Yeah, says the person who doesn't understand mutations. That said, your hypocrisy shows no bounds while you avoid the miscarriage issue.
You pointed out nothing while still admitting you don't know if you were ever a zygote and try to divert. Do you believe a human with a genetic mutation is no longer a human being? I doubt you have any understanding of miscarriages since you don't even know if you were ever a zygote.
Nope, abortionists don't either. So, YOU GOT IT WRONG. I say you are free to do as you wish, just don't step on anyone else's rights. What say you?
so this means you oppose gun control, and specifically the kind that goes after exactly the kind of defensive weapons needed to prevent a rape? and you support constitutional carry, meaning states like ca, il, ny, ma, hi, md, are violating my rights to adequately defend myself from rape in those locales?
Yes, I would like to own my very own nuclear bomb. Since my gov't has them, citizens should have them also. I also believe in states rights. And if Alabamistan wants to make abortions illegal or CCW illegal they should have that right. Even though I am pro choice. I don't live, nor will I ever live in a place like Alabamistan. But if you do like such draconian laws, you could always move there or even the middle east. They seem to have the same values.
but states cannot make laws that violate the constitution. you realize this, right? and you think it's ok for a state to make it harder for me to defend myself against being raped. i find that very interesting.
Which laws are against the constitution? Can I own a nuclear bomb per the constitution? Last post on this, as this is going way OT Yes or No? Why or why not?
Why do you automatically assume that people will remain irresponsible when the baby killer option is removed? Its just as likely that people will actually become responsible because they realize the costs of irresponsible behavior. Define 'significant' increase in crime rate, how do you folks come up with that prediction?
Using verifiable data, can any “pro-lifer” tell us how many late term abortions involve situations where both the fetus and mother are perfectly healthy and not at risk?
It just isn't realistic to assume that poor people will stop having sex because we pass anti-abortion laws. We have 50 years of history with anti-abortion laws in effect to prove that. Anti-abortion laws don''t stop abortions, they just move underground for the poor and the more affluent take vacations - and given the less expensive travel options and the number of states that will continue to provide abortions, these laws will be even less effective than in the past. And really, until anti-abortion start putting the infrastructure into place for increased child births, like improved hospital maternity wards and well-baby clinics, I can't take their "pro-life" moniker seriously. They are pro-fetus - not pro-life.
Exactly. So all this hand wringing by the “pro-lifers” over late term abortions of healthy fetuses is a bunch on bullspit nonsense. Glad we cleared that up.
Yeah right. You obviously don't know what a mutation is, and there is no guarantee that an embryo will fully develop.
Dodges noted again Do you believe a human with a genetic mutation is no longer a human being? So what? You don't believe you were ever a zygote how about a fetus?
Why is that the measure? If you are support late term killing of the baby then justify it by posting the numbers of late term abortions that were necessary to save the life of the mother. Where it was safe to put the mother through a late term abortion rather than a simple cesarean or even natural childbirth. BTW Experts: Abortion Not Medically Necessary to Save the Life of a Mother Leading medical experts speaking at a major International Symposium on Excellence in Maternal Healthcare held in Dublin have concluded that “direct abortion is not medically necessary to save the life of a mother.” Professor Eamon O’Dwyer, speaking for the Committee of the Symposium, said that the outcome of the conference “provided clarity and confirmation to doctors and legislators.” Participants in the symposium. Experts in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, mental health, and molecular epidemiology presented new research, and shared clinical experiences on issues surrounding maternal healthcare to the packed Symposium attended by more than 140 Irish medical professionals. Particular attention was paid to the management of high-risk pregnancies, cancer in pregnancy, foetal anomalies, mental health and maternal mortality. The Symposium’s conclusions were issued in the Dublin Declaration on Maternal Healthcare which states: -“As experienced practitioners and researchers in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, we affirm that direct abortion is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman. -We uphold that there is a fundamental difference between abortion, and necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child. -We confirm that the prohibition of abortion does not affect, in any way, the availability of optimal care to pregnant women.” https://www.lifenews.com/2012/09/11...cally-necessary-to-save-the-life-of-a-mother/ And in an unprecidented letter to Congress the AMA injected itself into the question in 1998 stating "The AMA recommends that the intact dilatation and extraction procedure not be used unless alternative procedures pose materially greater risk to the woman and that abortions not be performed in the third trimester except in cases of serious fetal anomalies incompatible with life. " https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/187908 Not to "save the life of the mother".
A zygot's "right" to potentially developing into a human being is superior to a rape victim's desire not to relive her assault be being forced to carry the zygot until it either spontaneously ceases to exist or she is forced to give birth to the "fruit" of her rape.
Problem with this "study" is that these doctors are only looking at best case scenarios. Yes, if you are delivering in a hospital with the best and newest equipment and your doctor is one of the chosen few - then obviously there are more options to save both child and mother. Problem is, that doesn't apply to 90% of real life births.
Problem is, you will never entertain an argument in favor of protecting the rights of the most vulnerable of all human life. Pretty sick imo.
Bring an argument that doesn't completely disregard the mother, and I'll entertain it. Bring an argument that first and foremost is centered around reducing the factors that lead women to choose abortion, and we can talk. Put up the money to fund expanding hospitals and maternity wards to save babies who are born. Bring a plan to fund support infrastructure for poor mothers so that they're less likely to choose abortion in the first place. But don't sit there pulling "feel good" platitudes out of your butt and expect me to take you seriously. We have 50 years of failed anti-abortion laws in our history already. Don't expect me to take you seriously if you're just going to rehash a failed policy.
An embryo can mutate into anything, there is no guarantee. If the DNA is altered, it is now something different.!!!!
Now you are just making things up and why you would want a woman to go through a very invasive third trimester abortion in an ill-equipped clinic with an untrained doctor is just amazing. No they were looking at all scenarios just as the AMA was doing and I can cite many more. You're repeating a tired old canard.
That was unresponsive, and no you cannot legally have a nuke. LOL But states have always had the power to pass a law that the legislators know is most likely unconst under the most recent SC pronouncement. But Roe was not just something pulled out of air. Until the end of the 19th century, there were not prohibitions on abortions of fetus that were not capable of becoming "quick" outside the womb. Conservative protestants began using laws to enforce "morality." So, the notion that Roe somehow created a right is not precisely right. Rather, it said the const never gave states the power in the first place.