What Alito Doesn’t Understand About Pregnancy

[minnie616]

From the following:

…
In the leaked draft, Alito jettisons both approaches. He describes Roe as an “elaborate scheme” devised “without any grounding in the constitutional text, history, or precedent” and dismisses the Casey viability standard as similarly contrived. His draft concludes that at no point in gestation should a person’s ability to end her pregnancy be beyond the control of her state’s legislature. Alito’s line of reasoning treats pregnancy as a binary matter: Either a uterus is occupied by a fetus or it is not. The owner and operator of that uterus doesn’t appear to deserve much of his consideration.
….

As a physician who specializes in high-risk pregnancies, I have cared for patients with a wide variety of complex medical troubles: metastatic cancer, kidney disease serious enough to require dialysis, heart conditions that make walking down the hallway an exhausting workout. For many of my patients, pregnancy hinders or simply prevents them from getting the right treatment for their chronic underlying illness. For others, pregnancy is what is making them sick, putting their heart or their brain at risk of permanent damage.

Recently, I discussed termination with a patient who came to my hospital at 21 weeks’ gestation with multiple organs in failure. Her pregnancy was killing her; ending it would save her life.


Read in The Atlantic: https://apple.news/A3cmoJvgdT52_N4AT0cEcHg

 

[Antiwar]

Quote:

It’s easy to caricature Justice Samuel Alito, author of the draft opinion striking down Roe v. Wade, as an arch-conservative. His relentlessly right-of-center votes tell as much. Likewise, his early, subtly disparaging nickname, “Scalito,” suggests he is a mere mini-me clone of the late Justice Antonin Scalia. But this sells short Alito, who will be a senior and guiding figure in the Supreme Court’s newly empowered conservative bloc.

For Alito is not just a conservative. He’s not a consistent “originalist” in the vein of Scalia or Justice Clarence Thomas, only a “practical” one. The key to understanding Alito is not judicial philosophy or ardent conservatism: it’s his anger — an anger that resonates with the sentiments of many voters, especially white and male ones, who feel displaced by recent social and cultural changes. If you want to understand what to expect from the post-Roberts Court, paying attention to that anger pays dividends.

Opinion | Samuel Alito: One Angry Man

The conservative Supreme Court justice is furious with the pace of social change — and poised to do something about it on Roe and much more.

www.politico.com

 

[Captain Adverse]

From the following:

…
In the leaked draft, Alito jettisons both approaches. He describes Roe as an “elaborate scheme” devised “without any grounding in the constitutional text, history, or precedent” and dismisses the Casey viability standard as similarly contrived. His draft concludes that at no point in gestation should a person’s ability to end her pregnancy be beyond the control of her state’s legislature. Alito’s line of reasoning treats pregnancy as a binary matter: Either a uterus is occupied by a fetus or it is not. The owner and operator of that uterus doesn’t appear to deserve much of his consideration.
….

As a physician who specializes in high-risk pregnancies, I have cared for patients with a wide variety of complex medical troubles: metastatic cancer, kidney disease serious enough to require dialysis, heart conditions that make walking down the hallway an exhausting workout. For many of my patients, pregnancy hinders or simply prevents them from getting the right treatment for their chronic underlying illness. For others, pregnancy is what is making them sick, putting their heart or their brain at risk of permanent damage.

Recently, I discussed termination with a patient who came to my hospital at 21 weeks’ gestation with multiple organs in failure. Her pregnancy was killing her; ending it would save her life.


Read in The Atlantic: https://apple.news/A3cmoJvgdT52_N4AT0cEcHg

Well here is a link to the actual draft decision:

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000180-874f-dd36-a38c-c74f98520000

The writer takes liberties when interpreting the draft opinion.

The text explains the legal rationale.

All Justice Alito states is that this is a matter for Legislatures to decide, and not something the SCOTUS or any other Court can simply declare a "constitutional right."

Especially when there is neither any such right enumerated Constitutionally, nor any historical pre-Constitutional legislative support for said right.

As I posed in a different thread, if people wish this to become a "right," then organize politically and get laws, and/or State and Federal Constitutional changes.

Abortion Rights; Why not Campaign for them State to State?

Everyone knows there are two sides to every argument, else there would be perfect agreement instead of an argument. Let us, for the sake of the argument I propose here, assume that the SCOTUS "draft decision" actually becomes the "law of the land." That means while the "right to an abortion"...

debatepolitics.com

 

[Lisa]

Well here is a link to the actual draft decision:

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000180-874f-dd36-a38c-c74f98520000

The writer takes liberties when interpreting the draft opinion.

The text explains the legal rationale.

All Justice Alito states is that this is a matter for Legislatures to decide, and not something the SCOTUS or any other Court can simply declare a "constitutional right."

Especially when there is neither any such right enumerated Constitutionally, nor any historical pre-Constitutional legislative support for said right.

As I posed in a different thread, if people wish this to become a "right," then organize politically and get laws, and/or State and Federal Constitutional changes.

Abortion Rights; Why not Campaign for them State to State?

Everyone knows there are two sides to every argument, else there would be perfect agreement instead of an argument. Let us, for the sake of the argument I propose here, assume that the SCOTUS "draft decision" actually becomes the "law of the land." That means while the "right to an abortion"...

debatepolitics.com

There is also nothing in the US Constitution that says that it is prohibited. The very core concept of personal freedom is that we have the inherent right to act as we choose until there is a compelling state interest to prohibit that action. There is no compelling secular state interest to prohibit a medical decision to end a pregnancy. DOMA was also [put to a vote by the vartious states and the SCOTUS oveturned those decsions for the very same reason. We dont have to ask permission, especially a minority, and the US Constitution is not a verbatum list of our rights.


It is highly amusing and very ironic that someone who claims to be a small government libertarian also supports putting personal decisions to a vote by a bunch of old white men. I could easily confuse you for an authoritarian capitalist.

 

[Individual]

From the following:

…
In the leaked draft, Alito jettisons both approaches. He describes Roe as an “elaborate scheme” devised “without any grounding in the constitutional text, history, or precedent” and dismisses the Casey viability standard as similarly contrived. His draft concludes that at no point in gestation should a person’s ability to end her pregnancy be beyond the control of her state’s legislature. Alito’s line of reasoning treats pregnancy as a binary matter: Either a uterus is occupied by a fetus or it is not. The owner and operator of that uterus doesn’t appear to deserve much of his consideration.
….

As a physician who specializes in high-risk pregnancies, I have cared for patients with a wide variety of complex medical troubles: metastatic cancer, kidney disease serious enough to require dialysis, heart conditions that make walking down the hallway an exhausting workout. For many of my patients, pregnancy hinders or simply prevents them from getting the right treatment for their chronic underlying illness. For others, pregnancy is what is making them sick, putting their heart or their brain at risk of permanent damage.

Recently, I discussed termination with a patient who came to my hospital at 21 weeks’ gestation with multiple organs in failure. Her pregnancy was killing her; ending it would save her life.


Read in The Atlantic: https://apple.news/A3cmoJvgdT52_N4AT0cEcHg

I find NOTHING in our Federal Constitution and/or State Constitutions, which gives government, Federal, State, or local, any say or authority over a Woman's pregnancy prior to birth.

 

[Grasshopper121212]

From the following:

…
In the leaked draft, Alito jettisons both approaches. He describes Roe as an “elaborate scheme” devised “without any grounding in the constitutional text, history, or precedent” and dismisses the Casey viability standard as similarly contrived. His draft concludes that at no point in gestation should a person’s ability to end her pregnancy be beyond the control of her state’s legislature. Alito’s line of reasoning treats pregnancy as a binary matter: Either a uterus is occupied by a fetus or it is not. The owner and operator of that uterus doesn’t appear to deserve much of his consideration.
….

As a physician who specializes in high-risk pregnancies, I have cared for patients with a wide variety of complex medical troubles: metastatic cancer, kidney disease serious enough to require dialysis, heart conditions that make walking down the hallway an exhausting workout. For many of my patients, pregnancy hinders or simply prevents them from getting the right treatment for their chronic underlying illness. For others, pregnancy is what is making them sick, putting their heart or their brain at risk of permanent damage.

Recently, I discussed termination with a patient who came to my hospital at 21 weeks’ gestation with multiple organs in failure. Her pregnancy was killing her; ending it would save her life.


Read in The Atlantic: https://apple.news/A3cmoJvgdT52_N4AT0cEcHg

You are a doctor? You make it sound like ALL your patience are dying on you. Then, you give one example of where Alito and most others would allow for an abortion to save the life of the mother if the other so choose. The vast majority of pregnancies go just fine with minor complications. To answer your question about the zygote, embryo and fetus should have any rights to life as the mother does, the line in the Declaration of Independence says it all, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men (mankind) are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." We are at the point of creation conceived with liberty and the right to life at conception. That's when creation occurs. Zygotes, embryos and fetuses are created human beings at conception and it's therefore self-evident (for anyone with half a brain) that there are two personages with equal rights to life. Therefore, the only rightful decision for abortion would be if the mother's life is at stake. Not that she will suffer some challenges with her body. Or, since with a rape, the baby did not ask to be conceived.

 

[minnie616]

You are a doctor? You make it sound like ALL your patience are dying on you. Then, you give one example of where Alito and most others would allow for an abortion to save the life of the mother if the other so choose. The vast majority of pregnancies go just fine with minor complications. To answer your question about the zygote, embryo and fetus should have any rights to life as the mother does, the line in the Declaration of Independence says it all, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men (mankind) are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." We are at the point of creation conceived with liberty and the right to life at conception. That's when creation occurs. Zygotes, embryos and fetuses are created human beings at conception and it's therefore self-evident (for anyone with half a brain) that there are two personages with equal rights to life. Therefore, the only rightful decision for abortion would be if the mother's life is at stake. Not that she will suffer some challenges with her body. Or, since with a rape, the baby did not ask to be conceived.

I quoted a <snip:> from an MD who specialized in high risk pregnancies.

The article I read from is in the Atlantic and I posted the link so you could read the context if you want to read iit .

Here is the link again.

Clinck on it and read the article.

Read in The Atlantic: https://apple.news/A3cmoJvgdT52_N4AT0cEcHg

The MD also goes on to say :

In my view, these laws show minimal consideration for the pregnant patient, and instead seem designed to make a doctor pause. Is this enough of an emergency? Is she sick enough to make this acceptable, or will I get fired? Is she close enough to death, or will I go to jail?

For people who believe that every abortion is equivalent to killing a child, any discussion of it may be disconcerting. Yet I can promise that I and other high-risk-pregnancy doctors deeply understand the value of a pregnancy. Our life’s work is to help patients achieve a happy outcome: a healthy mom, a healthy baby. We are the care providers who stay up all night to watch fetal heart tracings, and study ultrasound results endlessly, and weep with our patients when a pregnancy is lost. We understand that would-be parents sometimes face terrible choices, and we do not counsel patients with a desired pregnancy about termination lightly—at any gestational stage.

 

[Scrabaholic]

You are a doctor? You make it sound like ALL your patience are dying on you. Then, you give one example of where Alito and most others would allow for an abortion to save the life of the mother if the other so choose. The vast majority of pregnancies go just fine with minor complications. To answer your question about the zygote, embryo and fetus should have any rights to life as the mother does, the line in the Declaration of Independence says it all, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men (mankind) are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." We are at the point of creation conceived with liberty and the right to life at conception. That's when creation occurs. Zygotes, embryos and fetuses are created human beings at conception and it's therefore self-evident (for anyone with half a brain) that there are two personages with equal rights to life. Therefore, the only rightful decision for abortion would be if the mother's life is at stake. Not that she will suffer some challenges with her body. Or, since with a rape, the baby did not ask to be conceived.

Easy to say when you know it will never happen to you, eh?

 

[minnie616]

…To answer your question about the zygote, embryo and fetus should have any rights to life as the mother does, the line in the Declaration of Independence says it all, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men (mankind) are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. …

Actually , the Declaration of Independence did not give any rights to women, slaves or the unborn.
Congress gave slaves rights with the Thirteenth Amendment .
Congress gave women rights with the Nineteenth Amendment.

But the unborn have never had any rights in the history of the United States.

The Declaration of Independence was a divorce declaration from England.
It was not a legal document like the United States Constitution is.

The idea of natural rights that Thomas Jefferson based the DOI most likely came from John Locke.

John Locke said " all men are born equally free" and hold certain " natural rights"...

The key word is born.

 

[Grasshopper121212]

Actually , the Declaration of Independence did not give any rights to women, slaves or the unborn.
Congress gave slaves rights with the Thirteenth Amendment .
Congress gave women rights with the Nineteenth Amendment.

But the unborn have never had any rights in the history of the United States.

The Declaration of Independence was a divorce declaration from England.
It was not a legal document like the United States Constitution is.

The idea of natural rights that Thomas Jefferson based the DOI most likely came from John Locke.

John Locke said " all men are born equally free" and hold certain " natural rights"...

The key word is born.

Once again, comprehension problems. The Declaration is exactly what that means. We declared our independence and the grievances such as the king wasn't giving all mankind the opportunity for equal rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. In this, the Founding Fathers agreed that all men (and woman) should be equal. When the battle was over, and it was time to organize the new government, compromise was necessary because of the differences of the North and South. What the South didn't realize is that the Northern politicians and Jefferson gave a pathway to equality for Blacks and Women. It took a long time in our current impatient world with computers but it happened. Thank God for inspiring our Founding Fathers to break away from Great Britain and establish a more perfect Union. Not Perfect Union.
I'll keep pointing out your hatred towards Blacks and those you don't agree with that you disagree with Jefferson's equality at creation of life. Who cares about John Locke. Can't be proved and it doesn't change the wording. The words say all men are created equal with unalienable rights of life by our Creator, not any man. Creation begins at conception.

 

[minnie616]

Once again, comprehension problems. The Declaration is exactly what that means. We declared our independence and the grievances such as the king wasn't giving all mankind the opportunity for equal rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. In this, the Founding Fathers agreed that all men (and woman) should be equal. When the battle was over, and it was time to organize the new government, compromise was necessary because of the differences of the North and South. What the South didn't realize is that the Northern politicians and Jefferson gave a pathway to equality for Blacks and Women. It took a long time in our current impatient world with computers but it happened. Thank God for inspiring our Founding Fathers to break away from Great Britain and establish a more perfect Union. Not Perfect Union.
I'll keep pointing out your hatred towards Blacks and those you don't agree with that you disagree with Jefferson's equality at creation of life. Who cares about John Locke. Can't be proved and it doesn't change the wording. The words say all men are created equal with unalienable rights of life by our Creator, not any man. Creation begins at conception.

Your comprehension is wrong.

Born Women have the right to vote.
But women do not equal rights.

The DOI did not give us any rights.

Jefferson was one who changed the words in the DOI.

He didn’t want his slaves to know they were born free.

He probably didn’t want women to think they free either.

That is why we have a 13th amendment( giving slaves freedom and right to vote ) a 19th amendment ( giving women the right to vote ) but there was no personhood amendment for the unborn.

The unborn have never been counted in the census.

They are just a maybe.

I had two miscarriages between my second a third child.

I know a pregnancy is a maybe.
It is not a promise.
It never had any rights and never will until live birth.

 

[Integrityrespec]

From the following:

…
In the leaked draft, Alito jettisons both approaches. He describes Roe as an “elaborate scheme” devised “without any grounding in the constitutional text, history, or precedent” and dismisses the Casey viability standard as similarly contrived. His draft concludes that at no point in gestation should a person’s ability to end her pregnancy be beyond the control of her state’s legislature. Alito’s line of reasoning treats pregnancy as a binary matter: Either a uterus is occupied by a fetus or it is not. The owner and operator of that uterus doesn’t appear to deserve much of his consideration.
….

As a physician who specializes in high-risk pregnancies, I have cared for patients with a wide variety of complex medical troubles: metastatic cancer, kidney disease serious enough to require dialysis, heart conditions that make walking down the hallway an exhausting workout. For many of my patients, pregnancy hinders or simply prevents them from getting the right treatment for their chronic underlying illness. For others, pregnancy is what is making them sick, putting their heart or their brain at risk of permanent damage.

Recently, I discussed termination with a patient who came to my hospital at 21 weeks’ gestation with multiple organs in failure. Her pregnancy was killing her; ending it would save her life.


Read in The Atlantic: https://apple.news/A3cmoJvgdT52_N4AT0cEcHg

Sounds nice but full of BS.
The bottom line is that a life is going to be lost by abortion. The big difference is one side believes in the sanctity of those lives and the other doesn't. It's not a human being is just an excuse to kill a baby that is an inconvenience to someone. There are so many ways to deal with this issue that doesn't include killing the child.. It's cold and callous to refer to the baby as a "clump of cells" and "not a human being". If not a human being then what? Dog, cat, tree, baby dolphin or whale? No, not dolphin or whale because the left cares more about those than humans.

 

[Grasshopper121212]

Your comprehension is wrong.

Born Women have the right to vote.
But women do not equal rights.

The DOI did not give us any rights.

Jefferson was one who changed the words in the DOI.

He didn’t want his slaves to know they were born free.

He probably didn’t want women to think they free either.

That is why we have a 13th amendment( giving slaves freedom and right to vote ) a 19th amendment ( giving women the right to vote ) but there was no personhood amendment for the unborn.

The unborn have never been counted in the census.

They are just a maybe.

I had two miscarriages between my second a third child.

I know a pregnancy is a maybe.
It is not a promise.
It never had any rights and never will until live birth.

Once again, comprehension problems. The Declaration is exactly what that means. We declared our independence and the grievances such as the king wasn't giving all mankind the opportunity for equal rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. In this, the Founding Fathers agreed that all men (and woman) should be equal. When the battle was over, and it was time to organize the new government, compromise was necessary because of the differences of the North and South. What the South didn't realize is that the Northern politicians and Jefferson gave a pathway to equality for Blacks and Women. It took a long time in our current impatient world with computers but it happened. Thank God for inspiring our Founding Fathers to break away from Great Britain and establish a more perfect Union. Not Perfect Union.
I'll keep pointing out your hatred towards Blacks and those you don't agree with that you disagree with Jefferson's equality at creation of life. Who cares about John Locke. Can't be proved and it doesn't change the wording. The words say all men are created equal with unalienable rights of life by our Creator, not any man. Creation begins at conception.

 

[mrjurrs]

From the following:

…
In the leaked draft, Alito jettisons both approaches. He describes Roe as an “elaborate scheme” devised “without any grounding in the constitutional text, history, or precedent” and dismisses the Casey viability standard as similarly contrived. His draft concludes that at no point in gestation should a person’s ability to end her pregnancy be beyond the control of her state’s legislature. Alito’s line of reasoning treats pregnancy as a binary matter: Either a uterus is occupied by a fetus or it is not. The owner and operator of that uterus doesn’t appear to deserve much of his consideration.
….

As a physician who specializes in high-risk pregnancies, I have cared for patients with a wide variety of complex medical troubles: metastatic cancer, kidney disease serious enough to require dialysis, heart conditions that make walking down the hallway an exhausting workout. For many of my patients, pregnancy hinders or simply prevents them from getting the right treatment for their chronic underlying illness. For others, pregnancy is what is making them sick, putting their heart or their brain at risk of permanent damage.

Recently, I discussed termination with a patient who came to my hospital at 21 weeks’ gestation with multiple organs in failure. Her pregnancy was killing her; ending it would save her life.


Read in The Atlantic: https://apple.news/A3cmoJvgdT52_N4AT0cEcHg

Well said, thanks for your work.

 

[mrjurrs]

Sounds nice but full of BS.
The bottom line is that a life is going to be lost by abortion. The big difference is one side believes in the sanctity of those lives and the other doesn't. It's not a human being is just an excuse to kill a baby that is an inconvenience to someone. There are so many ways to deal with this issue that doesn't include killing the child.. It's cold and callous to refer to the baby as a "clump of cells" and "not a human being". If not a human being then what? Dog, cat, tree, baby dolphin or whale? No, not dolphin or whale because the left cares more about those than humans.

So how long after a person dies do you consider them to be alive?

 

[minnie616]

Sounds nice but full of BS.
The bottom line is that a life is going to be lost by abortion. The big difference is one side believes in the sanctity of those lives and the other doesn't. It's not a human being is just an excuse to kill a baby that is an inconvenience to someone. There are so many ways to deal with this issue that doesn't include killing the child.. It's cold and callous to refer to the baby as a "clump of cells" and "not a human being". If not a human being then what? Dog, cat, tree, baby dolphin or whale? No, not dolphin or whale because the left cares more about those than humans.

The bottom line is that the pregnacy will very likely kill the women or cause irreparable damage to one of her major bodily functions ( such as stroke, heart attack, major kindney damage or liver damage) if the pregnancy continued.

So you think the woman has to continue to risk her life under those circumstances? It is more likely the doctor who ignores those symptoms will lose both the woman and un on.

Now you have 2 dead. Is that what you truly desire ?

 

[CaughtInThe]

He doesn't have to get pregnant. Why should he care?

 

[minnie616]

Once again, comprehension problems. The Declaration is exactly what that means. We declared our independence and the grievances such as the king wasn't giving all mankind the opportunity for equal rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. In this, the Founding Fathers agreed that all men (and woman) should be equal. When the battle was over, and it was time to organize the new government, compromise was necessary because of the differences of the North and South. What the South didn't realize is that the Northern politicians and Jefferson gave a pathway to equality for Blacks and Women. It took a long time in our current impatient world with computers but it happened. Thank God for inspiring our Founding Fathers to break away from Great Britain and establish a more perfect Union. Not Perfect Union.
I'll keep pointing out your hatred towards Blacks and those you don't agree with that you disagree with Jefferson's equality at creation of life. Who cares about John Locke. Can't be proved and it doesn't change the wording. The words say all men are created equal with unalienable rights of life by our Creator, not any man. Creation begins at conception.

I have no hatred against Blacks or women.

It took a civil war to grant rights blacks since the DOI did not grant slaves the so called basic natural right to life Liberty r the pursuit of happiness

It took the Nineteenth amendment to give women the right to vote.

Congress recently voted down an Equal Rights Amendment again.

The Unborn have never had any rights in the history of the US.
If you think they do please point out a law that that says the unborn has rights.

I will gladly tell you where it is not located.

It is not located in The US Constitution nor any of our Amendments including , The Bill of Rights.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Sounds nice but full of BS.
The bottom line is that a life is going to be lost by abortion. The big difference is one side believes in the sanctity of those lives and the other doesn't. It's not a human being is just an excuse to kill a baby that is an inconvenience to someone. There are so many ways to deal with this issue that doesn't include killing the child.. It's cold and callous to refer to the baby as a "clump of cells" and "not a human being". If not a human being then what? Dog, cat, tree, baby dolphin or whale? No, not dolphin or whale because the left cares more about those than humans.

Mighty CONVENIENT that your body will never suffer the ravages of pregnancy and childbirth, eh?

 

[Scrabaholic]

Once again, comprehension problems. The Declaration is exactly what that means. We declared our independence and the grievances such as the king wasn't giving all mankind the opportunity for equal rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. In this, the Founding Fathers agreed that all men (and woman) should be equal. When the battle was over, and it was time to organize the new government, compromise was necessary because of the differences of the North and South. What the South didn't realize is that the Northern politicians and Jefferson gave a pathway to equality for Blacks and Women. It took a long time in our current impatient world with computers but it happened. Thank God for inspiring our Founding Fathers to break away from Great Britain and establish a more perfect Union. Not Perfect Union.
I'll keep pointing out your hatred towards Blacks and those you don't agree with that you disagree with Jefferson's equality at creation of life. Who cares about John Locke. Can't be proved and it doesn't change the wording. The words say all men are created equal with unalienable rights of life by our Creator, not any man. Creation begins at conception.

Why are you lying about Minnie?

 

[HangLow]

Sounds nice but full of BS.
The bottom line is that a life is going to be lost by abortion. The big difference is one side believes in the sanctity of those lives and the other doesn't. It's not a human being is just an excuse to kill a baby that is an inconvenience to someone. There are so many ways to deal with this issue that doesn't include killing the child.. It's cold and callous to refer to the baby as a "clump of cells" and "not a human being". If not a human being then what? Dog, cat, tree, baby dolphin or whale? No, not dolphin or whale because the left cares more about those than humans.

on a side note; you guys just make shit up...
when did you have your last baby???
-peace

​

 

[choiceone]

John Locke's "natural law" had nothing to do with biology. It had to do with independent individual human beings capable of reason having rights to life, liberty, and property - that's what a person is. Embryos and fetuses are incapable of being independent individuals, to say nothing of being capable of reason.

Individual women today are capable of being independent individuals, because they are supposed to have equal educational and occupational opportunities and equal pay for equal work. If you don't think they are capable of reason, come out and say so or you're a coward. If you do think they are capable of reason, back off.

 

[HangLow]

From the following:

…
In the leaked draft, Alito jettisons both approaches. He describes Roe as an “elaborate scheme” devised “without any grounding in the constitutional text, history, or precedent” and dismisses the Casey viability standard as similarly contrived. His draft concludes that at no point in gestation should a person’s ability to end her pregnancy be beyond the control of her state’s legislature. Alito’s line of reasoning treats pregnancy as a binary matter: Either a uterus is occupied by a fetus or it is not. The owner and operator of that uterus doesn’t appear to deserve much of his consideration.
….

As a physician who specializes in high-risk pregnancies, I have cared for patients with a wide variety of complex medical troubles: metastatic cancer, kidney disease serious enough to require dialysis, heart conditions that make walking down the hallway an exhausting workout. For many of my patients, pregnancy hinders or simply prevents them from getting the right treatment for their chronic underlying illness. For others, pregnancy is what is making them sick, putting their heart or their brain at risk of permanent damage.

Recently, I discussed termination with a patient who came to my hospital at 21 weeks’ gestation with multiple organs in failure. Her pregnancy was killing her; ending it would save her life.


Read in The Atlantic: https://apple.news/A3cmoJvgdT52_N4AT0cEcHg

​

 

[choiceone]

For all you pro-life freaks -

The embryo before implantation may have life, but it has no capacity to grow and develop beyond 8-10 days. If it isn't implanted in a person's body, it dies. There have been attempts with mice to develop them in a petri dish. At first, implanting them in scaffolding and providing oxygenated nutrients wasn't enough - the scaffolding had to be coated with endometrial cells from the female's uterus. Then the coating wasn't enough, so researchers had to replicate the endometrial cells for a thick enough coating. The embryos did grow, into fetuses and almost to viability, but then they just died, all of them, and when examined, they were all hopelessly deformed, despite all the oxygen and nutrients.

So for now, if a human embryo isn't implanted in a person's body, it can't grow into a viable fetus, let alone be born as a human person.

This means that, for now, a human embryo has no hope of growing to become a human person without the woman's live body doing that growing. Without the woman, there is no additional human person.

At this point in the research, the only reasonable conclusion is that we were absolutely not created and endowed with the life of a human person by nothing but a creator other than the woman. You owe your life as a person to the woman as much as to any God you worship, whether you like it or not. To say otherwise is totally dishonest.

You want to prove she isn't necessary? You'd better wait till there is a whole lot more research. Meanwhile, sounds to me like ya'll just resent your own mothers. Sound like ingrates to me.