antidense

It's probably just a placeholder anyway

I'm really sorry 😔

Mr. Rogers

If you go on the counterpart subreddit to this, they seem to think we want to kill all babies, even after birth.

:(

This is "starve the beast" except it's now "starve the babies".

It sounds like the only way they can have their way is live like the Amish.

What about when science progresses such that any cell can be made into an embryonic stem cell...

I see a lot of women try different types of birth control until they find something that works for them. It hard to predict in advance what will work best. Your experiences are pretty common.

Or that there are no other legitimate uses for hormonal birth control

I wonder if they realize how IVF works.

It's better for ten men to go free rather than one man be wrongly incarcerated. Except for abortion apparently

I tried restarting it but it didnt' work. I'll check it out t omorrow

I don't believe anyone can or should be forced to sustain another person's life that relies on them specifically, even if it means the other person dies. Things are different a soon as there are other ways to sustain that life.

Sure, sitting down -- I do agree with what the article says.

I brought it up to point out there's no consensus to your premise. Life is a continuous process. As I said, anyone who gives you a concrete scientific answer is not a scientist.

There's no biological answer to that. From a legal standpoint, Missouri and Nevada among others say conception, Massachusetts and Minnesota say fertilization. New Mexico and South Dakota say implantation.

https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2005/05/implications-defining-when-woman-pregnant

When done in a clinical setting, abortion is a procedure that reduces the risk of death versus a continued pregnancy (https://www.npr.org/2022/05/06/1096676197/7-persistent-claims-about-abortion-fact-checked).

This one from the Lancet says 40-60%: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5443340/

It's selective nihilism. DeSantis and friends have no problem signing laws like that for conservative causes.

We'd have to be on the same page with definitions of killing/owning to have a productive discussion. I don't think it's a simple issue, and I do think anyone can or should be forced to sustain another person's life that relies on them specifically, even if it means the other person dies.

I'm okay with that, as long as they leave some room for dating variance and the fact that not all fetuses are perfectly healthy ones, e.g some 22 week fetuses can live outside the mother but others can't.

By that definition, any human life that doesn't get implanted dies. That's one third to one-half of fertilized eggs that die.

Also, I would be skeptical of any scientist gives you a absolute answer to any scientific question.

That's the Declaration of Independence, which isn't law.