Controversy is the biggest issue with a single, federal policy. This is something that some call murder, and some call a mother's medical business alone. I get making it a state's issue for that reason. Though to me it's pretty obvious that an early fetus is not a person at all. The best counterargument to "it's controversial," is that the other side is clearly divorced from medical facts and reality. So the positive side to how scotus approached overturning RvW is, despite being conservative, at least they had the humility to not impose their view of the issue on everybody by just banning abortion. Of course that humility is largely appreciated because I know without it, they would have made the clearly incorrect policy choice.
I'm not so sure. Had the SC decided abortion is illegal across the nation, we would have a strong shot at adding a right to personal bodily autonomy to the constitution. As it is, legislators and prosecutors across the nation can play doctor without knowing or caring about the world of medicine and the damage they cause to women's lives.
Do you always make comments about stuff you dont know anything about? Normally a fetus has a nerve system after the 26th week, depending on the definition of pain and arguments within medicine fetuses can feel pain much earlier, but there is no doubt that after the development of the nerve system the fetus can feel pain, thus suffer, which is exactly what I pointed out. If you read again carefully, it will occur to you I didnt state it was a "human being", but a "living being". In the case you cant see any difference ask the elementary school student of your choice for examples of living beings, that are not human beings, normally they are at the level to give you some examples like in that song for little children: You are welcome!
You are an insulting so-and-so! I probably know more about this than the average person including YOU! First, I didn't say you called it a "human being". I just made a statement that included those words. Secondly, you say "exactly what you pointed out" was that the nerve system develops after the 26th week. No you didn't. You said "A fetus is a living being which is capable of suffering." A five-week old fetus is a "fetus" and it is not capable of suffering. So I corrected your error of generalization and you say I was wrong????? LOL!!!
Yeah, it makes a lot of sense to lesson me about it and now fall back to "I was just saying so, never said you said otherwise.". And it is. By the way I gave the latest point at which it is very likely a fetus can feel pain (although some people will deny even that). Depending on the definition of pain others argue that as soon as the nerval system starts to grow you argue if you could talk about pain and suffering, which is about 8-9 weeks of the pregnancy. So the bottom line is, although you wanted to be a smartass, your new statement is not commons sense as you tried to pretend, which is kind of embarrassing for you.
And after they're born they're "babies", then "toddlers", "pre-schoolers. grade schoolers, etc. Point is they exist on a continuum from fertilization to adulthood and beyond. Difference phrases to identify an individuals point in his life. Except in certain circumstances the willfully termination of an individual on that path is distasteful.
No, what SHOULD BE embarrassing for you, unless you are a victim of the Dunning–Kruger effect, is that you have trouble writing a clear sentence or you don't remember to proofread it for clarity. I have no idea what you're trying to say in your third sentence directly above. Try again. Or don't if you prefer.
You aren't covering the issues with fetuses. And, you are totally ignoring the health of the woman. You might want to back off on pain transmission in healthy fetuses as your major point when dodging such a seriously large percent of the issues.
In the first statement you are definitely wrong. The last statement is pretty obvious, but if a person is incapable to understand a simple statement once, its unlikely he will understand it, if you explain it to him a second time. Especially if the person has already proven he or she has a big mouth, but not the slightest idea what he or she is talking about. You didnt understand the difference of a human being and a living being, you write stuff like that and if corrected there you claim it to be a problem of the author he uses English you dont understand. Its not my problem if people slept in the biology classes who a few years later have a big mouth in a forum, but confuse maybe half of the terms with something to eat. You dont get a lot, yes, we get it, you can either google it or just ask me, what the terms you dont understand mean. Instead you get insulting like most of the people with a big mouth which get embarrassed big time, but thats not my problem.
an abuser is one that forces a little child to have their rapists baby it is the potential mother's choice, and it is her body - not my choice, not your choice, not the government's choice
"Now, you might argue that NOT allowing abortion is "an act perpetrated upon a person without consent." But the same is also true of pedophilia. Isn't it? (Yeah, maybe you need to think about that one for a moment)" yes, I would never force the child to have the pedophiles baby - anyone that forced them too could be considered an accessory to the rape after the fact
No, it isnt. Did anyone demand to deny pregnant women healthcare? No, I dont. You see, its the law, its not me who tells it. And yes, the laws can dictate within certain limits which risks you have to take or not to take or otherwise get sanctioned. Thats my reply to your wrong assumptions that the law protects only human beings. A cat isnt a human being, but within certain boundaries protected by the law, so your concept was wrong.
Everyone who can't write a proper sentence with proper punctuation and proper word usage fails to see that they failed.
Oh, now I get it. You found a mistake and you are very proud on yourself now. Plus you think that makes up for all this nonsense you wrote before or at least a good excuse to withdraw after you have terribly embarrassed yourself.
You seem to have great trouble dealing with what happens as it happens without distorting it to suit you.
You'll have to explain that one. A fetus is very clearly connected and absolutely not independent. Yes. In a well documented case, the laws of Texas, for example, refused to allow healthcare for a woman whose dying fetus could not live past birth and which was causing the woman serious medical problems that would leave her without procreative ability if not resolved. She appealed through the courts and lost. She happened to have the wealth to go to a different stated for medical treatment. There are plenty of these cases cropping up with the advent of cruel and laws written by those who clearly have not clue what they are demanding. Yes - this is a democracy, and it is you who tells it by allowing or promoting these laws that deny women rights over their person. This is an unbelievably silly argument. The reasons for personal bodily autonomy have nothing to do with other life forms. It has to do with persons.
If a bacteria, a parasite or anything else lives in your body it can be dependent on you, but it isnt you. Its not a part of your body. Then its up to the people of beloved Texas to change the laws if they want to. I cant see why you should make laws like that, but it seems under their law this abortion was not legal. I dont get access to illegal medical surgeries or other operations in my country as well. I dont deny women their rights over their person. As long as a pregnancy is aborted before the 8th week, I have no problems whatsoever with it. After that it becomes aan assessment of different legal interests. No, the argument is not silly, quite the opposite, it refuted your point that law can protect only human beings. In this case a fetus.
Something happens without distorting itself. Wow! It seems, the boy who was so proud to find a mistake is made of the stuff true poets are made.
There are more non-human organisms in a human body than there are human cells. Humans and other animals lives depend on that. Maybe you should become more informed. The problem with these laws is that legislatures can not sit in some capital city somewhere and pretend they are doctors. And, they can pander to the ignorance of the people in order to remain in office. I showed you a case where that answer is BS. Law is made for reasons. "Legal interests" are not themselves a justification for law. The reasons for laws related to animal cruelty have NOTHING AT ALL to do with human pregnancy. In fact, we terminate animals that have serous health problems.
