Alabama abortion ban: Republican senate

[ExpandMyMind]

1 minute ago, RavenHawk said:

So you admit that you are uneducated too?  I guess that is fair.  But seriously, who is ignoring science?  This is the opinion of a doctor and lawmaker.

 

When it comes to science, I generally stand with the concensus. 

[aztek]

24 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

Ok, I will just quote the 3 exceptions for you.  FROM THE BILL.  

 

the bill is about SURGICAL abortions,  there are other ways, not surgical

[RavenHawk]

1 minute ago, ExpandMyMind said:

When it comes to science, I generally stand with the concensus. 

Well, the first thing is, science is not a consensus.  What does science have to do with this anyway?  We are talking about the statements of a doctor and lawmaker saying that he would support such a bill.  Going further and explaining how it would work.

[+OverSword]

15 minutes ago, and then said:

This whole outrage is a tempest in a teapot anyway.  Have you watched Kavanaugh's voting record?  He's another Roberts.  No way RvW gets overturned.  America is quite okay with the butchering of the millions.  We're far more apt to err on the side of NY's law than on these from southern states.  

When asked during his confirmation hearing if he was for or against RvW, Kavanaugh’s answer was consistent. Legal abortion is the law of the land. This was his answer because he knows good and well that his opinion doesn’t matter. It’s been ruled on. Alabama is wasting time and they know it. 

Edited May 15, 2019 by OverSword

[Jerry Gallo]

18 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Really? Are there any papers or journals you'd like to quote for me?

https://www.lifenews.com/2015/01/08/41-quotes-from-medical-textbooks-prove-human-life-begins-at-conception/

[+and-then]

10 minutes ago, OverSword said:

When asked during his confirmation hearing if he was for or against RvW, Kavanaugh’s answer was consistent. Legal abortion is the law of the land. This was his answer because he knows good and well that his opinion doesn’t matter. It’s been ruled on. Alabama is wasting time and they know it. 

Probably, but people down here are inured to "lost causes"   It's more about making a statement.  The fact that it has stirred so much outrage shows where the mind of the country is.  So be it.  Just because the majority is against you doesn't mean you are wrong.  There is nothing wrong with making a statement of belief.

[+and-then]

53 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Irrelevant. All courts, even the Supreme Court are obliged to rule according to precedent. Legal abortion during the first trimester is the law of the land. Federal laws trump conflicting state laws so this is just political theater.

Is the law just passed in New York, political theater?  I doubt it would be overturned.  It will simply add weight to the "precedent" of legal "choices" for women.  It is an ABOMINATION to legalize the killing of a child that could be born alive within hours and regardless what propaganda is spewed by the Left that is exactly what that law allows.  IMO the state of New York has damned its collective soul with that law.  They can ignore and deny the existence of God but they will not ignore His justice when it comes on them.  He is not mocked.  

[RavenHawk]

I think the reason for it being so strict was to ensure it made its way to the Supreme Court.  The question is still about Rights.  A woman has a Right to her body.  But the thing is, is that there is another life directly involved here.  The fetus is still a part of the woman but being such, the woman has the responsibility to protect that life.  A woman has the right to cut off her head but is that allowed?  Abortion is more than just the woman's prerogative.  If a wrong is committed against the woman that results in pregnancy, is it right to punish the new life?  With that said, I do not want to see RvW overturned.  I don't want to see abortion become illegal, but it definitely needs to be revisited and redefined.  I believe that women have far more miscarriages than is actually recorded.  I always hear a woman proclaim that she thought she was pregnant and nothing comes of it.  More than likely she was, the fetus was just not viable and the body passed it.  I believe that this kind a miscarriage happens to women all the time.  It is only logical.  It is just a biological function (not every soufflé makes it).  What is the difference between such a miscarriage and an abortion?

 

If you don’t see much difference then you can see where there might be Biblical support of abortion.  What is it that makes us, us?  It is our soul.  We need to understand what that is.  Jeremiah stated that before he was in his mother’s womb, GOD knew him.  That would seem to imply that there are different parts to the soul.  And indeed in Jewish Kabballah, there are 5 parts of the soul (Nefesh, Ruach, Neshamah, Chayah, and Yechidah).  This parallels ancient Egyptian concepts, so the idea has been with us for a very long time.  All life has a soul.  At least a basic rudimentary one.  I would think that the Nefesh and Ruach develop within the womb, Neshamah at birth, and the other two after birth.  What these mean and their relationship is what needs to be brought into this discussion.

 

The Bible talks about the Tares among us.  Tares are weeds that look like wheat early on.  It is virtually impossible to tell the difference.  They were allowed to grow with the wheat until harvest then they are removed and burned.  Tares are thought of as being ‘soul less’.  But I think this is referring to the higher levels (not developing).  If you take a Tare and compare them with someone with access to all five levels of soul, you probably can’t tell.  Perhaps even the Tare does not know??  Another implication from Jeremiah is that we are predestined to be born and nothing can prevent that.  So based on that stipulation, it is mostly the Tares that are aborted or miscarried.  Actually, it would be all that are aborted or miscarried are Tares because the other three parts never meld.

 

It is in this area that the Supreme Court will have to consider when this gets there.  This is something we as a people have not really delved into much but if we are going have abortion, this subject should be thoroughly investigated.  We should be fully aware of the implications and repercussions so that we can make truly informed decisions.

[ExpandMyMind]

31 minutes ago, Jerry Gallo said:

https://www.lifenews.com/2015/01/08/41-quotes-from-medical-textbooks-prove-human-life-begins-at-conception/

I read the first 10 and zero of them actually prove your point.

That human life begins at conception is not in doubt - all living cells are a form of life - but that is not the abortion debate.

[Setton]

55 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

 What does science have to do with this anyway? 

Republican 2020 tag line. 

26 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

I think the reason for it being so strict was to ensure it made its way to the Supreme Court.  The question is still about Rights.  A woman has a Right to her body.  But the thing is, is that there is another life directly involved here.  The fetus is still a part of the woman but being such, the woman has the responsibility to protect that life.  A woman has the right to cut off her head but is that allowed?  Abortion is more than just the woman's prerogative.  If a wrong is committed against the woman that results in pregnancy, is it right to punish the new life?  With that said, I do not want to see RvW overturned.  I don't want to see abortion become illegal, but it definitely needs to be revisited and redefined.  I believe that women have far more miscarriages than is actually recorded.  I always hear a woman proclaim that she thought she was pregnant and nothing comes of it.  More than likely she was, the fetus was just not viable and the body passed it.  I believe that this kind a miscarriage happens to women all the time.  It is only logical.  It is just a biological function (not every soufflé makes it).  What is the difference between such a miscarriage and an abortion?

 

 

 

If you don’t see much difference then you can see where there might be Biblical support of abortion.  What is it that makes us, us?  It is our soul.  We need to understand what that is.  Jeremiah stated that before he was in his mother’s womb, GOD knew him.  That would seem to imply that there are different parts to the soul.  And indeed in Jewish Kabballah, there are 5 parts of the soul (Nefesh, Ruach, Neshamah, Chayah, and Yechidah).  This parallels ancient Egyptian concepts, so the idea has been with us for a very long time.  All life has a soul.  At least a basic rudimentary one.  I would think that the Nefesh and Ruach develop within the womb, Neshamah at birth, and the other two after birth.  What these mean and their relationship is what needs to be brought into this discussion.

 

 

 

The Bible talks about the Tares among us.  Tares are weeds that look like wheat early on.  It is virtually impossible to tell the difference.  They were allowed to grow with the wheat until harvest then they are removed and burned.  Tares are thought of as being ‘soul less’.  But I think this is referring to the higher levels (not developing).  If you take a Tare and compare them with someone with access to all five levels of soul, you probably can’t tell.  Perhaps even the Tare does not know??  Another implication from Jeremiah is that we are predestined to be born and nothing can prevent that.  So based on that stipulation, it is mostly the Tares that are aborted or miscarried.  Actually, it would be all that are aborted or miscarried are Tares because the other three parts never meld.

 

 

 

It is in this area that the Supreme Court will have to consider when this gets there.  This is something we as a people have not really delved into much but if we are going have abortion, this subject should be thoroughly investigated.  We should be fully aware of the implications and repercussions so that we can make truly informed decisions.

Ah, science has nothing to do with it so let's turn to a book of contradictory stories. 

Are you trying to be a caricature? 

[Jerry Gallo]

9 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

I think the reason for it being so strict was to ensure it made its way to the Supreme Court.  The question is still about Rights.  A woman has a Right to her body.  But the thing is, is that there is another life directly involved here.  The fetus is still a part of the woman but being such, the woman has the responsibility to protect that life.  A woman has the right to cut off her head but is that allowed?  Abortion is more than just the woman's prerogative.  If a wrong is committed against the woman that results in pregnancy, is it right to punish the new life?  With that said, I do not want to see RvW overturned.  I don't want to see abortion become illegal, but it definitely needs to be revisited and redefined.  I believe that women have far more miscarriages than is actually recorded.  I always hear a woman proclaim that she thought she was pregnant and nothing comes of it.  More than likely she was, the fetus was just not viable and the body passed it.  I believe that this kind a miscarriage happens to women all the time.  It is only logical.  It is just a biological function (not every soufflé makes it).  What is the difference between such a miscarriage and an abortion?

 

 

 

If you don’t see much difference then you can see where there might be Biblical support of abortion.  What is it that makes us, us?  It is our soul.  We need to understand what that is.  Jeremiah stated that before he was in his mother’s womb, GOD knew him.  That would seem to imply that there are different parts to the soul.  And indeed in Jewish Kabballah, there are 5 parts of the soul (Nefesh, Ruach, Neshamah, Chayah, and Yechidah).  This parallels ancient Egyptian concepts, so the idea has been with us for a very long time.  All life has a soul.  At least a basic rudimentary one.  I would think that the Nefesh and Ruach develop within the womb, Neshamah at birth, and the other two after birth.  What these mean and their relationship is what needs to be brought into this discussion.

 

 

 

The Bible talks about the Tares among us.  Tares are weeds that look like wheat early on.  It is virtually impossible to tell the difference.  They were allowed to grow with the wheat until harvest then they are removed and burned.  Tares are thought of as being ‘soul less’.  But I think this is referring to the higher levels (not developing).  If you take a Tare and compare them with someone with access to all five levels of soul, you probably can’t tell.  Perhaps even the Tare does not know??  Another implication from Jeremiah is that we are predestined to be born and nothing can prevent that.  So based on that stipulation, it is mostly the Tares that are aborted or miscarried.  Actually, it would be all that are aborted or miscarried are Tares because the other three parts never meld.

 

 

 

It is in this area that the Supreme Court will have to consider when this gets there.  This is something we as a people have not really delved into much but if we are going have abortion, this subject should be thoroughly investigated.  We should be fully aware of the implications and repercussions so that we can make truly informed decisions.

It is clear that SCOTUS loosely translated Due Process and Right to Privacy as justification for "pro-choice". What is also clear is that Roe pretty much referred to first trimester abortion as the practical matter. Thus, when states like NY guarantee abortions up to the due date, other states decided to push SCOTUS to at least define what was intended as far as mid-to-late term abortion. Again, this is an issue where one side is expected to acquiesce to the other without limits. We've seen academics push for post-birth abortion, we've seen a governor refer to that possibility, and we now have the NY law. We know the majority of the country is pro-Roe, but anti-second and anti-third trimester abortion. I think Alabama is trying to force some quid pro quo compromise and if that is their true intention, I support that 100%. Enough is enough.

Two things I think will be interesting. One, RBG has made some comments in the past about late term abortion. Kagan is Jewish. I don't think either would ever vote to overturn Roe, but they may be willing to define it as first trimester with exceptions. Two, what happens with one or two more Conservative justices if the left refuses to concede anything. Would they have enough votes to define first trimester as the practical matter.

[RavenHawk]

1 minute ago, Setton said:

Republican 2020 tag line. 

Ah, science has nothing to do with it so let's turn to a book of contradictory stories. 

Are you trying to be a caricature? 

Clearly this is over your head.  The first response was one train of thought.  The second one was a different one.

[Setton]

Just now, RavenHawk said:

Clearly this is over your head. 

No, I just happen to agree with the scientific consensus and literally every civilised country on the planet. 

Quote

The first response was one train of thought.  The second one was a different one.

I think your train of thought is still boarding at the station. 

[ExpandMyMind]

1 hour ago, RavenHawk said:

What does science have to do with this anyway?

That you even have to ask that question actually explains a lot about the whole Republican stance.

Edited May 15, 2019 by ExpandMyMind

[+and-then]

1 minute ago, Setton said:

No, I just happen to agree with the scientific consensus and literally every civilised country on the planet. 

Do you agree with the ABOMINATION that New York has created?  Do you believe a woman has a "right" to take the life of a viable, human being on the day before it would be naturally born just for the sake of her convenience?  Let's be honest here.  90+ % of all abortions happen for that reason.  And if THAT is considered "civilized" then I'd want no part of the rest of your civilization.

['Walt' E. Kurtz]

Sweet home alabama......

[Jerry Gallo]

16 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

I read the first 10 and zero of them actually prove your point.

That human life begins at conception is not in doubt - all living cells are a form of life - but that is not the abortion debate.

It's not my point to prove. I made the statement the pendulum has swung too far to the left (toward late term abortion). You corrected saying it swung to the science. Thus, it's yours to prove the scientific justification of late term abortion. Embryology not only defeats any late term claim, it might defeat all of them.

As for the "that is not the abortion debate", there is no debate on late term abortion up to the due date. It's immoral, unethical, and frankly, it's a little sick in the head.

[aztek]

3 minutes ago, and then said:

.  And if THAT is considered "civilized" then I'd want no part of the rest of your civilization.

they are so civilized that sharia law makes more sense in this regard, lol   liberal progressives make  sharia look better and better. 

[+and-then]

4 minutes ago, Impedancer said:

Sweet home alabama......

I think it is.  If defending innocent life is worthy of mockery then I'd suggest taking a look in the mirror.  Just sayin'

[RavenHawk]

2 minutes ago, Setton said:

No, I just happen to agree with the scientific consensus and literally every civilised country on the planet.

That doesn’t even make sense considering the train of thought.  Science had nothing to do with it.  The discussion was about the comments of Gov Ralph Northam and the NY late-term abortion bill.

 

I think your train of thought is still boarding at the station. 

At least I am at the station.  I am presenting ideas to discuss and not wallowing in the pigsty because the ‘Left’ have no good ideas and devoid of anything intelligent to offer.  All they can do is sling mud.

[ExpandMyMind]

1 minute ago, Jerry Gallo said:

It's not my point to prove. I made the statement the pendulum has swung too far to the left (toward late term abortion). You corrected saying it swung to the science. Thus, it's yours to prove the scientific justification of late term abortion. Embryology not only defeats any late term claim, it might defeat all of them.

As for the "that is not the abortion debate", there is no debate on late term abortion up to the due date. It's immoral, unethical, and frankly, it's a little sick in the head.

Well that's an opinion. It's not the one you originally put forward. You claimed that embryology was against abortion, then didn't support that claim in any way.

The truth is that there is a worldwide scientific concensus on abortion. 

[Setton]

6 minutes ago, and then said:

Do you agree with the ABOMINATION that New York has created? 

Gosh, capitals no less. Not sure what this has to do with RavenHawk's nonsense or a bill in Alabama but flattered you value my opinion so highly. 

Quote

Do you believe a woman has a "right" to take the life of a viable, human being on the day before it would be naturally born just for the sake of her convenience? 

Can you provide a credible source for this? I don't generally follow what America does with abortion on account of not being bat**** crazy. 

If true, no I do not. 

Quote

Let's be honest here.  90+ % of all abortions happen for that reason. 

And can you provide a credible source for this? 

Quote

And if THAT is considered "civilized" then I'd want no part of the rest of your civilization.

Don't worry, I don't count any part of the US in with civilised countries.

[Setton]

4 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

That doesn’t even make sense considering the train of thought.  Science had nothing to do with it.  The discussion was about the comments of Gov Ralph Northam and the NY late-term abortion bill.

 

 

 

 

 

At least I am at the station.  I am presenting ideas to discuss and not wallowing in the pigsty because the ‘Left’ have no good ideas and devoid of anything intelligent to offer.  All they can do is sling mud.

Still not 'the left'. 

I don't have much to contribute to this. As I just said to and then, I don't really follow what America does with abortions. Its too detached from reality. 

But I will continue to laugh at anyone who thinks science has nothing to do with it but an old book does. 

[RavenHawk]

3 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

The truth is that there is a worldwide scientific concensus on abortion. 

One of my pet peeves is this: Science is not a consensus.  Science is about facts not opinions.

[Jerry Gallo]

3 hours ago, Agent0range said:

Rape is not an exception in this bill.  It's no surprise they rank near the bottom in education.

Rape and incest exceptions were added via voice vote in committee.

https://www.al.com/news/2019/05/alabama-abortion-ban-to-get-key-committee-vote-today.html