Science proves Roe v. Wade wrong, humanity doesn't start at 20 weeks

[BWK]

By the way, a Conservative pundit remarked that if Roe is overturned and abortion was outlawed, there will be a civil war in this country, as the left would never stand for it.
Thoughts?

Abortions are going nowhere, no matter what Trumps court goons say. Religion is not going to stop people from having abortions.

 

[Rogue AI]

A person in a coma is not in a womb. There is your answer.

Wrong, it's all about personhood. Or more aptly the left's attempt to deny it for the sake of convenience. There is more legal precedents involving heartbeats than the ridiculous arbitrary standards activist judges created in Roe and later cases.

 

[rightnow909]

Science cannot prove RvW wrong, it is not a matter of science. The baby in the womb is always a human, there is no point where it is not, that is all science can tell us.

The question is a question of personhood, which science cannot answer as it is not a scientific question.

well said

the thing is, the only thingg we need to know iss the first thingg u said

the baby is human

end of problem

and if someone doesn't think itss End of Problem... How about thiss

It is human AND it (she/he) grows...

The human grows fasster in the womb than ANY other time in his/her life... from something microscopic to ... a 7 or 8 pound (or more) child..

 

[rightnow909]

Abortions are going nowhere, no matter what Trumps court goons say. Religion is not going to stop people from having abortions.

who said otherwise?

but we can stop it from being legal... Murder should never be legal

you'd think that would go w/o saying...

 

[BWK]

Wrong, it's all about personhood. Or more aptly the left's attempt to deny it for the sake of convenience. There is more legal precedents involving heartbeats than the ridiculous arbitrary standards activist judges created in Roe and later cases.

There is zero precedence of personhood. A fetus is not a person by way a person is defined, therefore, the personhood argument is moot.

And a convenience to a woman's health takes precedence over a fetus you falsely claim personhood.

 

[BWK]

who said otherwise?

but we can stop it from being legal... Murder should never be legal

you'd think that would go w/o saying...

There are no intelligent, scientific arguments that can call it murder. And you have no way of producing one. Your argument is moot.

 

[Rogue AI]

There is zero precedence of personhood. A fetus is not a person by way a person is defined, therefore, the personhood argument is moot.

And a convenience to a woman's health takes precedence over a fetus you falsely claim personhood.

The precedence is the heartbeat. Death is defined by the absence of a heartbeat, therefore life must be defined as the presence of the heartbeat, if for no other reason than legal consistency. No need for liberal science denial, simply a matter of legality.

 

[BWK]

well said

the thing is, the only thingg we need to know iss the first thingg u said

the baby is human

end of problem

and if someone doesn't think itss End of Problem... How about thiss

It is human AND it (she/he) grows...

The human grows fasster in the womb than ANY other time in his/her life... from something microscopic to ... a 7 or 8 pound (or more) child..

Word salad isn't enough to decide when a fetus is human. The fetus is not a baby. You need a lesson in science. When Do Human Beings Begin?

 

[BWK]

The precedence is the heartbeat. Death is defined by the absence of a heartbeat, therefore life must be defined as the presence of the heartbeat, if for no other reason than legal consistency. No need for liberal science denial, simply a matter of legality.

That's your made up version of life. Life in scientific terms cannot be decided. You made your decision based on your own religion. Church and State are separate.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

By the way, while I think there's a good chance the Mississippi law will be upheld, I don't think there's any chance we'll be seeing the end of legal abortion.
In the end, it should be a state by state decision.

Science proves Roe v. Wade wrong. Humanity doesn't start at 20 weeks: Lila Rose

Wrong.

Roe/Casey concerns limiting the authority of the state, prohibiting government from interfering in personal, private matters – such is whether to have a child or not.

Consequently, Roe/Casey is the correct decision – both appropriate and warranted.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

In the end, it should be a state by state decision.

Illustrating the hypocrisy of the right.

If states should have the right to force a woman to give birth against her will through force of law, then the states should likewise have the right to regulate firearms as they see fit.

Conservatives can’t have it both ways.

 

[BWK]

Wrong.

Roe/Casey concerns limiting the authority of the state, prohibiting government from interfering in personal, private matters – such is whether to have a child or not.

Consequently, Roe/Casey is the correct decision – both appropriate and warranted.

I wonder if the judges will break precedence for that too? Can you imagine, the government involving itself in your personal matters of health? Huh? That's ******* insane. That is some super control right there. It's like having Nazi control over humans and their bodies. And their freedoms? Where in the hell would they go? OMG! These folks have totally lost their minds.

 

[BWK]

Illustrating the hypocrisy of the right.

If states should have the right to force a woman to give birth against her will through force of law, then the states should likewise have the right to regulate firearms as they see fit.

Conservatives can’t have it both ways.

They literally are trying to trash our civil and human rights. This is absolutely insane, and sets the country up for Authoritarian rule where there are no rights.

These folks, including their goon ball justices, have no intelligent argument for this. It's crazy talk.

 

[Roudy]

Personhood is what the entire abortion debate is about. The science is simple, the baby in the womb is a human from the moment it is conceived. The science on that has never changed. Yet even the case at the court now allows abortions up to the 15th week.

Are you people really this ******* stupid or is it just an act for the internet?

Yes the science has changed, mr. dufus. Due to technological advances, we are able to see with much more detail how and when a baby is formed. But never mind the science, this is like the gender argument with you nut jobs, it’s when does the mother actually feel like whats inside her is alive? To hell with science.

 

[Rogue AI]

That's your made up version of life. Life in scientific terms cannot be decided. You made your decision based on your own religion. Church and State are separate.

Not at all I have never brought religion into the baby killing debate, it's a matter of logic and the law. This a legal matter not a science matter. If the Court wants respect they have a minimum duty to at least be consistent. As it stands, activist judges created arbitrary standards that defy centuries of common law and common sense.

 

[Care4all]

Yes the science has changed, mr. dufus. Due to technological advances, we are able to see with much more detail how and when a baby is formed. But never mind the science, this is like the gender argument with you nut jobs, it’s when does the mother actually feel like whats inside her is alive? To hell with science.

At quickening. When the baby kicks? Abortion was legal up to that point in our early years as a nation....up to the point of quickening.

In the 4th month of gestation.

 

[Care4all]

So, because the supreme court had ruled in the mid 1960s that States could not interfere with a married couple's right to decide to use birth control, due to the 14th amendment privacy right, and then another case a few years later where the supreme court ruled the state government couldn't prevent single women from using birth control either, when Roe v Wade hit the supreme court, they also ruled, based on being consistent, the State govt could not intervene in a man or woman's right to privacy when it came to having a child or not, in the early stages of pregnancy....there was nothing in the constitution that gave govt the POWER to interfere or even know if a woman is pregnant, let alone her decision to bear or not bear a child.... Is my understanding?

 

[Chuz Life]

Personhood is what the entire abortion debate is about. The science is simple, the baby in the womb is a human from the moment it is conceived. The science on that has never changed. Yet even the case at the court now allows abortions up to the 15th week.

Are you people really this ******* stupid or is it just an act for the internet?

So you support basic human rights for ALL!

Well, except for the most basic human and most vulnerable humans of all?

Yeah. That makes sense.

NOT!

 

[Chuz Life]

There is no new information on the topic of abortion.

Fetal HOMICIDE Laws prove you wrong about that.

 

[Roudy]

At quickening. When the baby kicks? Abortion was legal up to that point in our early years as a nation....up to the point of quickening.

In the 4th month of gestation.

This is a baby at 16 weeks. Go ahead and kill it and see it for body parts if you're too young to have one, can't afford it, or fucked up and didn't use contraceptives properly when you had sex? Democrats say "**** yeah, it isn't even debatable". My body my right to kill, and...the state should fully pay for this genocide.