What's ridiculous is the idea that life "starts." Life is a continuum. If life ends, it doesn't spontaneously "start" again. It stays dead. So this line of reasoning is spurious.
There is a problem with the way Roe/Casey are worded, or have been applied, I think, and that has to do with the right to abort being tied to viability, which keeps getting sooner and sooner after pregnancy, as technology improves. There really isn't a good standard of "viability," in that does it mean survive if kept in an incubator for 2 months? At whose cost? And what if the quality of that child's life is permanently seriously compromised because of being such an unformed preemie? Upon whom does the burden of that child's life fall?
The ability to keep babies technically alive sooner and sooner has also skewed infant mortality rate data, as more babies are "born" that would, just 20 or 30 years ago, have been miscarriages, but die because they weren't really viable. All of this falls under technology and medical ethics and other considerations, most of which no one has seriously debated. So if a new law is legislated, will it be tied to viability? It's something to think about. I don't know what the answer is, either to the legal question or how it could affect the lives of the women involved. I just see a problem looming, not too far off, when we could be forced to carry pregnancies because the "viability" date becomes so early.
Bitch looks like a pink frosted cake with a couple of dead googly eyes on top
It's like Hillary working with Putin to lose the election so they could blame it on TFG.
He sorta, kinda has something of a chin. That's considered superior genetic material in his little corner of the gene pool.
Stay tuned. These guys always deliver on the hat trick.
Ta, Evan.
Great. So whatcha gonna do about it, Joe? Not a goddamned thing, I'm sure.
Use the bible they're so often thumping against them. It ADVOCATES abortion, and states that the fetus isn't a person until first breath.
Fuck these people.
It's the ricochets that'll do you in.
You do that with your quarters in the vending machines, don't you, you, you stinker, you.
Is furry bowing pin! ( I have a fatto catto too.)
It's not like they have any shame or listen to their constituents anyway. Yelling at Republican legislators doesn't do a goddamn thing.
And that's exactly what the end of the quote says. Mr. Beese is being disingenuous.
sigh... I am so tired of people thinking the President is an omnipotent Fuehrer. It's bad enough when the right does it.
What's ridiculous is the idea that life "starts." Life is a continuum. If life ends, it doesn't spontaneously "start" again. It stays dead. So this line of reasoning is spurious.
Agreed.
There is a problem with the way Roe/Casey are worded, or have been applied, I think, and that has to do with the right to abort being tied to viability, which keeps getting sooner and sooner after pregnancy, as technology improves. There really isn't a good standard of "viability," in that does it mean survive if kept in an incubator for 2 months? At whose cost? And what if the quality of that child's life is permanently seriously compromised because of being such an unformed preemie? Upon whom does the burden of that child's life fall?
The ability to keep babies technically alive sooner and sooner has also skewed infant mortality rate data, as more babies are "born" that would, just 20 or 30 years ago, have been miscarriages, but die because they weren't really viable. All of this falls under technology and medical ethics and other considerations, most of which no one has seriously debated. So if a new law is legislated, will it be tied to viability? It's something to think about. I don't know what the answer is, either to the legal question or how it could affect the lives of the women involved. I just see a problem looming, not too far off, when we could be forced to carry pregnancies because the "viability" date becomes so early.