Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

CNN: Supreme Court strikes down Texas abortion access law


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, twa said:
Maybe you will like this one

Yup. 

 

Hern sounds like a zealot. 

 

Im not a fan of pretending it isn’t a life. I’m closer to Vermont’s law than Alabama’s law, in terms of what I think the law should be, but I’m not a fan of pretending it’s not a life to make things easier. It is a life (after a certain point.) it’s ok that it’s a hard decision. It’s not ok to lie about it. 

 

As a side de note I do love Republicans affinity for science in the abortion debate. All these years I thought their refusal to admit climate change was real was because they’re stupid and don’t understand science, I’m glad it’s just because they’re partisan hacks that don’t actually care about the environment. 

 

;) 

Edited by tshile
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

 

 

Florida Abortion Statistics Debunk Common Pro-Choice Argument

 https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/florida-abortion-statistics-debunk-common-pro-choice-argument/

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quote

 

MARIST POLL FINDS 3 IN 4 AMERICANS SUPPORT SUBSTANTIAL ABORTION RESTRICTIONS

1/15/2019

ABOUT 2 IN 3 WANT ROE REINTERPRETED TO ALLOW RESTRICTION BY STATES OR BAN THE PROCEDURE

https://www.kofc.org/en/news/polls/abortion-restrictions-supported.html

 

 

We just prefer different science, one less speculative than commonly used in environmental games .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't a significant amount of pregnancies end so early on, unbeknownst to the woman when say.....it literally is just a clump of cells?

 

When I was dating my soon to be wife, she had missed a period, took a pregnancy test and it came back positive, but before she had a chance to schedule a Dr's Appointment she ended up getting a super heavy period a couple weeks later and she is assuming it was a miscarriage. 

 

I don't think the "just a clump of cells" argument was ever meant to mean up to the day of birth it is a clump of cells. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, tshile said:

Yup. 

 

Hern sounds like a zealot. 

 

Im not a fan of pretending it isn’t a life. I’m closer to Vermont’s law than Alabama’s law, in terms of what I think the law should be, but I’m not a fan of pretending it’s not a life to make things easier. It is a life (after a certain point.) it’s ok that it’s a hard decision. It’s not ok to lie about it. 

 

As a side de note I do love Republicans affinity for science in the abortion debate. All these years I thought their refusal to admit climate change was real was because they’re stupid and don’t understand science, I’m glad it’s just because they’re partisan hacks that don’t actually care about the environment. 

 

;) 

Re: Republicans and Science.  Each party has their strengths and weakness - Republicans are weak at environmental science while Dems are weak at biology.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Let's not crown Republicans the party of science. These guys were pushing for unconstitutional 20 week bans only a few years back. Now let's just jump to 6 week bans. In a couple years they'll be saying birth control is a abortifacient.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, twa said:

 

 

We just prefer different science, one less speculative than commonly used in environmental games .

 

Lead paragraph from your article that "Debunk(s) Common Pro-Choice Argument". 

 

"Data from Florida reveal that, in 2018, an overwhelming majority of women reported obtaining an abortion for reasons other than to preserve their own life or health, or due to fetal-health complications."

 

Wow, that really debunked the "common" argument that most abortions are to save the mother's life or health. 

 

Wonder how many times that "common argument" has been used, in this years-long thread. 

 

(I'm also admiring that the 2-3 paragraphs of that thing that I read, mentioned that any time the mother chose not to list a reason, they assumed it was elective. Not that they  were trying to force a conclusion or anything.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Larry said:

 

 

(I'm also admiring that the 2-3 paragraphs of that thing that I read, mentioned that any time the mother chose not to list a reason, they assumed it was elective. Not that they  were trying to force a conclusion or anything.)

 

You have a good point, the reason and need, as well as reporting requirements to a central database would help eliminate guessing......probably a legislative need .

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NoCalMike said:

Don't a significant amount of pregnancies end so early on, unbeknownst to the woman when say.....it literally is just a clump of cells?

 

One of the things I hate about this debate is that it's possible to play with some statistics, and use some flexible definitions, to "support" a lot of extreme positions.  

 

And lots of people are perfectly willing to do so.  Because they think their cause gives them license to lie as much as they want.  Means there's lots of "statistics" out there that you really can't trust.  

 

I've read, for example, that around 1/3 of the time when the egg is fertilized, it fails to implant in the womb, and simply passes from the mother.  

 

Me, I don't think that counts as "abortion", because no deliberate human action was involved.  However, I will note that there are a whole lot of people who are willing to cling, with fervor, to the notion that when a sperm and an egg meet, two dead things combine and instantly create, not only life, but a fully formed person.  (And at least some of the people in this group regularly attempt to ban, or at least restrict, the 'morning after pill', which actually works by giving hormones to the mother which prevent her ova from releasing an egg, by reciting the claim that 'well, it's never been proven that it's impossible for the pill to revent implantation.  Which they insist is an abortion.)  

 

So I suppose your question might be true if you count such failure to implant events as "abortion".  But I don't.  And I doubt any reasonable person would, either.  

 

However, if we restrict the word "abortion" to "human imitated events taken for the purpose of ending a pregnancy which has occurred", then I don't think your statement holds.  

 

To start with, technically (until one group or another decides to change the definition), it's not technically a pregnancy.  Fertilization occurs a few days before implantation, and pregnancy begins with implantation.  So it is possible to have "life begins" (to some), without ever having "pregnancy".  

 

And pretty much as soon as implantation occurs, the cells start specializing.  For example, one of the first things that happens is that some cells begin creating the placenta, and some begin forming the fetus.  One of the things that happens at this point is that the placenta begins secreting hormones into the mother.  It's these hormones, for example, that will prevent Mommy from producing another egg.  And prevent her from having a period.  And it's these hormones which the pregnancy tests detect.  

 

By the time a home pregnancy test will say you're pregnant, it's been implanted for a month or so.    By then, there's a lot of specialization that's happened.  

 

For example, the fetus has a regularly-pumping muscle that is circulating it's blood.  Whether it's correct to call it a "heart" (I understand it only has one chamber at that time), it certainly is pumping blood.  I'm pretty sure that it has some bones.  (Although I think they're made of cartilage, rather than calcium, at that stage.)  

 

So, while it's not accurate to call it a "baby", and I'm not sure it's accurate to call it a "person" (At one stage of it's development, for example, it has a tail.  And 'person' is really more of a philosophical label than a physical one, anyway.), but I think that calling it "a clump of cells" is too extreme, IMO.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Larry said:

So I suppose your question might be true if you count such failure to implant events as "abortion".  But I don't.  And I doubt any reasonable person would, either.  

 

 

I wasn't trying to count it as "abortion." I was making the statement for the "life begins with conception" aka when sperm meets egg.  If that is what they believe, and that the moment sperm meets egg should be treated the same as a zygote, a fetus, a baby.....then it seems like the destruction of life is naturally occurring in a lot of cases all on it's own. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

 

 

Thanks for posting this BenningRoadSkin, it's certainly racism and keeping the white population in control. 

 

She advocates for female bodily autonomy. I am not alone in this.

 

Also, NoCalMike, the medical community calls any cessation of pregnancy an abortion whether naturally occurring or through medical procedure. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NoCalMike said:

 

I wasn't trying to count it as "abortion." I was making the statement for the "life begins with conception" aka when sperm meets egg.  If that is what they believe, and that the moment sperm meets egg should be treated the same as a zygote, a fetus, a baby.....then it seems like the destruction of life is naturally occurring in a lot of cases all on it's own. 

 

Yes, bunches of fertilized eggs do not become babies. (Or even fetuses). (The number I heard was 1/3.)

 

My point was was that I don't think you could call those "abortions". Your point (as I remember) was "Most abortions ...."

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Cooked Crack said:
........ These guys were pushing for unconstitutional 20 week bans only a few years back. Now let's just jump to 6 week bans. In a couple years they'll be saying birth control is a abortifacient.

20 Weeks wasn't what was found to be unconstitutional it was the lack of exceptions to that rule. Roe versus Wade does allow states to restrict late term abortions with exceptions when viability of the baby is met (we know viability occurs at 21 weeks).  It doesn't mandate restrictions and some states don't have restrictions.

 

Only in 6 other Countries  in the world (North Korea, China, Vietnam, Singapore, Neatherlands and Canada) is it legal to do what is permitted in the United States (Unrestricted abortion at anytime for any reason).

 

All I want are constitutional protections for late term fetuses within the constraints of Roe versus Wade.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Larry said:

 

Yes, bunches of fertilized eggs do not become babies. (Or even fetuses). (The number I heard was 1/3.)

 

My point was was that I don't think you could call those "abortions". Your point (as I remember) was "Most abortions ...."

 

Naturally occurring I suppose would be miscarriage?   

Link to post
Share on other sites

The lower courts really have to block it.  At least, if they actually give a **** about the rue of law.  

 

Until the newly-appointed activist judges on the USSC get their change to legislate, the lower courts are legally required to follow Roe.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...