I’m not religious. The term “soul” is a religious concept. It has has no meaning to me personally, and should have no influence on government or law.
As for taxable humans, which should be the only concern the government has as it relates to babies born, I agree that once they leave the body of the person birthing them, usually accompanied by breathing, they can be considered separate and whole people. I don’t subscribe to “viability” either. That’s a caveat that ignores the pregnant person’s bodily autonomy.
The default for law and our government is the separation of religious views (of which there are many) from those of law (which has a singular view for everyone). The default is that there is no “soul” as it applies to laws that govern the land. That’s exactly why anti-abortionists have focused on changing terminology to re-defining “personhood” without using the term “soul”. That is their primary strategy. So, it’s not me that’s “cramming” anything down peoples throats. I’m stating facts.
You are entitled to your beliefs, but not my uterus. And your religious beliefs are not superior to my atheism.
That’s a hugely inaccurate stereotype and it infantilizes everyone that isn’t male, as though they’ve not had any impact in the world, including bad things.
Okay, this is awful. Miscarriages even at an early stage involve cramping, pain and passing clots of blood. Mine, at about 5 weeks, was much less severe than what that poor woman described, but was still painful and worrying. I was in Texas at the time and the doctor said if I didn't pass all the tissue by a week I should come in for a D & C. No one thought of letting me suffer or come to the brink of death to protect them from a lawsuit!
It also reflects a very serious problem with these hospitals: administration is telling doctors what they can or cannot do for the patient in front of them, based upon their own calculations that have nothing to do with the patient's health or well being.
"The opposition wants it to be focused on “personhood”. "
I get that, and I understand why.That having been said, the hospitals right this minute have any number of full-fledged, already born "persons" who need a blood transfusion, or tissue, or organ donation. And THEY can't have it without the consent of the donor, either.
If the person persists arguing even that, I usually move on to, "So you think women's consent doesn't matter?". I mean, they actually may not, but then make them admit it.
I’m not religious. The term “soul” is a religious concept. It has has no meaning to me personally, and should have no influence on government or law.
As for taxable humans, which should be the only concern the government has as it relates to babies born, I agree that once they leave the body of the person birthing them, usually accompanied by breathing, they can be considered separate and whole people. I don’t subscribe to “viability” either. That’s a caveat that ignores the pregnant person’s bodily autonomy.
If we took care of and protected women as well as we do property, there would be far fewer maternal deaths.
all the trouble in the world comes from males being wound up on testosterone.Primates.
Ok - good enough.
You believe what you wish.Just don't cram it down people's throats.
Right Arm!
Farm out.
The default for law and our government is the separation of religious views (of which there are many) from those of law (which has a singular view for everyone). The default is that there is no “soul” as it applies to laws that govern the land. That’s exactly why anti-abortionists have focused on changing terminology to re-defining “personhood” without using the term “soul”. That is their primary strategy. So, it’s not me that’s “cramming” anything down peoples throats. I’m stating facts.
You are entitled to your beliefs, but not my uterus. And your religious beliefs are not superior to my atheism.
That’s a hugely inaccurate stereotype and it infantilizes everyone that isn’t male, as though they’ve not had any impact in the world, including bad things.
No. I support what you say. It makes perfect sense. I think William Penn couldn't make a better case.
I like watching baby monkeys. https://www.youtube.com/wat...
You missed the point.
Ok. I must have.
I'm not talking about sperm. I'm talking about other completely unrelated adults.
This is the US. Why are sadistic forced-birther religious trash running/ruining our lives?
For your convenience, I have bolded the part of your question that answers itself.
Okay, this is awful. Miscarriages even at an early stage involve cramping, pain and passing clots of blood. Mine, at about 5 weeks, was much less severe than what that poor woman described, but was still painful and worrying. I was in Texas at the time and the doctor said if I didn't pass all the tissue by a week I should come in for a D & C. No one thought of letting me suffer or come to the brink of death to protect them from a lawsuit!
It also reflects a very serious problem with these hospitals: administration is telling doctors what they can or cannot do for the patient in front of them, based upon their own calculations that have nothing to do with the patient's health or well being.
A conclusion in search of a rationale.
It's probably also worth pointing out that Loyola is a very Catholic school.
"The opposition wants it to be focused on “personhood”. "
I get that, and I understand why.That having been said, the hospitals right this minute have any number of full-fledged, already born "persons" who need a blood transfusion, or tissue, or organ donation. And THEY can't have it without the consent of the donor, either.
If the person persists arguing even that, I usually move on to, "So you think women's consent doesn't matter?". I mean, they actually may not, but then make them admit it.