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

Ignore???? Yes, I ignore stupid rambling.

 

So scientific evidence, what we use to advance medicine, technology, the stuff from textbooks is all rambling to you? What is it that you think you do?

Like I said, what I posted were factual references. What you hate is the truth apparently.

 

What evidence are you referring to... that your community came up with some scientific names to apply to phases of development of a baby in utero? That's fine and I'm sure it has a useful purpose... until it is used to de-baby and de-humanize the child for the purpose of terminating it. That is not science.

 

unconscionable

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Judge blocks Indiana's ban on sex-selective abortion <a href="https://t.co/8eqPQAhPl6">https://t.co/8eqPQAhPl6</a> <a href="https://t.co/dIIixjWoCI">pic.twitter.com/dIIixjWoCI</a></p>&mdash; Washington Examiner (@dcexaminer) <a href="https://twitter.com/dcexaminer/status/748647814675177472">June 30, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

No you deflected from the issue which is what liberals do best because they it is all they have. You tried to drag this into an irrelevant discussion. The true discussion is does the SCOTUS have the power to grant rights not defined in the Constitution. The answer is a definitive no. Roe vs. Wade legislated from the bench. This ruling does the same. this falls under the 10th amendment which shifts the decision to the states. If this was at the state level where it should be your argument might have a little more weight.

 

I'll ask again, did you actually read the decision?

 

Shrug. From the master deflector himself, I'll take that as high praise!

The terms exist for reasons outside of abortion. They weren't created just to allow people to sleep at night when they scrape out clumps of cells.

It's not a baby until it pops out. Before that it might be a viable fetus, capable of surviving on its own, or it might be a single cell. You see those as the same thing for some reason that most learned people find baffling.

 

Aside from your completely uneducated and ignorant understanding of the Constitution, the basic issue here is you trying to redefine a scientific term with your own meaning. You can go around and around around about it but an embryo isn't a fetus, a fetus isn't a baby, a baby isn't a toddler, a toddler isn't an adolescent, and an adolescent isn't an adult. These are stages of human development and you cannot substitute one for another because you believe it to be so.

 

I feel like I am discussing an issue with someone that has severe mental r****dation.

Ironically, people like you are the reason abortion should exist. Being raised by you is a fate no kid should have to be dealt.

 

No, but if you actually went back and read my post you'd understand.

 

When does a fetus become a baby?

It's nice that we can debate whether the unborn have legal rights. Sadly, judges won't allow the people to make that determination.

 

Exactly.

 

Of course not. For women who choose to have children and the people whose lives intersect with those women, it is a joyful time, it certainly was for my wife and I.

Not a slip up at all. I am capable of recognizing the joy a newborn baby can bring in one set of circumstances as well as the abject misery one can cause in different circumstances.

False equivalence. I don't know of anyone who has to be convinced of the inherent wrongness of murder or rape. There are a LOT of people who don't share your beliefs about fetuses.

 

because of judges imposing their will, the people's beliefs on the matter are irrelevant

 

Embryo (fertilization - 8 weeks after fertilization)
Fetus, (10th week of pregnancy - birth)
Neonate (newborn) (0 – 28 days)
Infant (baby) (0 month - 12 months)
Toddler (1 – 3 years)
Play age (3 – 5 years)


Judges interpret the laws written by the representatives of the people. Why is it these very simple things must be explained exactly?

 

Advance your understanding of constitutional law beyond the 10th amendment and you might have some hope of comprehending the right to privacy, the fact that it extends into a woman's uterus, and the fact that you don't have the right to stick your legislation into that uterus.

 

People's beliefs don't make the best laws. Would you allow people's beliefs in Iran about homosexuality to make the laws?

 

You mean, as irrelevant as someone whose understanding of the Constitution ends at the 10th amendment questioning the Supreme Court of the United States?

They didn't.

Agreed, the SCOTUS did not "grant rights" to anyone. The Constitution secures our rights and the SCOTUS interprets what exactly that means in contemporary society.

No, RvW was decided from the bench as a result of legislation which conflicted with women's constitutional right to be secure in their persons.

No, this ruling overturned legislation designed specifically to reduce the access that women in Texas have to abortion services.

It was at the state level, leading to all manner of horrendous results, government intrusions all the way up into women's uteri. The court did what was right for women in both of these cases.

Learn about our system of government more deeply, your understanding is substandard.

 

Hmmm, I think they actually allow the person to make that determination herself.

 

No, because of judges "imposing their will," your beliefs are irrelevant when it comes to the uterus of someone who is not you.

As it should be.