Louisiana moves to make abortion pills ‘controlled dangerous substances’

[CaughtInThe]

Don't forget to trust the polls though.

 

[rational anarchist]

Every sperm is special, genome sequencing shows | PET

Results of the first study to sequence the genomes of individual sperm cells obtained from one person have revealed significant genetic differences between them, confirming the belief that each sperm is unique. It is hoped the technique could be applied in fertility treatments to identify...

www.progress.org.uk

link wont let me read it,,


its still the mans DNA

what youre thinking about is genetic differences

Sperms from the same man have big genetic differences: study

For the first time, scientists have obtained genetic blueprints of almost 100 sperms from a single individual to confirm that they differ hugely from each other.

www.deccanherald.com

Not All Sperm Are Equal: Functional Mitochondria Characterize a Subpopulation of Human Sperm with Better Fertilization Potential

Human sperm samples are very heterogeneous and include a low amount of truly functional gametes. Distinct strategies have been developed to characterize and isolate this specific subpopulation. In this study we have used fluorescence microscopy and fluorescence-activated ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[phoenix2020]

Would this technically make the mailman criminally liable?

If its criminal does that make it easier to pursue via interstate?

MAGAs have long had it in for the USPS so this makes sense.

 

[BirdinHand]

some if us care very much

Care all you want.

Won’t get you very far.

See you in November at the ballot box as women across the country vote to throw religious zealots OUT of office, secure the rights to bodily autonomy for themselves, and deliver one ballot initiative victory after another.

Just as we have been doing since Roe was overturned.

 

[rational anarchist]

Your position simply isn't rational.

"The fetus only exists because of the woman's body -- not yours, not that of some possibly corrupt and stupid politician in Washington, and not the body of some possibly ignorant and venal politician in a state legislature. As I have watched this debate develop, and as I have considered with astonishment the increasingly byzantine efforts to " draw lines" about the point of viability, the time at which a full set of rights attaches to the fetus, and all the rest, I have become increasingly convinced that the right of the woman to control her own body when she is pregnant must be absolute up to the point of birth. All the attempts to craft legislation circumscribing that right prior to birth quickly become enmeshed in what are finally subjective claims that can be disputed into eternity, and impossible of proof in one direction or another.

...In terms of the political theory involved, the basic question is a stark and simple one: if you cannot control your own body, what other rights can you possibly have? If your body is not yours, what does it matter if you can freely express your political and religious convictions? The principle involved is similarly simple: as long as you are not violating anyone else's rights, your right to control your own body is absolute. Period. For the reason indicated above, the fetus is not a person in the same sense the mother is: the fetus would not exist but for the woman who carries it. The woman's right to her own body must, in fact and in logic, take precedence over whatever rights you believe the fetus possesses, up to the time of birth."

Link

whats not rational is killing an innocent child to make your life easier after you were irresponsible,,

 

[rational anarchist]

Care all you want.

Won’t get you very far.

See you in November at the ballot box as women across the country vote to throw religious zealots OUT of office, secure the rights to bodily autonomy for themselves, and deliver one ballot initiative victory after another.

Just as we have been doing since Roe was overturned.

I dont base my lifes decisions on political outcomes,,,

 

[Lursa]

that covers it,,

a child in the womb is a separate human child with a unique DNA that shows them to be their own individual person separate from the mother,,

Not really. We already agree that the unborn inside a woman is an individual human, Homo sapiens. We do not agree that it has rights or is a person..I'm sorry you didnt understand that from what you've (hopefully) read.

Science confers no rights, no value, no right to life for any species, including Homo sapiens.

The law however, does recognize rights for persons and that was spelled out for you. It clearly did not include the unborn.

 

[Bodi]

they do,, and in this case they ended up pregnant,,

what they cant do is kill their child because they acted irresponsibly,,

Getting pregnant is not irresponsible.

and there are two words in my name

Your posts are anything but rational though...

the intentional killing of an innocent child is everyones business,,

I already explained this to you. No child is killed.

and science proved a long time ago that life begins at conception,,

A zygote is alive... so what?

thanks for your opinion,,

I will stick with scientific facts and reality,,

But you don't understand the basic definitions of the words that you are using... LOL

 

[Lursa]

I did in the next sentence,,,

your sperm question is just stupid,,

why is it the fed gov has made it illegal to destroy an eagle egg??

To protect the species. Humans arent endangered, plenty of us.

OTOH, laws protecting something dont mean they recognize rights for that thing...see: coral reefs, wildlife, forests, etc. Even pets and livestock are protected...but they have no rights and their owners can legally kill them.

You seem new to this topic. Are you?

 

[rational anarchist]

Not really. We already agree that the unborn inside a woman is an individual human, Homo sapiens. We do not agree that it has rights or is a person..I'm sorry you didnt understand that from what you've (hopefully) read.

Science confers no rights, no value, no right to life for any species, including Homo sapiens.

The law however, does recognize rights for persons and that was spelled out for you. It clearly did not include the unborn.

we differ in opinion on that based on a false premise its not a person,, and now you want to use the government to determine science and declare them not a person when we know by all accounts they are a person,, for the purpose of killing them,,

you never answered why the fed gov made destroying an eagle egg against the law??

 

[Lursa]

I have never been here before,,

got bumped from another site and this is all I could find to make fun of leftists and progressives,,

How's that workin' out for ya so far?

and even if I was how does that effect my arguments??
you can either refute them or you cant,,

We can. And are.

 

[rational anarchist]

To protect the species. Humans arent endangered, plenty of us.

OTOH, laws protecting something dont mean they recognize rights for that thing...see: coral reefs, wildlife, forests, etc. Even pets and livestock are protected...but they have no rights and their owners can legally kill them.

You seem new to this topic. Are you?

how does that protect the species???

careful now you may want to not answer that,,

 

[Bodi]

NO,,, you dont care when a child life begins/conceived,,

some if us care very much

You care about controlling women

 

[rational anarchist]

How's that workin' out for ya so far?



We can. And are.

I am doing great,, how about you??

let me know when that happens,,

 

[Lursa]

we differ in opinion on that based on a false premise its not a person,, and now you want to use the government to determine science and declare them not a person when we know by all accounts they are a person,, for the purpose of killing them,,

I proved that legally, it's not a person.

And no, the federal govt does not determine science...otoh, please show me where "science" recognizes Homo sapiens as persons with rights. I'll wait. I'll accept biology or medical texts as sources.

you never answered why the fed gov made destroying an eagle egg against the law??

I just did.

 

[rational anarchist]

You care about controlling women

only when it comes to when they want to kill their child,,

in reality its not the women being controlled with abortion,, its the doctors and nurses that are actually doing the killing,,

 

[BirdinHand]

I dont base my lifes decisions on political outcomes,,,

Neither do women

Politicians could completely outlaw abortion from sea to shining sea and they will still occur. They’ve ALWAYS occurred and always will occur.

The only thing making them illegal does is makes them unsafe for poor women.

Wealthy women will always have access to safe abortion. Poor women will be forced to revert to back alley providers.

Roe was put in place to protect women from back alley providers. Current zealots are fine with women being maimed or dying.


So much for that entire “pro-life” label

 

[Bodi]

I have never been here before,,

got bumped from another site and this is all I could find to make fun of leftists and progressives,,

A few of our resident idiots were recently banned... so there are openings.

and even if I was how does that effect my arguments??

Your arguments suck

you can either refute them or you cant,,

Did that already... a few times. You either lied or did not understand though... that seems to be a running theme with your posts!!

 

[Lursa]

I am doing great,, how about you??

let me know when that happens,,

Perhaps you dont read well if you are up to speed on that yet.

Now, back to the debate, please.

 

[Lursa]

whats not rational is killing an innocent child to make your life easier after you were irresponsible,,

Luckily, women dont do that. Do men? It's illegal in any case...infantacide, homicide, tsk tsk

 

[rational anarchist]

I proved that legally, it's not a person.

And no, the federal govt does not determine science...otoh, please show me where "science" recognizes Homo sapiens as persons with rights. I'll wait. I'll accept biology or medical texts as sources.



I just did.

legal is a decision not a fact of life,,


the fact as even you admitted its a unique human individual at conception,,

law is based on reality and is flawed in this case because the reality is scientifically proven,,

 

[Lursa]

how does that protect the species???

careful now you may want to not answer that,,

By not reducing it's numbers.

 

[rational anarchist]

Luckily, women dont do that. Do men? It's illegal in any case...infantacide, homicide, tsk tsk

actually its the doctors and nurses doing the killing,,

 

[rational anarchist]

By not reducing it's numbers.

numbers of what??

enough word games,,

you know as well as I do that its illegal because theres a chance theres a living eagle inside the egg if its been properly fertilized,,

so if an eagle is an eagle inside the egg a human is a person inside their mother,,

 

[Lursa]

legal is a decision not a fact of life,,

Cool beans...show me in a biology or medical text describing Homo sapiens where the unborn are persons?

the fact as even you admitted its a unique human individual at conception,,

So? Who says killing the unborn is wrong? What authority that I or any woman has to obey?

law is based on reality and is flawed in this case because the reality is scientifically proven,,

Depending on science alone would mean no one has rights and killing isnt a crime...but you can own that one