Re: Fed judge: Texas abortion limits unconstitutional
1.) got it but as soon as you say accept it goes back to what ive been saying. I dont accept people denying equal rights to gays.
Yet, in some areas that is the law, and you must accept it as current law in those areas, apart from lobbying to change it and protesting, etc.
Or going outside the law.
THAT is my point.
2.) well since abortion itself doesn't kill anything no they don't, abortion end pregnancy. The life of the ZEF is meaningless to the abortion. This is why there are laws in place for when the ZEF lives.
now with that said yes the super vast majority of ZEFs don't live because of how the procedure is performed and because they are done before viability.
But pointing this in this way is no more valid than saying shooting an intruder kills a human. :shrug:
its again a crossover and collision of rights, one must be choose and this is ONE sided
Abortion, in the vast majority of cases, ends the possibility that what is removed could develop into a functional human. This is my criteria for what constitutes a life, or in this case, a potential life - it may not be human yet, but it will be, given a chance and no inherent issues.
Shooting an intruder IS killing a human. In such a situation, the intruder's right to life collides with the intrudee's right to life and/or property, and the law states (depending on the specific law in that area, and the circumstances of the shooting), the one intruded upon is in the right.
In much the same way, (IMO) an abortion takes place when the future human's right to life (yes, I'm assigning a right to life to the ZEF, or whatever you call it) collides with the potential mother's right to choose (and possibly, right to life, depending on the case) - and the law has determined that the right to choose is paramount.
3.) same thing as 2 but the opposite direction. A crossover and collision of rights again and this way is also very one sides in the other direction.
now be clear, i am fine with anybody having these opinions they are free to them just like i am to mine but where it gets tricky is typically thier defense of 2 or 3 is hypocritical. People talk about life and human rights and killing and those things go BOTH ways.
so while you can say they have a point, to argue in one direction ignores there equal counter point
In my mind, both positions are, depending on how argued, valid and accurate - even though directly opposed. Which is why I will not be happy with either position.
4.) not really because the wrong interpretation can negate the factuality
Yet if you do not know the entire process behind an interpretation, how would you know that the fact had been invalidated?
sweet
6.) depending on the part i agree
The two points I specifically clarified, which you labeled 2 and 3.
7.) i guess but opinions are just opinions
Until they become law. Where did
you think laws came from?
sweet x 2
9.) if this was possible it would be awesome but i dont think it will ever happen.
even if something awesome like an eco-womb was invented unless the ZEF could be teleported it would still be tricky because the procedure would have to be forced on her and it also wouldn't change viability.
But again i do agree with you, if there was a solution that actually granted equal rights and equal treatment i would elected that choice in a second!
It's science-fiction at the moment.
And it would have to be a choice - the only choice removed would be killing the potential human (as I prefer to refer to the fetus/ZEF/whatever). The woman could choose to carry the child naturally, of course.