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

I don't want to kill anybody and your "goofy" logic doesn't even make sense. What has killing all the children who can survive outside the body got to with abortion?

An embryo isn't even viable until a certain level of development at least till after week ten or twelve - some would say until it has a reasonable chance of survival outside the body.

"My answer? #14. The ability to survive outside the body of another sets a practical, technological limit on defining when a sustainable human life begins. That limit may of course change.

Having a functional genome, tissue layers, a notochord, a beating heart … none of these matter if the organism cannot survive where humans survive. Technology has taken us to the ends of the prenatal spectrum, yet not provided too much for the middle, other than fetal surgeries for a handful of conditions. We can collect and select gametes, now thanks to patent no. 8543339. We collect and select very early embryos in pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, allowing those without a specific disease to continue development. And although the gestational age at which a premature infant can survive has crept younger, it hasn’t by much, not since I starting thinking about these things back when I was a stage #16.

Until an artificial uterus becomes a reality, technology defines, for me, when a human life begins."

I agree with her premise, while an embryo has the potential to be a human being, until it reaches the definition of sustainable, it is not a human life.

After all, libertarians have the potential to be human being, and well.........you can follow the premise through...

Just kidding......

 

State of Alabama also needs to greatly expand hospital maternity wards and support for premature and ill babies. They'll need to expand well-baby clinics, and find some way to pay for increases in mothers with no insurance coverage. And they even have the money for what they provide now - Alabama is terrible at funding programs for anything - pretty much have to borrow every dime - so yes, the taxpayers from other states are going to pay for Alabama's moronic laws - once again.

 

If Madison et al had intended to empower the new government with the power to tell the citizen what she can do with her body, it would have been enumerated as a power. It was not.

You offer legal sophistry inspired by religious zealotry and orthodoxy. Sorry Chef.

 

Do you agree with what the bible says about sperm?
Yes or No.

I am not the thread topic. But when life is destroyed, according to you. And destroying sperm should be considered murder, based on your logic.

 

You saying there are laws that aren't man made?
Such as?
Maybe wasting sperm as the bible says is a sin?

 

Since the Alabama government now OWNS all fetuses they damn well better accept personal responsibility and pay for THEIR fetuses from conception to cradle to grave.


There will be so many, many more expenses and the taxpayers of Alabama will pay it

 

Viability is 23-28 weeks.

 

If you read the link I supplied the term viability is open to interpretation.

I don't feel to discount your interpretation.

 

No, it isn't open to interpretation.

Science is facts and facts say a fetus isn't viable(able to survive outside the woman without extraordinary means) until 23 -28 weeks. It is not fully developed before that.

Look at a photo of a ten-twelve week fetus...

 

Not sorta, as is. And YES it is VERY complicated, life is VERY complicated EVEN AT THAT STAGE OF A HUMAN LIFE..........thank you very much.

 

The United States Government uses the term, the entirity of society uses the term when congratulating the newly announced mother WITH CHILD. My gosh you are now trying to say that those maybe 10,000 times a day someone talks about their wonder baby in that womb as in the mother yelling to the father in the other room "Honey come here the BABY is kicking" they according to you are just wrong. Not correct and in fact should have said "Honey come here the FETUS is kicking" to be correct.

Tell me if were you sitting on the train and a young lady is sitting next to you on her phone telling he mother "Mom the test was positive I have my baby growing inside me" you would kindly take it upon yourself to correct her and tell her that "no young lady, that is not your baby in there that is your FETUS". Would you feel a need to correct her or just let it slide because surely the doctor will correct her and instruct here that it is not a baby but a fetus when she goes for her first visit?

 

We kill soldiers in wartime

And yes, civilians sometimes die too

But not deliberately

 

I think its a distinct human life from conception

 

That's what humans look like at that stage of their human lives, you think life is based on looks? Take a look at a baby in the womb at 38 weeks, you think the mother should be able so ellectively have it killed when it is not a matter of her life I mean if viability is your standard.

An this

And what do you mean by "extraordinary means"? If the baby can be saved why not save it? If the baby is viable why kill it? If the mother suddenly decides now at 27 weeks she will just suffer great mental harm if she has to be a mother so she wants it killed. Well why not just a cesarean and try to save the baby for a wanting couple to adopt? Why not just go through a couple of more weeks?

 

That is not a matter of debate medically or scientifically.

 

I believe that innocent human life deserves protection

Unless I invoke God you are not allowed to invoke the Almighty for me

 

Actually it shows how they are separated, that the baby is not "part" of the mother as some claimed. The placenta is not part of the mother's physiology, it was created by the baby sloughing off certain cells and it forms and functions as a separate organ to both mother and child. The baby exist in the amniotic sac surround by amniotic fluid protect from the mother with only the umbilical cord sneaking into the placenta then extending a vascular system into it as the placenta acts as a barrier between the baby and the mother.

 

It has nothing to do with mine how does that make science not on my side? I was a sexual hormone aroused 18 year old teen when I started college as a biology major and all for abortion and science quickly taught me that life begins at creation and that that is a human being in the womb. Science does NOT teach the baseless assertions about life and creation spouted by the pro-abortion side.

 

Well, this much is true, my stance doesn't put women and doctors in jail for choosing a medical procedure against a potential. Your's does. Based on what? Feelings? Science teaches you life begins at conception, does also teach you that an "actual" can be sacrificed to a "potential". Does it teach that a woman's egg is zygote in the making, which is an embryo in the making, which is a fetus in the making, which makes it a baby from start to finish, which makes it an independent human entity with rights above an actual living? Can you eat your cake today that you are going to buy tomorrow? Can you have your dinner tomorrow that you plan on making next Saturday? Your position has no biological or logical sense.

Furthermore, your stance points a gun at the head of a woman demanding she breed or die. Now, where's the science in that? Fascist eugenics?

 

Well, you can take a jackass to water, but you can't make him drink like a thoroughbred.

Just remember, my position doesn't destroy the life of an actual living woman and her doctor; it only prevents a woman from being treating like God's or the State's breeding cattle. Your position is the exact opposite. Feel comfortable with the government's gun in your hand ordering others to believe as you do? For shame, and double shame.

How soon before the religious right is clamoring for fertility warehouses to store and prevent the destruction of unused eggs? 20? 10? 5 years?

I recommend you read "Living Proof" by Kira Peikoff, and grimace at the future you fight for.

 

Well, obviously you don't believe an actual living being is "innocent" life, now do you? Is there a hint of Original Sin? And just what moral principle states that it is right to turn a woman into a breeding cow? Because it certainly isn't biological science and or medical ethics.

 

First you were confusing "unenumerated"
with "unlimited," and now you are confusing "rights" with "customs and practices."

There was no "right" to an abortion before the constitutional convention. That there is now is due to Roe v. Wade, which should give you cold comfort, as the Court makeup can, does, and will change.

It was no doubt practiced, sure but only at the sufferance (absence of objection rather than genuine approval; toleration) of the State.

There were many other customary practices in colonial America. But not by "right." That's why there are no golden parakeets or passenger pigeons anymore, and very few bison. You think your forebears had an unfettered right to slaughter game 365 days a year, night and day, just because their grandpappies had done so? (Im sure you do, but you don't.)

Same with speed limits, emissions control, unlicensed practice of medicine, bigamy, and so on.

I hesitate to get more complex in the analysis until you show that you can learn the basics.

But there is a lot more to the problem than you recognize.

 

Heaven help us. I cited no religious passage or authority. I'm just leading a mule to water.

He doesn't want to drink, the poor guy.

 

They should be able to, and if you don't agree you hate women.

 

It's just more theater of the absurd. GOP politicians bring up abortion and gay marriage every election season to draw out the single-issue voters.