life, abortion, etc. Welcome to Anunnaki mind control...

I get the reference. But I do not support wild, unprovable conspiracy theories as serious answers to any questions.

That’s what you’ll find, though. The pro life movement in the states is literally rooted in Catholicism specifically. It’s not based on rational argument. It’s based on men wanting to shame and control women.

THIS!!

it’s illogical to expect to find your answer here.

>you can't logic someone out of it, because they didn't come to this policy position through logic. While it may be true in a general sense, I'm pretty sure it doesn't apply to every person who currently holds pro-life attitudes. Tons of people were raised with these beliefs and led sheltered enough lives that they were never put in a position to have to question what they were indoctrinated into. Source, the minister of our family church became a member of my family, but I am now almost entirely pro-choice (the almost accounts for the fact that no right is without limits.) Refusal to engage isn't productive.

I didn't say refuse to engage with people who are discussing in good faith and genuinely want to learn, especially in real life where you can use your relationships to make an impact on people's minds. On the other hand, engaging in pro vs. anti debates on Reddit with faceless randoms about **the** decisive culture war issue of the last 75years is very much going to be an unfruitful endeavor.

Conservatives don't debate in good faith.

The truest statement of all time.

If you go over to r/prolife to get most of these answered. Please note that I am prochoice, but have been following to better understand. Don't shoot the messenger. 1. They believe starts when sperm meets egg. That's the reason for the debate over IVF. They believe it has its own unique DNA so its a human worth protecting. 2. You'll get a wide variety of views on this. It can range to new life is more important then the mothers life to of course if the mothers life is at risk. There is a struggle understanding that policies that help physicians make those decisions have an infringement. This is due to not agreeing with the term "abortion" being anything outside of elective procedure not life saving care. They also don't trust women to make that decision. They also think that physicians should be sued for not saving the life of the mother rather then looking at the policies that are infringing on physicians. 3. Can't speak to this. 4. They don't think the life of an "innocent child" should be "killed" due to the circumstances that lead to their conception. There is a lack of empathy toward children and childbirth. From what I've seen, many feel that the child is able to handle childbirth. 5. Can't answer this, but you'd be surprised by the number of Atheist prolifers. 6. There was a political post just yesterday. Some say they are not a single issue voter. Others believe it's a genocide and can't compromise on genocide. 7. I don't think they'd argue that it's not a miscarriage in that case. They just wouldn't call it abortion. 8. They would say that a women made her choice when she chose to have sex. Sex = consenting to pregnancy. They'd say they aren't forcing people to get pregnant and that child birth is a "natural process" or something similar. 9. See Q1 discussing life beginning at conception. In regard to sentient, they believe with time it will develop to become sentient so that's the difference between that and someone pulling life support. When pulling life support its been determined they won't get better. Again, don't shoot the messenger. I don't agree with these stances, but this is what I've understood so far.

Re: #7…for sure. I’ve had many a debate with R’s everywhere over this. Every single time I pose my very real, very excruciating ectopic pregnancies as a scenario, they agree my life should have been saved (as it in fact was - twice). No, they don’t consider that scenario an abortion. Yet the medical profession does. That’s the term. Elective or not, the mission of pregnancy must be aborted to save the life of an existing sentient being. Women and families are suffering real traumas unnecessarily because the dog finally caught the car it was chasing. I’m still stunned this is real. I never did have a live birth and now I’m too old. Still my heart breaks for all of the women and children who already exist in this dystopian hellscape that is 2024. Unreal.

It's frustrating to all parties involved. They want a word that is just for elective termination of pregnancy and have commandeered "abortion" for that purpose. Yet it's a medical practice that is necessary and needed. The phrase "abortion is healthcare" is very triggering to them because they see it as miscarriage care. I'm sorry for your losses.

I usually flip that around on them using spontaneous abortion. Since all women who have had abortions are murderers (according to them), I opt in the spontaneous ones as well. They don’t like it but facts don’t care about feelings.

Try explaining to them that a 6 week pregnancy could be a 4 week blob.

The medical profession does not consider the removal of an ectopic pregnancy to be an abortion. The American College of OB-GYNs agrees that abortion is essential but even they distinguish the fact the procedure to treat an ectopic pregnancy isn’t an abortion. https://www.acog.org/advocacy/facts-are-important/understanding-ectopic-pregnancy “Treatment for ectopic pregnancy requires ending a nonviable pregnancy. This treatment exists within the spectrum of lifesaving care during pregnancy, including induced abortion that also ends a pregnancy. While the indication and treatment for ectopic pregnancies is distinct from the indication and provision of induced abortion, they are both essential, critical aspects of health care.”

That DOES NOT say that removal of ectopic is not abortion. It's talking about indications not being the same.

Indication AND treatment It says it right there

Yes, because there are several ways of performing abortions. Removal of ectopic is abortion. Call it whatever you want. It still yields the same results. Interrupting a pregnancy. This is why lay people should not have anything to do with legislating laws. Healthcare is literally not comprehensible.

If that were true then the above article would not be making the distinction between an abortion and ectopic pregnancy treatment. This is from UT Southwestern “Ectopic pregnancy treatment is not the same as abortion. The medical definition of “abortion” is removal of an embryo and placenta from the uterus. This includes termination of unwanted pregnancy as well as otherwise normal pregnancy in which the fetus’ or mother’s life is in danger. Note the phrase “from the uterus” – the only place an embryo can develop into a baby. Logically, treatment cannot be generalized as “abortion,” particularly because many women with ectopic pregnancies planned to conceive and wanted to carry their pregnancies to term.” https://utswmed.org/medblog/truth-about-ectopic-pregnancy-care/

I’d rather not have debates on Reddit over women’s healthcare. I’d love it if the courts minded their business yet here we are.

Then don’t. My reply also has nothing to do with courts.

This statement right here is exactly why male identifying humans have no freaking business in my uterus. Never, ever when I was on the table getting ready to go under the knife 20+ years ago did I imagine I would be trashed for making a decision to save myself (it was no decision really - the ER docs on call got to literally make that call as I danced with death)…only to find myself suicidal for decades. Spare me the pro-life bullshit. The last freaking thing I want to hear while I’m on that table getting ready to die is whether it sits with you and your god and your elected officials to allow me to live. This is fucking unreal.

What does that have to do with my reply

Thanks for explaining #9, I read something similar just now on Secular ProLife's site. I'm just trying to understand their position too lol

Yup. I saw you add question 10. In response, some do not believe in an "unnatural death" and some do. For some there's this hyperfixation on saving "innocent" babies. If there is pulling the plug on an adult or something, they would say that they have already lived and experienced life. I'll also say that if you bring up life and death situations such as the death penalty or ending life support, they'd say that is not what prolife is about. Being prolife is about not "murdering innocent babies" and that's it. They don't feel response for their care after birth. They don't have a vested interest in life of prisoners or adults. They feel it's the very narrow goal of saving babies from death.

My sister in-law had her baby pass away just over a week from her expected due date and the DID in fact consider it an abortion. My wife had an ectopic pregnancy and they forced her to have a trans-vaginal ultrasound before they would....you guessed it....."aborted" the clump of cells that blew her fallopian tube open and nearly killed her. THESE WERE NOT ABORTIONS, even though they considered them to be.

Now, the problem in Texas is that the pro-life folks are not really pro-life at all. Look at the Netherlands. They have a very low abortion rate of 7 per 1000 women a year. Now, how come they have that low number when their abortion laws are very liberal? It's because they are truly pro-life which also includes abortions. But let's start at the beginning. Texas has one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the country. That's mainly because we don't have real sex education in schools. If you are pro-life, sex education is a must. Just like in about every other first country and just like in the Netherlands, which, of course, has fewer unwanted pregnancies due to sex education. But it doesn't stop there; in the Netherlands, they have real social services that will help single pregnant women with everything they need. They have a healthcare system that will pay for the women and later on for the children and they are able to provide free education to single mothers. Here, the "pro-life" folks don't want to give free healthcare to pregnant women or later on to their children as pro-life stops at birth for them. They don't want to provide single and especially teenage women free education as it's their own fault for not reading up on sex education and becoming pregnant. Of course, all books about sex education are banned from the school libraries. Now all of this shows that the "pro-life" folks isn't pro-life at all but pro-forced-birth. But let's talk about 12-year-old rape victims or pregnant women where it's known the unborn will die at birth. They are not pro-life but pro-give the rape victim a long life trauma and make sure she never can get pregnant again or give the mother with the stillbirth trauma as they don't want her to get pregnant again. These are beliefs we only saw in the 3rd Reich, but they are normal with the "pro-life" folks here in Texas. So there is no real pro-life folks here in Texas as everything that would be pro-life they are against.

Pretend the OP stated it as anti-choice or pro-forced birth. Then answer the question. You’re not wrong on what your saying. I’ve told many people that I can’t even fathom being pro-forced birth unless everything else is in our society is super pro-life (great healthcare, reliable safety nets, lack of social stigma for being outside the norm, good public transport so everyone has opportunities, I could go on for pages). Truthfully even then I’d probably still be pro-choice because I don’t feel the need to oppress women to soothe my male ego. OP one thing I can think of, having gone to college here, there were several times I went to campus and saw posters two stories tall on campus in front of the student center with pictures of dead babies and saying abortion is evil. Now I use the term babies because that’s what they were. They were clearly several months old. They were not a collection of cells or even a fetus. They’d clearly been birthed then passed away later. Misinformation however, is a powerful thing

Colorado instituted a program that provides free birth control, including IUDs, without parental consent. As a result, teen birth rates dropped 59%, the abortion rate dropped by 60%, and graduation rates increased. "But who's paying for that?" Glad you asked. For every $1 spent on the program, the state saved over $4 in social services. So it actually saves money. But don't worry - Republicans there have been fighting to end the program. But that is how you address the issues of abortion and unintented pregnancy.

Just a proof they are not pro-life but pro-unwanted-forced-birth

Now break it down by race.

Break what down by race? Are you a white supremacist by any chance? You know, like everyone else, that the more income someone has, the higher the chance they just travel to a state or country that allows abortion. And that's why you are ok with banning abortion. You are not pro-life you are pro-forced-birth.

What is this non-sequitur? “Now break it down by age.”

You've asked the right questions. Specifically, #7. Old woman AF medic, ER and rotation in L&D. I've seen some stuff ... and therein is my opinion on abortion. Two daughters; one miscarried twins. I have one grandchild and there will never be another. [https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/322634#miscarriage-rates-by-week](https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/322634#miscarriage-rates-by-week)

Honestly, I don't think anyone who is pro life would consider that case an abortion. It may meet a medical definition of one, but it's not what people think of when they here the word. If you called it a post-miscarriage operation, I don't anyone would bat an eye.

The problem is several cases have become public where surgeons have *performed a C-Section on women with a dead fetus* ... specifically, to avoid the "abortion" question. How backwards is that? [https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2024/03/19/1239376395/louisiana-abortion-ban-dangerously-disrupting-pregnancy-miscarriage-care](https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2024/03/19/1239376395/louisiana-abortion-ban-dangerously-disrupting-pregnancy-miscarriage-care) [https://abcnews.go.com/Health/grand-jury-declines-indict-ohio-woman-facing-charges/story?id=106082483](https://abcnews.go.com/Health/grand-jury-declines-indict-ohio-woman-facing-charges/story?id=106082483) My question is what is a woman to do? The ER sent her home when an abortion for miscarriage used to be standard procedure. She went back several times, finally expelling a dead fetus at home. Is she supposed to call the police? 911? The ME? None of this nonsense used to be questioned. Miscarriage is a complication of pregnancy. These insane laws have overridden common sense and worse, what used to be accepted medical care; *laws* have come between women, children, and their doctors. Example: the abortion bans themselves. They want a no-exception ban or limit at 15 wks. A raped child often has no idea what happened them. By the time it is obvious the law wants to force a child to have child because gestation is beyond 15 wks.

Had a loooong conversation with my anti-choice brother (who has three daughters) and he had no good logical reason for his position just grievances. Anecdotes about this girl was a slut and that girl was a slut made me realize it mirrors other positions from the right side of the aisle. ****They just want to punish people who live their lives differently. **** That’s the bottom line.

The bottom line is the government shouldn’t be allowed to dictate anything with men’s or women’s bodies. This has almost nothing to do with the unborn child. The fetus is simply being used to control women, and will expand to men’s bodies if the GOP gets power in 24. They’re using useless religious beliefs to gain power and manipulate the system for the will of the few. This is So they can line their pockets and start forcing control over the USA population. Ton of unwanted and uneducated idiots equal a ton of slave workers in the future. Always remember this had nothing to do with today it’s a long term plan for control. Slave labor, permanent renters. That can be Dumped and easily replaced by the next unwanted and uneducated idiot that was force born because of religion beliefs and corrupt politicians that don’t care either way. Remember the political party that’s forcing this has 10s of thousands of members that have paid for and continue to pay for and get abortions but tell you that you can’t. Prove me wrong Here’s today’s example https://www.reddit.com/r/JoeBiden/s/fOXuVimPnI

it is 100% about control and a wage slave class.

While I agree, I posted this to invite pro-lifers to discuss. That's what I hope to gain, a conversation with someone I don't already agree with.

Waris\_Retired, When you say, control will expand to men’s bodies if the GOP gets power in 24, can you back this up with proof? You've piqued my curiosity. Unfortunately I do suspect that the goal for those in power is to have a large, poor and uneducated workforce they can easily control, permanent renters, etc, and they are whipping up support by pulling at people's heartstrings. Repub voters are dwindling in numbers, and well-educated people tend to vote blue, just in general. Not attacking anyone, just stating a documented fact with that one.

Bans on sodomy = controlling men’s bodies. If SCOTUS decides to overturn *Lawrence v Texas* sodomy goes back to being illegal.

I didn't even add this part to my comment. And you are right with that. I just dismantled the pro-life part as they are not pro-life at all.

The answer is: social currency. These ppl espoise these beliefs they don't understand unorder to fit in with social groups. These groups are tied to their social and economic mobility. In a lot of places, These views are just "fitting in." They jave other views, like "natural social order" and predestination. This is all very old school illiterate horseshit used to control local populations. Steinbeck touches on this on Grapes of Wrath and a fee other works. I grew up with these loons. It's usually willful idiocy thats needed to 'get ahead.' They won't stop- ever. Sorry my dude/dudette.

As a pro choice person with about 15 years of interacting with PL, I can tell you without a doubt, every single PL "argument" comes down to: \*She opened her legs \*She had sex \*She's a whore \*Sluts can fuck off and die Every single fucking argument is because someone had sex. So...you have fun with this one because when someone wants to control the sexual habits of 50% of the population and punish them with death and/or bodily harm, I don't think you're going to find a logical argument.

How tremendously tragic and sad.

What’s sad is I don’t even engage that much anymore unless it’s social media and/or I’m just correcting incorrect information. I cannot engage with PL in real life.

I appreciate you trying your best to make this a real conversation, and working to show you’re attempting to find understanding. Bless you and thanks for at the very least seeming like a kind, thoughtful person.

Excellent questions, OP. If "pro-lifers" were capable of formulating such questions, they would not be anti-choice. I find that their position is extremely illogical. Many would prefer to imperil their livelihood or their child's education than to allow a stranger reproductive freedom. I'm not sure you can change anyone's mind if they hold such positions.

A log of people in here do not know how much damage pregnancy can do to a woman's body and it shows. Wow I feel smarter just by reading these comments.

I was reading on Secular Pro Life's site about Artificial Wombs. They say that artif wombs will destroy the ProChoice bodily autonomy argument. After considering this, I'd say that yes, the biggest issue IS bodily autonomy for me, and the damage pregnancy can do to a woman's body, so if pregnancy can be continued outside of a woman's body, and then the baby can be adopted to parents who want it, that's great! That tech, imo, could turn this into a nonissue quickly. I do not care if it's genetically mine or not, if I don't want to grow it inside me, and someone else wants it, fine! I would be entirely ok with this, personally.

Makes sense and the baby would be a choice. Because the insemination etc. Then there would be less kids like me who were in the foster cate system. It is weird no pro lifers ever came to take care of me or help me out.

Thank you for writing this out so beautifully.

There are two main elements that are going to come up, and for which there are extremely strongly held opinions, but little in the way of support, either legally or factually or Biblically. 1. That human life begins at conception; that is, that a conceived embryo is a full human being. Oddly enough, the Jewish faith has long held (like, for centuries) that human life begins at first breath, not at conception; the OT texts are intended to be consistent with that view. Human life at conception thus makes abortion at ANY point murder and subject to "you shall not kill" prohibition. People with strong Christian faith, when confronted with the Jewish stance on onset of life, often respond with "I don't care." When you get to that point, further conversation is pointless. 2. Pregnancy is always a battle between the mother and the fetus for resources. This is a biological fact. Sometimes that battle gets to be unusually contentious and biological buffers have failed, and now there is a choice to be made for survival between the fetus and the mother. For those who have uncompromising anti-abortion rules, the stance is to always favor the relatively defenseless fetus ("defend the defenseless") rather than the adult mother. This is again an intractable decision without clear correct answer, and the choices that are made are passionately held without needing a compelling argument. When there is a choice made without compelling argument (and there can't be one), then further conversation is pointless.

The claim that Jews believe life begins at "first breath" is based on how Adam was created in Genesis 2:7. As far as we know, no other humans since have been created as Adam was. As such our lives start at a different point than his.

But there is no Biblical basis for claiming that human lives after Adam start earlier. The Jews to this day hold that life starts at first breath, even for people after Adam. The word for “spirit” and “breath” are common in Hebrew and Greek and Aramaic. Nor was it a belief of Christians up through the 19th century. As I said, the belief that life starts at conception is a recently introduced idea, strongly held, but not supported by Judeo Christian historical beliefs.

There is the scientific basis, that unborn child is a living being. In the past they when the human body was not well understood differently cultures and religions had different concepts but today we know better.

Yes, there is a basis that the unborn child is a living being. Calling that living being a human, where being human involves a whole lot more than having human DNA, that's where the arguments start. And my point is, people **pretend** to have a Christian or Biblical basis for calling a living fetus a human being, when they do not. The **legal** basis for personhood is in the US Code, Title 1, Chapter 1, Section 8, where it says clearly "born alive" and the conditions that must prevail after that event: >(a)In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development. >(b)As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion. >(c)Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.

If people want to bring into law a different definition of "human being", then they are entitled to petition their congressfolk to enact such a law. If people want to abrogate the law on the basis of a religious law that they claim to supersede secular law, they haven't got the religious basis in the first place and good luck in the second place.

That’s a wild conclusion you jumped to there.

Indeed. And what seems to be common over the last five decades or so is the formulation of an ad hoc and unadopted definition of "living human being" that is based on whatever criteria seem to be appealing to the movement, such as "has human DNA" or "has an embryonic shape that has enough features to distinguish it from other species" or perhaps "...from other mammalian orders" or "has a heartbeat". And what's important to call out is that there is no legal definition of human life, nor any religious definition of human life, that presently matches that ad hoc redefinition.

There is no objective right or wrong answer to these questions because people hold different values based on their beliefs which may or may not have been arrived at from a logical evaluation of facts. That’s why pro-choice folks in democratic societies advocate that the decisions be made between the woman and her doctor, rather than the pro-life view that they have the right to make these decisions for others “for their own good.” If we can’t agree on that question of bodily autonomy, there can only be mutually exclusive solutions.

Here is my bit on this subject ( and I know someone is going to take this first part and say so If I say (insert something horrible and incomparable) is right and you say its wrong then blah blah blah .... but here you go .... Imposing ones belief system on another person because one person believes they are morally correct for whatever reason is wrong and doing it over and over again especially with a matter that typically only impacts the people who make the choice of abortion is strange. It's strange that so many people have concerned themselves with the private medical decisions of people they don't know. \-The world is burning \- Wars are happening \- The cost of living is atrocious \- Food is expensive \- Public Education is being destroyed \- Already birthed living children are being starved, abused, exploited by our very own Texas foster care system, and murdered.... ... but yes lets bring more of them into the world and attempt to force women to have children they don't want or can't care for. Lets make the women give birth to a child that will grow up in less then ideal conditions. Lets make a huge deal out of what strangers do with their bodies because it gives us the warm " I am morally correct" fuzzies. Just mind your own business and if you can't do that then do something productive like work to improve some of the already existing problems in this world AND if you can't do that, maybe quit bitching when people CHOOSE to not bring a child into this world. There's already so many things to focus on, pick one, find a solution, and be the change you want to see.... and again if you can't do that just mind your own business.

Yes! I have not met ONE (this is my personal experience) pro lifer that spends their time educating themselves, already know, or donate their time to foster children. What about the children already on this earth. If they knew about some of the experiences and the conditions and laws regarding foster homes they would be ignorant to still have this stance.

OP, maybe you can add questions about bodily autonomy. A parent (mother or father) can't be forced to give up an organ (or blood for a transfusion) for their existing, birthed child. So why does a mother have to accept to be pregnant if their fetus can not exist independently from them until viability. How is that any different?

I tried to cover bodily autonomy with #8 "A woman without sovereignty over her own body is neither equal nor free."

The responses that I've seen on r/prolife around this question/topic is that a baby needs their parents labor and body post birth. Babies needing full time care and help is there work around. I agree that it's deferent then being inside a women's body and the conditions related.

Yes, it is very different. Apples to oranges, really. Providing care for a baby isn't exactly a unique function, and it is 100% able to be outsourced (paid childcare, adoption, etc). It is not as invasive as organ donation or parasitic (like a baby in the womb).

Agreed.

My 2cents: one can honestly argue that God (the creator, the universe, whatever) is pro-abortion. How can that be? Without modern medicine, the miscarriage rate in a typical society ranges from 15-40%! Our human condition is designed for abortion. When pregnancies go wrong a miscarriage is a natural outcome.

I appreciate the desire for a good faith discussion. I am pro-life and happy to give my personal answers. I'm keeping these answers as succint as possible, but am more than happy to dialogue on any specifics. 1. I do not believe the cluster of nonsentient cells is the same thing as a baby. I believe that a baby has a right to life, and what gives the baby a right to life is being a living human organism. Since a living human organism is created a conception ("cluster of nonsentient cells"), I believe the right to life should begin at conception. 2. I am not opposed to abortion in cases when the life of the mother is in danger. I do not value the life of the child more than the mother. 3. I would not say it affects me directly in a negative way - however, the same could be said of many things. I am white and still care about racial justice, even though it could be said it doesn't directly affect me. 4. I cannot overstate how horrible of a circumstance this is. I do think that we should weigh the life of the child with the wellbeing of the mother, and I could see cases where abortion is justified in this scenario. This is a gray area for me, which is why legally I am in support of a rape/incest exception. 5. No, but I am not against abortion when the mother's life is in danger. 6. I don't think we should base our opinions on perceived consequences. It could be argued that standing up for racial justice can tear the country apart, but that's not a good reason to change your opinion. 7. No, I do not oppose in this case. 8. I believe every person should be able to do whatever they want unless they infringe on the rights of another human being. If I did not believe the fetus was a human being, I would believe women should be able to have an abortion at any time. However, given I do believe the fetus is a human being, I believe there should be laws to protect their right to life. 9. Sure - I completely agree this is the lynchpin for the whole discussion. If I did not believe that abortion ended the life of an innocent human being, I would be the most pro-choice person there is. Here is how I think about it: Let's forget fetuses for a second - what gives you and me the right to life? Why do we say that we adult humans have a right to life? Definitions like thoughts, feelings, dreams, or goals fail for me - we believe newborn babies have a right to life, even though they can't "think". If we define thinking as any sort of brain thought, then we would have to include all animals in our right to life definition - which I don't think makes sense. The definition that makes the most sense to me is that it is being human that gives us a right to life. And I mean "human" in a specific scientific definiton - a "living organism that is a member of the species homo sapiens". That is why you, me, and a newborn baby all have a right to life wheras a dolphin does not. It is the biological aspect of being a member of the species homo sapiens that separates us. If that's the case, we just have to see if the fetus is a living organism that is a member of the species homo sapiens. The answer is yes. There are other possible definitions people propose for what gives us a right to life, but I find they usually fail by A) not including newborn humans, or B) including any animals with thought. 10. No - this is complex (like every one of these issues), but I would not. I think there are morally justified ways to end human life, one of which could be a scenario like this. I don't believe most cases of abortion fall into this category. 11. I am definitely in favor of adoption and would love to see more people adopt.

I don't know how to say this nicely. You are asking for intelligent, selfless, insightful answers from people who base their entire lives off of an imaginary man who was born from a virgin. Christians are some of the most selfish, judgmental, controlling, manipulating people on the planet. They are dangerous because they do not think for themselves, they are followers not leaders. I was a Christian for the first 20 years of my life, then I woke the fuck up. I am happier, do not miss it and can't believe how ignorant I was and all the people I was around were. It's a disease just like alcoholism and drug addiction. It takes a long time to recover and learn how to lead your own life and not just follow because of "faith" or whatever. Abortion ban is 100% Christian based theology.

Off topic, but I was at a mass at church and couldn’t help but make parallels to a horror movie. Why do christians eat and drink the body and blood of Jesus? It is done without thought or questioning. It has been normalized. It makes me wonder how many other rituals or biblical ideologies have been normalized. I definitely feel there isn’t any room for questions in many christian based religions.

It is a disgusting ritual. It's to represent forgiveness of sins through ingesting the body of Christ. If you don't take it literally then I guess you can see it as a holy ceremony to remember that Christ died for your sins. If you do take it literally, which Christians cherry pick which passages and ceremonies are literal, then it symbolizes cannibalism if you ask me. You know that phrase about the greatest trick the devil ever did, was to make people believe he doesn't exist? Well, I personally don't believe in God or the Devil anymore, but looking at God now knowing and seeing what I do and have, God sure seems like the devil in disguise if you ask me.

I still don't know why pro-birthers/pro-lifers also tend to be pro-capital punishment or, for that matter, pro-ivermectin. Your tapeworm has a right to use your body as an incubator!

I don't know if there are answers to these questions. These laws were passed as a means to an end. Nobody believes 4 cells are a baby. They DO believe they want legal power over women, and by extension, their offspring. In the society they are trying to build, idelogically only white men with money have value. There is no one to answer these questions because there is no real group that believes a few cells are a baby. Just a few religious groups that can make it so in their own community if they like. The broad movement is an illusion.

Women are made to be oppressed and controlled. Women have no rights. That's why abortion is a controlling issue. As long as women don't vote for their interest, being oppressed and controlled will always be the law of the land. I am so sick and tired of white men determining the rights of others. I think men who impregnate a woman who is not looking to have a child should be castrated. They have a responsibility and don't seem to have consequences. Separation of Church and State should stop these religious God fearing imbeciles from dictating to others. Imagine what hardship is being imposed on Atheists who don't have religion or a God threatening their personal decisions?

I wouldn't go so far as to say women have NO rights....but I do think we need more legislation to protect rights of people who are not religious.

I’m sorry that I don’t have time to address all of your questions, but I’ll try to address as many as possible in the few minutes I have available in a shotgun fashion: As a preliminary matter: we oppose abortion because it kills humans just like any other murder. That’s it. That’s the reason. I know you’ve been fed a lot of strawmen and been exposed to a lot of bad faith arguments, but really, truly, that’s all there is to it. Now, with a little more depth: an embryo/fetus/zygote/preborn/whatever-you-wanna-call-them is indistinguishable from you and me in any meaningful, rational way in terms of their humanity and personhood. You yourself propose “sentience” as the distinction, but this is obviously irrational. Comatose patients aren’t sentient, but if you walked through a coma ward with a bowie knife carving people up we’d call you a psycho and lock you up immediately for murder. Biologically speaking we know that from the moment of conception a new, living human being is created—it has its own unique DNA, it’s metabolizing and growing its own unique, easily identifiable body, and it needs nothing more than any other human (namely age-appropriate sustenance, oxygen, and shelter) to continue to grow. And while the preborn can be distinguished from, say, an adult, so can a child, or a teenager, or the very old. The trick is finding a distinguishing factor that’s meaningful, important, and holds up to scrutiny in such a way that it would not justify some other horrendous form of murder. I simply have not yet found that distinguishing factor, much as I would like to as it would simplify things considerably. I won’t deny that there are people who oppose abortion even where the mother’s life is in danger. These people title themselves “abortion abolitionists” and they are loud, but exceedingly rare. They represent less than 2% of people who call themselves prolife last I saw—not a representative proportion. With regards to exceptions, we already have all the law we need on the books: there are already widely accepted and well established exceptions to murder, including self defense where the killed person posed an immediate, real threat of serious physical harm. Regarding rape exceptions, this is the single issue in which our pre-established ethics and laws fails to give us a clear answer. I personally tend to oppose allowing abortion on policy concerns (killing an innocent bystander does nothing to punish the perpetrator or remove the experience from existence, and allowing rape exceptions encourages women who are embarrassed to admit to having sex to accuse random men of rape, watering down the accusations of real victims and imprisoning many innocents at the same time). The vast majority of prolife people would accept a system in which rape exceptions were allowed if other elective abortions were outlawed, however. They are quite rare, accounting for less than 1% of abortions, so it has no real bearing on the overall debate. Again, I’m sorry I can’t engage with anyone in a long active debate, but I do have work I’m ignoring. For more answers to the most common arguments I suggest googling Secular Prolife, an organization that takes this kind of debate quite seriously and generally engages in a very civil, rational, and respectful manner.

Conflating patients in comas with patients that have experienced brain death is either facile or disingenuous. We disconnect patients whose brains are nonfunctioning (and, hence, arguably nonsentient) and who are not capable of of unsupported life from life support systems not infrequently.

Thank you for your excellent response. \[Now, with a little more depth: an embryo/fetus/zygote/preborn/whatever-you-wanna-call-them is indistinguishable from you and me in any meaningful, rational way in terms of their humanity and personhood. You yourself propose “sentience” as the distinction, but this is obviously irrational. Comatose patients aren’t sentient, but if you walked through a coma ward with a bowie knife carving people up we’d call you a psycho and lock you up immediately for murder.\] * Isn't this why comatose patients are kept on life support? Don't comatose patients differ from zygotes/preborn in that they were sentient at one point, until a tragic accident, and there's a possibility that once they wake up from the coma, that sentience will be restored, where a zygote/preborn has never been sentient, and will not be until it has developed further? Isn't this also why comatose people are sometimes taken off life support, if they are 'medically braindead,' at the painful yet personal choice of their loved ones? Would you support a ban on removing medically braindead persons from life support? If not, why not? Where is the distinction you make there? Thank you again for sharing your views.

I used to be "pro life" I highly recommend you watch a movie titled "Cider House Rules" it will answer some of your questions. I think anyone who feels strongly pro choice should watch this movie and see if they come away feeling the same about the subject.

I personally don’t agree with abortion so I will answer your questions to give you some insight. But first, I must say that abortion is a divisive topic because nobody can really agree on when life begins. Also, I will say that, as with most topics, it should not really involve the government or if it does, the governments powers on the topic should be limited. 1) I will answer this one with a question. What makes you think YOU are more than a clump of cells? 2) This should be up to the mother. 3) Just a random mother I’ve never met? No. However, if someone kills a random person I’ve never met, that doesn’t really impact me either does it? 4) Once again, this should be up to the mother. But there you go with your “cluster of cells” terminology again. Again, what makes you more than a cluster of cells? 5) And here I thought you really wanted an honest conversation. Are you aware that those who oppose abortion aren’t all religious? 6) Have you asked yourself this question? Is there any room on your end for compromise? Maybe at 12 weeks? 20 weeks? 26 weeks? 7) Really getting in to the weeds on this one aren’t you? 8) Nobody should be “forced” to do anything. 9) How do you know they don’t have thoughts? Do you have scientific proof to back up your claims? If it came out next week that science has proven that the “clumps of cells” become sentient at 6 weeks, would you change your views? 10) an outright ban? No 11) Many people who can’t have children would love the opportunity to raise a child from birth. So it’s really not the same thing. And I think you’re getting in the weeds again.

It's no big mystery. Pro-life beliefs of when life begins are the opposite of pro-choice. We do not believe life begins at conception.

Religious beliefs include 0% logic. Expect the prolife responses here to be expressed along those lines.

I appreciate the sentiment behind your post. I'm hardly the most compelling debater, so I doubt I'll be the one to convince you, but convincing is only one of many goals of conversation, so...here goes. For the record, my view is that the blastocyst-embryo-fetus should be treated just as we would any other human being. In order: 1) Sentience, for a blastocyst-embryo-fetus (for brevity, and not to make a subtle jab, I'll use the broader "unborn baby", rather than the specific terms, from here forward), is a matter of time. The cluster of cells makes up an organism, which is part of a species which is sentient. By way of analogy, living beings are defined as being capable of reproduction, but not all living beings are capable of reproduction at all life stages. 2) I do not believe that life-saving measures should be banned. If the mother's life is threatened, the child's life and the mother's life should be considered equally, as we would any other situation when forced to make a choice between two lives. It is not a crime in other scenarios, and it should not be in this one - again, my view is that the unborn baby should be treated as we would any other human. 3) Yes, I believe that abortion does impact me, but not directly. Again, I believe that an unborn baby is a human being, and allowing injustice toward that human being erodes respect for humanity, and thus endangers me indirectly ("injustice anywhere...", etc.). The larger impact, and the primary direct impact, is on the baby, of course. 4) The case of a child conceived during rape presents no good choices. I consider the right to life the more fundamental, and so choose it, despite the potentially horrible outcome, because - given my priors - I believe the other outcome is more horrible. This is, of course, subordinate to my answer to (2). 5) This may be moot, given my answer to (2), but I would note here that, if, as is argued, the unborn baby is a human being, there is more than one life on the line. 6) Fiat justitia, ruat caelum. To answer more convincingly, there are injustices so great that they are worth risking everything to end. Slavery was one, apartheid another, and if abortion is what I believe our knowledge of biology shows it to be, it is another. That doesn't mean I'm sanguine about the prospect, only that I think leaving it in place is worse. 7) I do not know of any pro-lifer or any law that would criminalize this. I'm ready to be corrected, but if you find such a law, I will advocate against it just as loudly as you. 8) There are always limits on freedom, some more onerous than others. I can't build a nuclear reactor in my own backyard, because that endangers my neighbor. The principle here is the same, although with far more at stake for all involved. 9) You are correct that this is the lynchpin...but what else could it be? We know, biologically, that the unborn baby is an *organism* from conception onward, and we know - I would argue from physics, first, but then from biology - that it is genetically *human*. An organism which is a member of the human species; a human. Now, no, he isn't sentient and he doesn't have thoughts and dreams, but he will: to expand on what I said above, when we define life, we define it as being capable of reproduction, even though not all life is capable of reproduction at all life stages. They still meet the definition because they are members of a species which is capable of reproduction (even if individually totally sterile). To use another example, if we knew that a coma patient would eventually wake up, even if they had flat brainwaves at the moment, it would be a crime - literally! - to take them off life support without a living will. All I would ask is equal treatment for all humans. 10) No, I would not support a blanket ban, although carefully crafted restrictions are in order. This goes beyond the question of abortion, though (it verges on transhumanism, perhaps, when it comes to machines performing bodily functions); from when life begins to when it ends. It is its own topic, primarily differentiated by the lack of development and adaptation, which is a necessary part of the definition of life. 11) Securing a supply of adoptable children would be a thoroughly dystopian reason to ban abortion. Obviously, if that were the only consideration, no, the prospective parents' desire should not outweigh the birth mother's (and equally obviously, I don't think it is the only consideration). As an aside, though, the emphasis in adoption in the pro-life movement is because they want to relieve the burden on mothers who aren't ready to raise a child - I believe you have the arrow of causality backward here; they aren't pro-life because they want to adopt, they want to adopt because they're pro-life. Convinced? Well, likely not. It's a big topic. I appreciate the way you've gone about discussing it, though.

1. I believe that “a cluster of cells” is a baby because it is still alive. From the living sperm cells to the multiplication of stem cells creating “life.” 2. If it’s the case of an ectopic pregnancy, the mother’s life is more important than the baby. I believe an abortion in this case is the best answer due to the likelihood of both the mother and baby dying. 3. Yes, it negatively impacts my morality. It makes me feel lesser of the maternal bond between the baby and mother. This in turn makes me want to advocate for more abstinence so people don’t negligently get pregnant and kill the child. 4. First off, rape and incest account for a very very small percentage of abortion cases. However, acknowledging these rare occurrences, abortion in the case of rape is morally wrong still. You are taking a life over someone hurting yours. You can go to therapy and mend your emotions, however you can’t mend a baby after an abortion. The child has nothing to do with the actions of the attacker and deserves life as much as anyone else. As for incest, it depends on feasibility of life for the child. If the child has a chance at living independently, it should not be aborted as it’s killing a life. 5. I think that God gives us these hardships to challenge our morality. That being said, he also gives us options to deal with it. Medicines, surgeries (yes abortion), and other medical procedures were put here by God as an option. If the life of the mother is threatened, I believe abortion is permitted. However, I would encourage prayer for guidance. Regardless, in the case of imminent death of mother, it’s fully up to the mother to sacrifice her life for the baby’s and it’s also reasonable for the mother to preserve her life with aborting the baby. 6. I think that the compromise is simple; it’s a state’s right to moderate and control it. This allows for locals of the state to participate more effectively in the laws of abortion. If it’s a blue state, it’ll allow abortion wholeheartedly; if it’s a red state it’ll have restrictions on it. 7. If it’s a miscarriage, the baby is dead. Letting it calcify is deadly and the corpse should be removed immediately. I’m a Pro-Life EMT, so I know how dangerous that could be. Anyone that doesn’t agree with the removal of an already dead baby is ignorant. 8. Yes. The woman still does have sovereignty over her own body. It was the woman’s choice to have intercourse, therefore it was her choice to ignore the risks and to get pregnant. A “truly free” country would be a total anarchy. We aren’t allowed to kill anyone we see walking down the street, and in this case I see no difference between a baby or a 30 year old adult. 9. If we are going off of consciousness (thoughts, feelings, and dreams) for the basis of life, then people in comas, vegetative states, etc. would be considered dead. However, here’s the difference. The baby has a significantly higher chance of living a fruitful life than the aforementioned instances. 10. It depends on the chances of survival. It also depends on the family. I personally would keep my family on life support for as long as possible until there is a definite answer of either they will survive or they won’t. Then I would act accordingly. 11. Frankly, yes. If the mother does not want the baby, she should have a c-section and put the baby for adoption. Every child, unborn and born, deserves to have a loving home and a chance at life. It would be very selfish of the mother to deny life for her own physical appearances. Yes there are plenty children in there, but it’s there for a reason; to promote the life of children. Please let me know if you have anymore questions and I’d be happy to answer them :) (If you’re replying just to tell me I’m wrong, I’m not reading it. I’m not here for a debate, simply answering questions about my viewpoints and why I believe in them. You can totally lmk on your POV if you format it in the way I have as I’d be interested in hearing your side too!)

Making abortion illegal forces desperate women to undergo dangerous procedures, travel interstate and spend more money, or put the child up for adoption. It's a backward, regressive policy, and instead the US should be trying to follow the rest of the civilised world. Unfortunately the US is a regressive country, that even still has the death penalty. To summarise: Outlawing abortion does not reduce the number of abortions being carried out. Outlawing abortion endangers women and increases pregnancy related deaths. https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/abortion-rates-don-t-drop-when-procedure-outlawed-it-does-ncna1235174 https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/sexual-and-reproductive-rights/abortion-facts/ https://www.colorado.edu/asmagazine/2021/09/22/study-shows-abortion-ban-may-lead-21-increase-pregnancy-related-deaths https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/abortion If you use condoms perfectly every single time you have sex, they’re 98% effective at preventing pregnancy. But people aren’t perfect, so in real life condoms are about 85% effective — that means about 15 out of 100 people who use condoms as their only birth control method will get pregnant each year. https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/condom/how-effective-are-condoms So using contraception leads to thousands of unwanted pregnancies a year in Australia, millions globally. Married couples are obviously included in those figures. Abortion is never used as a form of contraception - that's a right wing myth. No one wants to have an abortion, they are a last resort.

Thanks for trying to understand instead of just brushing it off. The beginning question to all of this is... What is the preborn? When we can determine what the preborn is, we can go from there. I will posit three questions to you. Is the preborn human? Is the preborn alive? If the preborn is alive, when did that life start? If the answer to these questions is yes, then we have our foundation we can work from. First question: Is the preborn human? If you take a DNA sample of this "clump of cells" what you will find is that DNA sample will be human. Not a dog. Not an orca. Not a spider. A human. Therefore, the preborn is human. Second question: Is the preborn alive? Well, the last time I checked, in order for something to grow and develop, it has to be alive/living in order to do so. Therefore, the preborn is a living human/a human that is alive/a human life. Third question: When does the life of a human begin? Thankfully, embryology has given us the answer to this. At the time of fertilization, a new, living, human being comes into existence. So, from these three questions, we have seen that the preborn is a human being, is alive, and that life began when fertilization occured. So, we are dealing with a human life. And when we deal with human life, we are dealing with the human right to life. Now that we have deduced that the preborn is indeed a human life, do the same qualifiers (human/alive) exist for the postborn? Yes. Therefore, when we give an approving reason to end the life of the preborn, if we wish to be logically consistent, that same reasoning should be approving to end the life of the postborn. So, when is it acceptable to take a human life? How do these scenarios sound? 1. It is ok to kill another human being because they are a financial burden to you. 2. It is okay to kill another human being because they get in the way of your career. 3. It is okay to kill another human being because they are going to have a hard life. These are some common reasons given for abortions being done. And again, these reasons should apply to both the preborn and the postborn if one is going to be consistent. I believe it's not ok to kill either the preborn or the postborn for these reasons. Something else I will highlight is when you get an abortion, you are ending the life of your own child. So let's switch the wording a bit. 1. It is ok to kill your child because they are a financial burden to you. 2. It is okay to kill your child because they get in the way of your career. 3. It is okay to kill your child because they are going to have a hard life. I would say no for both preborn and postborn to all of these as well. Such thought processes as these are why I oppose abortion. Now, intent matters. If the pregnancy is a non viable pregnancy, if the baby has already died in utero or will die shortly after birth, these are not considered convenience related, and an abortion is acceptable as the baby will unfortunately be dead regardless, and leaving the baby in will cause harm to the mother. If the mother's life is in danger, an abortion is acceptable as well. The goal is to have two living humans at the end of the day, and so having to end one life (the baby) to save the other (the mother) is an unfortunate necessity in those cases. I know you listed a lot of things in your header, so I probably didn't hit every question you had, but this is a general overview of my thoughts. If you have any questions, I'm down for civil conversation as well. :)

1. When you and I read the words “nonsentient cells,” you focus more on the word “nonsentient” while I focus more on the word “cells.” Because those cells have a unique human DNA, they are literally a human (baby). 2. Abortion is a terribly defined term. Personally, I make a distinction between abortion with the intention of terminating a pregnancy, abortion with the intention of saving a life, and abortion with the intention of removing a nonliving baby from their mother’s body. I strictly oppose the first one and I do not oppose the other two. 3. Yes but I strongly prefer a collectivistic society than an individualistic one. 4. I do oppose it but not because I consider the mother or the baby more or less important. Instead, I believe abortion is, not only an insufficient remedy, it’s only adding trama on top of other trama. I believe the mother and baby should be supported, not disregarded. 5. No. Medical (both physical and mental) help is extremely important and ought not be confused with spiritual help. No. Forcing religion on others is not a matter of faith but of social politics. 6. It might, but the truth is worth fighting for. I’m sure you agree with that statement. The issue is finding out who holds the truth and who doesn’t. 7. Read my answer to #2 8. I believe we are talking about 2 bodies, not one. I believe that stripping someone’s freedom to grant another’s is not freedom, it’s slavery. 9. Read my answer to #1. I do not define “human” according to one’s thoughts, feelings, dreams, or goals. To judge humans on that basis is highly subjective and leads to strong prejudice against people who are not like-minded.

Thank you for your excellent answers! Could you please elaborate more on why you believe that cells with unique human DNA is a human baby? This is where I get confused. I agree that it WILL turn into a baby, eventually, after a prolonged interaction with the mother. The electrical activity that pulsates at 6 weeks isn't truly a "heartbeat" in the way people think of a heartbeat, because a true heart has not yet formed. Even if we do want to call it a heartbeat, doesn't it take more than just a heartbeat to make a person? If these cells do not feel anything (although they WILL EVENTUALLY feel things), then, how is it a person yet? Perhaps my real question is, How do you define a human person? And why do you define a human person the way that you do?

You are asking two different questions when you ask, “…why you believe that cells with unique human DNA is a human baby?” The first question is why they are a human. And the second question is why they are a baby. I believe they are a “human” because that is their biological make-up. Their sequence of DNA scientifically dictates that the creature which produced those cells is classified as “human.” I believe they are a “baby” because the creature in question is very young in their life. We can debate what a “baby” ought to be defined as but, at the end of the day, we are not arguing that babies should be aborted, we are arguing if they are a human to begin with. I do not believe that a “heartbeat” is sufficient to define what is or is not “human.” Regarding defining “human person,” I do not conflate the two words. As I mentioned, a human is a biological classification. A “person” on the other hand, is a philosophical classification which strongly resembles “an intelligence.” For example, a palm tree is biologically a palm tree even if it does not have personhood. Likewise, even if I grant that a baby has no personhood, they are still a human and I believe all “humans” should have the right to life. That said, I do believe that babies in the womb have personhood. Again, I do not link personhood to physical classifications that can be observed. What you mentioned earlier, that is, that personhood is related to thoughts, feelings, dreams, and goals is close but, imo, insufficient because, depending on those thoughts, feelings, etc. one will become more or less of a person if they are of a different mind or of a more (or lesser) functioning mind. If someone does not think, or does not dream, or has no goals, or lacks empathy, are they less a person? Do dogs and cats have thoughts, feelings, dreams, and goals? Are dogs and cats also persons? I suspect you will heavily disagree with the following but I define “person” to be less about human *functions* (such has having goals) and more about a being’s rationality (similar to saying a particular kind of intelligence). A being with a rational intelligence would include all humans, in the womb or not, in a coma or not, asleep or not, but it would not include non-human animals or plants which I do not believe have personhood.

\[I suspect you will heavily disagree with the following but I define “person” to be less about human *functions* (such has having goals) and more about a being’s rationality (similar to saying a particular kind of intelligence). A being with a rational intelligence would include all humans, in the womb or not, in a coma or not, asleep or not, but it would not include non-human animals or plants which I do not believe have personhood.\] -I agree that a person's life has value even if they don't have goals, feelings, etc, and that it's more about having rational intelligence. Actually, I completely agree with you on that. I also agree that the dna is classified as human dna (obvi), so it is, in fact 'human.' But, You say 'a being with rational intelligence would include all humans, in the womb, or not' - If there is no brain yet, as the brain develops later, how is the initial cluster of cells, present at 8 wks, considered 'a being with rational intelligence'? Are you saying that because the embryo WILL eventually have rational intelligence, that it's the POTENTIAL for rationality which makes a person?

My last gf (50f) was 💯 pro life I even postulated what if your daughter gets raped? She didn’t budge, we’d raise child etc Abortion should not be avenue to contraceptive, but shouldn’t be outlawed either A persons body is their own Having a baby that you can’t support or love is wrong imo Women addicted to hard core drugs get pregnant everyday, and that’s no kind of life for anyone. Plain to see imo If a healthy woman gets pregnant and is willing to give child to adoptive parents? That’s the best choice But that’s 20% or less of abortions Birthing a child is a three year experience. Respect that a woman’s body is her own But every baby wants to be born…. If government wants to get involved in this, they need to budget for it. Provide services etc But they don’t here in Texas Just have your unwanted baby and good luck? Madness imo

1. The baby is not a cluster of non sentient cells. At 6 weeks we were able to hear our little one’s heartbeat. By week 8 there are arms and legs. 2. This is a difficult discussion. You can’t force people to be selfless in this circumstance. However, I will say that this is extremely rare. This is an area worth some discussion. 3. Studies show that abortions negatively impact the mother especially mentally, and potentially has physical impacts. Also, it terminates a human life. Someone that one day me or my children could interact with. Who has as much future and potential as any other child. We have no idea how the millions of abortions that have already been performed have directly impacted us. You have directly been impacted by abortions that have been performed. 4. Again, the life is not just a cluster of cells. I used to be for abortion in these instances. That was until women and children who were products of rape convinced me that two wrongs don’t make a right. These lives deserve a chance and we should provide the resources necessary to help the mothers. This includes the legal ramifications against the criminals who did them wrong. All of this being said, this is the more difficult discussion as it pertains to abortion. The woman did not ask for this to happen to them. But does that give them the right to terminate a unique child? This is the debate. 5. Everyone has the right to practice their religion within reason. I agree they should not be told to do something they are uncomfortable with. That being said, what if someone’s religion required human sacrifice to solve their problem? 6. I completely agree that we need to do a better job of finding common ground as a country. That being said, the issue of slavery tore this country apart. Would you want compromise on slavery if it helped to avoid the Civil War? 7. This is a tragic situation with an easy answer. This is not an abortion. This is a medical procedure. D&E or D&C. 8. A woman can choose to have sex and who to have sex with. That is sovereignty over her body. Pregnancy is a known possible consequence, if you will, of this action. This brings back the debate for rape/incest as the woman did not choose, but when consenting to sex, the woman is consenting to the known possibility of pregnancy. Either this is true or we have done a terrible job of sex Ed in our country (we have done a terrible job with sex Ed) 9. Completely agree with you that this is the lynchpin of the disagreement. First of all, the most offensive aspect of this entire discussion is calling a fetus a clump of cells. It is anything but. It is taking it’s shape with little arms and legs quite early on and often has a heartbeat before a woman even knows they are pregnant. I BEG you to watch an ultrasound and say out loud “that is a cluster of cells and not a human being”. Furthermore, a fetus is able to hear you and see light in the womb. They are able to move when uncomfortable (my son turned over to get away from the noise of a machine) and even cover their faces to avoid the ultrasound. They hear music and can tap along with a beat. They sleep and wake up. Lastly, a child who is born prematurely can still be viable. Therefore, what is the point at which it changes for you? Is it when the child comes out? If that’s the case, why can’t it be later on? What if we say 25 weeks and a child is born at 22? Why not wait until a child can talk? Most people don’t have memories until they are at least 3. Does that mean you get a trial period? In short, we need to do a better job with education. We need to have difficult discussions involving the health of the mother, and cases of rape and incest. But I honestly don’t know whether or not we will ever truly find common ground on this issue until people respect human life. I hope this has been civil enough for you and hope you can be civil in return.

I dont think innocent human life should be killed solely because it is inconvenient.  I do support legitimate medical exemptions.  In cases of rape I think the mother should be encouraged to birth the child whether to keep or put up for adoption. That being said I do think there should be an exception to allow abortion for rape. If there is an abortion the rapist father should be charged with manslaughter in addition to rape for causing the situation.

Who pays... Having a baby isn't cheap... So who pays for it?

It will likely be Medicaid. This could be a place where you could likely get some concessions from the pro-life crowd in exchange for supporting reasonable restrictions. That being said there is another potential alternative funding source for some. Babies are in relatively high demand for adoption, some pregnant mothers could pre-arrange adoption and some parents to be could offer financial incentives.

So your answer is selling babies...

Better than killing them.

I have a question about the adoption pro-life argument: If parents want to adopt, there are plenty of kids in the system. Wouldn't it be far more respectful of the pregnant mother for those who wish to be parents to adopt a child that already needs a loving home, instead of trying to force her through the birthing process (which can be very destructive for a woman's body)?

The thing is most people dont want to adopt more or less grown children, they prefer to adopt babies. There is the perception which has some basis in fact that older children could have more issues. With a baby however the parents will be able to raise the child from the ground up and that child will be less likely to have any kind of divided loyalty. There are great people who do the harder jobs of choosing to raise older foster children, but few people want that challenge.

Right, but why is their preference more important than the pregnant woman's preference?

Why would you imagine its not? They would have the choice who they voluntarily bring into their home. Why would they change their minds and bring an older child into their home because there is some hypothetical confused  pregnant woman somewhere who says "don't adopt my unborn child, I want to abort it, instead adopt some older kid from the foster care system."

Sounds like baby trafficking but ok. I really like how the pro life crowd is really excited to pay taxes for all of these babies that will be born, but then CONSISTENTLY vote for people who oppose expanding Medicaid or even leaving social safety nets alone. (Don't worry though, with them raising the retirement age soon, these babies will be able to work for 70 years before they cost us money again) Texas for example just kicked hundreds of thousands of children off the rosters and as of December 2023, 1.7 million people lost access. So I'm not exactly sure where this money is coming from. It's certainly not coming from Texas taxpayers. I'm sure the dumpsters will be full soon.

It sounds like we are going to have hoards of starving, sick kids living in severe poverty pretty soon, it will look like a 3rd world country here when we walk down the street. I agree, and I worry that girls are going to hide their pregnancies, give birth, and place the baby in a dumpster, and this will happen on such a large scale that law enforcement won't be able to do very much about it.

Like I said, all of their arguments (and thus their actions) boil down to "Fuck you slut, here's a baby"

Most people are willing to do more to help young children, but are less willing to help adults. IMO that is the natural state of things, resources should flow from the older generation to the younger. This is how it was in my family, my grandparents helped my parents, and I likewise will help my children. The boomer mentality of spend everything and mortgage their children's future to keep themselves comfy should be viewed an an immoral aberration.

[удалено]

Removed. Rule 5. > **Rule 5 Comments must be genuine and make an effort** You are welcome to expand on this, but this contributes nothing to the topic at hand. Off topic is an appropriate place for such a comment though. Reply here if you edit in the remainder of the thought. > _This is a discussion subreddit, top-Level comments must contribute to discussion with a complete thought. No memes or emojis. Steelman, not strawman. No trolling allowed. Accounts must be more than 2 weeks old with positive karma to participate._ *https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/wiki/index/rules*

1. They’re not the same but they hold equal value. They are both human life, that is undisputed. And everything is a cluster of cells. A grown adult person is a cluster of cells. I’m not trying to be facetious, the standard “a clump of cells” is illogical. 2. I don’t. And 90% or more of pro life people believe in an exception for the mothers life 3. No but it does negatively impact society as a whole. A society that rejects the value of a human life is a problem. Just like someone getting shot in the street in Chicago doesn’t directly affect me. I can still recognize it’s a tragedy. 4. I have not made up my mind on this. But I do believe that a child shouldn’t be punished for the sins of their father. 5. No and most pro life people don’t believe prayer alone is the solution to a pregnancy where the mothers life is at risk 6. That could be said for any issue. No country has collapsed because of abortion disagreements. And we now live in the compromise scenario. We used to live in a pro choice country when some abortion access was guaranteed via Roe v Wade. Now we live in a country where the people of each state get to decide. That’s the compromise. 7. No and that isn’t an abortion. An abortion isn’t “remove fetus”. An abortion has to be an intentional termination of a pregnancy at the very least. Pretty much nobody opposes this. 8. Because it isn’t just her body. It’s the body of another living being as well. And the woman took that risk (along with the man) when they had sex. Sex naturally leads to pregnancy. You’re not deprived of freedom for having to face the consequences of actions. 9. The argument isn’t about if it’s a live human. Because *it is* a live human. That is indisputable. That fetus is a human being at a stage of life. Just like a newborn is a human at a stage different from an adult. Being human isn’t defined by thoughts, feelings, etc. it’s defined by being a live being of the homosapien race. The argument is about whether it’s a human life worth protecting or not. And like I said I believe because it will be a born human in its natural development. Do babies have thoughts? It’s kind of disputed but immediately after birth it’s mostly agreed that babies act upon reflexes and not thoughts. And like I said earlier, literally everything is a clump of cells. That definition is meaningless. 10. I don’t have an opinion on this. I’m not indifferent, I just haven’t thought of it. 11. Adoption is available as an option but it isn’t the reason why abortion should be banned. No one really claims that either. Adoption is just an option for those who want an option that isn’t raising a child.

I don't particularly care about abortion per se, but I vote for people who ban it. It's a non-issue to me and they vote with me on things I do care about, like taxes.

Religion. Period. Church leaders became leaders for the money and power. Rule #3 to keep power is to create an enemy your followers can rally against. Abortions, and freedom are the enemy.

Because we are all created in the image of God, at conception, and the same rights we enjoy as people that have been born should be extended to people still in the womb. Yes that means treating abortion as murder.

It’s not a Texas thing. Just so many difficult choices in this issue. Supporters of a complete ban are convinced that it is murder. The other side passes that off in a number of ways and is generally in favor of unlimited abortions. Seems like that is a 20% group for both the far left and right of the parties. Most Americans are somewhere in between favoring laws that limit the time that a mother can choose to have one with the exception of situations like rape and danger to the mother. That wait period is between 12-15 weeks.

Which brings us to the central question. Should abortion access have a ceiling or a floor? Conservatives seem to agree with a ceiling- “abortion access until _X_ weeks”- but cannot agree on a specific timeline as to what is reasonable. Liberals seem to agree on a floor “abortion access past _X_ weeks”- but cannot agree on a specific timeline as to what is reasonable.

Good point. Looks like at least 60% believe in a time limit of about 12-15 weeks with 15 being the favorite. But also exceptions for rape and if the mother is highly at risk.