of course. There's no doubt it is human life in the genetic sense, and in the sense of its potential.

But if you asked someone "do humans have gill slits", "do humans have tails" the answer is very likely no.

An embryo is genetically human but morphologically something different. It is not adapted to exist as a human, outside the womb, before whatever the current NICU viability is.

It's semantics but worth mentioning, because this seems to be one the big divides between the anti- and the choice side.

When you take the position that an embryo is human life in a full sense, the mother's volition downgrades steeply, she's now a carrier.

if your position is that an embryo is a human life form that is unviable, volition is enhanced, because up until the point of viability she can decide to terminate

So, the bill's sponsor is a Republican woman in the lower chamber. It was signed by a Republican woman governor. In November, 59% of Alabamians voted to add anti-abortion language to the state's constitution (pretty sure 59% of Alabamian's aren't men). The bill passed in the state House by a margin of 74-3 (about 18 of the House are women, based on their website).

This is not a case of men telling women what to do with their bodies.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Decriminalization of drugs
Atheist
Environmentalist
Equal rights for all people
Equal treatment under the law for all people
Pro-choice
Pro privaste ownership of firearms
For lower taxes and a smaller federal government
Believe that the vast majority of people should be responsible for their own well being
Hard work ethic
Pro free speech

Which of the above do you disagree with?

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Anyone familiar with the Donohue–Levitt hypothesis (hint: it was one of the more interesting chapters in the book "Freakanomics").

If the hypothesis is correct, Alabama, Georgia, Missouri, etc. will be even less desirable places in 15-20 years.

---

Remember - It's important to be comfortable in your own skin... because it turns out society frowns on wearing other people's

One of the proponents of this in the Senate is an OBGYN, which would normally mean they would know what they are talking about, but the first thing this senator did when they were elected was to repeal a law that was created because of death of one of his patients. He of course did not inform anyone that the law he was repealing was written because of what he did. And has been sued multiple times for patients dying.

i think we both understand the issues pretty well. yes, if you tested a zygote genetically it would be human. just like a human hair, or skin cell. and yes, this zygote, along with all the zygotes in fertility labs that get flushed down the toilet could, under usual circumstances, grow into a fully vested human being, if all goes well. and yes, when it's considered human is the question. the christian right chooses to believe it's at conception (except in fertility clinics). that's fine. but it's a religious choice. i prefer not to be bound by your religious choice. so, we must agree, as a civil society when that point is. we could reach a suitable agreement on this. if you wanted.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

so does that mean you don't support Roe vs Wade since the court was all male?

Since he said "men" and followed it up with "telling women what to do with their bodies," I'm going to go way out on a limb here and say no.

RvW was "men" followed by, "NOT telling women what to do with their bodies."



And before we go down the next rabbit hole, giving someone the freed to choose what to do with their own bodies is not the same as telling them what to do with their own bodies. Its the opposite.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

A big swing and a miss. Roe v. Wade expanded the freedom for women to have control over their body. It didn't mandate abortions in any manner. Try again....

the constitution does prevent citizens from imposing their religious beliefs. and the govt is the citizenry. there's a reason why i can't, by statute, take away all america's guns. it's the same reason why you can't, by statute, impose your will on someone else, if that will violates a person's 14th amendment rights.



i don't believe i'm changing the argument. and i think you understand my meaning correctly. i presented my "fix" for this. if states restrict abortion via statute - and that statute is struck struck down, that is, the statute proves unconstitutional (not legal) - and the state has to bear the costs associated with its unconstitutional statute, then these types of legislative maneuvers will stop cold. and maybe we can get down to the business of a rational, civil, agreed-upon solution.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/...-overturn-roe-v-wade

this law in Alabama and the other laws in the works all over the country banning or limiting abortion are just the vehicle to get it to the SC so they can either overturn or severally chip away at Roe v. Wade.

It's worth noting that even though Roe is settled precedent the SC has overturned settled cases in the past, one just recently all the way back to 1979, so its likely the Court will make a major change to abortion rights when these laws get there in the next year or so.

In the grand scheme of things, this may be Trumps most lasting legacy if Roe is overturned or gutted in the near future.

As someone who had an abortion in high school, I'll answer. No, I do not acknowledge that it was life. It was a clump of cells. I have no regrets about doing it.

---

clm
Nashville, TN
https://twitter.com/ironclm | http://ironclm.typepad.com

this court recently overturned the voting rights act. that's mid 60s legislation. this court is happy to go as far back as it wants. but, look, 50 or 75 years from now a lot of things are going to be different. this court can disenfranchise women, people of color, people who aren't christians, but society is marching in one direction. it might take a step or two back. but science, fact, reason, equality will out in the end. this won't be trump's legacy. we all know he doesn't give two spits about abortion. this is all about pitting one half of america against the other half. that is trump's legacy.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Fair enough.

I got a girl pregnant in our teens. She aborted.

I consider it as ending a life. So does she.

My sister has had two abortions. She sees them as the ending of a life.

If abortion was as available in 1970 as it is today I would not exist. This I know for a fact, straight from the source.

My son’s birth mother attempted to abort him and failed.

He starts high school this fall and is one of the few great joys in my life.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Good for you. I'm adopted. I may not exist (in this form) if things were different in the late 1950s. I can separate the two.

---

clm
Nashville, TN
https://twitter.com/ironclm | http://ironclm.typepad.com

the generalities you mention will be the lefts talking points about Trump long after he is gone sure. But to substantively change the face of the Supreme Court to overturn settled precedence on one of if not the most battle hardened controversial areas of US society will be long lasting.

i don't think it matters very much whether a 14 year old girl, or 24 or 34 year old woman, considers her abortion ending a life or ending a clump of cells. what matters is that she has the legal capacity to make that decision. and whether those who aid them should be free to do so, or should be locked up for the rest of their lives.

but, according to the alabama law, you are free to get an abortion, right up until you know you're pregnant. doesn't this reasoning cause you to want to become a member of alabama's christian right?

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

And I can acknowledge that abortion ends a life and also should remain legal.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

I agree and nothing I’ve posted here contradicts this.


I don’t really get what your asking here, I’ll answer this way...

I have no desire to live in Alabama.

I’m not a Christian nor can even imagine that I ever will be.

I’m a “member of the right” and can’t imagine I ever will be.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

It is untenable for a host of reasons which you are ignoring. Here are a few:

The anti-abortion side has gained support largely by being able to fixate singularly on issues like late-term abortion ("partial-birth"_ or New York's recent law. The perceived battle-line has shifted dramatically from there to a point where support is MUCH less, and anti-abortion forces don't appreciate how much this will damage their position in the debate.

If this stands, it will mobilize the pro-choice side. A basic maxim of American politics is that every action creates a larger and unreasonable over-reaction. Pro-life forces have been beneficiaries of this for decades.

Having abortion be theoretically legal, but unobtainable in practice was the best-case situation for the anti-abortion side. That is about to change.

The Pro-choice side will be able to point to victims either incarcarated or in bondage to their unwanted pregnancy. That matters. Gay rights succeeded because people were willing to be visible. The State is now directly responsible for this.

People can easily travel to other states for an abortion, and such travel will be organized and funded if bans are enforced.

Religion continues to wane, and the "protection at conception" viewpoint remains profoundly based on conservative religious views. This remains true even if some atheists are strongly pro-life.

The "state's rights" argument continues to play out badly, as states turn to majoritarian parochialism to restrict their populace, while refusing to improve the actual qulaity of life of their voters. There was always a silly view that "Roe v. Wade was the problem, and everything would be great if only that didn't happen." That is stupid, get rid of Roe v. Wade, and the issue multiplies and becomes more systemic as every state plays out their own form of radicalization on the abortion debate.

These are several small ways in which this action is untenable. Taken together, it is difficulat to see any positive or sustainable resolution.

Also wanted to add that there are a lot of people who would exist otherwise if contraception was banned, or if people weren't such prudes about sex before marriage.

Hell, just changing interracial marriage laws leads to a whole lot of people who would have existed who never did, and a whole other group of people alive today who would never have existed.

Life is funny like that.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

My prediction is this law gets thrown out by a district court and the supremes refuse to take the case.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

This has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with intellectual honesty in acknowledging abortion terminates life. The debate is over when that is acceptable.

Simple question you skipped over.... when does this set of living cells that aren't human life in your opinion morph into "human life" in your opinion.

Thanks for sharing. This post gives great insight into your psyche.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Not to me, what the question was pertaining to, is the idea that men should have no opinions or any say on abortions. I find it odd when people say that or believe it, when it was a group of men's opinions that decided what a women could do with their bodies. So you can't say that men are unable to hold an opinion or make a law when it disagrees with you, but it's ok if they agree with you-