Roe v Wade is on deck

[Toni]

The belief that abortion is murder is based upon the religious views of some members of some Christian sects. It is not based in any way upon science.

Expecting adherents to religions which do not regard abortion as murder or those with no religious convictions to adhere to the religious beliefs of a subset of Christianity violates their freedom of (and from) religion.

Toni, you're making a category error. What qualifies as murder is a legal and philosophical question, not a religious one. It's like saying the crime of blackmail has no scientific support.

No, I’m not making an error. You misunderstand. What I am saying and is fact is that the entire premise of calling abortion murder is religious belief.

Yes, Toni, you are making a category error.

Murder is a crime because the State made it a crime. There is nothing 'scientific' about making a certain defined action a crime, unless the legislature needs to have certain elements of the action defined.

The State gets to define what is a crime and what is not.

Not only is it religious belief but that religious belief is not widely held or even consistently held as a part of all Christian faith, much less Judaism, Islam or a host of other faiths.

It is not based on scientific fact. It’s based on the religious philosophy of a few Christian sects.

The crime of 'murder' is not based on 'scientific fact'. Invoking science is a category error. The crime of murder is based on a jurisdiction defining what it means by murder and when a certain action is murder and when it isn't.

You also appear to be hung up about the word 'murder'. The State can make something a crime without calling it 'murder'. And the State can make things a crime even if, in your religion, it is not a crime. For example, the State could make female genital mutilation a crime, even though it is permitted by some religions.

Attempting to give religious exceptions to abortion laws is, frankly speaking, idiotic. And you would not allow people religious exceptions (or exceptions because they have no religion) to other laws when you like the laws in question.

Don't be a hypocrite, Toni.

You are not understanding what I am saying whether deliberately or not.

Murder is defined under law but it uses definitions that have basis in science. One cannot murder a shoe because it is not alive. One can only murder something that is a living ting. The law relies on science to determine whether a person is or is not alive and also relies on science to determine the manner and cause of death and whether or not the death is caused by person or persons and to some extent science determines whether or not the death was caused deliberately or accidentally.

Don’t call oeople manes. It’s an ugly habit that reflects very poorly on you.

You are making a category error. Some jurisdictions might define 'murder' as an act or omission that deliberately ends a human life. Under that definition, there would be nothing 'religious' about calling abortion 'murder', because human fetuses are presumably human and alive.

But that's not the point. A jurisdiction can make abortion illegal without invoking any religious belief, just as murder is illegal without invoking any religious belief.

And, as I have already said, you would not support religious exemptions from laws you agree with. So don't be a hypocrite and support them when you don't agree with the law.

Calling people names makes you look bad, in terms of character and also in terms of your ability to reason well. I believe it's against the TOU as well particularly when it's used repeatedly to attempt to goad someone.

I haven't called you names; I've asked you to examine your beliefs and avoid hypocrisy.

Human melanoma is also alive and is also human and no court or law would prohibit removing and killing melanoma.

There are always exceptions to prosecution for murder when it is considered an act of self defense. Abortion is indeed self defense.

You are the one who is citing religious exceptions, not I. I believe that abortion should be safe and legal up until the point of reasonable viability and that at that point, restrictions may be applied but abortion cannot be forbidden.

In what universe am I suggesting there should be religious exceptions to abortion prohibition laws? You're the one suggesting that.

Whether abortion is 'murder' depends on how a jurisdiction has defined 'murder'. It does not depend on anybody's religious belief.

Whether abortion is made a crime depends on whether a jurisdiction has made it a crime. It does not depend on anybody's religious belief.

The belief that abortion is murder is based upon the religious views of some members of some Christian sects. It is not based in any way upon science.

Expecting adherents to religions which do not regard abortion as murder or those with no religious convictions to adhere to the religious beliefs of a subset of Christianity violates their freedom of (and from) religion.

Toni, you're making a category error. What qualifies as murder is a legal and philosophical question, not a religious one. It's like saying the crime of blackmail has no scientific support.

No, I’m not making an error. You misunderstand. What I am saying and is fact is that the entire premise of calling abortion murder is religious belief.

Yes, Toni, you are making a category error.

Murder is a crime because the State made it a crime. There is nothing 'scientific' about making a certain defined action a crime, unless the legislature needs to have certain elements of the action defined.

The State gets to define what is a crime and what is not.

Not only is it religious belief but that religious belief is not widely held or even consistently held as a part of all Christian faith, much less Judaism, Islam or a host of other faiths.

It is not based on scientific fact. It’s based on the religious philosophy of a few Christian sects.

The crime of 'murder' is not based on 'scientific fact'. Invoking science is a category error. The crime of murder is based on a jurisdiction defining what it means by murder and when a certain action is murder and when it isn't.

You also appear to be hung up about the word 'murder'. The State can make something a crime without calling it 'murder'. And the State can make things a crime even if, in your religion, it is not a crime. For example, the State could make female genital mutilation a crime, even though it is permitted by some religions.

Attempting to give religious exceptions to abortion laws is, frankly speaking, idiotic. And you would not allow people religious exceptions (or exceptions because they have no religion) to other laws when you like the laws in question.

Don't be a hypocrite, Toni.

You are not understanding what I am saying whether deliberately or not.

Murder is defined under law but it uses definitions that have basis in science. One cannot murder a shoe because it is not alive. One can only murder something that is a living ting. The law relies on science to determine whether a person is or is not alive and also relies on science to determine the manner and cause of death and whether or not the death is caused by person or persons and to some extent science determines whether or not the death was caused deliberately or accidentally.

Don’t call oeople manes. It’s an ugly habit that reflects very poorly on you.

You are making a category error. Some jurisdictions might define 'murder' as an act or omission that deliberately ends a human life. Under that definition, there would be nothing 'religious' about calling abortion 'murder', because human fetuses are presumably human and alive.

But that's not the point. A jurisdiction can make abortion illegal without invoking any religious belief, just as murder is illegal without invoking any religious belief.

And, as I have already said, you would not support religious exemptions from laws you agree with. So don't be a hypocrite and support them when you don't agree with the law.

Calling people names makes you look bad, in terms of character and also in terms of your ability to reason well. I believe it's against the TOU as well particularly when it's used repeatedly to attempt to goad someone.

I haven't called you names; I've asked you to examine your beliefs and avoid hypocrisy.

Human melanoma is also alive and is also human and no court or law would prohibit removing and killing melanoma.

There are always exceptions to prosecution for murder when it is considered an act of self defense. Abortion is indeed self defense.

You are the one who is citing religious exceptions, not I. I believe that abortion should be safe and legal up until the point of reasonable viability and that at that point, restrictions may be applied but abortion cannot be forbidden.

In what universe am I suggesting there should be religious exceptions to abortion prohibition laws? You're the one suggesting that.

Whether abortion is 'murder' depends on how a jurisdiction has defined 'murder'. It does not depend on anybody's religious belief.

Whether abortion is made a crime depends on whether a jurisdiction has made it a crime. It does not depend on anybody's religious belief.

You are incorrect: making abortion illegal has its entire basis on religious beliefs of a particular minority. It is not based upon science or sound medical practice. The foundation is entirely religious and is predicated on the belief that women are sinful and their only valid reasons for existence is motherhood, rearing children and making men's lives easier and more pleasant. Her own life has no real value outside of those uses or the worship of God. THAT is the core of the prohibition against abortion.

It is not my problem that you refuse to recognize that fact.

Other religious or areligious POV hold that the woman's life and her health are of value and she has the right to terminate a pregnancy. Some POV even go so far as to believe that she has a duty to terminate a pregnancy under some circumstances. It is an absolute violation of these religious beliefs, including areligious belief, that is being violated by the ban on abortions.

Even if abortion bans were not based upon religious beliefs of any religious group (in this case, some sects of Christianity) a law can violate a person's religious beliefs which, in the US is unconstitutional. Examples would include compelling military service for those who oppose war and compelling blood transfusions for Jehovah's Witnesses and other religious sects that prohibit such. Those are only a couple of examples.

Perhaps you need to examine your own thought processes and your own motivations for calling me names.

 

[Metaphor]

It is often the tactic of those who would set up an unequal society, especially one cleaving to religious extremes, to claim Principle A to restrict rights in one direction on issue A, and Principle B to restrict rights in another direction on Issue B.


Then their opponents (those who support civil rights) say, ”let’s see how Principles A and B look together on Issue A - oh, it shows your stand on issue A is wrong, even by your own standards.”

And the extremists and those who argue the case for the extremists say, “you said you opposed Principle B! You hypocrite! Ad hom Ad hom Ad hom!” and thereby try to turn the conversation away from the refuted Issue A, and make it all about the ad hom.


One can see Metaphor trying this tactic, above.

I am not aware that Toni named specific legislators or commentators that have obviously conflicting principles. One could believe in abortion prohibition laws and believe in religious exception laws without necessary conflict, depending on the specifics.

Toni herself believes in abortion restriction after a fetus is 'viable'.

But it remains that Toni’s demonstration that their abortion bans are wrong even by the principles that the banners themselves hold, is accurate. Toni comparing their priciples to their arguments of course does not make her a hypocrite.

Non. Toni said:

Expecting adherents to religions which do not regard abortion as murder or those with no religious convictions to adhere to the religious beliefs of a subset of Christianity violates their freedom of (and from) religion.

Toni here is arguing for an exception to a prohibition on abortion because to do so would otherwise 'violate their (religious) freedom'. Toni supports other laws that would similarly violate somebody's religious freedom (or those with non-religious convictions). So she should either
* Voice her objection to abortion prohibition laws without suggesting their should be religious exceptions
* Change her mind about religious (and conviction-based non-religious) exceptions to laws she does not like (abortion prohibition) as well as laws she does like.

If Toni is not advocating for religious exceptions to abortion laws, then I have mistaken her intent and I apologise.

But the ad hom directed against her to distract from the soundness of her argument does indeed highlight the paucity of the argument against her points. One can attack the argument, or one can prove one is unable by attacking the character of the person Instead.

I do not believe in providing religious exceptions to laws. I think overall they are a bad idea, and I think it usually shows there was something wrong with the law in the first place.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This incident is comparable to the test case before SCOTUS. It doesn't discriminate against an entire class of people. It more or less just discriminates against the discriminators.

In the spirit of nuanced contrarianism,

Do the people who think the restaurant had the right to do this think that the Colorado baker had the right to refuse to produce a trans celebration cake?

I believe we are saying we have a right to call it contrary. That they are complaining of not being served for who they are verses supporting others not being served. That is hypocrisy.

This is their standard, not ours. What is good for the mixed metaphor is good for the gander without a paddle.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Whether abortion is 'murder' depends on how a jurisdiction has defined 'murder'. It does not depend on anybody's religious belief.

I do not believe in providing religious exceptions to laws. I think overall they are a bad idea, and I think it usually shows there was something wrong with the law in the first place.

I was about to call you on that first quote but then ran into the second quote. We both seem to recognize that there are bad laws. Laws that are religiously based top the list.

It's interesting, however, when one realizes that religion is a cultural phenomenon, the religion doesn't come first. Religion just appropriates values and behaviors that are already present.

 

[Toni]

It is often the tactic of those who would set up an unequal society, especially one cleaving to religious extremes, to claim Principle A to restrict rights in one direction on issue A, and Principle B to restrict rights in another direction on Issue B.


Then their opponents (those who support civil rights) say, ”let’s see how Principles A and B look together on Issue A - oh, it shows your stand on issue A is wrong, even by your own standards.”

And the extremists and those who argue the case for the extremists say, “you said you opposed Principle B! You hypocrite! Ad hom Ad hom Ad hom!” and thereby try to turn the conversation away from the refuted Issue A, and make it all about the ad hom.


One can see Metaphor trying this tactic, above.

I am not aware that Toni named specific legislators or commentators that have obviously conflicting principles. One could believe in abortion prohibition laws and believe in religious exception laws without necessary conflict, depending on the specifics.

Toni herself believes in abortion restriction after a fetus is 'viable'.

But it remains that Toni’s demonstration that their abortion bans are wrong even by the principles that the banners themselves hold, is accurate. Toni comparing their priciples to their arguments of course does not make her a hypocrite.

Non. Toni said:

Expecting adherents to religions which do not regard abortion as murder or those with no religious convictions to adhere to the religious beliefs of a subset of Christianity violates their freedom of (and from) religion.

Toni here is arguing for an exception to a prohibition on abortion because to do so would otherwise 'violate their (religious) freedom'. Toni supports other laws that would similarly violate somebody's religious freedom (or those with non-religious convictions). So she should either
* Voice her objection to abortion prohibition laws without suggesting their should be religious exceptions
* Change her mind about religious (and conviction-based non-religious) exceptions to laws she does not like (abortion prohibition) as well as laws she does like.

If Toni is not advocating for religious exceptions to abortion laws, then I have mistaken her intent and I apologise.

But the ad hom directed against her to distract from the soundness of her argument does indeed highlight the paucity of the argument against her points. One can attack the argument, or one can prove one is unable by attacking the character of the person Instead.

I do not believe in providing religious exceptions to laws. I think overall they are a bad idea, and I think it usually shows there was something wrong with the law in the first place.

I don't give a rat's ass what you think I should do.

 

[Metaphor]

You are incorrect: making abortion illegal has its entire basis on religious beliefs of a particular minority.

So, no atheist or secular person has ever proposed abortion prohibitions?

It is not based upon science

Laws are not based on 'science'. There is nothing scientific about the proposition 'blackmail is a crime'.

or sound medical practice. The foundation is entirely religious and is predicated on the belief that women are sinful and their only valid reasons for existence is motherhood, rearing children and making men's lives easier and more pleasant. Her own life has no real value outside of those uses or the worship of God. THAT is the core of the prohibition against abortion.

Your speculation about why some people oppose abortion does not reflect the views I hear from people who oppose abortion.

It is not my problem that you refuse to recognize that fact.

Well yes: I do refuse to recognise that "fact".

Other religious or areligious POV hold that the woman's life and her health are of value and she has the right to terminate a pregnancy. Some POV even go so far as to believe that she has a duty to terminate a pregnancy under some circumstances. It is an absolute violation of these religious beliefs, including areligious belief, that is being violated by the ban on abortions.

In cases where a religion requires a woman to get an abortion (in what religion and circumstances?), an abortion ban may well 'violate' her religious practice, but that is not a good reason to give religious exceptions to laws.

Even if abortion bans were not based upon religious beliefs of any religious group (in this case, some sects of Christianity) a law can violate a person's religious beliefs which, in the US is unconstitutional.

Really?

It is my understanding that the state abortion bans that were kept at bay by Roe v Wade were not kept at bay by the establishment clause. If they had been, Roe v Wade would have made no difference.

Examples would include compelling military service for those who oppose war and compelling blood transfusions for Jehovah's Witnesses and other religious sects that prohibit such. Those are only a couple of examples.

Perhaps you need to examine your own thought processes and your own motivations for calling me names.

I didn't call you names. I suggested you avoid actions that would make you a hypocrite.

 

[TomC]

I believe we are saying we have a right to call it contrary. That they are complaining of not being served for who they are verses supporting others not being served. That is hypocrisy.

Who is "we" and who is "they"?

This is their standard, not ours. What is good for the mixed metaphor is good for the gander without a paddle.

I guess goading is OK, depending on your ideological leanings.
That's pretty much true everywhere on the internet.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

Murdering 11 year olds, or any person who is not actively using your body against your will is not related in any way.

As a rule I statements that are as blatantly obvious as the above, I suspect the obtuse will need it explained.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I believe we are saying we have a right to call it contrary. That they are complaining of not being served for who they are verses supporting others not being served. That is hypocrisy.

Who is "we" and who is "they"?

"We" would be the people who think commerce should not be restricted based on personal identity. "They" would be the people who want to allow the arbitrary and open discrimination of people in places of commerce.

This is their standard, not ours. What is good for the mixed metaphor is good for the gander without a paddle.

I guess goading is OK, depending on your ideological leanings.

What, are you an English Lit grad?

 

[ZiprHead]

The Problem with Making Rape Survivors Prove It

Hostility. Charges of obstruction. Even, in some cases, jail time—not for the perpetrators, but the victims. Is it any mystery why most sexual assaults go unreported?

www.thebulwark.com

atty did everything right. As soon as the man who raped her while holding a knife to her throat left her apartment in Madison, Wisconsin, in the early morning hours of Sept. 4, 1997, she called 9-1-1, spoke to responding officers, went to a local hospital for a rape examination, and, in the days that followed, did her best to provide details to the detective assigned to her case.

But the detective, Tom Woodmansee of the Madison Police Department, doubted Patty from the start and quickly turned the rape investigation into an investigation of her. He thought her injuries (a bruised thigh and cuts to her hand, face, and neck) were too minor, and was suspicious about her inability to describe her assailant. (Patty had and still has advanced macular degeneration and is legally blind.)

At one point, in an interview in her apartment, Patty said Woodmansee was so displeased with her answers that he told her, pointing to the bedroom where the rape occurred, “If we have to go in there and role-play this thing, we will.”

About a month after the rape, Woodmansee summoned Patty, then 38, to an ambush interview at police headquarters, where he and another detective confronted her with their conclusion, based on a complete misreading of the evidence, that the rape “never happened.” Patty says Woodmansee told her, “You don’t act like a rape victim.” The detectives subjected her to interrogation tactics, including false representations, that are designed to break even hardened criminals, and often do.

Under this duress, Patty recanted. “What do you want to hear?” she asked the detectives. “If you’re going to drop this, I’ll say whatever you want.” This wording comes directly from Woodmansee’s report.

But as soon as she was allowed to return home, Patty went back to her original story, and began speaking out about how she had been pressured to falsely recant. She even went to the press—in this case, to me, in early January 1998, when I was news editor of the local weekly Isthmus. While I was working on what would be the first of dozens of articles on the case over the next decade, the District Attorney’s Office in Dane County, which includes Madison, decided to charge Patty with misdemeanor obstruction, for which she faced up to six months in jail and a $10,000 fine, for having reported that she was raped.

Six months after filing criminal charges against Patty, the DA’s office dismissed the charges, due to the belated discovery of crime-scene semen that could not be accounted for. But police and prosecutors continued to insist that Patty had lied. In 1999, she filed a federal lawsuit against Woodmansee and others, which got thrown out of court. She lost her job. The judge ordered her to pay the defense’s legal fees, well beyond her means. Her attorney got this reduced to a small sum, which he paid himself, by agreeing to relinquish Patty’s right to further legal action.

And then, in 2001, the semen found at the scene was matched to a known criminal who was an acquaintance of Patty’s daughter. In 2004, he was tried, convicted, and sentenced to 40 years in prison, where he took his own life in 2019. I wrote a book about the case, which prompted the city of Madison to apologize to Patty and cut her a check for $35,000.

 

[Toni]

The Problem with Making Rape Survivors Prove It

Hostility. Charges of obstruction. Even, in some cases, jail time—not for the perpetrators, but the victims. Is it any mystery why most sexual assaults go unreported?

www.thebulwark.com

atty did everything right. As soon as the man who raped her while holding a knife to her throat left her apartment in Madison, Wisconsin, in the early morning hours of Sept. 4, 1997, she called 9-1-1, spoke to responding officers, went to a local hospital for a rape examination, and, in the days that followed, did her best to provide details to the detective assigned to her case.

But the detective, Tom Woodmansee of the Madison Police Department, doubted Patty from the start and quickly turned the rape investigation into an investigation of her. He thought her injuries (a bruised thigh and cuts to her hand, face, and neck) were too minor, and was suspicious about her inability to describe her assailant. (Patty had and still has advanced macular degeneration and is legally blind.)

At one point, in an interview in her apartment, Patty said Woodmansee was so displeased with her answers that he told her, pointing to the bedroom where the rape occurred, “If we have to go in there and role-play this thing, we will.”

About a month after the rape, Woodmansee summoned Patty, then 38, to an ambush interview at police headquarters, where he and another detective confronted her with their conclusion, based on a complete misreading of the evidence, that the rape “never happened.” Patty says Woodmansee told her, “You don’t act like a rape victim.” The detectives subjected her to interrogation tactics, including false representations, that are designed to break even hardened criminals, and often do.

Under this duress, Patty recanted. “What do you want to hear?” she asked the detectives. “If you’re going to drop this, I’ll say whatever you want.” This wording comes directly from Woodmansee’s report.

But as soon as she was allowed to return home, Patty went back to her original story, and began speaking out about how she had been pressured to falsely recant. She even went to the press—in this case, to me, in early January 1998, when I was news editor of the local weekly Isthmus. While I was working on what would be the first of dozens of articles on the case over the next decade, the District Attorney’s Office in Dane County, which includes Madison, decided to charge Patty with misdemeanor obstruction, for which she faced up to six months in jail and a $10,000 fine, for having reported that she was raped.

Six months after filing criminal charges against Patty, the DA’s office dismissed the charges, due to the belated discovery of crime-scene semen that could not be accounted for. But police and prosecutors continued to insist that Patty had lied. In 1999, she filed a federal lawsuit against Woodmansee and others, which got thrown out of court. She lost her job. The judge ordered her to pay the defense’s legal fees, well beyond her means. Her attorney got this reduced to a small sum, which he paid himself, by agreeing to relinquish Patty’s right to further legal action.

And then, in 2001, the semen found at the scene was matched to a known criminal who was an acquaintance of Patty’s daughter. In 2004, he was tried, convicted, and sentenced to 40 years in prison, where he took his own life in 2019. I wrote a book about the case, which prompted the city of Madison to apologize to Patty and cut her a check for $35,000.

That sum needed a few more zeroes at the end of it.

Horrific and not at all surprising. I’m sure the officers involved retained their jobs and pensions.

 

[ZiprHead]

That sum needed a few more zeroes at the end of it.

Totally agreed.

 

[TomC]

"We" would be the people who think commerce should not be restricted based on personal identity.

So "we" think that "“Metzger Bar and Butchery" should be sued out of business?

I don't.
I wouldn't go there, knowing their history of discrimination. Neither would I go to Masterpiece Bakery.
Tom

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If abortion is in fact "murder" then why does the Indiana statute allow "murder" in cases of incest and rape? This would not make sense unless it is a law based on religion, not "science." Also, the law allows abortion up to ten weeks of pregnancy. How does this make "scientific" sense? Does "murder" only occur after ten weeks? Clearly it's not a scientific law, it's a law based on religious/moral/philosophical belief.

And I have not examined the penalties for violating the law but I suspect that these penalties are not in line with actual murder statutes.

You could say it becomes a person at ten weeks, it's not inherently a religious position.

However, where's your scientific argument for personhood at ten weeks?!?!

 

[Metaphor]

If abortion is in fact "murder" then why does the Indiana statute allow "murder" in cases of incest and rape? This would not make sense unless it is a law based on religion, not "science." Also, the law allows abortion up to ten weeks of pregnancy. How does this make "scientific" sense? Does "murder" only occur after ten weeks? Clearly it's not a scientific law, it's a law based on religious/moral/philosophical belief.

And I have not examined the penalties for violating the law but I suspect that these penalties are not in line with actual murder statutes.

You could say it becomes a person at ten weeks, it's not inherently a religious position.

However, where's your scientific argument for personhood at ten weeks?!?!

There's no 'scientific' argument for 'personhood'. Personhood is a philosophical position. And, in fact, I don't think most laws about 'murder' mention 'personhood'.

You might define personhood on a number of factors, and some of those factors can be informed by science. For example, you might say 'a human being is a person if it can feel pain' (I'm not saying that's part of a good definition, it's an example), and science could then be used to help inform when a central nervous system is sufficiently formed that it might be experiencing pain.

Again, the idea that 'abortion is murder' is 'unscientific' is something like saying 'calling blackmail a crime is unscientific'. It's a category error. "Murder" is a legal concept, not a 'scientific' concept.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

"We" would be the people who think commerce should not be restricted based on personal identity.

So "we" think that "“Metzger Bar and Butchery" should be sued out of business?

I don't.
I wouldn't go there, knowing their history of discrimination. Neither would I go to Masterpiece Bakery.
Tom

Good for you, I'm not into hurting animals.

 

[laughing dog]

When someone asks "Where is the scientific basis for the argument that abortion is murder", they are clearly asking for a reasonable argument based on biological fact but not entirely based on biology. A dog or a napkin is not a person - that claim is based on on biology. While one can debate the specific characteristics that make up "personhood", clearly some of reasonable characteristics are based on biology and, perhaps, psychology. For example, one could say a person has to be able to feel pain. When a fetus can feel pain is a biological outcome not a philosophical one.

The argument that "personhood" is solely a philosophical concept ignores that there are underlying biological realities.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

When someone asks "Where is the scientific basis for the argument that abortion is murder", they are clearly asking for a reasonable argument based on biological fact but not entirely based on biology. A dog or a napkin is not a person - that claim is based on on biology. While one can debate the specific characteristics that make up "personhood", clearly some of reasonable characteristics are based on biology and, perhaps, psychology. For example, one could say a person has to be able to feel pain. When a fetus can feel pain is a biological outcome not a philosophical one.

The argument that "personhood" is solely a philosophical concept ignores that there are underlying biological realities.

This. If you have a ban at 10 weeks you need to show what's different about a 10-week fetus than a 9-week fetus.

 

[Metaphor]

When someone asks "Where is the scientific basis for the argument that abortion is murder", they are clearly asking for a reasonable argument based on biological fact but not entirely based on biology. A dog or a napkin is not a person - that claim is based on on biology. While one can debate the specific characteristics that make up "personhood", clearly some of reasonable characteristics are based on biology and, perhaps, psychology. For example, one could say a person has to be able to feel pain. When a fetus can feel pain is a biological outcome not a philosophical one.

The argument that "personhood" is solely a philosophical concept ignores that there are underlying biological realities.

There are underlying biological realities, but murder is a legal concept, not a scientific one. "What proof do you have that murder is a crime is a scientific concept?" is a category error. The same way that "what proof do you have that abortion is murder" is a legal question, not a 'scientific' one.

Also, when you say a dog or a napkin is not a person, you are begging the question. Why is a dog or a napkin not a person? It's not a scientific question; it's a philosophical one.

 

[Metaphor]

When someone asks "Where is the scientific basis for the argument that abortion is murder", they are clearly asking for a reasonable argument based on biological fact but not entirely based on biology. A dog or a napkin is not a person - that claim is based on on biology. While one can debate the specific characteristics that make up "personhood", clearly some of reasonable characteristics are based on biology and, perhaps, psychology. For example, one could say a person has to be able to feel pain. When a fetus can feel pain is a biological outcome not a philosophical one.

The argument that "personhood" is solely a philosophical concept ignores that there are underlying biological realities.

This. If you have a ban at 10 weeks you need to show what's different about a 10-week fetus than a 9-week fetus.

What's the difference between a 20 week fetus and a 21 week fetus? Or a 36 week fetus and a 37 week one? What's the difference between a 17 year and 364 day year old, and an 18 year old? The law must make cutoff decisions all the time.