Texas' restrictive abortion law takes effect after SCOTUS deadline to stop it passes.

[natepro]

By the definition I gave, no.
I see your reading comprehension level hasn't improved. You quote my post and then say this?

Are you under the impression that your definition is the only one?

[catman]

Are you under the impression that your definition is the only one?

For animal, yes. Humans are animals. Fetuses have all of the attributes required to consider them alive.
My definition is the biological definition of a living animal.

[catman]

Again Nate, if you care to delve into another of your rabbit holes, you shall do so by yourself. I have said what I wish on this subject and will not write further, as it won't make any difference. You have made your mind up and feel that yours is the only opinion that can possibly be correct.
Just for the record, you are wrong here.

[natepro]

For animal, yes. Humans are animals. Fetuses have all of the attributes required to consider them alive.

We both know that's not true, why act like it is? Maintaining homeostasis is, for example, sometimes included among the requirements to consider something living.

Most abortions in the US happen before 13 weeks.

Can a fetus at 13 weeks maintain homeostasis?

[natepro]

Again Nate, if you care to delve into another of your rabbit holes, you shall do so by yourself. I have said what I wish on this subject and will not write further, as it won't make any difference. You have made your mind up and feel that yours is the only opinion that can possibly be correct.
Just for the record, you are wrong here.

Which is totally unlike you, who is constantly changing his mind, right?

[joeyc77]

Not only is it not a bad law, it is demonstrably a necessary one given the way this country will be divided when it's overturned.

Abortion and child support are a completely false equivalence; comparing them like this does a disservice to both issues.

"Putting conditions on humanity" is exactly what people are doing when they say someone must carry a pregnancy to term whether they want to or not, whether it will be dangerous to them or not, whether the fetus will survive to the end of the pregnancy or any significant length of time after birth.

There is absolutely nothing stopping congress from passing a federal law legalizing abortion. This is how our legal system should operate. Roe vs wade essentially legalizes abortion which is not the job of the Supreme court. SC interprets laws, not make them.

Men and women should have the same "rights" under the law. A man cannot force an abortion on a woman but he should have the right to "abort" the fetus.

I dont disagree that women should have the right to an abortion. It just needs to be done in accordance with our legal system. The only reason i see congress wont pass a federal law is both sides benefit from our individual beliefs on the issue.

[natepro]

There is absolutely nothing stopping congress from passing a federal law legalizing abortion. This is how our legal system should operate. Roe vs wade essentially legalizes abortion which is not the job of the Supreme court. SC interprets laws, not make them.

Men and women should have the same "rights" under the law. A man cannot force an abortion on a woman but he should have the right to "abort" the fetus.

I dont disagree that women should have the right to an abortion. It just needs to be done in accordance with our legal system. The only reason i see congress wont pass a federal law is both sides benefit from our individual beliefs on the issue.

Of course there is, or it would've happened long before now. You're talking about the same congress that couldn't even pass the lynching bill until recently. Roe "legalized" abortion only because states had begun to outlaw it, and they found it to be a right granted in the Constitution.

They do have the same rights. Abortion and child support are not the same thing. Child support isn't even a right that belongs to either parent, it's the right that belongs to a child; how do you say that someone else can opt out of your rights?

You can try to turn this into a "both sides" thing, but history tells another story.

[Bird of Prey]

Once conceived a human being has a "life form". It has everything in it to grow into an adult human form when given nourishment from its mother a different life form. To prevent this life form from developing via lethal means is murder. Its as simple as that.

[natepro]

Once conceived a human being has a "life form". It has everything in it to grow into an adult human form when given nourishment from its mother a different life form. To prevent this life form from developing via lethal means is murder. Its as simple as that.

Except that's not what murder is, and it's a hell of a thing to say someone has more autonomy as a fetus than they do as the person that fetus is inside of.

[joeyc77]

Of course there is, or it would've happened long before now. You're talking about the same congress that couldn't even pass the lynching bill until recently. Roe "legalized" abortion only because states had begun to outlaw it, and they found it to be a right granted in the Constitution.

They do have the same rights. Abortion and child support are not the same thing. Child support isn't even a right that belongs to either parent, it's the right that belongs to a child; how do you say that someone else can opt out of your rights?

You can try to turn this into a "both sides" thing, but history tells another story.

This is about the ineffectiveness of congress. Again, it's ironic how something so polarizing will never be resolved. I've always maintained the government exists to create problems, not solve them.

Child support is paid to the adult "in care" of the child though. Technically, that adult can do whatever they choose with the "support" money. If a man does not want to be the "incare" parent but the woman is using the support money for her own needs, what is he to do? I will say that marriage can resolve a lot of those issues. Marriage is a contract and breaking that contract intitles each party certain rights and responsibilities. However, i also believe a married woman must also get the aporoval of her husband before being able to have an abortion unless she can prove abuse or sonething dramatic.

Also, we afford children rights or restrict rights in order to protect them all the time. How is being a fetus any different?

[metswon69]

This is about the ineffectiveness of congress. Again, it's ironic how something so polarizing will never be resolved. I've always maintained the government exists to create problems, not solve them.

Child support is paid to the adult "in care" of the child though. Technically, that adult can do whatever they choose with the "support" money. If a man does not want to be the "incare" parent but the woman is using the support money for her own needs, what is he to do? I will say that marriage can resolve a lot of those issues. Marriage is a contract and breaking that contract intitles each party certain rights and responsibilities. However, i also believe a married woman must also get the aporoval of her husband before being able to have an abortion unless she can prove abuse or sonething dramatic.

Also, we afford children rights or restrict rights in order to protect them all the time. How is being a fetus any different?

Because SC justices are not elected to their positions and its a lifetime spot if they so choose. Legislators are so of course they have to appeal to their respective constituencies. It would be a deadlocked thing as well because even if it got enough votes in the House, it would die in the Senate.

That said, if you believe in abortion rights (like you said you did and not just in cases where a woman is raped or her life is in danger) then the Roe V Wade ruling was a good compromise. Was it perfect? No but what SC ruling is?

Is this what we're going to do with every major SC decision btw? Leave issues like gun rights, gay marriage, etc to individual states? That's beyond stupid. What's the point in having the SC then?

[spliff(TONE)]

You and splff are the two stupidest posters on this board. Its not even close.

This hurts me deeply.

[spliff(TONE)]

Again Nate, if you care to delve into another of your rabbit holes, you shall do so by yourself. I have said what I wish on this subject and will not write further, as it won't make any difference. You have made your mind up and feel that yours is the only opinion that can possibly be correct.
Just for the record, you are wrong here.

How many times have we all heard you make bogus claims very similar to this?

[Zmaster52]

This hurts me deeply.

Damn. I thought I would’ve been atop his list.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dbroncos78087]

This is about the ineffectiveness of congress. Again, it's ironic how something so polarizing will never be resolved. I've always maintained the government exists to create problems, not solve them.

Child support is paid to the adult "in care" of the child though. Technically, that adult can do whatever they choose with the "support" money. If a man does not want to be the "incare" parent but the woman is using the support money for her own needs, what is he to do? I will say that marriage can resolve a lot of those issues. Marriage is a contract and breaking that contract intitles each party certain rights and responsibilities. However, i also believe a married woman must also get the aporoval of her husband before being able to have an abortion unless she can prove abuse or sonething dramatic.

Also, we afford children rights or restrict rights in order to protect them all the time. How is being a fetus any different?

I hope no one is disillusioned that Congress will solve anything.