Agreed - very clear and very open The point could have been made without the reference to colour - - - Updated - - - Actually it will It has to be considered a viable human first
Well, A human is viable at conception per any "English" dictionary on earth. SCOTUS does not have the authority to change the "American English" language and often, however. has misappropriated words attempting to soothe how decisions are perceived. President Obama was a viable human at conception despite being born to a Caucasian female after fathered by a Negro. Biracial human gestation is one of the most casually aborted gestation circumstances.
No, a human is viable when it develops sufficiently to survive birth, and function independently of the placenta.
No, a human is not viable at conception... Your continued racist comments are quite sickening....I was correct about you.
The law says you cannot, but that never stopped a determined person just like you cannot stop a determined woman from obtaining an abortion as well.
A pregnancy is, by definition, a dependency. The baby is not autonomous so there is no autonomy to preserve from denying women the right to consent and abortion in self defense. The right to consent is not a hoax. It is perhaps the most important human right of all since so many people have fought and died to secure and protect it. What you're attempting to argue is that unborn babies have an unconditional right to life. Nobody has an unconditional right to anything.
For 11-weeks the WOMAN's autonomy or right to exist separate from others allows aborting gestation. At week 12, the human dignity given by the whole public to the human fetus with a heartbeat becomes the controlling interest. The idea that the mother has a continuous right to consent from the fetus she trapped within herself is a hoax or an invention. I reject the whole fetal consent creation.
No; I understand the idea. I consider this consent and/or self-defense belief(s). These concepts are like the idea in a Christian best-seller where a snake told the female character to eat of a forbidden fruit. See the Bible in Genesis 3:5 or kvery close to the front. I am not allowed to disclose my "delusions" or reveal the full extent of these. All will know within one year.
When a woman gives consent to a man for sex, is she obligated to let him continue until he's satisfied, and that if she resists she should be held down for him? If not then you support the "continuous right to consent". If you invite somebody into your house and they refuse to leave, are you obligated to play host until your guest decides to leave on their own? If not then you support the "continuous right to consent". The only legitimate reason to violate a persons "continuous right to consent" is if they've committed a crime. How is the baby's developing a heart beat a crime, and how is it a crime by the mother when she's not the one committing it?
In theory, no. Most religions & societies ban suicide. But in practice - It's very hard to police & enforce that ban. Suicide by cop is one method, when someone not in their right mind decides that there's nothing left to live for, & seeks to provoke the police into killing him/her. There are deliberate drug overdoses, accidental overdoses, missed turns, driving into rivers, lakes, off cliffs, & so on. So, yah, on paper, you have a case. In the real World, if conditions become - or are even just perceived to be - intolerable, there are people who will opt to die. We can argue about whether the decision is overt or not - that's a separate issue. The difficulty, of course, is what do you do with someone attempting to commit suicide? Charge & try them, & sentence them to What? To death - that would be ironic - & if that's the endpoint, why would the state bother to even pass laws against suicide? Sentence the convicted to years of hard labor? Hard labor implies tools - there is nothing to prevent the convicted from attempting suicide again & again, until he succeeds.
This entire argument plays out in the legal arena. & there it's settled law, since Roe v. Wade. If you actually want to overturn that ruling, you need to get down in the arena, understand the arguments, & show cause. The argument from morality is probably the weakest one you could make, & the law often turns on technicalities - that's an argument that will simply get you thrown out of court. If you're not a practitioner of law, you need legal advice on acceptable lines of argument
We most definitely have a right to commit suicide. Every human right is essentially based on the notion that we own our body's and have the final say over what happens to it, unless we've committed a crime. The constitution should explain this rather than ramble off a series of arbitrary clauses. It should be part of a formal standard of ethics that provides a rational basis to justify what rights we have and explain why we have them.
Roe v Wade will be updated very soon but it will never need to be overturned. The science and understanding of fetal development and humanity has advanced to more accurately determine when the fetus is connected to a placenta instead of directly to the mother. A fertilized zygote is viable usually if not disturbed. SCOTUS can't alter the Englsh language. Yes this is a technicality. human-dignity-US.org << This is a legal filing and has ONE honorable result. This is NOT a matter for a 4/5 ruling but a unanimous 9/0 result.
It's still in the legal arena. The science and understanding isn't @ issue, TMK. The Supreme Court in Roe hardly had any medical/biological testimony, as far as I recall. The courts feel perfectly competent to render a legal decision, & that's what they did. The viability of the fetus is improving, & that may wind up determining where this discussion goes. If we invest in the medicine & biology & supporting technology, it may become possible to transfer a fetus to either a surrogate womb or even an artificial womb. If that technology becomes mainstream, then the costs involved should drop to something reasonable. @ that point, most of the discussion about the morality of abortion would become moot.
No - look @ the rates for spontaneous abortion or delivery of stillborns in the US - even before birth control meds & abortion. If you're going to quote dictionaries in this context, you probably want a good medical/biology dictionary. & you'll still need to pull in a good legal dictionary, too - on abortion.
The legitimate legal reason(s) are covered by reckless sexual intercourse or neglecting to monitor results of intercourse for 11-weeks. Failure to decide to abort gestation for 11-weeks or monitor your own reproductive health is a de facto waiver of the fundamental human "right to abort gestation" for 11-weeks after Act 301 is found constitutional. Consent to complete gestation is given by females allowing an embryo to live for 12-weeks and become an individual human fetus nourished by a placenta and no longer be physically connected directly to the female except via a placenta. The placenta is a product of conception and is not exclusively part of the female it is within. Does this adequately address consent? We will see very soon. Drinking large quantities of alcohol is de facto CONSENT to not be allowed to drive an automobile. Females may have sex or otherwise be impregnated for 11-weeks and may elect to abort gestation for this amount of time. After this time passes, the female has abandoned the new fundamental human right to be professionally assisted with ending gestation. "Birth control" never directly involved prevention of birth but prevention of impregnation. Now "birth control" medications may be used ONLY when pregnant to prevent birth.
Act 301 was found to be unconstitutional and was struck down by the U.S. court of appeals for the 8th circuit six months ago to the day.
The Eighth Circuit recommended it is time for a new look at gestation, as did the District Court in the initial injunctive order. The ONLY court with authority to consider ANYTHING beyond viable life outside the womb, (called/coined as "viability" and dropping the understood "outside the womb)" is SCOTUS. The lower courts could do nothing but invalidate Act 301. I filed an amicus in support of Act 301 and an amicus reply in the Eighth Circuit. The entire docket with every filing is accessible today in (14-1891) Really, Getting a case heard by the Supreme Court was considerably more difficult than gaining admission to Harvard. In 2010. There were 5,910 petitions for a Writ of Certiorari filed with the Supreme Court, but cert was granted for only 165 cases or a success rate of only 2.8%. Harvard admitted 5.9% of its applicants in 2012. Tossing out the roughly half done IFP by non-attorneys the rate soars to 5.9%. This is distorting due to several pro se cases being considered. I expect SCOTUS to grant certiorari in Beck, et .al. v Edwards, et. al., (15-448) Honorable Samuel Alito granted the request for more time to file. Curtis J. Neeley Jr. v Edwards, et. al., (15A368) It is NOT trivial process to get a case properly submitted and on the SCOTUS docket. Curtis J. Neeley Jr. v Edwards, et. al., (15-7059) was printed and is on the docket today. The only thing this does is seek to summarily be allowed as an amicus brief in support of granting Beck, et .al. v Edwards, et. al., (15-44. The petition requests granting to summarily be allowed to become the filed amicus in support of Act 301 but suggests additional consideration of Act 301 by the entire United States culture. This petition advises of the whole culture of the United States becoming dishonorable after the dishonorable Citizens United SCOTUS mistake. This petition calls the 1790 Copy[rite] Act dishonorable and a recent Ninth Circuit en banc case dishonorable. This Petition advises SCOTUS the copy[rite] ritual is misspelled by the entire nation of USA. This petition advises SCOTUS protecting human dignity based on original speech or artwork does not exist in the United States but has existed in Europe since 1734 and this explains why the Right to be Forgotten is really the Right to human DIGNITY. These are ALL RELATED to the DIGNITY ignored by the founding fathers because Benjamin Franklin was dying when the 1790 Copy[rite] Act was being copied from a 1710 law in England. If Act 301 is not allowed by SCOTUS, I will be embarrassed for our failed nation. I am already embarrassed by the failing oligarchy still being called a democracy to our children in deceptive schools. There are not 100 years left for earth anyway. (per TBI delusion) The USA is too big to fail even as an oligarchy.
Get ready to be embarrassed, then. And get ready for further embarrassment when SCOTUS shoots Texas' TRAP law down in Whole Womans Health v. Cole...
I suggested this already in my petition on page 14 (HTML PDF). This is the ONLY honorable result. I would be embarrassed for SCOTUS if it were NOT shot down.
And your petition will never see the light of day. The 8th Circuit's ruling will stand, and 301 will remain aborted - just another footnote in the annals of impotent forced-birther rage...
