Abortion

When they look for precedent they either look at other Supreme Court cases or the Constitution. Which is why you can't just overturn a court case with a law passed by Congress.

The whole thing seems kind of iffy.

Read roe. They looked under every rock out there for some precedent that they could use to justify abortion. They certainly didn't limit themselves to SC cases or the Constitution.
 
And back comes your desire for convenience. You are the one who said, "I stick to the law." But when the law is not in your favor it is suddenly a weak argument. Amazing.

You seem to have a comprehension problem with regard to reading. I do stick to the law, but that doesn't mean that I accept whatever the law says as right. If a legal decison can be justified, then it is fine to say "it's legal" and then go on to justify the decision. If the decsion can not be rationally justified then simply pointing out a bad, unjustified decision hardly constitutes a rational argument.
 
And back comes your desire for convenience. You are the one who said, "I stick to the law." But when the law is not in your favor it is suddenly a weak argument. Amazing.

You seem to have a comprehension problem with regard to reading. I do stick to the law, but that doesn't mean that I accept whatever the law says as right. If a legal decison can be justified, then it is fine to say "it's legal" and then go on to justify the decision. If the decsion can not be rationally justified then simply pointing out a bad, unjustified decision hardly constitutes a rational argument.

Or, to put it another way, being a law-abiding person does not require one to pretend that "It should be legal . . . because it's legal!" is a valid - or even sensible - argument.
 
And back comes your desire for convenience. You are the one who said, "I stick to the law." But when the law is not in your favor it is suddenly a weak argument. Amazing.

You seem to have a comprehension problem with regard to reading. I do stick to the law, but that doesn't mean that I accept whatever the law says as right. If a legal decison can be justified, then it is fine to say "it's legal" and then go on to justify the decision. If the decsion can not be rationally justified then simply pointing out a bad, unjustified decision hardly constitutes a rational argument.

Or, to put it another way, being a law-abiding person does not require one to pretend that "It should be legal . . . because it's legal!" is a valid - or even sensible - argument.

True, the court's own test for the validity of the case has failed.
 
Well a person should be able to eat, drink and function on their own.

A fetus cannot do that.

I shouldn't even have to say this, but a woman's decisions about birth control are between her and her doctor, not her boss.

But the Trump administration is about to finalize a new regulation that quietly rolls back Obamacare protections for contraceptive care. This would not only allow employers to refuse to cover birth control, but it would also lift the requirement to report their refusal so women can get birth control coverage directly through an insurer.

This would be a huge step backward for women's rights, and I'm going to fight it every step of the way. But I need to hear your thoughts.

Should a woman's boss decide if she gets birth control?

Maybe women should have voted for Hillary.
 
Well a person should be able to eat, drink and function on their own.

A fetus cannot do that.

I shouldn't even have to say this, but a woman's decisions about birth control are between her and her doctor, not her boss.

But the Trump administration is about to finalize a new regulation that quietly rolls back Obamacare protections for contraceptive care. This would not only allow employers to refuse to cover birth control, but it would also lift the requirement to report their refusal so women can get birth control coverage directly through an insurer.

This would be a huge step backward for women's rights, and I'm going to fight it every step of the way. But I need to hear your thoughts.

Should a woman's boss decide if she gets birth control?

Maybe women should have voted for Hillary.

Eh, her, her doctor and the life of an innocent human being, I wonder why you forgot the most important part...
 
Well a person should be able to eat, drink and function on their own.

Like, this guy?

stephen-hawking-voice-technology.jpg
 
Can any pro-choicer provide credible science that an unborn is anything other than a human, and thus legal person?

Black's Law Dictionary 9th edition, Person: A human being.

Nealis v. Baird, 996 P.2d 438, 453 (Okla. 1999) “Contemporary scientific precepts accept as a given that a human life begins at conception.” (citing KEITH L. MOORE & T.V.N. PERSAUD, THE DEVELOPING HUMAN 14 (5th ed. 1993); SUSAN TUCKER BLACKBURN & DONNA LEE LOPER, MATERNAL, FETAL AND NEONATAL PHYSIOLOGY: A CLINICAL PERSPECTIVE 49 (1992); MICHAEL R. HARRISON ET AL., THE UNBORN PATIENT: PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT 14 (1984); DALE RUSSELL DUNNIHOO, M.D., PH.D., FUNDAMENTALS OF GYNECOLOGY AND OBSTETRICS 286–99 (1990)

"an unborn child is a human being from conception is “supported by standard textbooks on embryology or human biology”
T.W. SADLER, LANGMAN’S MEDICAL EMBRYOLOGY (John N. Gardner ed., 6th ed. 1990.

"The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception."
M. Allen et. al., "The Limits of Viability." New England Journal of Medicine. 11/25/93: Vol. 329, No. 22, p. 1597.

"Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings." John C. Fletcher, Mark I. Evans, "Maternal Bonding in Early Fetal Ultrasound Examinations," New England Journal of Medicine, February 17, 1983.

"Not only is it a life, but, by its intrinsic biological nature, it is a human life from the moment of conception, for “it can be nothing else.”
E. BLECHSCHMIDT, THE BEGINNING OF HUMAN LIFE,]16–17

" A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual." Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed.(Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18.



T.W. SADLER, LANGMAN’S MEDICAL EMBRYOLOGY (John N. Gardner ed., 6th ed. (1990): "the proposition that an unborn child is a human being from conception is “supported by standard textbooks on embryology or human biology"

(“Contemporary scientific precepts accept as a given that a human being's life begins at conception.”
KEITH L. MOORE & T.V.N. PERSAUD, THE DEVELOPING HUMAN 14 (5th ed. 1993)
SUSAN TUCKER BLACKBURN & DONNA LEE LOPER, MATERNAL, FETAL AND NEONATAL PHYSIOLOGY: A CLINICAL PERSPECTIVE 49 (1992)
MICHAEL R. HARRISON ET AL., THE UNBORN PATIENT: PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT 14 (1984)
DALE RUSSELL DUNNIHOO, M.D., PH.D., FUNDAMENTALS OF GYNECOLOGY AND OBSTETRICS 286–99 (1990)

Ronan R. O'Rahilly, Fabiola Muller, HUMAN EMBRYOLOGY & TERATOLOGY , (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996), 5-55. "Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human being is thereby formed"

E.L. Potter and J.M. Craig, PATHOLOGY OF THE FETUS AND THE INFANT, 3d ed. (Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975), vii. "Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new human being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition."

M. Allen et. al., "The Limits of Viability." New England Journal of Medicine. 11/25/93: Vol. 329, No. 22, p. 1597 "The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception."

John C. Fletcher, Mark I. Evans, "Maternal Bonding in Early Fetal Ultrasound Examinations," New England Journal of Medicine, February 17, 1983."Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings."

E. BLECHSCHMIDT, THE BEGINNING OF HUMAN LIFE 16–17 (1977) "Not only is it a life, but, “by its intrinsic biological nature,” it is a human life from the moment of conception, for “it can be nothing else."

Carlson, Bruce M. Patten, Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3); "Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, as an individual member of that species."

Keith L. Moore and T.V.N. Persaud, The developing Human 6th ed 2;" :Zygote: this cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo). "

Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18.The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. "[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote marks the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual."

Ronan R. O'Rahilly, Fabiola Muller, (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996), 5-55. Human Embryology & Teratology "Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human being is thereby formed... The zygote ... is a unicellular human being... "The ill-defined and inaccurate term pre-embryo, which includes the embryonic disc is not used in this book."

It is settled law

Collins Says Supreme Court Nominee Kavanaugh Called Roe v. Wade 'Settled Law'
 
Well a person should be able to eat, drink and function on their own.

A fetus cannot do that.

So you're saying that humanity is defined as being a 100% healthy adult, and anything else is not humanity?

A fetus has to receive his nourishment from his mother, this is true, but so does a newborn. So do people who are paralyzed. So do people in comas. So do many of the elderly in nursing homes. I sincerely hope you would view all of those as still being people.
 

Forum List

Back
Top