No, if you can't state whether a zygote is a child or not (which you can't do) then you have no argument.
I just don’t care to. You don’t know what I think and your frozen zygote argument is irrelevant to anything I said.
Ah yes I knew you couldn't do it. "Oh I just don't care too"?? ......that's your response!
If you can't say that it becomes a child at the point of fertilization, (whether frozen or not) then you saying it doesn't or you don't know. But you still think the woman opinion on this is irrelevant.
Whether or not that fertilized egg is a child is the MOST important concept in this discussion.
Ah yes I knew you couldn't do it. "Oh I just don't care too"?? ......that's your response!
If you can't say that it becomes a child at the point of fertilization, (whether frozen or not) then you saying it doesn't or you don't know. But you still think the woman opinion on this is irrelevant.
Whether or not that fertilized egg is a child is the MOST important concept in this discussion.
If you outlaw abortion pills you outlaw abortion pills which means a physician could be conflicted on whether or not to fill a prescription for someone in that situation. That’s the issue; I’m sure church’s are ok with it but whose to say a Dr can’t be prosecuted for trying to save someone’s life. Miscarriage is technically an abortion in its own right.
this is already happening in Texas where medical providers and pharmacies are having this disconnect over the pill. so there have already been instances where women are miscarrying and are being prescribed the abortion pill only to have the pharmacist deny the script.
Ive heard about that in Texas. Seems like it a lot of times it comes down to a misunderstanding regarding the law.
It says right there in the article that the drug isn't outlawed for use in miscarriages.
Unfortunately, we assume medical providers are up to snuff on all this stuff but a lot of times they aren't. Im a direct healthcare provider so trust me, I know.
I just don’t care to. You don’t know what I think and your frozen zygote argument is irrelevant to anything I said.
Ah yes I knew you couldn't do it. "Oh I just don't care too"?? ......that's your response!
If you can't say that it becomes a child at the point of fertilization, (whether frozen or not) then you saying it doesn't or you don't know. But you still think the woman opinion on this is irrelevant.
Whether or not that fertilized egg is a child is the MOST important concept in this discussion.
Its not a child.
I’ll flat out say it is. The moment an egg is fertilized by a sperm it is a life. Happy?
I'll rephrase this. If you support abortion that's fine, but let's not pretend that you don't support human executions according to biologists.
They seem to be concerned about when biological life begins and you when being alive as a person begins. Or would you say that you weren't part of the human species <6 weeks gestation?
Ok, you do understand that in the United States the end of human life occurs with the cessation of brain activity by law, and there is near 100% agreement this is ethical and appropriate. Do you believe we are undertaking mass executions by terminating life when there is no brain activity? Why then would human life be defined as beginning before even the most rudimentary brain activity? This is estimated to be at around 6 weeks of gestation. It does not follow that a fertilized egg or an embryo has any standing as a human life. Right now there are upwards of 1 million embryos on ice in the USA. Do they all have a right to a uterus?
I'll rephrase this. If you support abortion that's fine, but let's not pretend that you don't support human executions according to biologists.
They seem to be concerned about when biological life begins and you when being alive as a person begins. Or would you say that you weren't part of the human species <6 weeks gestation?
The right to privacy was first announced in Griswold v. Connecticut, case involving a state statute which criminalized providing contraceptives. The Court struck down the statute, holding that the right to privacy included the right to use contraceptives. Most people know that Contraception stops pregnancy before conception, and Abortion stops pregnancy after conception. Hard to imagine how any person couldn't understand that those two concepts are "logically related."
Random logic. The two are indeed unrelated. One is before and one is after. One has nothing to do with abortion and the other does. Also, even all afters are clearly not equivalent in most people eyes.
Here’s an analogy for the logically challenged. If I see an unwelcome person in my house, I can shoot him before he actually poses a threat to me. Or I can try to diffuse the situation non-violently and only resolve to violence strictly in self defense. One is before and the other after the unwelcome guest’s manifest threat. Different states have different stand-your-ground laws to deal with such situations. One is before and the other is after doesn’t mean they are all the same.
There is no right to privacy in the 14th, only the right to life, liberty, property, and due process. “Liberty” reasonably applies to contraception as in Griswold and gay marriage. There is no loss of imminent life involved in those situations. In the case of abortion, there are at least two other person stakeholders: the unborn child and the father, and a third state stakeholder that has an interest in preserving any person’s life and therefore by necessity defining what “person” or “life” means. Doesn’t matter if you agree with me or not: SCOTUS does.
A procedure to end pregnancy occurs before conception and a procedure to end pregnancy occurs after conception means that the two procedures are perhaps not temporally related, but still logically related to each other. The Catholic Church seems to understand the logical relation, unless you are prepared to argue that the fact they condemned both Contraception and Abortion was pure coincidence. The Supreme Court also understood the logical relation, that’s why they decided Roe v. Wade (abortion) by applying the principles announced in Griswold v. Connecticut (contraception).
Then again, anyone who uses terms like “Random Logic” and “Honest Logic” is unclear on the concept of logic itself. Let’s try this: Minty toothpaste and regular toothpaste are different, but they are still logically related to each other, because they are both toothpaste. Catch on?
Ah yes I knew you couldn't do it. "Oh I just don't care too"?? ......that's your response!
If you can't say that it becomes a child at the point of fertilization, (whether frozen or not) then you saying it doesn't or you don't know. But you still think the woman opinion on this is irrelevant.
Whether or not that fertilized egg is a child is the MOST important concept in this discussion.
Its not a child.
I’ll flat out say it is. The moment an egg is fertilized by a sperm it is a life. Happy?
IVF clinics go home devastated.
Jesus Christ you guys are morons.
You can't even get your talking points right... the anti-abortion bloc will fall apart once the anti-Roe types realize underneath it all were true "anything is life" whackos that want to ban contraception, IVF, and anything that helps mothers survive.
I’ll flat out say it is. The moment an egg is fertilized by a sperm it is a life. Happy?
IVF clinics go home devastated.
Jesus Christ you guys are morons.
You can't even get your talking points right... the anti-abortion bloc will fall apart once the anti-Roe types realize underneath it all were true "anything is life" whackos that want to ban contraception, IVF, and anything that helps mothers survive.
What is going to happen is conservative politicians will guarantee abortion up to 15-16 weeks, while making liberal politicians push toward abortion on demand. Say what you want, but 80% of the population is in favor of restrictions after the first trimester.
Liberal politicians are already signaling they are in favor of late term abortions in their states. If conservatives are smart, they will force their hand into committing towards the extreme end of abortion acceptance which turns the average voter off.
I just don’t care to. You don’t know what I think and your frozen zygote argument is irrelevant to anything I said.
Ah yes I knew you couldn't do it. "Oh I just don't care too"?? ......that's your response!
If you can't say that it becomes a child at the point of fertilization, (whether frozen or not) then you saying it doesn't or you don't know. But you still think the woman opinion on this is irrelevant.
Whether or not that fertilized egg is a child is the MOST important concept in this discussion.
Its not a child.
Knock yourself out on it all you want. It’s not relevant to anything I care about. I’m not engaging with you. Not sure why you are after me when you haven’t even bothered to read my posts.
Ah yes I knew you couldn't do it. "Oh I just don't care too"?? ......that's your response!
If you can't say that it becomes a child at the point of fertilization, (whether frozen or not) then you saying it doesn't or you don't know. But you still think the woman opinion on this is irrelevant.
Whether or not that fertilized egg is a child is the MOST important concept in this discussion.
Its not a child.
I’ll flat out say it is. The moment an egg is fertilized by a sperm it is a life. Happy?
Random logic. The two are indeed unrelated. One is before and one is after. One has nothing to do with abortion and the other does. Also, even all afters are clearly not equivalent in most people eyes.
Here’s an analogy for the logically challenged. If I see an unwelcome person in my house, I can shoot him before he actually poses a threat to me. Or I can try to diffuse the situation non-violently and only resolve to violence strictly in self defense. One is before and the other after the unwelcome guest’s manifest threat. Different states have different stand-your-ground laws to deal with such situations. One is before and the other is after doesn’t mean they are all the same.
There is no right to privacy in the 14th, only the right to life, liberty, property, and due process. “Liberty” reasonably applies to contraception as in Griswold and gay marriage. There is no loss of imminent life involved in those situations. In the case of abortion, there are at least two other person stakeholders: the unborn child and the father, and a third state stakeholder that has an interest in preserving any person’s life and therefore by necessity defining what “person” or “life” means. Doesn’t matter if you agree with me or not: SCOTUS does.
A procedure to end pregnancy occurs before conception and a procedure to end pregnancy occurs after conception means that the two procedures are perhaps not temporally related, but still logically related to each other. The Catholic Church seems to understand the logical relation, unless you are prepared to argue that the fact they condemned both Contraception and Abortion was pure coincidence. The Supreme Court also understood the logical relation, that’s why they decided Roe v. Wade (abortion) by applying the principles announced in Griswold v. Connecticut (contraception).
Then again, anyone who uses terms like “Random Logic” and “Honest Logic” is unclear on the concept of logic itself. Let’s try this: Minty toothpaste and regular toothpaste are different, but they are still logically related to each other, because they are both toothpaste. Catch on?
I don’t care about the Catholic Church.
As for Roe and Griswald, SCOTUS already admitted Roe was a mistake.
Now go home and jump off a bridge. And learn a thing or two about logic before bloviating your subjective opinions as objective truth.
I’ll flat out say it is. The moment an egg is fertilized by a sperm it is a life. Happy?
IVF clinics go home devastated.
Jesus Christ you guys are morons.
You can't even get your talking points right... the anti-abortion bloc will fall apart once the anti-Roe types realize underneath it all were true "anything is life" whackos that want to ban contraception, IVF, and anything that helps mothers survive.
The supreme court’s majority opinion was anti-Roe. It wasn’t anti-contraception-or-IVF.
Now stop generalizing, go home, and jump off a bridge before blabbering incoherently.
What is going to happen is that if you are a Republican, you will be viewed by a voter as someone that will outlaw abortions at the moment of conception. The trigger laws are already in place for several red states.
If you are a Democrat, a woman will have a choice to get access to an abortion at an early enough point where she can make a decision and have a safe and legal option for the procedure. She will get proper healthcare.
People did not think Roe would ever be overturned. People thought a President who lost the vote would graciously concede and enable a peaceful transfer of power. Now there is no trust in the Republican Party.
