Late term abortion basically outlawed in Florida

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

There is no - and can be no - definition of 'life' from the vantage-point of life whatsoever: the twilit, purgatorial status of the virus demonstrates as much.

Hello, Nihilist Strawman.

[Meursault]

It's 'nihilist' only in the technical (mereological) sense: the existence of viruses, prions, certain amoebas, etc.  greatly complicate any effort to define 'life' without resorting to spiritualist language.

[TJ in Oregon]

There is no - and can be no - definition of 'life' from the vantage-point of life whatsoever: the twilit, purgatorial status of the virus demonstrates as much.

Hello, Nihilist Strawman.

Erm, well actually he's right, at least from a purely scientific standpoint. Science can tell us things about biological processes, atoms, molecules, and chemical reactions, but it cannot in any rigorous way determine by itself a standard for the definition of a life. Science, can, if given a definition of a life externally, apply it. But it cannot create a definition by itself.

Science has taken some set of criteria to distinguish things that are alive from things that are not, viruses being the only ambiguity. And from this definition embryos are clearly alive. Eggs are alive, sperm are alive, skin cells are alive, etc. But the criteria were determined arbitrarily rather than empirically and are not in and of themselves a result of science, only a definition to categorize empirical observations of organic matter. Furthermore, if we take the generally accepted definition of "alive", which virtually everyone does except with the ambiguity of viruses, the missing step pertinent here is that science is not capable of defining what constitutes a singular instance of life.

My personal view is that the life of a living thing begins at the point when its beginnings can be traced furthest back to and still remain a distinguishable entity, that is for humans, at fertilization.

[Meursault]

Viruses are not the only ambiguity. Virions, prions, single-celled amoeba, and certain fungi all share traits with both living and inert matter.

Obviously, semen, eggs, etc. are 'more alive' than these. But to imbue these, and the human versions of them alone, with magic traits is arbitrary.

[TJ in Oregon]

Viruses are not the only ambiguity. Virions, prions, single-celled amoeba, and certain fungi all share traits with both living and inert matter.

Obviously, semen, eggs, etc. are 'more alive' than these. But to imbue these, and the human versions of them alone, with magic traits is arbitrary.

What about imbuing humans in general with "magic traits" like placing a much higher value on their lives than would be expected for a randomly sampled hunk of matter about the same size? Is it just the sperm, eggs, embryo, etc. that in your view should not be placed on a pedestal or is it the human organism in general?

[Never]

The pro-life position is the product of a false and lying sentimentality, encouraged by the false and lying desert religions. It is an abomination.

There is enough scientific evidence to drive someone to being pro-life without being religious.

Yes, this could partly explain why there are pro-life individuals like the atheist political commentator S.E. Cupp.

[Meursault]

A degree of arbitrariness is inevitable in all we do; interestedness is inescapable. This is the paradox of moral absolutism: on a certain level the moral absolutist must (and does) acknowledge the relativity of his views. This is the genesis of hypocrisy.

I favor a gradated view of life, with as many shades and nuances as possible. All things being equal, the newborn is not the equal of the worker: but the question is whether his potential future worth is more than the current worker's real value.

In the absence of concrete answers, we should speak only of options and possibilities. Coercion is to be avoided - either way: this includes pro-natalist marriage tax rebates, family leave laws, and so forth as much as compulsory eugenics. And the former is a much greater problem today than the latter.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Inaccurate thread title.  Late term abortion was already basically outlawed there, as it is in most and possibly all states.  The bill kept the exception to the ban if a mother's life is at risk or to prevent irreversible physical impairment of a mother's major bodily function. All this bill did was remove the vague indefinable exception of allowing it because of psychological harm to the mother and add to the 24-week standard a standard of that the doctor has to determine that the child would not be viable if taken from the womb intact.

Really, the only reason I can see to oppose the bill is not if you are pro-choice, but because you are pro-abortion.

I don't think there's a set definition of what constitutes "late term abortions" and in several states there are no time restrictions.  Additionally bans on late term abortions may have exceptions for "life and health" that can be interpreted broadly, and in fact such is often considered required under Doe v Bolton.

[Meursault]

S.E. Cupp is an appendage of the Religious Right. Her real personality is a non-entity.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I'm profoundly ambivalent about whether what this law actually does is good public policy or not, but I do know that Einzige's perspective on this issue is a product of the false and lying arable land religions, whether he himself subscribes to them or not. What are these arable land religions, exactly? That's for me to know and you to find out.

[ElectionsGuy]

I think there should be exceptions for rape, but otherwise two trimesters is plenty of time. This isn't a big deal or restriction.

[H. Ross Peron]

Great news!

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Of course Meursault is right that placing an intrinsic value on human life is sentimental and has an essentially ineffible, numinous quality.  The desert religions have played a role in promoting this, though not with any monopoly.  That sentimentality does not make it false and I see no reason to prefer any other method of valuation on life that is ultimately just as arbitrary if not more so if one attempts a purely rational standard.  Who is to say that contributions or intelligence or social recognition is any objective standard of value?

[Ebowed]

Inaccurate thread title.  Late term abortion was already basically outlawed there, as it is in most and possibly all states.  The bill kept the exception to the ban if a mother's life is at risk or to prevent irreversible physical impairment of a mother's major bodily function. All this bill did was remove the vague indefinable exception of allowing it because of psychological harm to the mother and add to the 24-week standard a standard of that the doctor has to determine that the child would not be viable if taken from the womb intact.

Really, the only reason I can see to oppose the bill is not if you are pro-choice, but because you are pro-abortion.

I'm pro-choice and I would oppose this on the grounds that psychological risk should be legal grounds for termination.

[Simfan34]

That's a slippery slope.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Viruses are not the only ambiguity. Virions, prions, single-celled amoeba, and certain fungi all share traits with both living and inert matter.

Obviously, semen, eggs, etc. are 'more alive' than these. But to imbue these, and the human versions of them alone, with magic traits is arbitrary.

All definitions are by definition arbitrary.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Inaccurate thread title.  Late term abortion was already basically outlawed there, as it is in most and possibly all states.  The bill kept the exception to the ban if a mother's life is at risk or to prevent irreversible physical impairment of a mother's major bodily function. All this bill did was remove the vague indefinable exception of allowing it because of psychological harm to the mother and add to the 24-week standard a standard of that the doctor has to determine that the child would not be viable if taken from the womb intact.

Really, the only reason I can see to oppose the bill is not if you are pro-choice, but because you are pro-abortion.

I'm pro-choice and I would oppose this on the grounds that psychological risk should be legal grounds for termination.

Psychological risk that could affect the physical health of the mother should still be considered under the provisions allowing for late term abortions where the physical health is affected.  Once the fetus reaches the point of viability, the primary focus must be upon the health of the fetus and any focus upon the mother must be secondary.  In weighing the psychological risk of the mother versus the death of the unborn child at such a late date, where the mother has had plenty of time to undergo an abortion because of psychological risk before the fetus reached viability, I cannot see where allowing such an unborn child to be killed is at all moral or otherwise desirable.

[Hifly]

Splendid News!!