Susan Collins says she won’t support Supreme Court nominee who shows ‘hostility to Roe v. Wade

I gave your OP a tepid "like". You touch on some valid points (Mainly your tolerance of individual rights), but fall short with the "invading horde" diatribe.

Collins might be an outlier in Republican politics, but her stance on the issue is in lock-step with the overwhelming majority of women, leftists and rightists alike.

 

All fetus should be required to bear arms during the first trimester, but this thread does not concern most Americans wanting to reform the permissive gun laws.

 

... a musical starring Danny DeVito and Roseanne Barr!

 

While I give your post a full like....

 

And.....just because the leftness is ignorant of Constitutional Law. Don't mean a whole lot. Point in case where the alleged majority were for BO's special care package. Wherein now it is failing. Showing just because they like something doesn't mean its beneficial to all.

Moreover even the lefts own know that Law was written poorly and was a bad decision.

Want the law to stand.....write up a better law.

 

I do not believe that you will be allowed to deploy the coercive power of the State to inflict your demands upon the majority of Americans whose views differ.

Progress has occurred in virtually all advanced nations.

Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Nigeria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, and the Philippines are the remaining models for those who would have government bureaucrats impose their draconian measures upon American women.

 

life
[līf]
existence · being · living · animation · aliveness ·
entity · sentience · creation · survival · viability · esse
antonyms: death · nonexistence

• living things and their activity.
  "lower forms of life" ·
  fauna · flora · ecosystems · creatures · wildlife · human beings · humanity · humankind · mankind · man · human activity · flesh

• the existence of an individual human being or animal.
  "a disaster that claimed the lives of 266 Americans" ·
  person · human being · individual · mortal · soul ·
  creature
  • a particular type or aspect of people's existence.
    "his father decided to start a new life in California" ·
    way of life · way of living · manner of living ·
    lifestyle · situation · position · state · station · condition · set of circumstances · fate · lot · sphere · field · line · career · business
  • a biography.
    "a life of Shelley"
    synonyms: biography · autobiography · life story · life history ·
    memoir · history · profile · diary · journal · confessions · record · chronicle · account · report · portrayal · depiction · portrait · biog · bio
  • either of the two states of a person's existence separated by death (as in Christianity and some other religious traditions).
    "too much happiness in this life could reduce the chances of salvation in the next"
    synonyms: lifetime · life span · days · duration of life ·
    existence · one's time · one's career · threescore years and ten · this mortal coil · one's born days
  • any of a number of successive existences in which a soul is held to be reincarnated (as in Hinduism and some other religious traditions).
  • a chance to live after narrowly escaping death (with reference to the nine lives traditionally attributed to cats).

• (one's life)
  the period between the birth and death of a living thing, especially a human being.
  "she has lived all her life in the country" ·
  lifetime · life span · days · duration of life · allotted span ·
  [more]

B. "Scientific" myths and scientific fact:

Given these basic facts of human embryology, it is easier to recognize the many scientifically inaccurate claims that have been advanced in the discussions about abortion, human embryo research, cloning, stem cell research, the formation of chimeras, and the use of abortifacients�and why these discussions obfuscate the objective scientific facts. The following is just a sampling of these current "scientific" myths.

Myth 1: "Prolifers claim that the abortion of a human embryo or a human fetus is wrong because it destroys human life. But human sperms and human ova are human life, too. So prolifers would also have to agree that the destruction of human sperms and human ova are no different from abortions�and that is ridiculous!"

Fact 1: As pointed out above in the background section, there is a radical difference, scientifically, between parts of a human being that only possess "human life" and a human embryo or human fetus that is an actual "human being." Abortion is the destruction of a human being. Destroying a human sperm or a human oocyte would not constitute abortion, since neither are human beings. The issue is not when does human life begin, but rather when does the life of every human being begin. A human kidney or liver, a human skin cell, a sperm or an oocyte all possess human life, but they are not human beings�they are only parts of a human being. If a single sperm or a single oocyte were implanted into a woman�s uterus, they would not grow; they would simply disintegrate.

Myth 2: "The product of fertilization is simply a �blob,� a �bunch of cells�, a �piece of the mother�s tissues�."

Fact 2: As demonstrated above, the human embryonic organism formed at fertilization is a whole human being, and therefore it is not just a "blob" or a "bunch of cells." This new human individual also has a mixture of both the mother�s and the father�s chromosomes, and therefore it is not just a "piece of the mother�s tissues". Quoting Carlson:

"... [T]hrough the mingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes, the zygote is a genetically unique product of chromosomal reassortment, which is important for the viability of any species."15 (Emphasis added.)

Myth 3: "The immediate product of fertilization is just a �potential� or a �possible� human being�not a real existing human being."

Fact 3: As demonstrated above, scientifically there is absolutely no question whatsoever that the immediate product of fertilization is a newly existing human being. A human zygote is a human being. It is not a "potential" or a "possible" human being. It�s an actual human being�with the potential to grow bigger and develop its capacities.

Myth 4: "A single-cell human zygote, or embryo, or fetus are not human beings, because they do not look like human beings."

Fact 4: As all human embryologists know, a single-cell human zygote, or a more developed human embryo, or human fetus is a human being�and that that�s the way they are supposed to look at those particular periods of development.

Myth 5: "The immediate product of fertilization is just an �it��it is neither a girl nor a boy."

Fact 5: The immediate product of fertilization is genetically already a girl or a boy�determined by the kind of sperm that fertilizes the oocyte. Quoting Carlson again:

"...[T]he sex of the future embryo is determined by the chromosomal complement of the spermatozoon. (If the sperm contains 22 autosomes and 2 X chromosomes, the embryo will be a genetic female, and if it contains 22 autosomes and an X and a Y chromosome, the embryo will be a genetic male.)"16

Myth 6: "The embryo and the embryonic period begin at implantation." (Alternative myths claim 14 days, or 3 weeks.)

Fact 6: These are a few of the most common myths perpetuated sometimes even within quasi-scientific articles�especially within the bioethics literature. As demonstrated above, the human embryo, who is a human being, begins at fertilization�not at implantation (about 5-7 days), 14-days, or 3 weeks. Thus the embryonic period also begins at fertilization, and ends by the end of the eighth week, when the fetal period begins. Quoting O�Rahilly:

"Prenatal life is conveniently divided into two phases: the embryonic and the fetal. The embryonic period proper during which the vast majority of the named structures of the body appear, occupies the first 8 postovulatory weeks. ... [T]he fetal period extends from 8 weeks to birth ..."17 (Emphasis added.)

Myth 7: "The product of fertilization, up to 14-days, is not an embryo; it is just a �pre-embryo��and therefore it can be used in experimental research, aborted, or donated."

Fact 7: This "scientific" myth is perhaps the most common error, which pervades the current literature. The term "pre-embryo" has quite a long and interesting history. (See Irving and Kischer, The Human Development Hoax: Time To Tell The Truth!, for extensive details and references.) But it roughly goes back to at least 1979 in the bioethics writings of Jesuit theologian Richard McCormick in his work with the Ethics Advisory Board to the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare,18 and those of frog developmental biologist Dr. Clifford Grobstein in a 1979 article in Scientific American,19 and most notably in his classic book, Science and the Unborn: Choosing Human Futures (198.20 Both McCormick and Grobstein subsequently continued propagating this scientific myth as members of the Ethics Committee of the American Fertility Society, and in numerous influential bioethics articles, leading to its common use in bioethics, theological, and public policy literature to this day.....snip~

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html

 

Kind of like you believed Hillary would be President, huh?

Uhm your Track record of what you believe. Doesn't prove to be anything close to a validation of fact.

But then you leftists aren't known for ever being truthful.

 

Them was day the earth stood still Democrats, aunt Bee's Democrats, they can amend the fracking constitution if they have a fracking problem getting rid of them parasites.

 

Cmon now, they have the Kaiser Foundation polling and their beliefs. Albeit not about Law.

 

2/3rds, so what's the fracking problem, pass the kill the fish parasite amendment. Quit being a fracking dictator lover.

 

The only law a "liberal" has is open to interpretation, and their beliefs are centered on Hillary's hivemind of "coercive protest."

 

Fact 2: As demonstrated above, the human embryonic organism formed at fertilization is a whole human being, and therefore it is not just a "blob" or a "bunch of cells." This new human individual also has a mixture of both the mother�s and the father�s chromosomes, and therefore it is not just a "piece of the mother�s tissues". Quoting Carlson:

"... [T]hrough the mingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes, the zygote is a genetically unique product of chromosomal reassortment, which is important for the viability of any species."15 (Emphasis added.)

Myth 3: "The immediate product of fertilization is just a �potential� or a �possible� human being�not a real existing human being."

Fact 3: As demonstrated above, scientifically there is absolutely no question whatsoever that the immediate product of fertilization is a newly existing human being. A human zygote is a human being. It is not a "potential" or a "possible" human being. It�s an actual human being�with the potential to grow bigger and develop its capacities.

Myth 4: "A single-cell human zygote, or embryo, or fetus are not human beings, because they do not look like human beings."

Fact 4: As all human embryologists know, a single-cell human zygote, or a more developed human embryo, or human fetus is a human being�and that that�s the way they are supposed to look at those particular periods of development.

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html


Funny innit…...the Leftness runs around talking about Science.

Then falls back on their Weird Science.

 

The only law the leftness has is......those laws don't apply to us.

Then shame on you for blinding them with science.

 

no it concerns lefties suddenly who are aware of what it feels like to lose their rights.

 

Both them "liberal" brain and anus start out attached. Seriously, why don't they just amend the constitution, that way if some "liberal" decides that it's a woman's right to choose the genetic improvements of asexual reproduction, for that woEman's world they will have to amend for it instead of a tyranny of nine Platonic Philosopher Queens destroying MANkind.

 

Skipping your meds again, huh?.

 

That's their only concern right now. I hope he successfully puts in someone who overturns it. People will piss their pants at first but in time they'll adapt and get over it, just like we did when it was enacted.

 

Your obsession with your "lefties" is a separate and distinct matter from most Americans not wanting to retrogress by falling in line with the State control of wombs that politicians impose in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Nigeria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, and the Philippines. Rather, they embrace the freedom of most advanced nations.

 

There is enough evidence to show a significant drop in crime in direct correlation to legalized abortion. If Roe v. Wade is overturned will you and you conservative brethren foot the bill for the spike in crime likely to occur 18 to 20 years hence? Likely not, I presume. Be careful what you wish for.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w8004

 

microscopic: really, really itty-bitty

mindless: lacking the capacity for thought

as opposed to an

homunculus: popularized in sixteenth century alchemy and nineteenth century fiction, it has historically referred to the creation of a miniature, fully formed human. The concept has roots in preformationism as well as earlier folklore and alchemic traditions.

Modern science recognizes that a person does not appear instantaneously at conception, but develops over time during gestation.

 

That would only give the Democrats a extremely motivated voting base. Likely surpassing the passion of the gun rights crowd. Doing that for a brief “hahaha how does that feel victory dance”. At the expense of losing elections, higher crime rates, with additional cost to healthcare and child welfare is foolish. Why give reasons for people to vote against your own rights for no gain?

 

Now for some modern science. That which you have demonstrated is beyond your comprehension.



A. 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~

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html

 

Trump is going to pick a Pro Choice Judge who believes in the unlimited power of the Presidency.

In other words he's going back on a campaign promise to install a Justice who'll side with Conservatives to let him weasel out of the Russia mess.

And you all will love it regardless of your views on Abortion because there isn't a belief you have that you won't sell out for "The Team".

 

Sounds like some more of the leftness and that butt-hurt-itis. Next the leftness will be blaming fate and destiny for conspiring against them.