Texas 6-week abortion ban takes effect after Supreme Court inaction

and the foetus at six weeks gestation would look like the first stage on the chart because you minus two weeks since gestational age is taken from the last period not when fertilisation occurred

 

Point has been made by numerous attorneys that if the Texas law stands there is NOTHING stopping the blue states enacting similar laws to do an end run around the second amendment

 

You mean these people that don’t understand basic human anatomy or development believe they have a right to set arbitrary dates when a person loses control of their reproductive system.

It is a parallel and relevant. Too complex?

 

Looks like this packed SCOTUS is starting to take it on the chin... When the SCOTUS is accused of "lawless behavior", we know we have ourselves a problem, that anybody could see coming when Moscow Mitch began the packing..

https://www.yahoo.com/news/lawless-behavior-legal-experts-supreme-120000714.html

What's going to be done here? Hard to impeach a single member when it's 5 of them responsible....

 

Prevailing would require the convincing presentation of courtroom quality evidence. According to you that's a slam-dunk.

 

Thomas is still the most partisan by a significant margin. For me, republicans lost all good will how they handled the USSC issue packing it with ideologues that care little for the actual law.

 

Agree and agree.. but what can be done besides rebalancing or hoping for some early demises? These are lifetime appointments..

 

They're refuted by very simple logic. Life existed before conception, so it's totally wrong to claim that life begins at conception.

You refuse to address that. Instead, you just repeat your debunked argument over and over.

I understand why you have to deflect. If you accept commmon sense and logic, your position crumbles. That forces you to reject common sense and logic, no matter how bad it makes you look.

 

Anyone who eats meat.

Again, I find the PETA and pro-life positions to be nearly indistinguishable. They're equally absurd and self-serving.

 

Abortion was legal and common when the Constitution was written, and the founders didn't care. That makes the position of the founders pretty clear -- they were fine with legal abortion. The pro-life position is relatively recent historical, moral, legal and scientific revisionism.

 

The life of the mother and the father existed before what human life are you claiming existed before conception. You aren't going to make the layman's argument that sperm and egg are individually a human life are you? Go study some reproduction, diploid and haploid cells.

I accept the science, the biology which forms the CONCRETE base of my position. Yours's however is made up of thin air.

I have cited several times now for the medical textbooks which teach embryology. Refute the science

 

Where is the proof?

 

I know you people freak out about something that really cannot be proved, so it's on you to show there were anti-abortions laws on the books before those mentioned in this article...

https://www.americanprogress.org/is...-history-of-abortion-and-contraception-right/

 

So . . . no proof . . .

 

Because you have no proof.

 

Proof of what? That abortion was legal in 1787? Sure I do, because there is no PROOF that it's not...

The absence of a law against it is all the proof I need.

Can you prove driving down an interstate at 54 mph is legal in 2021??

 

Actually put in time studying.

 

Are they human? Are they alive? are they individual? Words mean things. You don't just get to twist them into meaning the opposite. You'll keep trying, but I'll keep pointing out what you're doing.

So you're proudly announcing your prejudice dagainst helpless haploid humans, all for your own selfish convenience. Is that how you manage to sleep at night, by telling yourself that they're not individual human life?

Quite the opposite. My position is supported by the science and by reason, while you're just, making up new speshul PC versions of English. That's why you have to evade by retreating to "BUT I HAVE A TEXTBOOK!".

But you haven't presented any science. You've only presented a subjective opinion, and then yelled "BECAUSE I SAY SO!" a lot. Given that what you claim goes against the standards humanity has held for millienia, you'll have to do better than that.

I freely admit my devils-advocate choice is subjective and thus invalid. The point is that yours is every bit as subjective and invalid. I admit it, you don't.

 

Clever!!

 

Thanks, I liked that one too... certainly drew an air ball in the response...

 

They are haploid cells created by the male or female of what ever species it is. They are not complete organisms, they are specialize cells that are transporting half a human genome. Yes words mean things, words like diploid and haploid. Science means things too. You keep trying, I'll keep pointing out the biology.

A haploid cell OF a human being is not a human being, see above. You need to go study the science and biology before you get snarky here.

Well you failed to demonstrate any science and your reason fails under that scientific reasoning and fact while I have cited YES the medical textbooks.

Oh now THAT'S rich. The medical textbooks, what are used in our highest medical schools and universities are not science and merely subjective..............stop digging your hole here.

Don't paint your subjectivity and invalidity on me for your lack of anything scientific, anything based in biology and embryology. Mine is based on the facts the scientific facts. Yea you have a right to your layman's opinion with no scientific or biological basis but you don't have a right to your own facts.

 

It was legal in some places and illegal in others.

"Abortion was frequently practiced in North America during the period from 1600 to 1900. Many tribal societies knew how to induce abortions. They used a variety of methods including the use of black root and cedar root as abortifacient agents. During the colonial period, the legality of abortion varied from colony to colony and reflected the attitude of the European country which controlled the specific colony. In the British colonies abortions were legal if they were performed prior to quickening. In the French colonies abortions were frequently performed despite the fact that they were considered to be illegal. In the Spanish and Portuguese colonies abortion was illegal. From 1776 until the mid-1800s abortion was viewed as socially unacceptable; however, abortions were not illegal in most states. During the 1860s a number of states passed anti-abortion laws. Most of these laws were ambiguous and difficult to enforce. After 1860 stronger anti-abortion laws were passed and these laws were more vigorously enforced. ......."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10297561/

So what exactly is the point about then and now?

 

Fake News. Biden Rule.

 

I have no idea... I was just defending the post that said it was legal at the time of the Constitution and really late to that party.

But I read that same article and the line I bolded is the key.... Not illegal in most states..

I suppose the point is that true anti-abortion wasn't a huge thing until much later and not a baked-in thing in this country...

 

Here's an hysterical article showing just how clueless some of these SCOTUS members are...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/justice-amy-coney-barrett-mcconnell-045311112.html

I mean really?? The Handmaid is worried her last minute appointment after the Garland refusal might be seen as partisan??

Imagine that...