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

you're describing stages of human development , not what makes them human

there is no anatomical distinction in the moments before and after birth, yet legally we allow the murder of the former

 

not a uterus, a human being, with distinct DNA from their mother

like Gianna, who survived her mother and Planned Parenthood's attempt to murder her

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hOWMmx6eBjU?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

I actually addressed this. If you know what a teratoma or an incomplete hydat. mole is it would make more sense to you.

 

Your whole argument is just wordplay.

No one denies that an embryo or a fetus isn't human. Being human and being a person aren't the same things. Your attempt for a redefinition of personhood isn't being done on some Constitutional basis but rather out of a religious belief that science doesn't share. A fetus is carried by a recognized actual person with Constitutional rights to her own body. You want to violate her rights to her own body because your religious beliefs tell you something that hers don't. Why is that okay?

There's no anatomical distinction before and after death either.

It's really galling how conservatives do the whole baby killing schpiel while simultaneously not giving a rat's ass about the millions of kids that live in poverty in this country or our absurdly high infant mortality rate or hell even lead giving brain damage to kids in Flint, Michigan. As a result, a lot of your rhetoric comes off so hollow.

If conservatives tried to mitigate the causes of unwanted pregnancies and provide more support for women who resort to abortions because they can't financially or emotionally handle raising a child, likely on their own, then abortion would drop dramatically. Nobody wants to have an abortion.

 

Ahem:

By the time people want to start eliminating them, they are l-o-o-o-n-n-n-g past being a single cell life. Really?

I never deflect. I hit head on: a Right to Life is paramount to a Right to Choose. Unapologetic.

 

We were talking about the joy of being pregnant-- even in the first days of knowing when a first trimester abortion is available-- and not after the child's birth.

So it's okay to force your morality on people when it is convenient for you? I thought we were being principled about the law? Maybe we should allow people to steal who really want the money, just as we allow people to abort a child just because they don't really want the child?

 

Hmmmm. I wonder when a baby girl in utero displays a uterus?

 

Post 109? I did. It's what inspired this:

With interference only from Natural Selection, a live human child is what will result from every fertilization.

I don't have to complicate things like you guys do.

 

Yup, you still didn't read it. Try again.

 

You cherry pick posts like cml cherry picks his bible. You picked up on my phrase "single celled" and ignored the rest. It's dishonest and you know it.

It might be a single cell, it might be a viable fetus. The implication is it could be somewhere in between. Those in between bits are what you struggle with and what we have terms for as well. Meaningful terms, even outside of a lab. I listed them in a previous post, but you don't care, do you? It doesn't feel right to you to get rid of any of them, even a morula. That's fine, that's your choice.

 

Cherry picked? Yes, I used the most extreme part of your choice of words because it best disproves that point you wanted to assert.

This says it best:

 

710[UOTE=giddyup;10579415]Cherry picked? Yes, I used the most extreme part of your choice of words because it best disproves that point you wanted to assert.

This says it best:[/QUOTE]

If you have to pick extremes then your argument is weak. And we always suspected you were an extremist, now didn't we?

And natural selection has given humans that brains, dexterity, and knowledge to perform abortions. You could assert that abortions (and humans aren't the only ones that abort) are a product of said natural selection as part of our extended phenotype.

 

Your whole argument falls flat for me; I just shined a light on the most vulnerable spot.

Other animals kill their babies? We should never seek to rise above that level should we?

Do chimps have laws against murder or anything for that matter? We can and should do better.

 

Going after extremes don't make your argument stronger. It's just plain old Reductio ad absurdum and it's intellectually dishonest. But you know that.

And of course we should strive to be better, and do. We don't (often) kill them after they are born. It's just another example of abortions being the product of natural selection, which was one of your arguments, no? That natural selection was the only way for abortions to be okay? god drop kicking those fetus clumps right out of the womb in the form of a miscarriage? Well, natural selection has produced pregnancy termination in several groups, including us.

Many chimps do have "laws" of sorts that are enforced. They're not written down and vary from troop to troop. I never mentioned chimps though. Shrug.

 

Why don't you summarize what you mean to say and let's go from there.

 

It's not dishonest because it was the exact word you used in your argument. Had I taken it to a place you did not go and did not intend to go, that would be dishonest.

We have reached a new low I think. Let me get this straight: you are wanting to define elective abortion as a part of natural selection? Natural selection terminates pregnancies and we don't always know why; humans elect abortions for a completely different set of self-centered reasons. So NO they are not even related conceptually.

No but you mentioned that other animals do abort, so I read a little. Most "evidence" of this comes from animals in captivity and could hardly be interpreted as willful- they are more like spontaneous abortions because a new male is introduced into the group. This is quite unlike the human experience with abortion. Women don't seek an abortion in order to just get pregnant again by a "better" mate.

 

These are important debates for the people to have, not to be decided and imposed by judges.

I'm not religious.

There is nothing in the Constitution that defines personhood, or grants judges the authority to do so. Yet they presume to overrule the voters and their democratically elected representatives on the matter.

Rights often come into conflict. A right to one's own body ends at doing harm to another body (with the exception of defense).

And these judges don't actually believe in a constitutional right to one's own body, given they allow all sorts of controls over what we can put into them. It's just a flimsy pretense to ensure the ability to kill the unborn is not impeded.

You're claiming unless we are willing to burden ourselves personally with the welfare of every child, we should take no issue with the right to murder the unborn?

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/07/09/thirty-six-couples-wait-for-every-one-baby-who-is-adopted/


"If, in fact, there are 36 couples lined up for every adoption, there are 4-5 million couples waiting for babies, a number that is 3-4x greater than the 1.2 million babies we annually abort. "

 

humm... maybe

Not sure what's the point is here?

Natural selection abort fetuses and other pre-fetuses stage plenty. Once outside the womb, people also die of many natural causes that I guess you can group some of them under "natural selection".

 

Which exists...you guessed it, inside the woman's uterus. You don't get to stick your legislation up there no matter how fervently you believe that a fetus is "human life" worthy of legal protections.

Nothing but emotion-driven bull****. I'm sorry you get sand in your vagina when a woman has an abortion, but yours is the only uterus over which you have any right to have any say at all. Get used to it.

 

wow!