The moment on the human life continuum that divides viable from not viable is a biological fact not a scientific creation.
I see, there is no purpose for abortion and thus, it would appear that doctors would be prohibited from performing a surgical procedure that had no purpose.
Thanks.
What part of the fact that less than 1% of all abortions that have ever occurred took place after week 21?Yes, and obviously not constrained by an arbitrary date! What part of this do you not get. In many cases a 23 week gestated fetus can be just as, or even more developed than a 24 week fetus!
You give arbitrary protection to one, but not the other.
Your argument is therefor baseless. 🤦♂️
Everyone know abortion terminates a pregnancy. There is nothing in any law that I have seen that mentions the fetus or any right of personhood being granted to a fetus. The only thing that the laws in states that have banned abortion state is that performing the procedure of abortion within its borders is illegal.
Without the specific declaration that a fetus is to be endowed with all the rights of personhood at conception all your speculation on what a law that bans abortion in any state means is 100% irrelevant.
What part of the fact that less than 1% of all abortions that have ever occurred took place after week 21?
You obsess over late term abortions and the fact is that they hardly ever happen.
So what?You can’t terminate a pregnancy without terminating the fetus! 🤦♂️
And if you set an arbitrary time frame, it is indeed protecting the fetus………Cletus.
You really wouldn't care if I was murdered .And? If you are murdered should I not care. You are less than 1% of the total.
So what?
Show me where any state law that bans abortions has any cluse in it that grants any rights to a zygote.
Just because you think a law does that in no way means it's true. Without the language that unequivocally grants the rights of personhood to a newly conceived zygote being present in any law that bans abortion all you have is your speculation and does not meet the standards of law.
You really wouldn't care if I was murdered .
People really don't care that much if people they don't know get murdered.
No it doesn't. There is no such thin g as an implied law. Laws must be specific.Nope, the law itself grants same by setting a date you can no longer have an abortion.
So, after 15 weeks, can a pregnant woman not have her tooth extracted?
Hmmmm, must be a reason, huh, son?
I have plenty of respect for people. A fertilized human ovum is not a personProlly right. Nah, I’d care. It goes to the overall lack of respect for life that is happening in this country.
No it doesn't. There is no such thin g as an implied law. Laws must be specific.
And the pregnant woman does have the rights of personhood so she can do whatever she wants when she is pregnant including, smoking and drinking. If that fetus has the rights of personhood as you claim a woman would be arrested for fetal abuse if she smoked while pregnant
I have plenty of respect for people. A fertilized human ovum is not a person
Apparently the state of California disagreesI have plenty of respect for people. A fertilized human ovum is not a person
Kind of like you making up laws that do not existArbitrary. Pure and simple.
Where did I ever say a fertilized human ovum wasn't human?I’ll post pictures of carnival sideshow performers. Folks didn’t think them human either
What law is that?Kind of like you making up laws that do not exist
The law states that terminating a pregnancy requires the mother's consent because unlike a fetus the mother has the rights of personhood. So in this case it is the mother's rights that have been violated not the fetus's
That a ban on abortion endows a single celled zygote the rights of personhhodWhat law is that?
