Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, eliminating constitutional right to abortion

Ricky Rick.

Hospice at 10 days old could be due to any number of things that went wrong before or after delivery. I do not wish him to share their private situation, but I also do not expect him to use his daughter's story (without details) to push a narrative.

Secondly, on infant mortality rate, the US has one of the highest rates among high-income countries. His stated reason is nonsense. The reasons, as stated by AJMC among others, include inadequate care (which makes sense since all other high-income countries have universal health care), a higher rate of premature births, and older mothers who are more likely to use infertility treatments.

If we want to reduce abortion and the infant mortality rate, there are much more effective methods than legally banning abortion and legislating life as starting at conception.

 

You can’t seem to understand the main points, supporting points, or the framing. I even prefaced my point by saying even if you denied punitive action (aka manslaughter etc: it’s a supporting point) you are STILL wrong. With respect to the zygote as a virus I didn’t ****ing compare it to a virus, I said the process you are zeroing in from sperm —-zygot—-blastocyst—-fetus. The dna exchange which is referred to as cross over which you refer to as conception. I understand the molecular processes , you don’t—trying to debate here is fruitless.

it’s really difficult to have a conversation on a topic no offense you’re very out of your depth on. You’re arguing for the sake of arguing like a lawyer and again still don’t address the chief concerns (again surprise surprise)

it’s been 10 posts bro: you’re not going to because you are standing on incorrect grounds. You are welcomed to try, it took a while even for some folks to accept that the earth is round. You can continue your bad faith tactics and gaslighting, but it just exposes you no offense


As evidenced by the above points. Life doesn’t begin at conception. Do I know exactly when? Nope. But that’s not what I’m debating. A single celled zygote is not the same thing is a 34 week old fetus. Arguing it is r****ded

 

Now tell me how Rick Santorum feels about providing the health care required to care for children who are born with conditions like this, especially in regards to how other countries are able to "treat the baby".

 

That’s the crux of it.

 

I think I found the problem. You are focused on a process. The transfer of DNA. I am focused on the result of the process. A new human being. When a virus transfers its DNA, it isn't creating a new person, it is replicating itself in the host. I understand your confusion now. It isn't the process that is why life begins at conception, it is the result. Conception is the point after which you have the human being that starts growing into an eventual adult.

I don't know why you would take issue with me addressing your (incorrect) points about manslaughter, but I am glad you are abandoning that tactic.

Actually, it is you that is not addressing the chief concerns. You are lost in the sauce of process.

You have been going on and on about the things which you now say are side issues.

LOL, you don't have a definition of life, you don't know when it begins, but because viruses also transfer DNA it isn't at conception. Fantastic. What happens to a zygote after conception? Is it alive after cell division beings (a morula)? Is a blastocyst alive)? What characterizes the crossover from cell or cells undergoing biological processes that contain the DNA blueprint of a new human being but is not yet alive to an alive human being? I don't think you will actually answer any of these questions, but I may as well put them out there.

 

I wonder how concerned collins is?

 

Everybody: this is sick. Some real handmaid's tale ****.

@StupidMoniker : this is sick! Finally some real handmaid's tale ****!

 

Why won't you let us kill our babies?!? This is just like a dystopian story where women are forced into subjugation and ritually raped by their slavemaster every month!!! Exactly like the Handmaid's Tale.

 

Anyone who wonders about Kate Cox's sincerity and whether or not the state of Texas wants to effectively torture this woman should listen to today's episode of The Daily.

The anguish in her voice as she describes the decision (and it was recorded before her first hearing) is difficult to hear and even harder to reconcile with the fact that the state eventually ruled against her.

 

Except the Handmaid’s Tale is about people being forced to breed and if they don’t they are killed. “Pro-choice” by definition doesn’t mean people are forced to have abortions.

 

I don’t know why you all continue to argue with @StupidMoniker

He’s the reason people ridicule lawyers. He argues for the sake of arguing, loves to argue semantics, and move the goal posts. Every single time.

He asked over and over for a “definition of life”, so one when was provided, then it’s no longer the definition of life he wants, but “when does life begin?” Because of course, no one can tell you the exact moment life begins, but it’s damn sure not at the moment of conception.

He’s just a GOP cuck and if it wasn’t so fun watching him get destroyed in every thread he’d be on my ignore list with the rest of them.

 

Did I mention anything about forced abortions? No. I implied that not allowing abortions is entirely different from being forced to be a sex slave. You can outlaw abortions and it has no impact on whether a woman is forced into sexual slavery (which is still illegal in the United States). The Handmaid's Tale isn't a dystopia because of lack of abortion access, but because the women are forced into sexual slavery for the purpose of repopulation.

But the problem is I wasn't provided a definition of life. @LosPollosHermanos has repeatedly refused to provide a definition of life. I have only been told it is something other than a zygote. I have asked the question repeatedly, if a zygote is not a human life, what is? How many cell divisions later is it a human life? Even in this very post, you say no one can tell you when it becomes a life, it just isn't at conception. Why is it not at conception? According to @LosPollosHermanos because viruses also transfer DNA. What?

 

Reading comprehension is your friend. . Like a lawyer you completely ignore most opposing arguments and just pound yours into the ground.

 

It's good to know that, even though now you're a middle aged doofus more or less pontificating for decades now, about other people's lives and children and pregnancies, you've still got the "baby killer" thing inculcated into you as a home schooler as more or less your core response

BUT take heart, the Wapo thinks the real problem is the women who aren't open to relationships with anti-abortion zealots and MAGAS. Never change bro.

 

How does one apply the definition "opposite of death" to any particular entity? A zygote has not undergone the cessation of brain function (it hasn't developed a brain yet), circulation (no circulatory system), or breathing (no lungs). Obviously, none of those are required for an organism to be alive (an amoeba is alive, but has no brain function, circulation, or breathing. A tree is alive, but has no brain function. A zygote is just as alive as a bacterium or an amoeba, is it not? Your definition is circular (life is when not not alive), the additional criteria you tacked on are not present in all life forms, it is useless to the discussion. As I was having a lengthy back and forth with one poster, I thought you meant that poster provided me with the definition I asked for repeatedly. But yes, congratulations, you provided a circular definition.

It's good to know that when shown how your response is preposterous (lack of abortion is not equal to forced sexual slavery) you can quickly resort to ad hominem attacks (which are not even correct, I have neither been home schooled nor home schooled anyone else, and was not indoctrinated by anyone to consider abortion to be killing a baby, I just understand what the terms kill and baby mean).

You will get no argument from me though that the idea of dating preferences as discrimination is not very smart. Of course, that is a belief held more frequently by progressives. No one should be forced to date anyone they don't want to date.

 

Claim A: Life begins at conception.
Claim B: Life doesn't begin at conception but at some point later.

The burden of proof lies with the supporter of Claim A, and he has entirely failed to provide supporting evidence. In contrast, the advocate for Claim B has successfully met the burden of proof, and since he hasn't asserted a specific starting point for life, there's no need for additional evidence. In summary, the proponent of Claim A has failed, while the proponent of Claim B has succeeded.

A few scientific definition of life for heck of it:

NASA (evidence of life outside of Earth): “Life is a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution"

Britannica (biology): "Life is defined as any system capable of performing functions such as eating, metabolizing, excreting, breathing, moving, growing, reproducing, and responding to external stimuli"

Wiki:
Since there is no consensus for a definition of life, most current definitions in biology are descriptive. Life is considered a characteristic of something that preserves, furthers or reinforces its existence in the given environment. This implies all or most of the following traits:[4][13][14][15][16][17]

1. Homeostasis: regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature
2. Organisation: being structurally composed of one or more cells – the basic units of life
3. Metabolism: transformation of energy, used to convert chemicals into cellular components (anabolism) and to decompose organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy for homeostasis and other activities.
4. Growth: maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size and structure.
5. Adaptation: the evolutionary process whereby an organism becomes better able to live in its habitat.[18][19][20]
6. Response to stimuli: such as the contraction of a unicellular organism away from external chemicals, the complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms, or the motion of the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.
7. Reproduction: the ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism or sexually from two parent organisms.

 

Too much lawyer deflection and no substance.

We're not talking about a tree, or amoeba, we're talking about Human life. A human life requires brain activity, circulation and breathing. if a division of cells has not yet developed those functions, it is not a viable human life. Yes if I'm not alive, I'm dead. Prove me wrong.

 

praise God and celebrate life

 

Now we are getting somewhere. A zygote of course has organization, metabolism, growth, and adaptation. It also contains the genetic code which will allow it to develop homeostasis, and reproduction. So yes, according to your own definition, a zygote is a life. I would point out that I used the same list earlier when I stated that a zygote was a human life (though I didn't ennumerate it). Obviously the NASA definition is describing more of an ecosystem than an individual life form. An individual, for example, cannot undergo Darwinian evolution, because that requires multiple generations. Odd that you would say that no supporting evidence was presented in favor of claim A and then post a list of characteristics that describe life that I posted in support of claim A.

This is a deflection. You have "moved the goalposts" from a definition of life to a definition of a human life. Are you admitting that a zygote is alive, but now claiming it is not human? Are you denying that an amoeba is alive. Certainly the single cell zygote has much in common with an amoeba in terms of what constitutes being alive or not alive.

 

interesting debate. Which goalpost is applicable? Human life, not just life, right? I mean nobody thinks it should be illegal to step on an ant.