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

You make it sound as if they drank Roundup like coffee instead of spraying on their yard then were surprised to find they have cancer

Women knew the risk when they decided to have sex

 

Not only am I right, I'm being honest with myself and others. I don't feel the need to hide behind comforting euphemisms in order to assuage my conscience because I'm capable of making moral arguments in abortion's favor.

To be fair, it's not just the "pro-Choice" crowd that is hiding behind euphemisms - the "pro-Life" crowd is, too. "Pro-Life" is just a euphemism for anti-abortion. Both sides are tap dancing around abortion.

No, it doesn't mean being pro-abortion in every instance.

The fact is, you can't be literally pro-choice unless you're pro-abortion. Without the freedom to obtain an abortion a woman doesn't have the freedom to choose whether to obtain one or not.

It's not difficult for anyone to understand, just as it's not difficult to understand why people hide behind euphemisms such as "pro-Choice" and "pro-Life". Neither side wants to be completely honest with themselves and others about what they're promoting.

PS. Full disclosure - I'm pro-abortion, aka "pro-Choice". I'm not anti-abortion, aka "pro-Life".

 

So you think women should be punished for taking a risk, like every other human on earth does at some time or another.

If a person lives in tornado alley I guess you think they have to stand outside in a tornado because they took a risk living there and NOT get any aid if they're injured or lose their belongings…or not have the CHOICE to move... how odd..

No, you have no point.

 

The Princeton website is one of the main "Pro-Life" websites. Not that this matters as I did not claim the information was false on this basis.

I merely pointed out what you posted from that website did not prove your claim. It is thus you who have engaged in fallacy - not I - and you continue to do so.

None of your citations from Embryology textbooks prove that a zygote is a living human. Some textbook (which is not the subject matter domain to begin with) saying "its a human" is not proof of claim .. This is "appeal to authority" fallacy 101..

Aside from the fact that you do not give a link - The above is preposterous nonsense

We are all aware that the zygote has human DNA - and obviously Human DNA is characteristic of humans. The question that is not addressed is - How does this prove that the zygote is a living human ?

Since your quote makes no attempt to explain how having human DNA makes a single cell a human ? Not only is this not academic rigor - by any stretch of the imagination - it is logical fallacy 101.

Second - aside from the fact that the claim ( this cell has human DNA so this cell is a living human) is not supported - this claim is easily refuted by anyone with half a brain and a smattering of high school biology.

A heart cell has human DNA - A heart cell is not a living human. This proves the above claim false.

What is pathetic is that this has been explained to you numerous times - and you still don't get it.

 

I am amazed that law can be revolving door about her wishes.

She needs hundreds of dollars to feed her family.

She knows a lot about where money is stored. At the bank.

Using the her wishes theory, she wishes to collect free cash from the bank.

Per her wishes, departs the bank.

For a rather odd reason the bank has her arrested.

She smiles and says, it is my free choice to feed my kids.

 

A pregnant woman who loves children yet until recently could not get pregnant.

She at last is going to have a baby. She has announced to the world in her group she is going to have a baby so they may prepare for a baby shower.

Ah fate steps in. She is going to a store and is t boned in her car by some driver.

She sees a lawyer and ends up in court suing for damages.

Does her lawyer talk to the court about a zygote? What will lawyers then tell a jury?

 

Yes, men make laws. All laws are made by mankind.
Sperm is also as human as you or I. For without that sperm, there'd be no you or I. And if every male wasted said sperm, mankind would die off.

 

I am not the thread topic. Stay OT.

But I asked you a few times on the topic of sperm in relation to wasting a potential human life.

Do you agree with the BIBLE, that wasting sperm is a sin and the practice should be banned. Especially if one is a christinan looking to achieve some eternal paradise.

 

People should stop mixing the bible with law. We do not prosecute people for not obeying the bible. We prosecute them for violating written law.

We discussed law all the time in my business law courses and the real estate law courses and law courses I took to appraise real estate and do mortgages.

Nobody brought up the bible.

 

I agree.
So, there should be no discussion on this topic.
Women have the right to determine what they do with their own bodies.
You, I, or anyone else should not tell women they must carry a rapist fetus to term. No one should tell a woman she should risk dying to carry a fetus to term.
No one should tell a woman, she must carry the fetus to term if she isn't mentally prepared for a child, or financially prepared, or any other reason a woman might have that makes her decide an extremely tough decision to terminate a pregnancy.
No one but her and her doctor and perhaps a significant other, can know all the reasons one has to make such a hard hard decision to terminate a pregnancy.

 

Head: It has a compact nucleus with only chromatic substance and is surrounded by only a thin rim of cytoplasm. Above the nucleus lies a cap-like structure called the acrosome, formed by modification of the Golgi body, which secretes the enzyme spermlysin (hyaluronidase, corona-penetrating enzyme, zona eyesin, or aerosin.) On the surface of the head lies a decapacitating substance which is removed before fertilisation.

Neck: It is the smallest part (0.03 ×10−6 m), and has a proximal and distal centriole. The proximal centriole enters into the egg during fertilisation and starts the first cleavage division of the egg, which has no centriole. The distal centriole gives rise to the axial filament which forms the tail and has a (9+2) arrangement. A transitory membrane called the Manchette lies in the middle piece.

Middle piece: It has 10–14 spirals of mitochondria surrounding the axial filament in the cytoplasm. It provides motility, and hence is called the powerhouse of the sperm. It also has a ring centriole (annulus) that form a diffusion barrier between the middle piece and the principal piece and serve as a stabilizing structure for tail rigidity.[5]

Tail: It is the longest part (50×10−6 m), having an axial filament surrounded by cytoplasm and plasma membrane, but at the posterior end the axial filament is naked.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spermatozoon

Look at what makes up sperm. Head, neck, middle piece, tail. DNA. As much a human as any fetus.
So, how about not murdering potential humans by wasting sperm?

 

I asked you a question a few days ago. You never answered.

You win?

How do you win, now fetuses will be born into an environment where the weren't wanted.
Perhaps the mother can't feed, clothe, or provide shelter.

Will you provide those for her?
Will you adopt her child if she can't afford this child?
How many children do you take into your home each year that are up for adoption.
You know, there will be more adoptive children if abortion is made illegal.

 

I did not intend this to be another of the very long crappy lectures about women.

We are the public. As the public, we are never able to demand women do or not do anything.
We the public have no right to intrude on the business affairs of Trump nor his relationship with other agents of Government

Say do you recall my telling the forum my oldest sister is the product of rape? Mom was clearly under age of consent to be raped by a pastor who explained it was gods will.

My grandparents as her legal guardian worked out a deal with the sister of Grandpa to raise the girl. She of course was thankful to be alive. Most of us have no clue what it is to be alive due to our moms not aborting us. We take our life for granted.She was alive to own two horses. she lived to win ribbons at fairs or horse shows. She was alive to have her own children.
I see much value in life while apparently Democrats do not.

 

That sure sums up how Anti-Choicers feel about women.....

 

Women have a Constitutional Right to have an abortion.

The individual States don't have the ability to violate a citizen's Constitutional Rights. At least that's what they told me in high school civics

 

When a woman keeps on drinking, and smoking during pregnancies,... it has a very negative effect on the fetus.
Nobody is going to sue her for physically abusing her baby.

 

Yes they do and the added danger of a government insisting they continue an unwanted pregnancy should not be added to it.

And your additional saying that women are to "blame" for pregnancies only reveals your real motivations Women should be punished for having sex, for SEX is SINFUL AND WRONG and women are VESSELS OF SIN who will TEMPT MEN TO RISK THEIR IMMORTAL SOULS if they are not RESTRAINED BY THE FORCES OF RIGHTEOUSNESS. SAY HALLELUJAH AND SEND TWENTY DOLLARS

 

Do we have funeral? I've been told that in some religions a funeral is considered very necessary when a member of the congregation dies.

 

Not true... a WOMAN decides if she wants to take her eggs out and frozen in. Nobody else. It does mean them are her eggs. She doesn't need to fill any death certificates if she wants to kill them off.

 

Behold a typical Republican

Protect your freedom, vote Democrat.

 

Not in law or science.

She can say she has a "bun in the oven"....do you think that means she'll give birth to pastry?

 

good one.

 

https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/...wak9tQ0VMOGtaS05mYXg1Z0lwb05xRHU0Rkx2TEcraiJ9
According to these thinkers, conservatives have encroached on a supposed "right to abortion" inherent in the Constitution.

This, of course, is a lie. There is no "right to abortion" in the Constitution. The founders would have been appalled by such a statement. The Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade (1973) is a legal monstrosity by every available metric: As legal scholar John Hart Ely wrote, Roe "is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be." The court's rationale is specious; the court relied on the ridiculous precedent in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) that a broad "right to privacy" can be crafted from "penumbras, formed by emanations." Then the court extended that right to privacy to include the killing of a third party, an unborn human life — and overrode state definitions of human life in the process.

How? The court relied on the self-contradictory notion of "substantive due process" — the belief that a law can be ruled unconstitutional under the Fifth and 14th amendments so long as the court doesn't like the substance of the law. That's asinine, obviously. The due process provision of both amendments was designed to ensure that state and federal government could not remove life, liberty or property without a sufficient legal process, not to broadly allow courts to strike down state definitions of conduct that justify removal of life, liberty and property. As Justice Clarence Thomas has written, "The Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause is not a 'secret repository of substantive guarantees against "unfairness."'"

Nonetheless, the notion that such a right to abortion is enshrined in America's moral fabric has taken hold among the intelligentsia. Thus, we now experience the odd spectacle of those on the political left declaring that the Constitution enshrines a right to abortion — yet does not include a right to bear arms, a right to freedom of political speech, a right to retain property free of government seizure or a right to practice religion.

For much of the left, then, the term "constitutional right" has simply come to mean "thing I want." And that is incredibly dangerous, given that the power of the judiciary springs not from legislative capacity but from supposed interpretive power. Judges are not supposed to read things into the Constitution but to properly read the Constitution itself. The use of the judiciary as a club has led to a feeling of radical frustration among Americans; it has radically exacerbated our culture gap.

The legislative moves in Alabama and other states will open a much-needed debate about the role of the states, the role of legislatures and the role of government. All of that is good for the country. Those who insist, however, that the Supreme Court act as a mechanism for their political priorities are of far more danger to the country than that debate.

Ben Shapiro, 35, is a graduate of UCLA and Harvard Law School, host of "The Ben Shapiro Show" and editor-in-chief of DailyWire.com. He is the author of the No. 1 New York Times best-seller "The Right Side Of History." He lives with his wife and two children in Los Angeles.

 

Well, you appear at least to know the difference between the federal and state governments (thank God).

Now, since you apparently support Roe v. Wade, will you also support a supreme court decision overturning it?

 

No, definitely not, the Court has been wrong before. They upheld segregation for almost a century

A woman's right to an abortion is part of her natural rights. If we had proper legislatures we'd have passed a Constitutional Amendment affirming that. Instead our legislatures are often as not quasi-religious Curias staffed with religious fanatics and violating the separation of Church and State daily. With the recent capture of most evangelicals by political lobbies I fear we may soon see the rise of a Christian Taliban in this country