Most have surmised since Kavanaugh that the "viability" standard for abortion laws was going to fall. However, it seems few on the right have wrestled with where life begins now if the standard of viability goes away. Essentially, we are now talking about giving legal rights to someone who is not a person but has the potential to become human. Where, then, is the pre-potential line? It seems to me this issue of kicking it to the states will ultimately need to end up back at SCOTUS to decide this...

Example 1: Hearbeat laws. It seems these will be common-place. At 6-weeks you can detect a fetal heartbeat so that's where we draw the line. But at 6 weeks, the fetus is also legally brain dead and under no circumstances could breathe on their own. We cut off life support for these individuals all the time.

Example 2: Conception. This one's fraught with peril. In vitro fertilization clinics around the country have tossed millions of fertilized embryos. Millions more sit in cryo-storage and will not ever leave. Its mass genocide. Send them to the Hague.

Example 3: Pre-conception. Hundreds of cells with the potential to become human are found in every post-puberty pre-menopausal woman. Unless there's a legal standard that sets a boundary for when a law can protect a potential human from existing, there's nothing stopping state legislatures from restricting morning after pills, condoms, birth control, or substances that reduce fertility.

Viability seemed like a reasonable compromise. Where's the line now, conservatives? Are we just winging it here?

https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx

Many states have "fetal homicide" laws, including blue states like California and Illinois, the later of which explicitly extends protection to the unborn starting from feralization, making exceptions for abortion.

Some of these (red) states explicitly define "person" as any human life from feralization to birth. Massachusetts (blue state) extends the term "person" to a viable fetus.

A zygote is a human life since it is a developing life with human DNA. A sperm or egg would not be a human life form since they each only contain half the DNA needed to be human.

But that's the legal side, leaving one important question: when is a life considered a human being scientifically? I'm not sure what dividing lines, if any even exist, must be crossed before scientists consider an unborn a human.

@wildgrass said
Most have surmised since Kavanaugh that the "viability" standard for abortion laws was going to fall. However, it seems few on the right have wrestled with where life begins now if the standard of viability goes away. Essentially, we are now talking about giving legal rights to someone who is not a person but has the potential to become human. Where, then, is the pre-potent ...[text shortened]... emed like a reasonable compromise. Where's the line now, conservatives? Are we just winging it here?

@vivify said
https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx

Many states have "fetal homicide" laws, including blue states like California and Illinois, the later of which explicitly extends protection to the unborn starting from feralization, making exceptions for abortion.

Some of these (red) states explicitly define "person" as any human life from feralization ...[text shortened]... hat dividing lines, if any even exist, must be crossed before scientists consider an unborn a human.

@vivify said
https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx

Many states have "fetal homicide" laws, including blue states like California and Illinois, the later of which explicitly extends protection to the unborn starting from feralization, making exceptions for abortion.

Some of these (red) states explicitly define "person" as any human life from feralization ...[text shortened]... hat dividing lines, if any even exist, must be crossed before scientists consider an unborn a human.

@kellyjay said
What is the beginning that every life shares, it doesn't start before conception, not
all life shares the same experiences, but all are conceived? Once conception occurs
something new is here, and if allowed to go through all of the normal processes
that each life has it will become something outside of the womb. Just because they
are mistreated by the millions doesn't a ...[text shortened]... e now talking about human life in its earliest stages. If conception never occurs
nothing new will.

..but all are conceived?

If conception never occurs nothing new will.

@wildgrass said
Viability = living. A human cell can be viable but that doesn't mean its a human life. A zygote is a human cell but not a human life. It requires a hospitable incubator and a very defined set of circumstances and a long time to become viable as a human.

@vivify said
That's a trickier set of parameters than you realize. Some premature babies require a "hospitable incubator" to keep them alive; same for babies who are dangerously underweight or some babies born to drug-addicted mothers. Without advanced medical technology, these babies would not be viable outside the womb, and can take "a long time" (your words) to become viable without t ...[text shortened]... uman embryo outside of the womb for 14 days; the only reason it's not longer is due to legal limits.

@vivify said
In fact, labs can grow a human embryo outside of the womb for 14 days; the only reason it's not longer is due to legal limits.

@wildgrass said
If a baby is born, and takes a breath, then it's a living person. This parameter is no less tricky or flimsy than conception.

@averagejoe1 said
Myself, I have relented to say that a baby's life begins reasonably at 28 weeks, but I am not happy about it. Problem with libs is that it should not be called a baby if it is in the womb. What a brain teaser, libs.

@vivify said
https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx

Many states have "fetal homicide" laws, including blue states like California and Illinois, the later of which explicitly extends protection to the unborn starting from feralization, making exceptions for abortion.

Some of these (red) states explicitly define "person" as any human life from feralization ...[text shortened]... hat dividing lines, if any even exist, must be crossed before scientists consider an unborn a human.

@wildgrass said

..but all are conceived?

But also, everyone's parents were conceived. Every life shares that beginning too, right? Your conception was just the most proximal event of conception before you existed, but all conception events in your ancestry were required for your life to exist. This is true for everyone. If it's commonality you're after, one specific event s ...[text shortened]... tive abortion is just one of many many circumstances in which conception doesn't lead to human life.

@wildgrass said
Most have surmised since Kavanaugh that the "viability" standard for abortion laws was going to fall. However, it seems few on the right have wrestled with where life begins now if the standard of viability goes away. Essentially, we are now talking about giving legal rights to someone who is not a person but has the potential to become human. Where, then, is the pre-potent ...[text shortened]... emed like a reasonable compromise. Where's the line now, conservatives? Are we just winging it here?

@vivify said
That's a trickier set of parameters than you realize. Some premature babies require a "hospitable incubator" to keep them alive; same for babies who are dangerously underweight or some babies born to drug-addicted mothers. Without advanced medical technology, these babies would not be viable outside the womb, and can take "a long time" (your words) to become viable without t ...[text shortened]... uman embryo outside of the womb for 14 days; the only reason it's not longer is due to legal limits.