I mean that the states will be free to put so many burdensome regulations that it will make abortion inaccessible
You just called them "babies" meaning they are NO DIFFERENT than any other baby..a baby is a baby !!!!...how are abortions performed on BABIES who are born?...
FoxHastings said: ↑ You just called them "babiies" meaning they are NO DIFFERENT than any other baby..a baby is a baby !!!!...how are abortions performed on BABIES who are born?... Yup, that's what I've been trying to tell those who don't believe humans have stages in life..... how are abortions performed on BABIES who are born?...
All one has to do is ask them in writing. 1. Are babies a cultural term meaning from conception till out of diapers? 2. Is that acceptable for someone to say a baby in in the womb? 3. So would that then mean babies are being aborted? You sure have a lot of faith in Roberts who has voted against abortions consistently. I am sure when he guts Roe/Planned Parenthood that you will eat your words
Are there differences in children as they pass through the states of being a child? Of course. Is there a difference between a 1 week old baby and a 2 year old baby? Of course. Why are you so intent as to be obsessed with denying that it is a baby in the womb? Over and over you have been shown otherwise, site after site linked to you. Medical websites, government websites, the dictionary. Why is it so important to you to deny it?
A fetus has NO constitutional rights whereas immediately after birth the infant now has individual rights protected by the constitution. Not surprising that those that oppose abortion are unaware of these facts but it would be preferable if they were since it would mean not having to explain it over and over again.
Would you refer to a coma patient as a 'person' or a 'person in a coma?' I guess if you don't specify 'coma', then that person has the exact same life status as someone who is not in a coma! Great logic!
Well not in their work context obviously, but that's doesn't mean that they don't consider a fetus to be a baby.
Of course they can be aborted. What's your point? "It's LEGAL" is your argument? Oh dear! I guess if abortion was outlawed, that would also be your argument!
FoxHastings said: ↑ First , I did NOT say that. Second, what I said was :Good luck getting the scientific community to quit being scientific" meaning that the "scientific community" is SCIENTIFIC and will refer to a fetus as a fetus and not go all emotional or hyperbolic and call it a baby....in SCIENTIC context. LOL! Ask WHO? The "people who decide what a thing is" ??? LOL! THOSE PEOPLE!??? . Where TF did I mention Roberts? !! What case/argument/will be used to overturn RvW when NONE have ever been found before?
I said defacto overturning. Basically they will gut it under the gize that its a medical facility and states have the right to regulate them. Also if Roberts has voted several times against abortion surely the same argument that worked for him in the past will work now
I wasn't aware that Roberts was the only Supreme Court justice. But I am not surprised the Right would use sleazy, underhanded tactics to deny American women the right to their own bodies...
What conservative judge is sympathetic to abortion? Robert is the "swing vote" If they were allowed to simply ban it no underhanded tactics needed
FoxHastings said: ↑ I wasn't aware that Roberts was the only Supreme Court justice. But I am not surprised the Right would use sleazy, underhanded tactics to deny American women the right to their own bodies... Thank you for admitting it's "underhanded".... if they had a good case they wouldn't NEED to be underhanded LOL, Yup, criminals ALWAYS blame someone else for their bad, illegal, hateful behavior.....
I'm sure those babies saved won't care that underhanded tactics were used to save them Also is it not underhanded using federal courts to overturn laws that are Constitutional without an amendment
FoxHastings said: ↑ I wasn't aware that Roberts was the only Supreme Court justice. But I am not surprised the Right would use sleazy, underhanded tactics to deny American women the right to their own bodies... Thank you for admitting it's "underhanded".... if they had a good case they wouldn't NEED to be underhanded LOL, Yup, criminals ALWAYS blame someone else for their bad, illegal, hateful behavior..... In post 120 you admitted it was underhanded....make up your mind It IS underhanded, hateful, disgusting to attempt to take away the rights of Americans...
I agree......their total lack of knowledge of the birth process is astounding....but it IS science, that terrifying entity that they deny exists...