All of them!

So, I guess godiboi isn't so opposed to killing the unborn.

(October 28, 2023 at 4:34 am)Rev. Rye Wrote: Sooo... how are we going to enforce this?

Texas should build a wall to keep pregnant women in, and make blue states pay for it.

(October 28, 2023 at 4:34 am)Rev. Rye Wrote: Sooo... how are we going to enforce this?

It is explained in the article that they expect citizens (Christians) to betray the trust of pregnant people and report them to the police if they hear that they are going to have an abortion.

Quote:The ordinance is enforceable through the private enforcement mechanism which has proven its success in both the Lubbock City Ordinance and the Texas Heartbeat Act. This is how the ordinance is enforced," the statement said.

(October 28, 2023 at 4:04 am)Dmitry1983 Wrote: Many philosophers argue that the human brain isn't the source of consciousness and therefore abortion is murder even if a fetus lacks a fully developed brain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_probl...sciousness

That's because they're idiots. Brain damage will always change consciousness to one degree or another. Anyone who has worked with a TBI patient -- as opposed to making baseless assertions at a college lectern -- would know this.

Find us one of these "philosophers" who would submit to being brain-damaged on this premise that it would not change them. Just one, that'll do.

If the brain isn't the source of consciousness then what is? Kidneys? Lungs? The anus?

(October 28, 2023 at 10:14 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(October 28, 2023 at 4:04 am)Dmitry1983 Wrote: Many philosophers argue that the human brain isn't the source of consciousness and therefore abortion is murder even if a fetus lacks a fully developed brain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_probl...sciousness

That's because they're idiots. Brain damage will always change consciousness to one degree or another. Anyone who has worked with a TBI patient -- as opposed to making baseless assertions at a college lectern -- would know this.

Find us one of these "philosophers" who would submit to being brain-damaged on this premise that it would not change them. Just one, that'll do.

The brain could be a transceiver. Breaking your phone doesn't affect a person you are talking to.

(October 28, 2023 at 10:42 am)Dmitry1983 Wrote:

(October 28, 2023 at 10:14 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: That's because they're idiots. Brain damage will always change consciousness to one degree or another. Anyone who has worked with a TBI patient -- as opposed to making baseless assertions at a college lectern -- would know this.

Find us one of these "philosophers" who would submit to being brain-damaged on this premise that it would not change them. Just one, that'll do.

The brain could be a transceiver. Breaking your phone doesn't affect a person you are talking to.

Turnabout is fair play. If what happens to the brain cannot affect the  person, then the person, likewise, cannot affect the brain, and the Cartesian cut is an impenetrable gulf.

I do want to say, philosophers are just philosophers, not scientists. No matter how many of them agree on anything in regards to human life, they do not know a thing.

I also want to point out that before the overturning of Roe vs. Wade, there were plenty of people who were anti-abortion, if I recall correctly, who killed doctors who practiced abortion. Furthermore, those same people who claim to be pro-life are religious or republicans, or anything else bad like being crazy. There is a good number of them who have killed others with the killers being racist, homophobic, transphobic, against another's religion, etc. I can safely say that those people, while not all of them kill, (and even if you don't kill does not mean you are good) have shared behaviors of others who claim to be pro-life or discriminatory. Therefore, I can say the pro-life people are hypocrites. They are not pro-life, they are pro-selves, meaning they only care about themselves. If they were pro-life, they would not kill anyone, abortion doctors and all.

That said, as I may have said before, a fetus does not exercise rights of an actual living being; in fact, I am sure the legal definition of a person is not something that includes or should include fetuses. Therefore, fetuses, since they are not born yet, can't have the rights of a living being unless they decide to change the legal definition of what is a person. In fact, I am sure the decision of those who overturned Roe vs. Wade and thus, siding with the fetus inside a mother contradicts the legal definition of what a person is.

That said, a fetus, again, is not born yet, so if it were a living thing, we would have to add 9 months to every person's age because they were alive in a person's womb. Thing is, we don't do that, because the fetus has not become born yet. Therefore, it makes no sense to consider a fetus a living being in this regard.

Plus, murder only applies to those who have been born or alive, not something developing to become a human being like a fetus, and it is not a human being, only developing to become one, but it is still not one.

Another thing is that many Christians believe life begins at conception, or when the sperm meets the egg, if I recall correctly. That is not what the bible says, and even if we were to use religion here, the bible says that "life begins at first breath". That is another contradiction of religion if I ever saw one.

And even if a fetus develops a consciousness, it still is not a living being physically. Having a consciousness only does so much to make a being a living thing, as it is not the only thing that makes a person living.

With all that said, murder only applies to legal living things, and a fetus is by no means a legal living thing.

(October 28, 2023 at 10:42 am)Dmitry1983 Wrote: The brain could be a transceiver. Breaking your phone doesn't affect a person you are talking to.

"Could be" is irrelevant unless you demonstrate that ineffable soul actually exists. No one has, because it is nonfalsifiable. That renders it permanently a supposition on your part.

Quite frankly, I do not give two shits rubbed together about your superstitious suppositions. Bring me evidence or be hush.

ETA: I notice you didn't mention a single one who was willing to submit himself to brain damage in order to demonstrate this supposition. That indicates to me that they're afraid they're wrong.

(October 28, 2023 at 7:06 am)Dmitry1983 Wrote: Women engage in sexual activity voluntary knowing that it could lead to pregnancy.

And, here is the crux of the matter. You want to control and slut-shame women. Can't have them uppity women-folk gettin' laid just for fun like all the men-folk do!

Folk like you make me weep for the species!