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

14th amendment, equal protection under the law.

 

Not a single "baby" is "killed" in an abortion.

Not even one.

 

Which is the reason he stated that it is your opinion, which it is. You're welcome to hold that opinion, you're just not allowed to force it on others who don't share it.

 

And your assertion that "no" baby has ever been killed in an abortion is a .... fact?

 

Wow, the hypocrite is strong in you. You actually typed the words that restricting guns is meant to "save lives"?????? What do you think is the goal of Pro-life???? Abortion ALWAYS ends in death of a human life yet the likes of you would restrict law abiding gun owners of a right plainly written into the Constitution and not some right that was legislated by activist judges like abortion.

 

Oh yes, equal protection to kill babies??? Even if you are dense enough to not consider "it" a baby, that argument is total BS anyway. Making abortion clinics follow the rules of other medical providers does not deny equal protection. It in fact is the epitome of equal protection. The liberal argument is that abortion clinics should be held to lesser standards just so abortion can be more accessible?? This is looney toon logic. Yet another failed liberal argument.

 

What do you consider a morula, blastocyst, or even zygote then?


Is a teratoma a baby?


If you can answer those questions, you'll finally have something resembling a point.

 

Yes, I consider it a baby when the sperm reaches the egg. Pro coice should be exercised before engaging in sex acts or in the choice to protect ones self from getting pregnant if one does decide to engage in a sex act. If you prevent the sperm from reaching the egg and fertilizing it you prevent pregnancy. Once the egg is fertilized I believe it is a life with rights that deserve to be protected. Why should the unborn child die due to the stupidity of the mother? And in case you ask, no I am not against birth control which is mostly a Catholic belief but I do not believe in forcing people who are against to pay taxes to provide it.

 

Sperms fertilize eggs all the time and it doesn't result in a pregnancy (within the womb), does that mean you are killing babies? Of course not. Those cells are no more "alive" than the epithelial lining of your G.I tract or skin.

The reason I asked about the teratoma, is because it is a tumor formed from all 3 embyrological germ layers . Its basically a tumor with fetus parts , containing bone, teeth muscle etc. It's a hell of a lot more representative of a baby than a clump of cells like a blastocyst, yet it is in no way or ever will be a baby. The analogy doesn't get any better than that, any biological basis you have of treating a zygote as a baby is thrown out the door if you don't acknowledge a tumor as a baby even though it is embryologically more similar to a baby on an exponential order (literally-- in terms of cells and type of cells) . Actually why stop at the zygote? Why not treat every sperm cell as a baby?

Then you have hydat. moles, (some) of which are remnants from a previous irregular fertilization, that grow and resemble a fetus but in no way will ever become one. Was that thing ever a baby? No it wasn't. Does it look like a baby? Yes it does.

I'm not trying to get you to change your mind, but by offering factual evidence I want you to at least stop your high horse drama of telling other people they're wrong when the biological evidence actually backs them up and not you. Saying that you think life starts at fertilizations means----well---- you think life starts at fertilization. While I'll be generous and say that its an opinion, it is actually false since fertilizations take place and result in things that are dressed to look like a fetus but never were and will never result in a baby. If you say "the bible states ____ which is why I believe it _____ that is a completely different story then.

 

I am not sure what your point is, unless you are arguing for the morning after pill. Abortions like the ones the Texas law was affecting, come after there is in fact an actual baby in the womb. You will NEVER convince me that abortion is not killing babies.

 

I am glad the SCOTUS did the right thing. It is just sad that so many clinics/practices had to close due to the original legislation and there is no guarantee that they will be able to reopen.

 

The law doesn't, science doesn't. Where does it define baby in the Constitution as a fertilized egg? Hmm... I think the forefathers were clear on this matter or they would have specifically written this into it. Case closed.

 

I outlined biological examples very clearly in my post. Did you ignore everything I said and just randomly jump to something else? Its either

--->BECAUSE GOD

---> LIBERALS!!!

----> RANDOM

At least you follow a pattern.

 

Human "choice" is the same as natural selection only in end-result.

 

We don't have to convince you of anything. You don't define medical or legal terms, you define only your own philosophy and religion. The definitions issues are pretty set in medicine and law. This case was about backhanded religious beliefs parading as health issues and the Supreme Court exposed that for what is was.

I wonder why we don't see religious entities as vigorously efforting to provide neonatal support and adoption services for at risk mothers as they do for changing established law. For all the religious lobbying money invested in trying to impose a philosophy you could probably support a 1000 mothers that make abortion choices for economic reasons.

 

Are you for ending human life? It sounds like you like the idea.

I for one am against it.

 

Until they are born, the word "baby" isn't accurate to describe them, so yes.

 

To shame women based on their own, personal, moral beliefs.

It is your opinion that a fetus qualifies as a "human life," many don't share that opinion.

No, there are no proposals I'm aware of that would remove the right of "law abiding gun owners" to own firearms. The main proposals I've seen are those which would try to keep criminals, terrorists, and the mentally ill from easily and legally acquiring firearms.

 

Lol he completely ignored that entire post...

 

Not a "baby," try again.

it is "dense" to use the correct definitions of words?

It does when it holds them to higher standards than clinics which perform analogous procedures, risk-wise. Surgical clinics like the one where I had a hernia surgery performed (much more invasive than about 95% of the abortions carried out in the United States) don't have to follow the same standards as hospitals and doctors don't have to have admitting privileges. The Texas law was written purely to close abortion clinics because of ideology, the only thing it had to do with women's health was on the cover sheet.

Not "lower" standards than other clinics, the same standards. Other clinics that carry out procedures other than abortion don't have to meet the same standards in the Texas abortion clinic law, even though the procedures they perform have far more risk of complications than abortion.

Yes, everything you said in this post is completely looney-tunes, logic-wise.

Nope, the "liberal" argument succeeded, to the SCOTUS anyway. The only place it failed is in the minds of people who would push legislation on women's uteri if the SCOTUS allowed them to do so.