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

Bottom line - we already have 50 years of proof that anti-abortion laws don't work. Returning abortion law power to the states just means that 40 states will keep their current laws and people who live in the other 10 will drive across the border and still have the procedure.

The ONLY people anti-abortion laws will impact will be the poor, who will go back to unregistered abortion providers - putting themselves at risk - we already have 50 years of proof that this will happen. We also know that Operation Jane will be re-established and pro-choice women will once again provide bus service out of the state for poor women to get abortions if that's what they choose.

Anti-abortion laws are a waste of taxpayer money and will once again give pro-choice candidates leverage in elections.

 

No that would be you, prove humans exist without going through the zygote stage of human life.

 

Now you are just grasping at straws. There are such provisions - on the basis of the ideology described to you - in the Constitution. For example a change to the constitution requires "overwhelming majority" of States = 75% in this case.

Regardless - the principle of overwhelming majority is the entire basis for the Constitution and the principles on which this nation is founded. Not every specific example was put into the Constitution with respect to law - this would be an impossible exercise.

If 50+1 or "Simple Majority Mandate" is enough - what is the point of putting individual liberty above the legitimate authority of Gov't - which is what is done by invoking the creator.

Have you read the Declaration of Independence ?

Second .. what part of "BY DEFINITION" - 50+1 is not enough for the Gov't to mess with individual liberty - do you not understand ?

 

You're not making a case, you're spouting your personal opinion as dogma. I proved a zygote is not a human being. I agree a full term fetus is a human being. Science does not, and can not, establish a specific point between these endpoints where the entity is a human being because there is no objective basis for doing so. One can identify developmental milestones (e.g. heartbeat, brain waves, the capacity have mental function, to feel pain, ...) but it cannot establish an objective answer, because there is no objective answer.

 

Hear, hear and Huzzah

It's like vampires being the "undead" You're either dead or living or nonexistent as that thing. If you have cattle or horses or aardvarks you don't say "I have 41 aardvarks in the South forty" when you actually have 35, five of whom are pregnant. Why don't we do that with humans?

One of the reasons I think pols glom onto this issue so quickly is that the "unborn' are a ready made constituency for them when nobody else will agree with them.

 

Now you are speaking falsehoods. What fallacy did I commit ? What is abject nonsense is you asking someone to prove your claim for you and fallacy to suggest that someone not disproving your claim is proof of claim.

If a human does not exist prior to the zygote stage - then a human can not go through the zygote stage.

Once again you are committing the assumed premise fallacy - assuming a human exists when you have not proven your claim.

 

I addressed your post. I even said you cited interesting biological information. What do you want, a medal?

A dog embryo doesn't look like a human baby to me. Get your eyes checked.

 

What human who has ever existed did not go through the human zygote stage of human life?

 

You have not proven that a human goes through the zygote stage. The correct way to say what you are trying to say is " what human has existed without a zygote existing first" The answer to this question is "none".

This fact does not magically turn a zygote into a human = non sequitur fallacy. Just as a brick building does not exist without a worker who places the bricks .. this does not magically turn the builder into a brick building.

Without the sun shining a humans would not exist. This does not turn the sun into a human.

Asking silly questions does not prove your claim true.

 

It is a human zygote and can be proven to be a human zygote, it cannot be some other zygote and it is living and it is being.

From Princeton University
WHEN DO HUMAN BEINGS BEGIN?

"SCIENTIFIC" MYTHS AND SCIENTIFIC FACTS

Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D.

(copyright February 1999)

The fusion of the sperm (with 23 chromosomes) and the oocyte (with 23 chromosomes) at fertilization results in a live human being, a single-cell human zygote, with 46 chromosomes�the number of chromosomes characteristic of an individual member of the human species. Quoting Moore:

"Zygote: This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo). The expression fertilized ovum refers to a secondary oocyte that is impregnated by a sperm; when fertilization is complete, the oocyte becomes a zygote."10 (Emphasis added.)

This new single-cell human being immediately produces specifically human proteins and enzymes11 (not carrot or frog enzymes and proteins), and genetically directs his/her own growth and development. (In fact, this genetic growth and development has been proven not to be directed by the mother.)12 Finally, this new human being�the single-cell human zygote�is biologically an individual, a living organism�an individual member of the human species. Quoting Larsen:

"... [W]e begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual."13 (Emphasis added.)
https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html

 

Many animal embryos look like human embryos....I never mentioned dogs...

 

See above. Now prove otherwise.

 

Asking someone to prove that some moon in another solar system is not make of green cheese does not prove that this moon is made of green cheese.

It is up to you to prove your claim that a zygote is a living human. It is not up to me to disprove your claim.

Saying "Experts Disagree" - is a claim which is true - . It is a simple fact that "experts disagree". This does not mean that your claim is false.

The fact of the matter is that you have not proven your claim. Saying "You cant prove otherwise" is not proof of claim. This is logical fallacy on steroids - something you already know but can't handle being wrong so you engage in disingenuous gibberish.

 

Blindly? No. I believe there's a sound basis. Our nation is founded on the concept that there exist (intrinsic, inalienable) rights, and therefore our rights are not merely the product of what is specifically enumerated in the Constitution. This concept is codified in the 9th Amendment ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"). Given the accepted process of judicial review (also not specified in the Constitution, BTW), it is inevitable that additional rights would be identified in the process - and this is how the "right to privacy" came to be identified.

I gather you do NOT think it makes intellectual sense, so please explain why - and be sure to reconcile this against the 9th amendment.

 

So? They are still a sign of human life.

 

I gave you the proof #685, refute it.

 

You gave what you claim to be "Proof" to someone else.

Quoting fallacious claims from some pro-life website - is not proof of claim.

That egg and sperm unite to form a zygote is a fact. This however, does not prove that a zygote is a living human.

 

Pro-Life website?



Proving you don't even read the facts presented to you.

Those are from embryology textbooks and I can cite many many many more, your inability to refute the facts noted. You have presented NOTHING to support your fallacious assertions.

 

Most Americans believe in protecting innocent human life

Which is why liberals want to dehumanize unborn children

 

Like the man said, a rose by any other name...

 

I dont care about zygots

I’m interested more in new laws like the Georgia heatbeat bill that protect human life that is far beyond the zygot stage

 

You are losing this argument badly

Slowly but surely we are tightening the nose around abortion on demand

 

The problem is that it implicitly assumes there is a human being at that point. That is opinion, not objective fact.

 

That is objective fact. It is human and it is being.

 

Not at all. I recognize that the "human life" is a fuzzy concept when applying it to fetuses. Consequently there is valid room to disagree. For that reason, one set of opinions should not be imposed when it infringes on a woman's right to her own opinion and to her choices.