John Oliver Rails Against Supreme Court Change And Death Of Roe V Wade

We can have all these techniques along with abortion. Destroying a fetus before it is viable is not the same as killing a child.

Not all abortions- only for women who can’t afford the procedure. My wife and I did not use government aid to abort the fetus inside of her.

Oh yeah, we are just determined to kill babies. Shut up!

Christ, I hate it when people have to go changing font sizes, so then my font size changed every time I set up a quote box. Anyway, a lot of men do take responsibility in such ways. Why you write this as if men refuse to do their part is beyond me.

Hell, I even drove my wife to the clinic, so don’t tell me I’m not being responsible.

I agree with you on this point.

 

Who gives a **** what that limey ***** says?

 

What happens to a child who is handed over to the state? The state is responsible for the child and absorbs all costs related to child care; in other words your and my tax dollars.

Do you honestly think that over 600,000 per year would be adopted by those willing to? I don't think so.

Better to pay a one-time fee or payment and abort the fetus as opposed to long term care and expenses that go along with a newborn.

How many children would you be able and willing to adopt? Regardless of their "failure" to use birth control or use birth control that was ineffective, the fact is it means another child dumped into the care of the state along with the expense of raising it.

Change the laws that require men to get vasectomies or requiring them to use protection; good luck on that. It'll most likely never happen since most men will not tolerate being what to do with their reproductive systems. But it's okay telling a woman what to do with her reproductive system.

 

Oh yeah... it is.

https://www.google.com/search?clien......1.........0j0i30j0i8i30j30i10.QxDmnUHEBSU=

 

I have been to the princeton dite many times. It is full of laughable nonsence, fallacy and disingenuous nonsense.

You say something has been demonstrated above "scientifically" but nothing is demonstrated ?

Where is the evidence from "Science" that backs up the claim "human zygote is a human" ? None has been given. Just a bunch of naked claims as usual and repetition of premise as if this is proof of claim.

There are 5 different scientific perspectives on when human life begins Metabolic, Genetic, Embryological, Neurological, Ecological.

Only one of the 5 puts the beginning of human life at conception (Genetic) and this perspective has fallen out of favor among scientists because of arguments such as the "twinning argument" .

In order to claim defacto "Its a baby and science says so" the other 4 perspectives which contradict the Genetic perspective must be refuted. Where is the refutation to these other perspectives.

The zygote is not a "Homo Sapiens" according to the subject matter domain of Biology/human taxonomy -that is responsible for determination of what is classified as a "Homo sapiens". In order to be classified as a human the organism (and a zygote is not even classified as an organism by more technical definitions - but assuming that it is) must have membership (requisite characteristics) to ALL the following clubs - Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species.

The zygote only has membership in one ! A cow is far closer to a human than a zygote by this domain Science.

Your post claims "Science says" but then does not give any science that supports your claim.

Then you finish with an "appeal to authority fallacy" followed by a generalization fallacy (you can't possibly know what all embryologists think). The authority you appeal to is not even an authority. The embryology is not the subject that is responsible for classification of what is human and what is not ? These are not subject matter experts in general -and even one is (say perhaps having studied a domain that is responsible) they still must give rational to back up their claim. Making naked claims is not "Science" giving evidence or rational justification that proves a claim true .. IS.

If you are going to claim "Science says" and expect to be taken seriously - you need to give the rational that science uses to back up that claim.

The fact of the matter is that you have little understanding of the science and science in general - Obviously - and your link does not give the science either.

 

Trumps still waiting for his campaign cheque Jon.

 

Did I not just go over this ? You keep assuming that "a child" actually exists in the early stages of pregnancy. Then you blabber on as if this claim has been proven true.

It hasn't. This is an assumed premise fallacy. If you want to claim "its a child" then prove - or at least give some coherent and non fallacious rational - for why this claim is true.

Did you cry for all that innocent human life ( sperm) that you killed the last time you choked the chicken Mr. "Pole Meister" ? Did you not know that "every sperm is sacred" ?

Good grief - get a valid argument por favor - something that is not based on such an obvious fallacy.

 

The only thing clear here is.....you have no clue as to what Modern day science is all about.

Truly you only can comprehend Weird Science. Hence your being blinded by science.

Scientists aren't interested in your political belief or theories.



. Basic human embryological facts

To begin with, scientifically something very radical occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization�the change from a simple part of one human being (i.e., a sperm) and a simple part of another human being (i.e., an oocyte�usually referred to as an "ovum" or "egg"), which simply possess "human life", to a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, whole living human being (a single-cell embryonic human zygote). That is, upon fertilization, parts of human beings have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being. During the process of fertilization, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist as such, and a new human being is produced.

To understand this, it should be remembered that each kind of living organism has a specific number and quality of chromosomes that are characteristic for each member of a species. (The number can vary only slightly if the organism is to survive.) For example, the characteristic number of chromosomes for a member of the human species is 46 (plus or minus, e.g., in human beings with Down�s or Turner�s syndromes). Every somatic (or, body) cell in a human being has this characteristic number of chromosomes. Even the early germ cells contain 46 chromosomes; it is only their mature forms - the sex gametes, or sperms and oocytes - which will later contain only 23 chromosomes each..1 Sperms and oocytes are derived from primitive germ cells in the developing fetus by means of the process known as "gametogenesis." Because each germ cell normally has 46 chromosomes, the process of "fertilization" can not take place until the total number of chromosomes in each germ cell are cut in half. This is necessary so that after their fusion at fertilization the characteristic number of chromosomes in a single individual member of the human species (46) can be maintained�otherwise we would end up with a monster of some sort.

To accurately see why a sperm or an oocyte are considered as only possessing human life, and not as living human beings themselves, one needs to look at the basic scientific facts involved in the processes of gametogenesis and of fertilization. It may help to keep in mind that the products of gametogenesis and fertilization are very different. The products of gametogenesis are mature sex gametes with only 23 instead of 46 chromosomes. The product of fertilization is a living human being with 46 chromosomes. Gametogenesis refers to the maturation of germ cells, resulting in gametes. Fertilization refers to the initiation of a new human being......snip~


Oh and all those references at the end of the link. Validates what you don't know while showing just how much you have trouble comprehending reality. But thanks for showing your limitation.

 

1.. There are never enough newborn babies to supply the demand of all the couples wanting them. Most are on long waiting lists. Sure when children are older, it's harder to get them adopted into homes because children already have fully developed personalities by age 5. The biological parents who had them and just kept them around to get more welfare funds, housing, and food stamps etc probably abused them in various ways and those don't do well going through the adoption process. Many are shifted around. Anyone who doesn't want a child, should turn it over right after birth and not even take them home because they aren't doing the children any favors. Most people who adopt make the best parents because they WANTED the child badly. Worst thing that usually happens is they end up spoiled.

2. The older children that are handed over to the state that you're worried about paying for, are usually taken from dysfunctional homes already on entitlements. The funds originally given to the biological parents via housing, food stamps, Medicaid, and all other needs is then transferred to the foster parents.

All this is sad but true, and then we wonder why there are so many rotten unhinged sociopaths running around mad at the world and killing people...gee I wonder.

 

What are you talking about .. your previous post gave no science. I did not give you any of my political beliefs or theories.

I gave you what science says. I did not make up human taxonomy ? This is high school biology.
The 5 different scientific perspectives come from a developmental biology textbook (Link) or You can use "Google" or go to WIKI - it is not like these perspectives are some big secret (except apparently to you). http://science.jburroughs.org/mbahe/BioEthics/Articles/Whendoeshumanlifebegin.pdf

Then you go on to prove your lack of understanding by posting a bunch verbiage from the princeton site .. none of which explains "WHY" according to science . the zygote should be considered a human. All it does is commit the same assuming the premise fallacy you continue to commit.

Nowhere is an scientific explanation given that explains why a zygote is a human.

1) egg and sperm combing and this is a human. This is not a scientific explanation of why. This is a naked claim. Why did you post this? We all know that egg and sperm combine .. how does this make the resulting zygote a human ?

2) Humans have a specific number of Chromosomes (46). Well no kidding .. its called DNA . We all know that human cells contain DNA.
While having human DNA makes this cell a "Human cell" it does not make a single human cell a human. A heart cell has human DNA - a heart cell is not a human.

Where is the refutation of the scientific perspectives that contradict your claim ? Never mind that - your post does not make any attempt to explain the "why" never mind refute perspectives contradicting your claim ... as is "required" for something to be claimed to be true/proven in science.

Do you have anything other than fallacious nonsense ?

 

And its meant as emergency contraception, not something you can use regularly in addition to other contraception.

BTW, "kill the fertilization process", its just a very very early abortion. If abortion is made illegal, Morning After Pills would have to made illegal too.

 

And you can get those without a prescription?

How exactly is there a job for everyone who wants one?

 

Except a miscarriage can be artificially induced (IE an abortion can be induced) through lots of means that require no doctor (although are considerably less safe than medical means). So no doctor need be involved.

That makes any miscarriage probable cause for a murder. Every miscarriage would have to investigated, and more to the point, every pregnancy would have to registered with the government.

 

The average is one act of intercourse for every 1/3 of America every day.

 

So conservatively speaking you guys kill 52 million innocent humans every year?! Wow thats got Hitler beat.

 

Its a big deal to me because I've seen what banning abortion does to women in Latin America. Women who have miscarriages are in prison because they couldn't prove they didn't have an abortion.

 

Did you notice the "and" in that sentence? Do people who support overturning Roe not believe that abortion should be illegal?

 

When Roe was decided there were already states legalizing abortions. Wasn’t fast enough for the libs thus the liberal court judicial activism.

 

Or Liberals cared about the poor women in the Conservative states who lived in a place where they legally didn't own their own bodies but couldn't afford to travel to get one like a rich woman could.

 

Still liberal judicial activism. Even liberal lawyers understand that it was decided on very shaky constitutional grounds, not that libs care about the constitution.

 

And how many women are fertile that week? And how effective is sex at getting pregnant?
You want to make a statistical argument you give us your numbers.

 

You show him an application to the court to force a parenity test and support and joint custody in case he's lying or a pregnancy occurs anyway.

 

Why if the baby is placed for adoption by a loving couple desperate for a child?

 

Yeah that's one thing legislators need to do, take the damn middle man or doctors out of the birth control equation. And pass bills that will make the pills cheaper as well. Reportedly high prices are due to law suits if something goes wrong. So they should demand a signature saying a woman agrees to use at her own risk This should actually be done across the board on all prescriptions. People should be told the possible side effects and then told to use at their own risk.

As far as your second question, don't kill the messenger but reportedly they're saying there are more jobs than there are workers and therefore there's a job for everyone who wants one.

 

Either way, there comes a cost tag attached to each child that we, the taxpayers have to pay for out of our tax dollars. The cost would be enormous particularly for many smaller states who can barely afford their tax bill as it is. It is estimated that if roe vs. wade were ever overturned, the additional children born each year would be roughly over 600,000 new babies; keep in mind that is the first year; over a ten year period multiply it by a factor of 10 and you see where I'm going with this. It would bankrupt many states over time. You tell me, where is the money supposed to come from to support these children???


https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/abortion.htm