Alabama’s Draconian Abortion Ban Has Women On Twitter Ready To Fight

Science denial is a sad thing...

 

Egregious PF RULE VIOLATION duly noted for the record!

People in a vegetative coma can still have brain activity but we turn off their life support when there is no hope of any recovery.

Must those bodies be kept alive at all costs because of your "human decency"?

 

Your post contains numerous logical fallacies = what you claim as fact - has not been proven so.

The first problem is your claim that a baby exists in the early stages of pregnancy. This is an "assumed premise" fallacy. One of the main parts of the abortion debate is on whether or not a living human exists throughout various stages of pregnancy.

You waking into such a debate and claiming "a human exists at all stages" - does not constitute proof of claim. Lacking proof of claim and stating this claim as if it has been proven - is what is disingenuous.

Where is your proof that a living human exists at conception ?

There are 5 main Scientific perspectives on when human life begins - Metabolic, Genetic, Embryological, Ecological, Neurological. Only one of these perspectives puts "the beginning" at conception (the Genetic Perspective). This perspective - while popular with the general public - has fallen out of favor among subject matter experts and scientists.

In order to claim "a living human exists - a baby - a child" at conception - you not only have to provide proof of this claim - you have to refute the 4 perspectives that contradict this claim.

You have done neither.

Standing up on a podium and stating "Its a baby" is not proof of claim.

 

Why is it rightists call people murderers when they've never met a person. Basically they are lying and most are tRUMPers.

 

Define humanity ? This means different things to different people so I have no idea what you are trying to equate with personhood.

 

My thought is that it should have been obvious this was going to happen back in 2016. Anyone who felt strongly about abortion rights should have turned out to vote for Clinton, but I doubt there was 100% of such folks cast a vote. Personally, I regarded the appointment of Supreme Court justices as the single most important issue in that election. So did evangelicals, and that's why they held their nose to get the guy that would give them what they want. The same thing applies in 2020. The current makeup of SCOTUS might not strike down Roe v Wade - it could survive a 5-4 vote, with Roberts siding with the maintaining the status quo (he is one of the stronger supporters of stare decisis). But RBG will not live another 6 years - the next President will definitely appoint her replacement.

 

Not true. There IS a good reason why some people consider a zygote a person: their religious faith. This is not a point one can argue with them about, nor one they can be expected to compromise on. Although that's a fine reason for one's personal opinions, it is a bad reason Constitutionally - because of Church/State separation. It would establish one specific religious view as the basis of the law of the land.

 

Doubtless there will be women who would hold their nose and vote for Biden in preference to the BLOTUS in 2020.

 

I'm sure you are right, but they will still be killing a living human being - so it doesn't make it right. Pregnancy is a pretty simple thing to avoid in 2019. Millions of American women are enjoying sex with almost no chance of getting pregnant. I find it ironic that pro murder women scream that they losing the right to their own bodies when they refuse to take responsibility for it in the first place.

 

IF the law is upheld in the courts (and that's a pretty big "if") walk us thru how a pregnant woman who travels outside the state and has a miscarriage proves it wan't intentional on her return. Would yo want your wife, or loved ones to be forced to undergo an invasive pelvic exam after the trauma of a miscarriage? And given that studies show exercise and some physical activities result in higher chances of miscarriage - do we have to charge a woman who miscarries at the gym with a crime? Manslaughter?

Walk us through the point at which a doctor makes the decision to end a potentially life-threatening pregnancy. Say the placenta ruptures and the woman is bleeding out. And why would ANY doctor risk prison by dealing with any case that might end up having to choose a mother's life over the fetus? Is he going to face charges or lengthy investigations if he has to abort the fetus?

Read the Roe v. Wade decision. Justices weren't arguing that they wanted abortions ... they argued that enforcing anti-abortion laws was an exercise in futility, that they could not be evenly enforced, and that they were ripe for abuse. We have historical proof that anti-abortion laws in this country will not work. Why continue the stupid.

 

Which is what?

 

I don't see how it is ones, Right, to euthanize a living organism. I think women who get abortions and men who coerce their female mates into planning abortions, should all, be legally required to undergo a pyscho-emotional interview with every willing member of their circle of family from all stops in life, thus far.

Each person they interview with, will be required to inform the abortion-seeker of how they feel life would've been if the abortion-seeker had been aborted by her/his parents. And not given the chance to be the great human which they turned out to be.

After that, you may then go get that abortion.

 

I agree that this was obvious - to folks who pay attention. The problem is that most people are far to busy with their lives to do so.

Many do not vote on a single issue. They may like some things about a politician but dislike others. In addition, most often folks do not consider the long term consequences of various platforms.

One thing we can bank on is that many in the middle and on the left who stayed home during the last election - folks who were disgusted with the Establishment insider candidate put forward by blue - will be mobilized by the actions in Alabama with respect to abortion.

 

I've been pretty clear that I think abortions should be allowed for medical complications. I don't really care how you try to spin your position you will never convince a decent person that it's ok to electively end another beings life.

 

So if your law forcing a raped woman to carry to term results in her death from complications, are YOU going to accept the responsibility of having killed her? Or do you just walk away whistling, and go on and kill another, and another ...

 

And what is a GOOD reason constitutionally for pro-abortion?

 

We've been over this. If you submit another disingenuous post I'm just going to ignore you. Too bad, you do have some good thoughts from time to time.

 

IOW you would use COERCION and ILLEGAL browbeating to ENSLAVE women into bearing UNWANTED children.

Got it!

 

Is it much different to 1919?

 

Why only a raped women dying from complications?

 

Define what you mean by your imaginary "decent person" and try not to violate any more PF Rules in the process while you are at it.

 

LOL with the lame hyperbole. This is 2019, there are many options available to women to enable them to have sex and not get pregnant. It's their body.

 

Ummm yeah. Are you being serious or am I missing something?

 

Claiming religious faith - is not a "Good" argument for law. There is a difference between 1) having a religious belief and 2) forcing that religious belief on others through physical violence.

You go on to make this point - and it is a correct one - not only with respect to separation of Church and State but with respect to law in general.

Belief in freedom and individual liberty is not belief in freedom - only for things one agrees with. Everyone believes in that. If one believes in freedom - only for things one agrees with - one does not belief in freedom at all. Belief in freedom is belief in freedom for individual liberty that one disagrees with.

If there were a referendum on alcohol tomorrow. The question of the referendum is not "do you like alcohol". The question of a referendum is "Do you have significant justification to force your personal belief on others through physical violence (Law).

I do not like alcohol does not address the question. If one does not like alcohol -don't drink. Not liking something personally is not justification to use physical violence to stop others from drinking.

"God says so" is an equally bad argument. Prove that "God says so".

"God says so" is not a valid justification for law. It is not a "good argument".

 

So we'll take that as your refusal to accept responsibility for your actions. And I'm not being disingenuous, I honestly think that people who support laws forcing a raped woman to bring the rapist's fetus to term should be charged with the rape of that woman. And if the woman dies of complications, they should be charged with manslaughter. Honestly.