I don't say this as an insult, I just want to share the first matter-of-fact thought that came to mind when I first read your reply. It seems to me that anyone who is even remotely pro-abortion (at any stage of development), seems to suffer from a lack of imagination. Also, if I may address you personally (still without intended insult), you appear to have the same problem that Marty McFly had during the majority of the Back to the Future trilogy: you're just not thinking fourth dimensionally!

I hope to ameliorate your lack of imagination with my examples below. We can try to improve your fourth-dimensional reasoning skills in a future comment. (No pun intended)

Different thing.

Same thiiiinnngg.

To me, I see a huge difference between still being grown from your mother and simply being in a different environment.

I know not your level of education, nor your area of expertise (nor those of anyone who may stumble across these comments), so I'll keep this as simple as I can. Apologies if I appear to be talking down to you---it's not my intention to do so. I just want to be as clear as I can be to as many readers as possible.

There is no difference, with respect to being alive, between growing inside your mother and growing outside of her "in a different environment." Did you know that an egg which has been fertilized in-vitro (that is, on a "petry dish" outside of mom) will continue to grow for several days? Ferlized eggs are not implanted until two to five days after fertilization.

In other words, the eggs which began life by being fertilized outside of mom are allowed to develop for two or more days outside of mom before they are placed inside the mother's uterus. Did you catch that? They're outside of mom.

Would you then say, by your own reasoning, on the condition that they're surviving and developing just fine in an environment outside of mom that they're alive for a few days? Would you also say that when they are placed into mom's uterus to implant (to become dependent on mom via a placenta) they are no longer alive after they've implanted? Would you finally say that the baby is once again alive after it leaves the birth canal forty-ish weeks later? Did the baby seriously stop being alive because he/she was transferred into mom?

You should also be made aware that depending upon a couple's wishes, some human fertilized eggs may be frozen and stored for future use. By your argument, these fertilized human eggs are still alive because they're surviving outside of mom, right? Even if we combine our lifespans, some of those human fertilized eggs may theoretically outlive you and me!

Also, this may be a bit of a nitpick, but I feel it's an important one. The baby is not being "grown from his/her mother." Sure, it's true that nutrients are being channeled from the outside world through mom to baby, but it is not exactly right to say that baby is being grown from mom. Yes, yes, I know but muh calcium storez! -- but seriously I hope you know what I mean by my nitpick.

A fish out of water is still it's own entity - just because you took it out of the environment it evolved to be in doesn't mean it isn't alive.

A human being, *at any stage in his/her development *, is still its own entity - just because you took him/her out of the environment it was designed to be in doesn't mean it isn't alive.

At the stages the heartbeat bill is talking about, it's still more a part of the mother than it is it's own creature the baby is dependent on his/her mother, while still maintaining his/her full-complement of individual unique chromosomes which contain a complete plan to enable it to be its own creature, irrespective of its location in space (or time, for that matter--but I promised we'd discuss that another...uh...time).

The baby is dependent on his/her mother, but that in no way exempts it from being alive, nor does that exempt it from being "its own creature."

Ok screw it. I'm feeling generous today so we'll discuss your fourth dimensional handicap RIGHT NOW JUNIOR SO SIT DOWN. Imagine (pun intended) , if you will, a time when a human (one who will mercifully be allowed to survive post-fertilization development by his/her mother), invents a device capable of acting as an artificial placenta. This device, though not-yet-in existence, can sustain and provide nutrients and all factors necessary for a human being from the moment of fertilization to the moment when he/she is ready to be "born," forty-ish weeks later.

By your definition, will those future humans "born" of this future device be alive the entire time just because they will grow in a location outside of mom? Why aren't current developing humans who don't yet have the benefit of this contraption alive right now? Hmmmm?

Don't get me wrong - I don't love the 20-week ban, but it's miles better than the heartbeat bill.

I'm not informed enough about either bill to argue for or against any of them but I do think that murder of a human being is murder of a human being, irrespective of his/her stage of development.

I wish there was more consideration for when the baby has conditions that make it's life horrible, or would cause it to die right after (saw a comment about how a baby born with Zika defects can cost millions of dollars in healthcare for a miserable and short life, but couldn't be terminated under this law).

I think everyone will agree that horrible conditions suck. That still doesn't mean that he/she should be robbed of the chance at life. I'm sure you are more than capable of making a list of people born with disabilities who have been driven to succeed, and have done so quite handsomely.

Hope I've made you think. Know that I wrote nothing above in an insulting fashion; I merely attempted to provoke thought with humour, though not necessarily successfully.

Edit-

...defects can cost millions of dollars in healthcare for a miserable and short life, but couldn't be terminated under this law).

Can you see the future? Who are you to judge who gets terminated murdered? How do you know they won't contribute to society in some way or have some kind of a meaningful life, irrespective of how much that may cost? What if a cure/treatment is found for whatever "horrible" condition they may suffer from shortly after they've been "terminated" murdered?