Alabama’s Draconian Abortion Ban Has Women On Twitter Ready To Fight

Why in f*** would the woman lose that standing once the baby is out of her body?

For someone so terrible at presenting a logically consistent argument you sure do throw around the word moronic a lot. I'm tired of your low-brow debate methods.

 

Because they don't give a Flying Fandango about the "unborn" (which is about as silly a word as the "undead", neither one of which can actually exist TRULY by definition.) They want to punish women, the 'vessels of sin" and "creatures of Satan" for tempting virtuous men to have SEX, and thus risk their IMMORTAL SOULS. The children which they are quite willing to let starve once they are coerced into the world are smoke and mirrors, this is obvious to anybody who examines their silly arguments for a minute.

God (if he exists) is probably not a silly ****, yes? Why then should he place the soul (if it exists) into the child at the moment of conception, when it faces about the most dangerous 9 months it will ever have, rather than at the moment of birth?

St Augustine thought this, until the Church stepped in and said this would promote SEX, thus revealing their true purpose

Ask an anti-freedom religious person this, it should be entertaining.

 

The above sentence makes no sense. Nor do you make any attempt to address the simple fact that you have no clue what republicanism is.

 

Science does NOT decide what a legal person is ….and feel free to attempt to go to court and have fetuses declared legal persons...the Alabama Old White Male Legislature did but that will be challenged..

 

More inane fallacy. "who can deny that a child is a human being". What a monstrously circular bag of idiotic fallacy.

The question is not whether a child is a human. The question being addressed is whether a zygote is a child/living human.

Your premise is that a zygote is a child - a living human. What part of "repetition of premise does not make that premise true" do you not understand ?

What is more nonsensical is that this fallacious idiocy has been explained to you previously and yet you still cling to it.

 

No religious component necessary. In fact, if there is a God I rather agree with what you're saying. But no, all humans have a right to life. Full stop. The only question, IMO, is when that clump of cells becomes a human. At that point in time it inherits all the basic rights that we find self evident.

 

So you agree it's murder, only allowed by a legal loophole. How sick.

 

The fetus is always alive, it wouldn't have grown into a fetus if it wasn't.....and elective abortions are legal until 23-24 weeks.

Until BIRTH the fetus is totally dependent on, and connected to, the woman it's in.....DO please read up on what changes take place in a fetus as it becomes born....

 

What is not logically consistent is your assumed premise fallacy. This debate is not about whether the zygote or fetus is alive. The debate is about whether or not the zygote is a living human - a child.

You standing up on the stage repeating "its a child, its a child" over and over does not make that claim true.

If it is not a child - it is not infanticide.

 

Cut the condescending bullshit. Re-read what I said. I worded it carefully for a reason.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Science does NOT decide what a legal person is ….and feel free to attempt to go to court and have fetuses declared legal persons...the Alabama Old White Male Legislature did but that will be challenged..

PERFECT EXAMPLE OF HOW ANTI-CHOICERS TWIST AND "MISREPRESENT" WHAT OTHERS SAY BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO ARGUMENT.

 

Just about all legal things are, by definition. Laws exist for our convenience.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
The fetus is always alive, it wouldn't have grown into a fetus if it wasn't.....and elective abortions are legal until 23-24 weeks.

Until BIRTH the fetus is totally dependent on, and connected to, the woman it's in.....DO please read up on what changes take place in a fetus as it becomes born....

What did I get wrong?

Point it out or you have NOTHING as usual

 

A zygote is not a human being but at some point in time, well before birth it will be. After that moment that the fetus becomes a bone fide human you ought not be able to electively kill it.

 

If you're looking for a debate about law, you won't get it from me. If you're only justification is that it's legal (a pitifully circular argument) feel free to ignore me.

 

Sorry, but actually majority opinion does not matter when it comes to Constitutional issues like the Establishment clause. For that reason, the case has to be made based on secular reasons.

 

I suppose the 1st question has to be, what is a bona fide human life?
Is human sperm and human egg, human life?
Are they bona fide?

As for a fetus, I am not sure the scientific community has rendered a definition?

 

Ain't rocket science. She loses special standing because the baby is no longer in her body. She no longer can claim she has possibility of elevated harm from the fetus (complications of pregnancy). Her standing is now equal to the father in concerns of abortion. Please try to keep up.

 

I agree that is the first question. Let's objectively answer it with science.

 

You are straining at gnats. The child is no different, physiologically speaking the moment after it's born from the moment before. Are you getting tired of making moronic posts yet?

 

St. Augustine got the idea about "little beings" in sperm from Plato.

 

I suppose the 1st question has to be, what is a bona fide human life?
Is human sperm and human egg, human life?
Are they bona fide?
They will die off unless a fertilization process happens. If that happens, then they form new cells and begin development. If they are able to develop until full gestation, it will exit a womb and be called a baby, human, child, or other term of for human being.

OK. What you got?

Is human sperm, a human life?

 

It's not about the child. It's about the mother and HER legal standing. Ain't rocket science. While the fetus remains in her body, HER life is at greater risk than anyone else if a law is passed that FORCES he to keep that fetus in her body. SHE has elevated standing in any legal case.

 

I've said that at brain activity seems like a rational point to draw the line but I'm fine with letting professional scientists who specialize in human biology make the call.

 

It's not rocket science it's biology. When a woman chooses to let a fetus grow into a human she loses the latitude to electively kill the being living inside of her. Maybe it's not fair but it is right.