You can argue biblical exegesis if you wish, but the meaning of the commandment is clear, and that is specifically why it was referenced.
Adding to your post.
I understand that an IVF embryo is at the 8 cell stage when transferred to the uterus. At that point there isn’t any cell differentiation.
Ectopic pregnancies are diagnosed at around the 6-8 week mark. The embryo is large enough to be seen on ultrasound, and is differentiated, placental cells are already formed, those are what implant in the tube.
It’s not possible to detach and reattach it.
So this bill says doctors will be jailed if they can’t do the impossible?
They don’t have to be successful. The bill says they have to attempt it
That seems like an unnecessary government intrusion, especially if the procedure doesn’t exist and isn’t likely to anytime soon.
Kill or murder? Which is it, at long last?
You answered my question.
It would seem odd that you wouldn’t know what was being asked.
If the procedure doesn’t exist, then it would seem pretty easy for a doctor to answer the ‘if applicable’ part of the law.
They have a theoretical abortion procedure written in an anti-abortion law
Why include the clause to begin with?
But the doctors shouldn’t be told they might have to produce a non-existent procedure or risk breaking the law, that’s ridiculous.
Are you asking me why the author included this?
If so, I have no idea.
It’s written so poorly that I wonder if they expect it to fail.
I answered this question
That is about killiing.
But I did not talk, and in the the question i responded to, you did not ask about murder.
Hence my question in post#121.
The commandment is about murder.
You may argue otherwise.
Then why did you call it the “commandment concerning killing”?
Because that is the common idiom and I could not recall the specific number.
Either way, the commandment was the reference.
I responded to the question you expressly asked.
My response should not be taken as anything other than that.
The implication of the commandment go far beyond the act of murder.
Then you understood the implication of the commandment I referenced.
My conclusion stands
I have no idea what selelctive implications you have in mind that are not expressed in your posts. I answered the question as asked. The conclusion that you drew from my response is a non-sequitur.