Roe vs Wade Overturned!

[thyme4change]

Aug 18, 2022 9:19:18 GMT -5 daisylu said:

Aug 17, 2022 20:39:09 GMT -5 Opti said:

Republican South Carolina state Rep. Neal Collins broke down in a hearing telling the story of a 19-year-old woman whose water broke at 15 weeks when the fetus wasn't viable. The so-called "heartbeat bill" that Collins voted to support, meant that the teen had to be sent home for the fetus to die inside her. The doctor told him there was a 50 percent chance the teen could lose her uterus and never be able to have children. There was a 10 percent chance she could die.



He made it clear he never realized the impact the law could have on the life and health of women.


www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/republican-men-are-getting-blindsided-by-their-own-ignorance-in-the-wake-of-roe-s-reversal/ar-AA10Ltge?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=5204cb4d26674bd289c17aecef4c696e

I was reading that this morning. At least he admitted to making a mistake. One of the biggest issues with this discussion arguing is that people get so single minded that they do not LISTEN to counter arguments.

Admitting the mistake is a good first step - but unless he does something about it and tries to fix the law, it is just uselss hot air and he deserves to burn in hell.

[thyme4change]

Aug 17, 2022 9:29:07 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

Facts at the time of treatment matter. A planned induction at term is likely not an issue. An unplanned induction done because the life of the mother is in danger is a judgment call, and is open to interpretation. If there is a rabid anti-abortion person working at the hospital, they may report it and it could lead to all kinds of legal trouble. Not worth the risk.

People make all kinds of assumptions about medical issues without all the facts. We cannot correct the public record due to privacy laws, so incorrect facts do not get challenged. Interpret issues with caution outside of a court of law.

But if the baby is alive and healthy and the family happily takes said baby home, how could they classify it as an abortion?

[pulmonarymd]

Aug 18, 2022 9:50:35 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Aug 17, 2022 9:29:07 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

Facts at the time of treatment matter. A planned induction at term is likely not an issue. An unplanned induction done because the life of the mother is in danger is a judgment call, and is open to interpretation. If there is a rabid anti-abortion person working at the hospital, they may report it and it could lead to all kinds of legal trouble. Not worth the risk.

People make all kinds of assumptions about medical issues without all the facts. We cannot correct the public record due to privacy laws, so incorrect facts do not get challenged. Interpret issues with caution outside of a court of law.

But if the baby is alive and healthy and the family happily takes said baby home, how could they classify it as an abortion?

It is not the family I would worry about. It is someone who has an agenda who would cause this to blow up. If things go right, maybe it isn't an issue. If things go wrong, there could be a whole lot of trouble. 

People do not get how physicians think. We plan for worst case scenarios, not hope for best case scenarios. We are risk averse, much like lawyers. These laws are poorly thought out and written. In the wrong hands, they could be a real problem. And I wouldn't trust prosecutors or judges in these states to rule in a physician's favor right now,  not with their rhetoric. They are proud they are passing laws without exemptions. Look at what the physician in Indiana is dealing with. It is not worth the risk

[Bonny]

Aug 18, 2022 10:18:55 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

Aug 18, 2022 9:50:35 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

But if the baby is alive and healthy and the family happily takes said baby home, how could they classify it as an abortion?

It is not the family I would worry about. It is someone who has an agenda who would cause this to blow up. If things go right, maybe it isn't an issue. If things go wrong, there could be a whole lot of trouble. 

People do not get how physicians think. We plan for worst case scenarios, not hope for best case scenarios. We are risk averse, much like lawyers. These laws are poorly thought out and written. In the wrong hands, they could be a real problem. And I wouldn't trust prosecutors or judges in these states to rule in a physician's favor right now,  not with their rhetoric. They are proud they are passing laws without exemptions. Look at what the physician in Indiana is dealing with. It is not worth the risk

I'm having some fun with my across the street neighbors (at my cabin in So. CA). He's a retired physician and she was their business manager. They ran a clinic here in town for about 20 years. Year round population just under 3,000; summers probably swell the population to around 4,500.


They are likely Trumpers but for sure are anti-abortion and definitely right-wingers. I stepped in it when I made a snarky remark about how my (deceased) father was a Fox "news" fan and how that made him intolerable to be around. When I mentioned the story of my miscarrige in 1994 and how a D & C was an abortion and how that wouldn't be allowed under many anti-abortion rules and my father's comment "oh that wouldn't be a problem" and my push back, the couple and I paused to step back and recognize we had very different views.

I'm looking forward to resuming the conversation. I really want to understand where they are coming from and I hope they will hear me...And that we can remain friends even if we come from very different places. 

OK maybe I'm looking forwared to a little  

I'm blaming the reddish hair!

[NastyWoman]

Aug 17, 2022 20:54:12 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Aug 17, 2022 20:39:09 GMT -5 Opti said:

Republican South Carolina state Rep. Neal Collins broke down in a hearing telling the story of a 19-year-old woman whose water broke at 15 weeks when the fetus wasn't viable. The so-called "heartbeat bill" that Collins voted to support, meant that the teen had to be sent home for the fetus to die inside her. The doctor told him there was a 50 percent chance the teen could lose her uterus and never be able to have children. There was a 10 percent chance she could die.



He made it clear he never realized the impact the law could have on the life and health of women.


www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/republican-men-are-getting-blindsided-by-their-own-ignorance-in-the-wake-of-roe-s-reversal/ar-AA10Ltge?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=5204cb4d26674bd289c17aecef4c696e

Actions have consequences.

 except IMO it is fair to say that very few of the "action takers", if any, are the ones that will have to bare the consequences. That part of the equation is left to others and in the case of teens those others do not even have the right to vote the suckers out of office.

[Tennesseer]

While the whole article irks me, I'm only quoting part of the article which really irks me.  I have heard of not prosecuting women who get an abortion but prosecuting the doctor from other states which have banned abortion.

Oklahoma AG urges prosecution for performing an abortion

Republican Attorney General John O'Connor, a fierce opponent of abortion, issued guidance for law enforcement and prosecutors on how to navigate the state's new anti-abortion laws, which make it a felony to perform an abortion in the state.



O'Connor emphasized that Oklahoma's criminal and civil anti-abortion laws do not apply to pregnant women who have an abortion, or to unintentional miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies or the use of contraception, including Plan B and other emergency contraceptives.



“None of our laws — civil or criminal — punish the mother in connection with an abortion,” O’Connor said in a statement.

Oklahoma AG urges prosecution for performing an abortion


I have never understood prosecuting only the doctor who performs an abortion but not prosecuting the woman who sought out the doctor to perform the abortion. It is akin to someone paying someone else to murder a third party and punishing only the person who committed the murder but not the person who sought out someone to commit murder and paying them to do so.  Can someone explain to me why these anti-abortion states prosecute only the medical field and not the woman seeking an abortion?

Having said that, I believe a woman has a right to determine what is best for herself.  The state has no business getting in the middle of a woman and her physician.

[billisonboard]

Sept 1, 2022 21:06:04 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

While the whole article irks me, I'm only quoting part of the article which really irks me.  I have heard of not prosecuting women who get an abortion but prosecuting the doctor from other states which have banned abortion.

Oklahoma AG urges prosecution for performing an abortion

Republican Attorney General John O'Connor, a fierce opponent of abortion, issued guidance for law enforcement and prosecutors on how to navigate the state's new anti-abortion laws, which make it a felony to perform an abortion in the state.



O'Connor emphasized that Oklahoma's criminal and civil anti-abortion laws do not apply to pregnant women who have an abortion, or to unintentional miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies or the use of contraception, including Plan B and other emergency contraceptives.



“None of our laws — civil or criminal — punish the mother in connection with an abortion,” O’Connor said in a statement.

Oklahoma AG urges prosecution for performing an abortion


I have never understood prosecuting only the doctor who performs an abortion but not prosecuting the woman who sought out the doctor to perform the abortion. It is akin to someone paying someone else to murder a third party and punishing only the person who committed the murder but not the person who sought out someone to commit murder and paying them to do so.  Can someone explain to me why these anti-abortion states prosecute only the medical field and not the woman seeking an abortion?

Having said that, I believe a woman has a right to determine what is best for herself.  The state has no business getting in the middle of a woman and her physician.

I think it is a lack of respect for women.

[TheOtherMe]

It's worse than a lack of respect.  It's more hatred for women and their intelligence.

Doesn't Texas have a reward for telling on people who get an abortion?

[billisonboard]

Sept 1, 2022 21:44:22 GMT -5 TheOtherMe said:

It's worse than a lack of respect.  It's more hatred for women and their intelligence.

Doesn't Texas have a reward for telling on people who get an abortion?

So if you hate women you don't prosecute them for what you consider to be a crime?

[TheOtherMe]

Yes women should be prosecuted for crimes they commit but abortion or anything to do with it should NOT be a crime--EVER.

[finnime]

I think going after the doctor rather than the patient is simply political expedience. Women needing an abortion can garner the sympathy vote from most people. The doctor doesn't have that same human appeal. Medical professionals are the authority figures in these scenarios.

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

Sept 2, 2022 2:16:58 GMT -5 finnime said:

I think going after the doctor rather than the patient is simply political expedience. Women needing an abortion can garner the sympathy vote from most people. The doctor doesn't have that same human appeal. Medical professionals are the authority figures in these scenarios.

I think too it's to stir up fear in the medical community.  Trying to prosecute every woman who attempts to get one is a game of whack a mole.  You aren't going to stop every woman in America.

They CAN try to scare the medical community to the point where you can't find a single doctor who will cooperate.  If you can't find a doctor then that's it.

They do this in rural areas by driving out Planned Parenthood and other independent clinics. CHI or other private religious hospitals come in to buy the local one and institute strict religious doctrine you now have no choice but to follow.  Then you institute a 6 week ban.  Since pregnancy is back dated according to your last period you're already past the point where you can get one before you've even been able to arrange to get out to Ames or wherever you need to go to find care.

Going after the doctors is an attempt to control women who don't have other options.

The rich wives, daughters and mistresses of the policy makers will continue to hop on their private planes and go to Mexico or other countries to get their abortions.

[billisonboard]

Sept 2, 2022 8:14:19 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

Sept 2, 2022 2:16:58 GMT -5 finnime said:

I think going after the doctor rather than the patient is simply political expedience. Women needing an abortion can garner the sympathy vote from most people. The doctor doesn't have that same human appeal. Medical professionals are the authority figures in these scenarios.

I think too it's to stir up fear in the medical community.  Trying to prosecute every woman who attempts to get one is a game of whack a mole.  You aren't going to stop every woman in America.

They CAN try to scare the medical community to the point where you can't find a single doctor who will cooperate.  If you can't find a doctor then that's it.

They do this in rural areas by driving out Planned Parenthood and other independent clinics.  Then you institute a 6 week ban.  Since pregnancy is back dated according to your last period you're already past the point where you can get one before you've even been able to arrange to get out to Ames or wherever you need to go to find care.

Going after the doctors is an attempt to control women who don't have other options.

The rich wives, daughters and mistresses of the policy makers will continue to hop on their private planes and go to Mexico or other countries to get their abortions.

Wouldn't passing a law that also provides criminal penalties for women seeking/having an abortion have a similar chilling effect as well? You won't have to prosecute all, a few high profile cases would have an impact.

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

Sept 2, 2022 8:28:46 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Sept 2, 2022 8:14:19 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

I think too it's to stir up fear in the medical community.  Trying to prosecute every woman who attempts to get one is a game of whack a mole.  You aren't going to stop every woman in America.

They CAN try to scare the medical community to the point where you can't find a single doctor who will cooperate.  If you can't find a doctor then that's it.

They do this in rural areas by driving out Planned Parenthood and other independent clinics.  Then you institute a 6 week ban.  Since pregnancy is back dated according to your last period you're already past the point where you can get one before you've even been able to arrange to get out to Ames or wherever you need to go to find care.

Going after the doctors is an attempt to control women who don't have other options.

The rich wives, daughters and mistresses of the policy makers will continue to hop on their private planes and go to Mexico or other countries to get their abortions.

Wouldn't passing a law that also provides criminal penalties for women seeking/having an abortion have a similar chilling effect as well? You won't have to prosecute all, a few high profile cases would have an impact.

Maybe.  But to be honest I don't think it stops at abortion.  This is making sure I don't have any autonomy at all in regards to my care.   They want doctors twisted into legal knots to the point where they aren't going to come near my uterus or hoo ha with a ten foot pole.

We already have had several cases here in my area of women almost dying during miscarriage because instead of helping they are sent home because doctors at the Catholic hospital can be disciplined if they intervene while there is still a heart beat.

That's a way more effective way to discourage me to seek out medical attention don't you think?   I may be willing to risk a court case and jail time.  And just like with everything else criminal I may believe I won't be the one who gets caught. 

The thought I could seek help and end up bleeding out while doctors watch because they don't want to get sued is much much more terrifying IMO.

[billisonboard]

Sept 2, 2022 8:46:26 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

Sept 2, 2022 8:28:46 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Wouldn't passing a law that also provides criminal penalties for women seeking/having an abortion have a similar chilling effect as well? You won't have to prosecute all, a few high profile cases would have an impact.

Maybe.  But to be honest I don't think it stops at abortion.  This is making sure I don't have any autonomy at all in regards to my care.   They want doctors twisted into legal knots to the point where they aren't going to come near my uterus or hoo ha with a ten foot pole.

We already have had several cases here in my area of women almost dying during miscarriage because instead of helping they are sent home because doctors at the Catholic hospital can be disciplined if they intervene while there is still a heart beat.

That's a way more effective way to discourage me to seek out medical attention don't you think?   I may be willing to risk a court case and jail time.  And just like with everything else criminal I may believe I won't be the one who gets caught. 

The thought I could seek help and end up bleeding out while doctors watch because they don't want to get sued is much much more terrifying IMO.

I don't see it as either/or.

[Tennesseer]

Using the prosecute the doctor but not the woman decision, should a person in Oklahoma who pays someone else to kill a third party not be charged?   

The person who paid someone to murder someone else could use Oklahoma's abortion laws to not be prosecuted. 

In both above situations, someone paid someone else to end a life.

[daisylu]

Tennesseer & billisonboard

You are trying to argue these points rationally. This is not how pro-lifers work. Though we really should be calling them pro-birthers, as they give zero f*cks after a baby is born.

[TheOtherMe]

  Thank you daisylu

[billisonboard]

Sept 2, 2022 10:42:38 GMT -5 daisylu said:

Tennesseer & billisonboard

You are trying to argue these points rationally. This is not how pro-lifers work. Though we really should be calling them pro-birthers, as they give zero f*cks after a baby is born.

l agree a lot of people on all sides of the abortion issue use emotional rather than rational arguments. I don't think it is true of all on any side.

[tallguy]

Sept 2, 2022 12:12:48 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Sept 2, 2022 10:42:38 GMT -5 daisylu said:

Tennesseer & billisonboard

You are trying to argue these points rationally. This is not how pro-lifers work. Though we really should be calling them pro-birthers, as they give zero f*cks after a baby is born.

l agree a lot of people on all sides of the abortion issue use emotional rather than rational arguments. I don't think it is true of all on any side.

Have to disagree.  The entire anti-abortion argument is based on the belief that life begins at conception.  That is necessarily either a personal or religious belief, since science and medicine cannot answer that question.  If you are basing your position on either a personal or religious belief with no science, logic, or reason to backstop that belief, isn't that by definition emotional rather than rational?

[billisonboard]

Sept 3, 2022 11:25:40 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Sept 2, 2022 12:12:48 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

l agree a lot of people on all sides of the abortion issue use emotional rather than rational arguments. I don't think it is true of all on any side.

Have to disagree.  The entire anti-abortion argument is based on the belief that life begins at conception.  That is necessarily either a personal or religious belief, since science and medicine cannot answer that question.  If you are basing your position on either a personal or religious belief with no science, logic, or reason to backstop that belief, isn't that by definition emotional rather than rational?

Yes, if ..., then ...

There are also those who argue life does not begin at conception and, based on that, abortion should be an option. That would also be an emotional argument.

[tallguy]

Sept 3, 2022 11:40:10 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Sept 3, 2022 11:25:40 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Have to disagree.  The entire anti-abortion argument is based on the belief that life begins at conception.  That is necessarily either a personal or religious belief, since science and medicine cannot answer that question.  If you are basing your position on either a personal or religious belief with no science, logic, or reason to backstop that belief, isn't that by definition emotional rather than rational?

Yes, if ..., then ...

There are also those who argue life does not begin at conception and, based on that, abortion should be an option. That would also be an emotional argument.

If that were their argument.  How many people are saying that life definitively does not begin at conception?  Any?  The pro-choice argument is that we do not know, so cannot use that as the basis for law.  Some go beyond that and say that even if we did know, the right of the woman to choose is more important than the "right" of the unborn to be born.  Even the second argument is not necessarily an emotional one, given that it is a question of priority and not simply belief.

[Opti]

Sept 3, 2022 12:07:15 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Sept 3, 2022 11:40:10 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Yes, if ..., then ...

There are also those who argue life does not begin at conception and, based on that, abortion should be an option. That would also be an emotional argument.

If that were their argument.  How many people are saying that life definitively does not begin at conception?  Any?  The pro-choice argument is that we do not know, so cannot use that as the basis for law.  Some go beyond that and say that even if we did know, the right of the woman to choose is more important than the "right" of the unborn to be born.  Even the second argument is not necessarily an emotional one, given that it is a question of priority and not simply belief.

Well some religions believe to be fully human one must have a soul. Some believe the soul enters the fetus somewhere around the 3rd to 6th month of gestation. 

[tallguy]

Sept 3, 2022 12:15:03 GMT -5 Opti said:

Sept 3, 2022 12:07:15 GMT -5 tallguy said:

If that were their argument.  How many people are saying that life definitively does not begin at conception?  Any?  The pro-choice argument is that we do not know, so cannot use that as the basis for law.  Some go beyond that and say that even if we did know, the right of the woman to choose is more important than the "right" of the unborn to be born.  Even the second argument is not necessarily an emotional one, given that it is a question of priority and not simply belief.

Well some religions believe to be fully human one must have a soul. Some believe the soul enters the fetus somewhere around the 3rd to 6th month of gestation. 

Irrelevant.  That is again either a personal or religious belief.  And again, that can never be legitimately used as the basis for law in a secular and pluralistic society.  Religious beliefs alone are not valid for that end regardless of which side they support.

[Opti]

The sperm and the egg are alive prior to joining. I don't think when life begins is a great basis for laws on abortion. 

[Tennesseer]

A New York Times article.  So it is behind a pay wall.

Is a Fetus a Person? An Anti-Abortion Strategy Says Yes.

Fetal personhood, which confers legal rights from conception, is an effort to push beyond abortion bans and classify the procedure as murder. In Georgia, it also means a $3,000 tax credit.

Even as roughly half the states have moved to enact near-total bans on abortion since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June, anti-abortion activists are pushing for a long-held and more absolute goal: laws that grant fetuses the same legal rights and protections as any person.

So-called fetal personhood laws would make abortion murder, ruling out all or most of the exceptions for abortion allowed in states that already ban it. So long as Roe established a constitutional right to abortion, such laws remained symbolic in the few states that managed to pass them. Now they are starting to have practical effect. Already in Georgia, a fetus now qualifies for tax credits and child support, and is to be included in population counts and redistricting.

The laws also open up questions well beyond abortion, about immigration and who is entitled to public benefits.

They have the potential to criminalize common health care procedures and limit the rights of a pregnant woman in making health care decisions.

The U.S. Supreme Court decision returning the regulation of abortion to the states has opened new interest in the laws, and a new legal path for them.

In Indiana, where this month the Republican-controlled legislature banned abortion starting at conception — one of the strictest laws in the nation — some conservative lawmakers objected that the law included exceptions for rape and incest. “This bill justifies the wicked, those murdering babies, and punishes the righteous, the preborn human being,” one lawmaker said, pushing instead for a fetal personhood law with no exceptions.

In Georgia, a law granting fetal personhood to fetuses after around six weeks of pregnancy took effect after the overturning of Roe. But Georgia Right to Life and other conservative groups are petitioning Governor Brian Kemp to call a special legislative session to pass a fetal personhood amendment to the state constitution. It would eliminate any exceptions for abortion allowed in the law, by declaring a “paramount right to life of all human beings as persons at any stage of development from fertilization to natural death.”

And this month, Republicans in the U.S. House and Senate, urged by anti-abortion groups, introduced legislation that would establish a right to child support for fetuses beginning at conception. Such a mandate might be difficult to enforce but would nudge federal law toward an understanding that fetuses have the same right to life as other human beings, including the women who carry them.

The goal is to establish a federal ban on abortion, through legislation or another Supreme Court decision.

“Personhood has always been the ultimate ambition of the anti-abortion movement,” said Mary Ziegler, a law professor and historian of abortion at the University of California, Davis. “The movement very much wants a declaration that abortion is a human rights and constitutional rights violation. Not just that it’s a crime; that it’s unconstitutional. From a symbolic standpoint, that’s a really big deal to a lot of people in the movement.”

How much support the laws will find will not be clear until state legislative sessions begin early next year and will depend on whether Republicans take control of Congress in the midterms. But for anti-abortion advocates, simply returning the regulation of abortion to the states was never enough.

“Life begins at conception,” Representative Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, said in proposing the Unborn Child Support Act in Congress this month, “and this bill is a straightforward first step towards updating our federal laws to reflect that fact.”

The push for fetal personhood began even before the Roe decision in 1973, largely among Catholics who were upset that states were loosening broad bans on abortion to allow exceptions in the case of rape or incest, or to protect the life of the pregnant woman.

In the Roe decision, the Supreme Court prohibited states from banning abortion before a fetus can survive outside the womb, which is now around 23 or 24 weeks. The justices identified a right to abortion in the Fourteenth Amendment, declaring that the word “person” in that amendment did “not include the unborn.”

Rest of article here:  Is a Fetus a Person? An Anti-Abortion Strategy Says Yes.

If states begin saying human fetuses are people at the moment of conception, then shouldn't pet/animal owners be charged with animal cruelty when they get their female dogs, cats, etc. spayed while they are pregnant. The fetus cats and dogs are destroyed during the spaying process.

[tallguy]

Sept 3, 2022 12:47:12 GMT -5 Opti said:

The sperm and the egg are alive prior to joining. I don't think when life begins is a great basis for laws on abortion. 

Of course not, which is why I don't use it.  The anti-abortion side DOES use it however.  In fact, it is the basis for their entire argument and position.  (It should not need to be clarified that we are talking about "human" life here.)

[Tennesseer]

Sept 3, 2022 15:10:28 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Sept 3, 2022 12:47:12 GMT -5 Opti said:

The sperm and the egg are alive prior to joining. I don't think when life begins is a great basis for laws on abortion. 

Of course not, which is why I don't use it.  The anti-abortion side DOES use it however.  In fact, it is the basis for their entire argument and position.  (It should not need to be clarified that we are talking about "human" life here.)

If your "Human" life is in reference to my above post, I was making a point how creating a law that human life begins at conception can be used in other types of law suits such as ending an animal's pregnancy just because one doesn't want their pet having any more offspring could be considered animal cruelty.

Some times laws have unintended consequences and can be used in other legal disputes.

And if a law is created that life begins at creation, I would like to see tubal ligation be legally available to any and every woman above the age of consent whether single or married, and if married, without the permission of their spouse.

[tallguy]

Sept 3, 2022 16:32:54 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Sept 3, 2022 15:10:28 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Of course not, which is why I don't use it.  The anti-abortion side DOES use it however.  In fact, it is the basis for their entire argument and position.  (It should not need to be clarified that we are talking about "human" life here.)

If your "Human" life is in reference to my above post, I was making a point how creating a law that human life begins at conception can be used in other types of law suits such as ending an animal's pregnancy just because one doesn't want their pet having any more offspring could be considered animal cruelty.

Some times laws have unintended consequences and can be used in other legal disputes.

And if a law is created that life begins at creation, I would like to see tubal ligation be legally available to any and every woman above the age of consent whether single or married, and if married, without the permission of their spouse.

No, it wasn't.  It was in reference to the above-quoted poster saying that, "The sperm and the egg are alive...."

Be assured that if I were going to respond to multiple posters, I would do it individually in almost all cases.   

[The Walk of the Penguin Mich]

Sept 3, 2022 15:10:28 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Sept 3, 2022 12:47:12 GMT -5 Opti said:

The sperm and the egg are alive prior to joining. I don't think when life begins is a great basis for laws on abortion. 

Of course not, which is why I don't use it.  The anti-abortion side DOES use it however.  In fact, it is the basis for their entire argument and position.  (It should not need to be clarified that we are talking about "human" life here.)

If you consider that from one article I read that nearly 70% of fertilized eggs never implant, or spontaneously abort, it is impossible to determine where the cleaving of an egg and sperm will result in a fetus….most likely, it will not.  This really doesn't help this theory.  

theconversation.com/most-human-embryos-naturally-die-after-conception-restrictive-abortion-laws-fail-to-take-this-embryo-loss-into-account-187904