Texas 6-week abortion ban takes effect after Supreme Court inaction

Science is not a court case. It is a set of falsifiable theories. (or, IOW, it is a set of falsifiable models that predict nature).

This is why scientists are NOT science. Let's just stick to the science.

No. My entire premise is predicated on science (namely, biology).

This has nothing to do with the mother's bodily autonomy and everything to do with murdering the living human inside of her.

No it isn't. You are being a science denier.

 

Yes, it has.

Yes, you have.

That's why I didn't provide it for you. That's why I went with the medical community's definition instead. I figured that we could agree upon that, but since you wish to change the medical community's definition into MY definition, then I will gladly accept that and agree with you on that definition (that life begins at conception). I will use that definition moving forward.

As I said above, I will drop this particular argument and gladly establish as fact (for the bigger picture) that life begins at conception, since this is what you wish to do.

I have never claimed that life begins with a heartbeat. I have always claimed that life begins at conception. What I HAVE claimed is that medical professionals consider the presence of a heartbeat to be the presence of life. Life could very well (and I believe that it does) begin BEFORE a heartbeat is developed. However, it is very clearly medically established that whenever a heartbeat is present, life is present.

I never claimed that it established when life begins. I claimed that it established that life IS PRESENT.

Please stop being dishonest about what I type to you.

 

Splendid. We have now established as fact that a fertilized ("conceived") homo sapien sapien is a 'living human'.

IOW, you support the choice to kill a living human (as defined above) who has not committed any crime nor has expressed any desire to die.

You also support this choice if the justification for it is to make some other living human's life more convenient.

You support the notion that living humans do not have the right to life.

That's morally abhorrent, dude.

See above.

I don't deny it; I, rather, find it to be completely irrelevant to this discussion.

 

Looks like AG Garland is going to sue Texas on behalf of America.... Presser coming soon with the deets...

About time... it's been more than a week.... how many women have had to go out of state to get their abortions in that time?

The SCOTUS failing to issue an injunction for this is a PERMANENT stain on the Roberts court... That was his Dred Scott moment...so far...

While we wait for that, here's a link...

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/08/justice-department-texas-abortion-law-510801

 

Supremacy Clause and 14th amendment... Couldn't catch it all, but he's making perfect sense...

Short and sweet... less than 10 minutes... My kind of press conference...

 

Justice Department sues Texas over restrictive abortion law

"The Justice Department has filed a lawsuit against Texas over its near-total ban on abortion, Attorney General Merrick Garland said Thursday, calling the measure “clearly unconstitutional under longstanding Supreme Court precedent.” The move follows President Joe Biden’s vow to launch a “whole-of-government” response to the law and comes after the Supreme Court declined to block the measure."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/ju...=857693951420692326&utm_medium=Email Sailthru



good. The law is too restrictive.......and could encourage a reporting system that is coutnerproducitve in a democracy.

 

Your point is a red herring. At issue is what matters, and that is what a court decides, after all, 'personhood' is a legal issue. Science can contribute to the court rulings, but the matter will be settled in a court of law.

Often, a court will rely on science in it's rulings, depending on what is at issue.

Without a court decision, your point is moot.

Life begins at early stages for a lot of things, but 'personhood', that's a legal/philosophical matter to be settled before a court of law, whether you like it or not.

Not all scientists agree on the point when when a fetus is a 'human being'. I don't know the answer, myself.

https://www.swarthmore.edu/news-events/when-does-personhood-begin

However, as repugnant as abortion is, I feel that the issue of body autonomy is the overriding issue whereby R v W has granted 'body autonomy' and privacy rights up to about 20 weeks or so and it's a matter to be decided by a woman, her doctor and her family.

 

Is your opinion just deferring to the courts on the issue? If SCOTUS had ruled, in Roe v Wade, that "bodily autonomy" gets trumped by the fetus' right to life at 12 weeks rather than 20, would you have been fine with that?

 

It's generally considered 24 weeks (not 20) and hell no (speaking for me, not him)

 

I don't know who saw this meme when it came out last week, but I didn't, so I post it now...

Nicely on point for the current situation in the Texiban.... can't have all that skin out there in case men decide to do rape stuff and create a nice new son or daughter...



https://www.yahoo.com/news/dallas-cowboys-cheerleaders-meme-featuring-205332773.html

 

The Satanic Temple has also asked the FDA for religious exemptions due to their abortion rituals.

That will be an interesting case if it ever gets to the ussc. I bet all the people screaming “religious freedom” will suddenly no longer support them.

 

This post, in a nutshell, is why it is pointless to have a discussion with you. Besides the blatant falsehoods, the strawman arguments, the denial of the facts and truth what it really comes down to is when faced with anything that proves you position wrong ( and that happens a lot) you simply say
I find it irrelevant.
That, sir, is how I now find you.

 

Interesting:

 

Is it even the Roberts court anymore? He's the moderate now on many issues, but there are 5 conservatives. Didn't he vote to pause the Texas law for review as requested? I guess the swing vote is whoever is the most moderate of the 5 who are more conservative than roberts. Pretty messed up how well McConnell's maneuvering and cheating worked. If evil exists, it works through him and won.

 

You do have to admit it is an effective way to solidify your own worldview. If facts and definitions suddenly no longer exist nothing can challenge their own cognitive dissonance.

 

It's still technically the Roberts court, but it's now more of the Star Chamber for Constitutional Rights...

 

Tis ashame that they had to travel to kill their unborn children.

 

It certainly is.... and unconstitutional to boot...

 

There are a number of rulings by the court I'm not fine with. I'm fine with R v W, as written. 12 weeks is cutting it close, and I would defer my opinion until I got feed back from women on that point.

 

Court decisions are not arbitrary. The question is fallacious.

 

To be fair, Roberts dissented.

 

He did, but there was no cost to him to do so.... 6-3 or 5-4, it's still a horrible decision and Roberts knows that...

Being the CJ, it's his court, but he has zero control over it anymore. Like all CJ's, he probably prefers a 4-4 division where he (or she) gets to be the one who tips the balance...

He's just a passenger on this particular train wreck and he'll be the least surprised person on earth if Joe decides to rebalance...

 

Looks like there's a battle ahead.

 

Of course they are. If there wasn't some arbitrariness to them, we could input all the variables into a formula and have it spit out a consistent answer every time (and wouldn't need judges). We can't, because a fair amount of each ruling depends on the whims of the particular judge(s) that get(s) assigned. And they regularly get overturned by other judges, and in split decisions in many cases, because each judge has different arbitrary, personal whims.

 

Rulings are not throws of the dice. That there are more than one possible ruling does not make it arbitrary.