Supreme court strikes down strict Texas abortion law aimed at closing clinics

Summarize 2 paragraphs...really?

I gave a pretty clear and detailed explanation. If you can't read 2 paragraphs and you choose to respond in a random fashion ignoring the facts all together, I'm not going to waste my time with you.

 

That isn't what your response implied. You implied that one feeling dread instead of joy upon learning they are pregnant isn't capable of making a decision regarding abortion. "Never make a big decision when you are emotional" implies that a woman who would choose abortion drops the pregnancy test, jumps in the car, and hightails it to the abortion clinic.

A myriad of decisions. What color to paint the nursery, when to have a baby shower, when to tell friends and family, etc...

Maybe she considers her actual life more important than the potential life which, should it be brought to term, might change her life for the worse. Choosing to abort is directly dealing with the source of the dread.

She may not consider it a "life" at all, that's your opinion.

Yes, one that I don't have to push on someone else. Women can decide for themselves what level of responsibility they have regarding the fetus inside them.

It isn't a "child" and it is only a "life" in your opinion.

Absolutely the same with drugs, the vast majority of humans have the capacity to decide for themselves which intoxicants they prefer.

Yes, I believe WMD would be just as much a part of God's plan as everything else in the universe. The same could be said for sexual predators, being preyed on sexually is part of the human experience, how could one learn about being sexual prey (or being a sexual predator) if sexual predation didn't exist?

I didn't forget about the fetus in any way. In my opinion, it wouldn't qualify for "human rights" at the very least until it could survive outside the woman's uterus. Until then, it exists completely at the pleasure of the woman in whose uterus it is developing.

Again, it is YOUR position that requires forcing others to consider an opinion other than their own. You are the one who would, if given the power, push legislation all the way into women's uteri. My position allows women to follow their own morality and doesn't require government intrusion into places that women wouldn't invite it.

 

Exact word, but still taken as an extreme case, ignoring all of the others. Still dishonest, and typical.

I take it you're not familiar with the concept of the extended phenotype? Ant hills are a classic example - they're not a physical part of the ant, but they are a direct result of natural selection acting on ants. Similarly, abortion clinics are part of our extended phenotype, as are medicine and people qualified to perform abortions. Ergo, abortions are a product of natural selection.

Most, but not all, are examples from captivity. You're cherry picking again. I assume your readings included the geladas? They do spontaneously abort when new males come into power (in the wild), as you said. It saves resources and energy and isn't just about upgrading. Yay for natural selection.

 

No one knows for sure from a scientific standpoint when potential becomes realized. None of us even remember anything from our first year of life, much less our births.

It's an emotional issue. We can all agree that a fertilized egg is not a human life (I hope) and we can all agree that a newborn baby should be considered a human life. It's the in between part that is hard.

If you want to define humaness as our greatest quality - intelligence and consciousness - then clearly that's not possible until around 28 weeks. But to your point, a fetus can survive with medical assistance as early as 22 weeks.

So it's probably safe to say from an ethics standpoint that 22-28 weeks is where there is a reasonable argument to be made.

 

Really?! You can't summarize 2 paragraphs? Please humor me by just telling me what I missed ... cause I don't think I missed anything. If you can't tell me that, you got nothing...

 

I can't tell you how much humor I find in you accusing me of being dishonest for using your words in my response.

s
That's how you create justifications.

You can't really stem the tide of natural selection. Aborting a child because it's not a boy or it's not the right time of my life is NOT natural selection. Those are unnatural selection.

 

You just proved it. You either didn't understand, or just didn't read it. There is no intelligent discussion to be had with you. Now I know why they call it the giddy circle.

Ignorance is bliss.

 

Two things: 1) the woman feeling joy really has no decision to make and 2) no life and death decision about your own child should be made out of fear.

There's the selfishness at the root of the problem.

And we form laws which indicate the character of our nation. This one lets us down. We can be better than that.

It pushed the baby right over the edge into non-existence. That's an extreme power to hold over someone else.

I believe you feel more empathy for some guy doing an unreasonably long stretch in prison for some drug conviction than you do for the dead innocent babies...

Okayyyyyyyyyyyy.....

Is it just me but it seems like a baby is more trouble for the first six months AFTER it is born than for the last six months IN UTERO.... other than of course watching them sleep and coo and nurse and smile and start to sit up.

What you call an opinion we call a Life.

 

So you can't?

 

He basically tries to pull a Gish Gallop. It's comical.

 

Cherry picking my own words to make extreme cases is dishonest. Glad to know being dishonest amuses you. Can't say I'm surprised.

No, it's just science!

The ability to make those choices is certainly a product of natural selection. Also, we stem the tide of natural selection every day with corrective lenses, vaccines, assisted living homes, and air bags.

 

Whatever your feeble little mind whats to believe.

 

giddy, keep up the good fight. These idiots will never get it. I just repped you!!!!

 

You will only frustrate yourself trying to debate him. He's so very deeply entrenched in his beliefs that he is unable or unwilling to be open minded.

 

Did Jesus tell you to call them idiots?

 

Bless your hearts, this reminds me of a special ed. class.

 

Isn't that psalms 69:666?

It's amazing he can see to type with giddy's balls resting on his chin.

 

Maybe you don't write clearly? If you can't extract the essence down to a couple of sentences to "prove" I don't get it, maybe you don't got it!

Yeah, I'm calling your bluff. You've ducked three times so far.

 

Lots of big wins for liberals recently with the supreme court -- what is going to happen if Clinton gets to appoint the next justice?

 

Have you ever read your own posts? I don't deny that i am committed to my beliefs but for you douchebags to pretend that you are anything else but the same is just hilarity.