15 ms·

> Is a zygote more alive than the gametes that came together to form it? Uh, life sure, but human life? If human life doesn't start at conception, when?

soperj 4y ago
at conception it's just a cell. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zygote#/media/File:Zygote1.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zygote#/media/File:Zygote1.jpg I don't think anyone would mistake that for a human life.
- Dove 4y ago
  I would call a zygote a human life. A zygote has a critical feature that no other cell has: if you don't kill it, it will someday love and suffer and have opinions and work and play and seek the meaning of life. Humans are rarely fully human at any given moment. They sleep, during which they lose the critical characteristic of consciousness. They go insane, during which they lose the critical characteristic of intelligence or reason. They suffer the frailties of youth, during which they are dumber and weaker than many animals. They suffer the frailties of age, during which the same is true. They suffer injury and disability. They suffer under privation and oppression and abuse and fail to develop as they should. None of these things prevent them from being human. The eugenecists of the early 20th century were scientists. They didn't say the negro was subhuman out of sheer bigotry; they tested the hypothesis. They gave IQ tests and the results were clear -- but they were testing victims of abuse and privation. Were they right to look at the man as he was, at that moment? They were not. The true understanding of the value of a human being transcends the current circumstance and looks at the whole of life and the whole of potential. It respects what happened in the past and what will happen tomorrow. It respects what could happen with healing, or in a generation. Sperm are cells. They do cell things. But that zygote - if you protect it - is a creature that will some day write essays. That's why it's human. That's the difference.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - soperj 4y ago
    >I would call a zygote a human life. A zygote has a critical feature that no other cell has And yet, in the very next sentence, you refer to it as a cell.
    - exolymph 4y ago
      Why can't it be both? After all, cells are alive.
    - Dove 4y ago
      It is a cell. It is also a human life.
  - orwin 4y ago
    I think there is a high percentage of chance that the zygote will self terminate. That makes people who have difficulties to have kids serial killers no? I mean, my aunt had 19 zigotes implanted before she carried one to term, shouldn't this be illegal? Also, doesn't that makes people waiting to have kids (thus increasing the chance of early termination) immoral?
    - Dove 4y ago
      > I think there is a high percentage of chance that the zygote will self terminate. There is. The figure that sticks in my head, off the cuff, is that something like in the neighborhood of a quarter or a third of pregnancies end so soon that the woman doesn't even find out she's pregnant -- a miscarriage is mistaken for (and in some ways actually is) a period. If you want to know how I feel about this, I feel roughly the same as I do knowing that there are wars and oppression and disaster occurring in far away countries in which lots of people die. It is how the world is, and I can't change it. I didn't know those people, but it's tragic. Turning to personal experience, I have detected an early miscarriage or two of my own. One I wasn't expecting and wasn't sure about, and it felt to me a bit like as if I came upon a dead stranger in the street. Tragic, if distant. One I was expecting and was sure about, and I mourned like the lost baby I felt it was -- she has a name and a grave. > That makes people who have difficulties to have kids serial killers no? I don't think so. The law recognizes a difference between trying to kill someone (murder) and accidentally killing someone while not specifically trying to (manslaughter). I think the law is right on this point, and intent matters. There's a funny and fuzzy line here -- manslaughter surely becomes more murderous as you raise the probability, right? Where's the line? I would say that morality is not so simple that you can place the line at, for example, 30% odds. If justice were something computers could do, we wouldn't need judges -- laws would be sufficient. ;) I would say more seriously that judging this sort of situation is a hard and human thing to do, and that philosophers with their pocket calculators tend to miss the point. I would also say, in the case of trying to conceive, that living is so wonderful that it is well worth a chance of death, even if that chance is quite high. People even as adults generally believe life is worth risk, even extreme risk, and I see giving that chance -- risk and all -- to someone else as a kindness. > I mean, my aunt had 19 zigotes implanted before she carried one to term, shouldn't this be illegal? People who share my perspective are generally very uncomfortable with IVF. I certainly am, and would never do it myself. I think if my view were common, it probably would be illegal. But I can't claim this is well settled even within that community. To be very clear, I don't intend to persuade you to agree with me. I was responding to the above poster who was incredulous that anyone could hold this belief. I do, and I know people who do, and I know communities that do, and you might be surprised by how many people it is, if you think it should be zero. > Also, doesn't that makes people waiting to have kids (thus increasing the chance of early termination) immoral? I would say no. And I would also say that the question gets at a deep, deep disagreement that I have with what seems to be a very dominant philosophical viewpoint. You see, you seem to regard a chance of death as so important that it dominates all other calculations, and decisions must be made optimizing nearly exclusively on that variable. If the chance of a pregnancy being viable is 80% a this age and 70% at that age, it is actually immoral to try at that age. The perspective I hail from sees this way of thinking as monomaniacal and unhealthy and perhaps a bit narcissistic. Trying too hard to optimize mortality is really beside the point -- everyone dies. You can't change that. And if you want to impact people in a positive way, you should do so writ large and awesome -- not fretting about how many toes you step on. By all means, be careful! But obsessing over that isn't good. I see living a vibrant human life as much more important than being able to prove your negative impact on your neighbors was optimally minimal to three decimal places. In fact, I think that if you focus on that to such a degree that you neglect the awesome things you're supposed to be doing with your life, you've missed the point of living -- and that in itself is a great sin, tantamount to suicide. By all means, be careful not to hurt people! But making this a central focus out of a fear of judgement sacrifices too much on other axes. I would say that a life characterized by a fear of wrongdoing will always pale compared to a life animated by love. (I would also, paradoxically, say that a life animated by love will actually do a better job of not hurting people, at the end of the day -- both because it is generally more careful and makes better tradeoffs when it is less careful). I suppose that is one way to spell some of the magic of the gospel -- a dependence on grace is a secret key to righteousness because without it you don't have permission to fail. One peculiar difference is that my way of viewing the world sees a big difference between statistical, unintended death and intentional murder. Paradoxically, I don't have a problem with declaring war, even though you know that statistically speaking innocent people will die, while I do have a problem with intentionally committing murder for a strategic advantage in the same war. I don't even care about the numbers at all -- the first could be a million and the second could be one, and I'd still care about the second much more. I don't care much about numbers and I care a lot about intent. It is interesting to note that my worldview is Christian and therefore ancient -- forged in a very different world than this one. In the ancient world, infant mortality was high, regular mortality was high, and health care was nonexistent. It is easy to see how working too hard to shave points off of public mortality would have seemed pointless in such a world -- if you are lucky enough to have your life and health, do something with it! That was certainly the take of the ancients on the situation. It is easy to see how the ancients might agree with me that working to improve public health is cool and all, if that's your calling, but that obsessing over your impact on your neighbor's health is kind of narcissistic and pointless. He's going to die of something else, and likely sooner rather than later, and in the mean time you've wasted your life -- which is precious and since you are lucky enough to have it, you have an absolute responsibility to do something! The moderns don't see it that way. Since everyone's going to be healthy and long lived, small impacts are worth obsessing over. And somehow paradoxically, since life isn't such an unusual gift, wasting yours isn't a big deal. Curiously, it's the ancients I disagree with in thinking murder's a big deal. While the Christians certainly thought so, many, many, many cultures saw the murder of the weak, poor, or infants as just... not a big deal. Certainly the Roman culture that Christianity was born in practiced routine infanticide, which the Christians rejected as ghastly. The ancients held the view that since life was cheap, murdering a few people here and there was no big deal. I (and the moderns) strenuously disagree. The moderns hold the view that since death is rare, slight statistical increases are worth obsessing over, and since life is long and routine, wasting yours on such trivia is no big deal. I (and the ancients) would strenuously disagree. I happen to think that's because my viewpoint is timeless and correct. ;) But one thing it certainly isn't is modern.
- argomo 4y ago
  Unfortunately, evangelical leaders have promoted this as a sort of magic moment when a human begins. The has resulted in opposition to emergency contraception (Plan B) under the perception that it's an aborticant.
- kansface 4y ago
  > I don't think anyone would mistake that for a human life. I don't think many people claim a zygote is a person. I still don't see any plausible argument that human life begins at some time other than at the point of conception.
FactolSarin 4y ago
When does a person die? When the last synapse fires? When the heart stops? When your brain is too far gone for you to be responsive? The truth is there is no bright line. Dying is a process, not an event. So is coming into being. Personally, I don't see a zygote as a person. But a 32 week pregnancy is pretty close? Close enough that I wouldn't condone an abortion except in extreme cases.
- spoils19 4y ago
  As a conservative, a person dies when God comes and brings the person to heaven. It's very clearly defined.
  - teolandon 4y ago
    "God" and "heaven" are not clearly defined at all. Nor measurable.
  - tomrod 4y ago
    Every conservative is theist? I know several counterexamples. Ergo, the clear definition is missing. What is more, "God comes and brings that person to heaven" is pretty much only applicable to a minor subset of Christianity, which only overlaps about 40% with conservatism, hardly the modal belief or even a sizable plurality. That would be Catholicism, with purgatory. Further, it isn't the most novel of beliefs. That'd be Mormonism, with its "Spirit World" reinterpretation of swedenborgianism, or potentially some theories among Baháʼí adherents. When you use beliefs to define biological and legal processes, things get murky and edge-case-y really really quick. You shouldn't advocate for using beliefs to define biological or legal processes, especially in a pluralistic society like the US and Western democracies, but also in general. It is a hallmark of bad governance. This doesn't mean morals and ethics have no place in law. Only that unfalsifiable beliefs shouldn't drive law or science. A great book on this, which has been life changing for many, is "The Demon-Haunted World" by Carl Sagan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Demon-Haunted_World https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Demon-Haunted_World
  - anigbrowl 4y ago
    If only measurement were as easy as definition.
softcactus 4y ago
This question is unanswerable because nobody can define what is human and what is life. It's a spectrum. For any rule you can give that separates humanity from other animals, I can give an exception to that rule. Which is why intellectualizing the abortion argument from the point of "when does life begin" is pointless. Instead we should serve to minimize harm, in which case legalizing abortion is the obvious choice, since criminalizing abortion has never decreased the number of abortions. It has only led to unsafe abortions and higher rates of infanticide.
btilly 4y ago
What makes you human to me is your brain. That's why I feel no compunction about killing a fly, regret about killing a dog, and think it is wrong to commit murder. So if I suffer an accident and suffer brain death, pull the plug. Appearances notwithstanding, I would no longer be meaningfully human. Conversely a zygote with no brain is less to me than a fly. A fetus with pain reflexes but no higher thought is less to me than a dog. And even a newborn baby is not fully human. Lots of potential is there, but not yet reality.
- anon291 4y ago
  Please please please make the infanticide argument explicit. I really hope major parties latch on to this. It will make it a lot easier for the others to win elections.
drc500free 4y ago
When identical twins are conceived, do two lives begin at conception?
- Buttons840 4y ago
  There's also chimera, two zygotes merge so fully they come out as a single person with two sets of DNA.
neuronexmachina 4y ago
When it comes down to it, I think one could make a convincing argument that individual sperm and eggs are alive. IMHO, what matters for what's generally considered "human life" is when consciousness begins and ends: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-does-consciousness-arise/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-does-conscio... > But when does the magical journey of consciousness begin? Consciousness requires a sophisticated network of highly interconnected components, nerve cells. Its physical substrate, the thalamo-cortical complex that provides consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation. Roughly two months later synchrony of the electroencephalographic (EEG) rhythm across both cortical hemispheres signals the onset of global neuronal integration. Thus, many of the circuit elements necessary for consciousness are in place by the third trimester. By this time, preterm infants can survive outside the womb under proper medical care.
alistairSH 4y ago
That's a largely unanswerable question. What defines "human"? Is it the sequence of DNA? Is it the presence of a soul? Is it some level of thought? The first is knowable. The second is absolutely not knowable. The third is a bit squishy - is thought just synapses firing, or does a person have to articulate that thought into language (or something else)? To me, it's viability, which is itself fuzzy and gradually getting to be a smaller window. Carry a fetus long enough that it's viable, you should carry it all the way (newly arising complications as an exception). Before that, it's not human enough to outweigh the costs/risks/etc to the mother.
fundad 4y ago
Exactly, this is a very personal question and should not be up to police. I certainly don't want police to determine whether or not a pregnancy is threatening the life of the pregnant person. The people that want to pass a national law like the Louisiana law want police interfering with your pregnancy, your contraception, your marriage, your sexual positions and whether you can be openly gay or trans. They have a pliant SCOTUS that wouldn't dare strike down their egregious legislative agenda.

soperj 4y ago

at conception it's just a cell. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zygote#/media/File:Zygote1.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zygote#/media/File:Zygote1.jpg I don't think anyone would mistake that for a human life.

Dove 4y ago
I would call a zygote a human life. A zygote has a critical feature that no other cell has: if you don't kill it, it will someday love and suffer and have opinions and work and play and seek the meaning of life. Humans are rarely fully human at any given moment. They sleep, during which they lose the critical characteristic of consciousness. They go insane, during which they lose the critical characteristic of intelligence or reason. They suffer the frailties of youth, during which they are dumber and weaker than many animals. They suffer the frailties of age, during which the same is true. They suffer injury and disability. They suffer under privation and oppression and abuse and fail to develop as they should. None of these things prevent them from being human. The eugenecists of the early 20th century were scientists. They didn't say the negro was subhuman out of sheer bigotry; they tested the hypothesis. They gave IQ tests and the results were clear -- but they were testing victims of abuse and privation. Were they right to look at the man as he was, at that moment? They were not. The true understanding of the value of a human being transcends the current circumstance and looks at the whole of life and the whole of potential. It respects what happened in the past and what will happen tomorrow. It respects what could happen with healing, or in a generation. Sperm are cells. They do cell things. But that zygote - if you protect it - is a creature that will some day write essays. That's why it's human. That's the difference.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- soperj 4y ago
  >I would call a zygote a human life. A zygote has a critical feature that no other cell has And yet, in the very next sentence, you refer to it as a cell.
  - exolymph 4y ago
    Why can't it be both? After all, cells are alive.
  - Dove 4y ago
    It is a cell. It is also a human life.
- orwin 4y ago
  I think there is a high percentage of chance that the zygote will self terminate. That makes people who have difficulties to have kids serial killers no? I mean, my aunt had 19 zigotes implanted before she carried one to term, shouldn't this be illegal? Also, doesn't that makes people waiting to have kids (thus increasing the chance of early termination) immoral?
  - Dove 4y ago
    > I think there is a high percentage of chance that the zygote will self terminate. There is. The figure that sticks in my head, off the cuff, is that something like in the neighborhood of a quarter or a third of pregnancies end so soon that the woman doesn't even find out she's pregnant -- a miscarriage is mistaken for (and in some ways actually is) a period. If you want to know how I feel about this, I feel roughly the same as I do knowing that there are wars and oppression and disaster occurring in far away countries in which lots of people die. It is how the world is, and I can't change it. I didn't know those people, but it's tragic. Turning to personal experience, I have detected an early miscarriage or two of my own. One I wasn't expecting and wasn't sure about, and it felt to me a bit like as if I came upon a dead stranger in the street. Tragic, if distant. One I was expecting and was sure about, and I mourned like the lost baby I felt it was -- she has a name and a grave. > That makes people who have difficulties to have kids serial killers no? I don't think so. The law recognizes a difference between trying to kill someone (murder) and accidentally killing someone while not specifically trying to (manslaughter). I think the law is right on this point, and intent matters. There's a funny and fuzzy line here -- manslaughter surely becomes more murderous as you raise the probability, right? Where's the line? I would say that morality is not so simple that you can place the line at, for example, 30% odds. If justice were something computers could do, we wouldn't need judges -- laws would be sufficient. ;) I would say more seriously that judging this sort of situation is a hard and human thing to do, and that philosophers with their pocket calculators tend to miss the point. I would also say, in the case of trying to conceive, that living is so wonderful that it is well worth a chance of death, even if that chance is quite high. People even as adults generally believe life is worth risk, even extreme risk, and I see giving that chance -- risk and all -- to someone else as a kindness. > I mean, my aunt had 19 zigotes implanted before she carried one to term, shouldn't this be illegal? People who share my perspective are generally very uncomfortable with IVF. I certainly am, and would never do it myself. I think if my view were common, it probably would be illegal. But I can't claim this is well settled even within that community. To be very clear, I don't intend to persuade you to agree with me. I was responding to the above poster who was incredulous that anyone could hold this belief. I do, and I know people who do, and I know communities that do, and you might be surprised by how many people it is, if you think it should be zero. > Also, doesn't that makes people waiting to have kids (thus increasing the chance of early termination) immoral? I would say no. And I would also say that the question gets at a deep, deep disagreement that I have with what seems to be a very dominant philosophical viewpoint. You see, you seem to regard a chance of death as so important that it dominates all other calculations, and decisions must be made optimizing nearly exclusively on that variable. If the chance of a pregnancy being viable is 80% a this age and 70% at that age, it is actually immoral to try at that age. The perspective I hail from sees this way of thinking as monomaniacal and unhealthy and perhaps a bit narcissistic. Trying too hard to optimize mortality is really beside the point -- everyone dies. You can't change that. And if you want to impact people in a positive way, you should do so writ large and awesome -- not fretting about how many toes you step on. By all means, be careful! But obsessing over that isn't good. I see living a vibrant human life as much more important than being able to prove your negative impact on your neighbors was optimally minimal to three decimal places. In fact, I think that if you focus on that to such a degree that you neglect the awesome things you're supposed to be doing with your life, you've missed the point of living -- and that in itself is a great sin, tantamount to suicide. By all means, be careful not to hurt people! But making this a central focus out of a fear of judgement sacrifices too much on other axes. I would say that a life characterized by a fear of wrongdoing will always pale compared to a life animated by love. (I would also, paradoxically, say that a life animated by love will actually do a better job of not hurting people, at the end of the day -- both because it is generally more careful and makes better tradeoffs when it is less careful). I suppose that is one way to spell some of the magic of the gospel -- a dependence on grace is a secret key to righteousness because without it you don't have permission to fail. One peculiar difference is that my way of viewing the world sees a big difference between statistical, unintended death and intentional murder. Paradoxically, I don't have a problem with declaring war, even though you know that statistically speaking innocent people will die, while I do have a problem with intentionally committing murder for a strategic advantage in the same war. I don't even care about the numbers at all -- the first could be a million and the second could be one, and I'd still care about the second much more. I don't care much about numbers and I care a lot about intent. It is interesting to note that my worldview is Christian and therefore ancient -- forged in a very different world than this one. In the ancient world, infant mortality was high, regular mortality was high, and health care was nonexistent. It is easy to see how working too hard to shave points off of public mortality would have seemed pointless in such a world -- if you are lucky enough to have your life and health, do something with it! That was certainly the take of the ancients on the situation. It is easy to see how the ancients might agree with me that working to improve public health is cool and all, if that's your calling, but that obsessing over your impact on your neighbor's health is kind of narcissistic and pointless. He's going to die of something else, and likely sooner rather than later, and in the mean time you've wasted your life -- which is precious and since you are lucky enough to have it, you have an absolute responsibility to do something! The moderns don't see it that way. Since everyone's going to be healthy and long lived, small impacts are worth obsessing over. And somehow paradoxically, since life isn't such an unusual gift, wasting yours isn't a big deal. Curiously, it's the ancients I disagree with in thinking murder's a big deal. While the Christians certainly thought so, many, many, many cultures saw the murder of the weak, poor, or infants as just... not a big deal. Certainly the Roman culture that Christianity was born in practiced routine infanticide, which the Christians rejected as ghastly. The ancients held the view that since life was cheap, murdering a few people here and there was no big deal. I (and the moderns) strenuously disagree. The moderns hold the view that since death is rare, slight statistical increases are worth obsessing over, and since life is long and routine, wasting yours on such trivia is no big deal. I (and the ancients) would strenuously disagree. I happen to think that's because my viewpoint is timeless and correct. ;) But one thing it certainly isn't is modern.
argomo 4y ago
Unfortunately, evangelical leaders have promoted this as a sort of magic moment when a human begins. The has resulted in opposition to emergency contraception (Plan B) under the perception that it's an aborticant.
kansface 4y ago
> I don't think anyone would mistake that for a human life. I don't think many people claim a zygote is a person. I still don't see any plausible argument that human life begins at some time other than at the point of conception.

FactolSarin 4y ago

When does a person die? When the last synapse fires? When the heart stops? When your brain is too far gone for you to be responsive? The truth is there is no bright line. Dying is a process, not an event. So is coming into being. Personally, I don't see a zygote as a person. But a 32 week pregnancy is pretty close? Close enough that I wouldn't condone an abortion except in extreme cases.

spoils19 4y ago
As a conservative, a person dies when God comes and brings the person to heaven. It's very clearly defined.
- teolandon 4y ago
  "God" and "heaven" are not clearly defined at all. Nor measurable.
- tomrod 4y ago
  Every conservative is theist? I know several counterexamples. Ergo, the clear definition is missing. What is more, "God comes and brings that person to heaven" is pretty much only applicable to a minor subset of Christianity, which only overlaps about 40% with conservatism, hardly the modal belief or even a sizable plurality. That would be Catholicism, with purgatory. Further, it isn't the most novel of beliefs. That'd be Mormonism, with its "Spirit World" reinterpretation of swedenborgianism, or potentially some theories among Baháʼí adherents. When you use beliefs to define biological and legal processes, things get murky and edge-case-y really really quick. You shouldn't advocate for using beliefs to define biological or legal processes, especially in a pluralistic society like the US and Western democracies, but also in general. It is a hallmark of bad governance. This doesn't mean morals and ethics have no place in law. Only that unfalsifiable beliefs shouldn't drive law or science. A great book on this, which has been life changing for many, is "The Demon-Haunted World" by Carl Sagan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Demon-Haunted_World https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Demon-Haunted_World
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  If only measurement were as easy as definition.

softcactus 4y ago

This question is unanswerable because nobody can define what is human and what is life. It's a spectrum. For any rule you can give that separates humanity from other animals, I can give an exception to that rule. Which is why intellectualizing the abortion argument from the point of "when does life begin" is pointless. Instead we should serve to minimize harm, in which case legalizing abortion is the obvious choice, since criminalizing abortion has never decreased the number of abortions. It has only led to unsafe abortions and higher rates of infanticide.

btilly 4y ago

What makes you human to me is your brain. That's why I feel no compunction about killing a fly, regret about killing a dog, and think it is wrong to commit murder. So if I suffer an accident and suffer brain death, pull the plug. Appearances notwithstanding, I would no longer be meaningfully human. Conversely a zygote with no brain is less to me than a fly. A fetus with pain reflexes but no higher thought is less to me than a dog. And even a newborn baby is not fully human. Lots of potential is there, but not yet reality.

anon291 4y ago
Please please please make the infanticide argument explicit. I really hope major parties latch on to this. It will make it a lot easier for the others to win elections.

drc500free 4y ago

When identical twins are conceived, do two lives begin at conception?

Buttons840 4y ago
There's also chimera, two zygotes merge so fully they come out as a single person with two sets of DNA.

neuronexmachina 4y ago

When it comes down to it, I think one could make a convincing argument that individual sperm and eggs are alive. IMHO, what matters for what's generally considered "human life" is when consciousness begins and ends: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-does-consciousness-arise/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-does-conscio... > But when does the magical journey of consciousness begin? Consciousness requires a sophisticated network of highly interconnected components, nerve cells. Its physical substrate, the thalamo-cortical complex that provides consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation. Roughly two months later synchrony of the electroencephalographic (EEG) rhythm across both cortical hemispheres signals the onset of global neuronal integration. Thus, many of the circuit elements necessary for consciousness are in place by the third trimester. By this time, preterm infants can survive outside the womb under proper medical care.

alistairSH 4y ago

That's a largely unanswerable question. What defines "human"? Is it the sequence of DNA? Is it the presence of a soul? Is it some level of thought? The first is knowable. The second is absolutely not knowable. The third is a bit squishy - is thought just synapses firing, or does a person have to articulate that thought into language (or something else)? To me, it's viability, which is itself fuzzy and gradually getting to be a smaller window. Carry a fetus long enough that it's viable, you should carry it all the way (newly arising complications as an exception). Before that, it's not human enough to outweigh the costs/risks/etc to the mother.

fundad 4y ago

Exactly, this is a very personal question and should not be up to police. I certainly don't want police to determine whether or not a pregnancy is threatening the life of the pregnant person. The people that want to pass a national law like the Louisiana law want police interfering with your pregnancy, your contraception, your marriage, your sexual positions and whether you can be openly gay or trans. They have a pliant SCOTUS that wouldn't dare strike down their egregious legislative agenda.