Because at the moment of conception, there is no heart to beat yet, nor any other organs either.
Conception literally means the very moment an egg is fertilized.
10 Likes
I mean, if you kill an egg right after it’s fertilized you ought to be charged with 1.0045 murders since there is a small chance that was two babies, right?
ETA: odds you killed three are negligible and wouldn’t even add a month to your prison sentence.
9 Likes
The problem is - you can’t clearly define WHEN life begins. If you add to it the religious concept of a soul, you add one more thing you can’t define for certain. But even if one is non-religious, it is a difficult line to draw in the sand.
So the stance of when life begins being “conception”, makes sense from a logical standpoint. It errs on the earliest possibility. So I don’t really have a problem with that stance, per se.
But from a legal standpoint, I don’t think it is where we should be drawing the line. I don’t exactly know where the line should be drawn. I suppose a heart beat is an attempt at this, but I don’t think it is a good one either. While “conception” at least logically defers to the earliest possibility, “heart beat” feels a bit arbitrary.
Well, it isn’t. A heart beat can be seen pretty early into a pregnancy. I remember seeing it on my wife’s ultrasounds ~6 weeks. So it appeals to anyone wanting to limit abortions and it has an emotional element to it as well. So clearly it was selected for those reasons.
But from an objective standpoint, I don’t see it as the most rational milestone to define life.
2 Likes
I don’t think it does make sense. I think it’s a bizarre concept that ignores biology. Like conception isn’t instantaneous, it happens to entities that have no hope of ever growing to be human, it happens before identical twins split into two people.
And the beginning of “life” is sort of a mixed up question anyway, because both the egg and the sperm were alive before they ever connected. The earliest that a thing that we could (with knowledge we admittedly can’t attain) define a thing with clear boundaries as “you” would be while your mother was still in the womb.
Like I said, the whole thing just seems to come from ignorance of biology. Heartbeat could at least be argued to come from differing values. Anyway, I think the question can’t have a really good answer, and even if it could, criminalizing abortion is bad policy (unless the policy goal is to oppress women).
10 Likes
I do… it’s not about life, it’s about controlling women. Always.
16 Likes
What’s their proposed punishment? Public stoning?
Well yes, our individual cells are also alive and constantly die and split into new cells, etc. And your examples just further show that it is nigh impossible to draw a line on when “life” begins. Deferring to the earliest possible time I think is logical - but disagreeing with it is also logical.
That said, I don’t think the question of legality can be based on this premise either.
Completely agree.
I don’t have a problem with the stance (ETA of life begins at conception), I do have a problem with forcing others to adhere to it.
1 Like
You think that some conservative asshole who doesn’t know me, my life, my family, or my circumstances in the Gold dome gets to decide I don’t get full civil rights and control of my body? Because that’s what it is, full stop. They can THINK life begins at conception all they want. They are not backed by science, as others have noted. Nor do they get to legislate away MY rights, because of that belief, much like just because some racist asshole believes that whites are superior does not get to legislate away the rights of others. That’s what this is about, full stop.
I’m a HUMAN BEING, not a baby making machine put on earth for the pleasure of men…
17 Likes
No, not at all. Which is why I said “I do have a problem with forcing others to adhere to it.”
4 Likes
Fair enough… my misunderstanding.
11 Likes
Oh sorry, I can see how you thought I was referring to YOUR stance.
7 Likes
Agreed.
11 Likes
you cleared it up, so that’s what matters… I’ll leave the rant, cause it’s relevant…
9 Likes
Having had the dubious pleasure of speaking for the Texas House Transportation Committee last month, I can tell you that Texas Senators and House Representatives not from Austin / not representing the people of Austin love few things more than Austin-bashing. Early. Often. Every chance they get.
I wish I were kidding.
http://www.kirkwatson.com/featured-posts/hating-on-the-states-most-prosperous-city/
Full disclosure:
I work in, have lived in and around Austin for a few decades.
There are pockets of liberality. Some sections of Houston. Denton. El Paso. Please do not ask me to explain Texas politics.
However, this 2017 New Yorker piece by Lawrence Wright comes close to at least characterizing Texas politics…
NSFW:
Damn funny. And accurate.
I miss Molly Ivins. 
ETA: links to wikipedia and New Yorker
7 Likes
Oddly not a single pro-lifer has ever been willing to help pay for a hysterectomy for me. I’ve never been pregnant, but honestly I think they ought to at least be willing to take the offensive organ out so that no innocent babies die in it anyway. It’s not like I want kids.
11 Likes
If you aren’t pregnant, barefoot, and in the kitchen you are part of the problem.
3 Likes
Truth:
10 Likes
Oh, no sweetie, see, you’ll change your mind some day, because us wimmins are like that… you’ll see, some day, you’ll want a whole bushel of them when you meet the right man, and if you get your… you know lady bits taken out, you’ll just regret it and end up a victorian ghost someday… /s
21 Likes
The number of times I have heard that argument…
Checks
Nope. Still don’t want kids.
17 Likes
It always boggles my mind that people assume that all women want children. What disturbs me most is that other women make that argument… I can’t imagine projecting my own choices onto others.
19 Likes
