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

Just to refresh recollections for those who are hanging their hats on Roe v. Wade ...

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.

[This is the "pre-quickening" stage. It is true that there was not, at common law, any prohibition on abortion in this pre-quickening stage, and so i will be very difficult to overturn this part of Roe v. Wade, which the current conservatives on the S. Court consider "settled law." I doubt seriously that the Chief Justice (Roberts) will rewrite this part of Roe v. Wade.]

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.

[The death of the post-quickening baby is apparently irrelevant under this prong of Roe, but apparently the state may prohibit abortion for frivolous reasons unrelated to maternal health even at this stage.]

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life 165*165 may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

[This prong looked promising at first, but "the health of the mother " can mean anything, which is why there is abortion on demand, the survival of the baby again appearing irrelevant. This is monstrous in its application.]

 

After giving reasons fore why your claim was false - you spout this gibberish which is 1) unintelligible and 2) you give no rational to support your claim

Claiming "fallacy" and not stating what that fallacy is pathetic.

What is also pathetic is the rest of your post -as will be discovered upon analysis - especially pathetic given these things have been explained to you numerous times before.

The question was "how does having human DNA make a single human cell " not "how does it make that human cell human".

This has been explained to you numerous times yet you feign ignorance by asking a stupid question - pretending not to know the difference between the descriptive adjective "human" and the noun. Truly pathetic.

After claiming that DNA makes the cell "a living human" you contradict yourself by correctly stating that heart cell "Part of a human". Part of a human is not a human... sorry Blue. You get a big fat F for that one.

Then you completely fail to explain what the differences between the heart cell and the zygote are an how those differences make one a human and the other not a human.

Instead of doing this all you do is repeat your premise "The zygote is a Human" and for some reason think that inserting the the word "complete" as if this makes it not repetition of premise. What a pathetic joke that attempt was. You get an F - minus for that one.

So then - once again -1) how does having human DNA make a single human cell a human ?

2) Second - what is the difference between the zygote - and other human cells (such as the heart cell) that makes one a living human while the other is not a living human.

And in case you didn't get it the first 5 times or more. Coming into a debate and claiming "The zygote is a human" because "The zygote is a complete human" is circular fallacious silliness on steroids.

 

As you.
Just a line in the sand. That's all.

 

I have not. No more than some egg that just got fertilize.

Of course it doesn't. It doesn't fit your narrow narrative. That's what closed minded is.

What is almost fully developed? 4 weeks after the sperm wasn't splattered on the sheets?
You know a pregnancy is over 9 months of development. That is 36 weeks if one uses 4 weeks per month.
4 of 36 is only 1/9 of development.
What you are claiming is just a few weeks and a female body different than what I'm claiming.
And, you, as a christian, turn a blind eye. Because the christian world won't go to what the bible says.
That's why you won't answer. You man made religion hasn't addressed it. Because they won't teach you the bible.
But I know this already. They only tell you what makes them money.
Will you go to church and donate if adultery, per the bible was followed? NO. 1/2 the congregation would leave the next week.

 

Without sperm, there is no future life.
Sperm is life.
And the bible, assume the mormons have the same belief in the bible, says wasting sperm is a sin.
So is adultery, but, who cares what the bible actually says.

It doesn't fit the political belief anymore.

 

Huh?
Since you don't know the bible, what's the point?

 

Don't be so hard on Christians. They know no better.

 

Nope!

You can PERSONALLY be anti-abortion was still supporting the RIGHTS of other women to CHOSE to have an abortion.

While it is a binary issue for theists it is more nuanced for those who uphold the rights of women.

 

Because they see everything in binary terms only.

 

"Natural" rights are those we have inherently, that is, according to our uh....natures... It has nothing to do with the vampiric aversion to GA-HAWWD that you cons think anyone not at the Trump rally has to religion

 

I'm asking you which part you are talking about. There are many parts to this book you know.

 

Any pregnancy, like any surgery, is unpredictably dangerous.

 

Republicans want to rule people. Democrats to protect them (mainly from Republicans)

 

Pregnancy is unpredictably dangerous. The condition can kill the mother at just about any time for a host of reasons, most of them unknown and unknowable. Any mother should concomitally be able to terminate her pregnancy at any time for any reason, that is a basic law of self-management akin to self-defense.

 

It does not matter to Democrats since they approve the taking of the unborn and evicting them using force from the mother. The level of the black population has been stable.

I am serious in saying I believe the Democrats made war on blacks by encouraging them to get abortions. Johnson had the great society and upon that and following, blacks learned how to professionally collect welfare.To keep the men away from the welfare inspectors.

 

My last wife bore 7 children. We had our daughter. She never remarried and has passed away.

She never at any point informed me that having children is dangerous for women. See, during her pregnancy, she saw a doctor regularly.

If you told my wife to terminate her pregnancy she would fight you to your death.

Wife 1 really did not love motherhood. She had 3 kids including our daughter. I have fathered 2 live daughters but may have fathered 2 sons but both women got abortions. It was a very serious strain on our relationship being with a woman not willing to help me have a son.

Now my comments might sound as if We fought to stop the abortion. Even though I was not happy either got an abortion, I felt it best to remain very loving and support them. It was hard since I felt like both killed sons. Perhaps they were more daughters but I never found out for sure.

I have no son with my last name to show for my living on Earth. I refer to my son but he was actually a son to my first wife who ended up hating her first husband for him raping her.

 

If you only will study law, you will learn that Democrats are the father to most of our laws starting in 1933. When you see actual help for the public, we roll back rules that control Americans and not the Democrats. Roe v Wade was not ruled politically but by a court. So for Democrats to try to take credit for that is wrong. Legislatively the Democrats have refused to make the law to protect the woman and I maintain it was done that way to keep women angry they might lose abortion by choice.
All Democrats ever had to do was create a real law to cover abortion. They refused to do it.

Democrats are lousy for minorities.

 

What you tell us is your father put your mother into dire danger yet you report no health issues at birth. Why were you such a danger to your own mother. Do you hate your father for putting her life in danger just so you are born?

 

Don't YOU want to limit freedoms of people too? You failed to respond to this: http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ready-to-fight.555883/page-39#post-1070596658

 

That's a solid argument right there!

 

Uh, why the hell would abortion remain in the system following the overturning of Roe if a state was anti-abortion?

Well legally speaking you are correct, but people can see abortion as murder morally speaking. Anyway, I wasn't even talking about abortion. I asked if there is also an inherent contradiction between more freedom and no murder - Or ANY crime - it doesn't have to be murder. Laws, by their very nature, are a restriction of freedom, right? You would just say that laws such as murder are a justified restriction of freedom.

 

get a kick out of this there's a politician on here that says an abortion can't happen until a woman is proven to be pregnant

It's stunning the idiocy of some Republicans. They don't even understand gestation

 

Whatever danger my mother was put into was done so by her CHOICE. My parents wanted a child and she was not COERCED into having me. Was your mother forced to have you by law as seems apparent?

 

I was banned for a month and I'm not sure why but it's good to see you Alex

Mark Zuckerberg has been getting all my trolling and it has been evil

Evil is a relative logical term isn't it?