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

you crack me up.

this is not deflection and I haven't moved any goal posts unless this entire thread is about the government preventing the right rights of amoeba.

The adults in the room have been discussing HUMAN Life all along and you chose to keep bringing up the replication of amoebe, or zygotes, or trees or cancer cells or anything else to try to draw some parallel. HUMAN LIFE DOES NOT BEGIN AT CONCEPTION. A zygote could become a human life, and we could all point out many types of replicating cells that are alive, BUT THEY AREN"T A HUMAN LIFE until they are developed enough to sustain the conditions required for HUMAN LIFE with out being dependent upon another life for sustenance post partum.

I'm out. I've already voiced my warnings to others about trying to have a rational discussion with you and then I fell prey to it myself. I'm guilty of always thinking... "he's not that dense, surely he jests, he's just trolling, he's too smart to believe that"... and time and time again I just have to shake my head in disappointment.

 

I hope he's vegan and has never killed an animal and also doesn't eat any plants that are harvested live and killed for consumption. He must live off a diet of old growth trees that have naturally fallen in the forest seasoned with the autumnal colors of leaves that so kindly shed their earthly lives and float angelically to the ground for his nourishment.

And forget using an exterminator. He has to invite all the rodent and insect lives to live in harmony with him a under his protection of each and every living cell in the universe.

 

If the zygote is alive, it is a human life, because it has human DNA and is one stage along the path to adulthood. A human zygote will never grow into a baboon or a clownfish or a redwood tree or a stingray, no matter how many human zygotes you grow to adulthood. The threshold question is just is it alive. The fact that it is human is trivial to answer.

Are you conceding that a zygote is alive? It is trivial to prove a human zygote is human.

None of that follows from the fact that a zygote is alive. A human zygote is not a cow or a grapefruit or a mushroom. Nonetheless, the same definition of life applies.

 

"Could" become human life? I can take that logic to its (somewhat) beginning and argue that a group of atoms could indeed become human life, and it would be true. Go back a billion years. When did (human) life first start? A soup and mixture of elements? Yep, that's the educated scientific guess. Life did start from almost 'nothing.' So now what? Do you really want to legislate on the principle of how life actually started, lol?

I find that the concept of the origin of life is too hard (incompatibly) on certain religions. It can't be accidental—it must have been designed and started by a God. At the end of the day, I see 'life at conception' as nothing but driven by religious views. Much pretzel logic needed, though, to maintain that view.

 

Right. The Handmaid’s tale is about women being forced to carry pregnancies regardless of their own free will or consequences to them. It is prolife as abortion is the worst crime and anti choice.

 

Forcing women to carry pregnancies is criminal

 

Not even to safe the life of the mother? The American people need to see how truly horrific the "pro-lifers" have gotten...

 

To them women have little value, so it's not a big deal to sacrifice a pregnant woman's life for their beliefs.

 

This tweet is incorrect. The court's decision simply said that the current Texas law is not in conflict with Federal law. Quoting the decision:

 

My gosh... even in the case of a medical emergency. This court is so broken.

 

With prosecutorial discretion, they decided to go after a woman who suffered from a miscarriage. This was an easy decision not to prosecute, but they did anyway, and it's good to see the grand jury rejected it.


Grand jury declines to indict woman who miscarried - ABC News (go.com)

A grand jury decided Thursday not to indict an Ohio woman on allegations that she mishandled the remains of a fetus after miscarrying her pregnancy at home.

The case had alarmed reproductive rights groups and legal experts who said there is no clear guidance on how to handle an at-home miscarriage and that police and local prosecutors overreached by charging the woman, who is Black, with "abuse of a corpse."

Brittany Watts, 34, of Warren, was arrested last October and pleaded not guilty to the charge. If convicted, she would have faced up to a year in prison. Because the grand jury decided not to indict, the case has been dropped.

...

The charge against Watts occurred before Ohio voters passed an amendment in the November 2023 election to enshrine abortion rights in the state's constitution.

The ballot measure ended an earlier effort in Ohio by Republican lawmakers to enforce a near-total abortion ban after six weeks.

 

Texas had over 26,000 rape-related pregnancies in 16 months after abortion ban, JAMA study shows - ABC13 Houston

Texas' abortion law does not offer any exceptions for survivors of rape or incest.

 

Bleak ****. Over 26,000 estimated pregnancies from rape in Texas alone since Roe was overturned.

 

26,000 rape related pregnancies in 16 months in a population of roughly 30 million people?? I struggle to think this estimate is accurate. Just did some back of the envelope math, doesn't add up.

 

From the study itself:

Much like Kate Cox's lawsuit that showed "health of the mother" was not an exception the state actually intended to grant, this study suggests that rape exceptions are also toothless.

 

"Libertarians" arguing for draconian abortion laws is a good practice on exposing how "deep" their ideological principles are and how they're just as arbitrary as the laws they wish to strike down in their favor.

 

Horrific...