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

I have said brain activity as far back as 10 yrs ago.
It's how end of life is defined. So why not beginning of life?
But those are legal definitions. Which I am perfectly fine with.

But that definition won't cover all the reasons why a woman might need an abortion after brain activity. Such as the mother's or fetus' health.

 

WHY don't you look up what happens to a fetus at birth?

The fetus doesn't just float around inside the woman for 9 months for no reason !!!



The moment before birth it is part of the woman, a moment after it isn't.

 

Which brings us back to the premise of THIS thread. It wasn't science which made the call in this law - it was a bunch of male politicians. Putting an arbitrary date on abortions which falls BEFORE women know they are pregnant is the antithesis of science. Abortion prior to knowledge of pregnancy isn't really a thing - and asking married couples to take a pregnancy test after every sexual encounter is just plain untenable.

 

When we say, and the only practical determination is at the moment of birth

And we kill living humans all the time. Every time you step on your car's accelerator or turn on a light switch you kill .00005 of a living, breathing, walking and thinking human being. It's not much but these little deaths all add up, Anyone living in the modern world probably kills about a person a year.

 

I do not disagree with the above. This does not change the fact that your previous post was preposterous fallacy.

What you did not do is state how the above is related to the Alabama Law. You .. nor any Alabama Politician .. have not shown that a 6 week fetus qualifies as a living human. In fact they have not even attempted to explain why 6 weeks qualifies as a living human.

Religious right wing zealots (which is what these people are) running around crying "its a human its a human" is not proof of claim.

The fact of the matter is that "Experts Disagree" (although I agree that at some point you have a whole lot less disagreement - that point being the point at which the Fetus becomes sentient - has "significant brain function")

At 6 weeks - the fetus has not crossed that bar - not even close.

Regardless of what one's moral position is - the legal question is a completely different matter. Like it or not , the principles on which this nation was founded limit Gov't authority. Gov't - of its own volition - is not supposed to make any law messing with individual liberty.

Either you agree with the concept of limitations to Gov't authority or you do not. Either you yearn for totalitarianism or you do not. If you agree with limits to Gov't power - the question I have for you is this.

What should the authority of Gov't be limited to ? - as per the founding principles ? What is "legitimate vs illegitimate" use of Gov't authority ?

Don't feel bad if you are stumped. 12 years of school and we fail to teach a kid the basic principles on which this nation was founded - and this is a big part of the problem.

Without explanation I will give you the answer - law with respect to individual liberty requires at least 2/3rds approval from the citizens unless it can be "proven - beyond a reasonable doubt" that the fetus - at what ever stage is being referred to - is a living human.

If you wish more explanation feel free to ask.

 

Didn't he also think the Demiurge was the Holy Spirit. In fact, wasn't the Trinity a Platonic idea?

 

Exactly! I think we are in agreement.

 

IF a fetus is ever deemed a legal person with rights that doesn't mean it can do anything it wants to whoever it wants.

LEGAL PERSONS can NOT use another person's body to sustain their life.

A PERSON with rights has RESTRICTIONS.

NO one can FORCE another PERSON to give them their heart or lung or blood or circulatory system to keep themselves alive...and neither can a fetus.

WHY SHOULD A FETUS HAVE MORE RIGHTS, SPECIAL RIGHTS , THAN EVERYONE ELSE ?

 

LOL, interesting take.

 

No it's not murder, it's killing, We kill people all the time, see above

 

Dude, you don't know what a logical fallacy is. You ought not throw around terms you don't understand lest people think less of you.
And ironically you made at least 2 in this silly drivel. LOL you can't make it up.

 

Does she lose her other civil rights as well?

 

We do kill all the time but not electively.

 

Answer the question, Is God a silly jerkwad?

 

She hasn't lost any civil rights.

 

20,000 kids a year die from respiratory ailments exacerbated by pollution. I can't say I'm innocent, though I've drastically reduced my carbon footprint in the last decade.

If anti-abortionists worried half as much about the already born infant, we could save thousands of lives that are wanted by their parents. Every dime spent trying to pass anti-abortion laws could have been spent improving hospitals and maternity wards. Every dime spent could have gone to providing better pre-natal care and well-baby clinics. But here we are wasting the money on lawyers and laws that history has proven are not effective at stopping abortions.

 

I don't believe there is a god (I remain unconvinced anyway) so I might be the wrong person to ask.

 

We could elect not to have cars or electricity. We could practice Ahimsa, like many Buddhist monks who wear facemasks so as not to kill bacteria.

 

Standing up on a soapbox crying "logical fallacy" is not proof of claim. If you are going to claim logical fallacy then state what this fallacy is - like I did.

That is the only irony here.

And don't blame me for your lack of understanding of the founding principles and that you have no idea what a constitutional republic is.

 

Moronic post. Even if you cold show hypocrisy on my part it would have no effect on my argument.

 

We could. And there will still be accidental killing.

 

The only moronic thing going on here is your belief that logical fallacy constitutes a valid argument - and you making naked claims thinking that this constitutes a valid argument.

 

Non sequitur and false dilemma. LOL, it was crystal clear to anyone who actually knows what a logical fallacy is. BTW, what was the fallacy I committed?

 

Obviously.

 

OK, are WE silly jerkwads? If a woman truly does not want to have a child, what kind of life will the child have if we MAKE the mother have it?