Texas Abortion Law Leaves Planned Parenthood in Tears

I think we're having a miscommunication issue.

First of all, you seemed to be saying you had no heartbeat when you were in a coma. My apologies if that was not what you were saying.

Secondly, I was trying to show the flaw in the argument that a creature must have a heartbeat to be alive. There are creatures that have no hearts and are considered "alive". Just because it takes "x" amount of time for a human baby to have a heartbeat doesn't mean it isn't alive.

Thirdly, I HAVE picked a lane. Abortion is murder. A baby is a baby from conception. You are worthy of life just as an unborn, newly conceived baby is worthy of life. You and the unborn are both human and both alive.

You think it's an "evolutionary instinct" that a baby goes from breathing amniotic fluid to breathing oxygen? I guess we disagree on that note as I believe God designed us to go from one to the other.

Who said I didn’t know about that?

It’s irrelevant to my argument.

Show your evidence. Prove your statement that 99 percent of pregnancies are the result of a consensual act.

Really?

OK. Good luck.

99 percent of abortions are result of consexual sex. Google “ percentage of abortions: rape or incest.

Yes, because if the Federal Law is not constitutional, it is not supreme. And there is nothing in the constitution about “ rights to kill babies. “.

The argument you presented for abortion is clearly a misapplication of the fourth amendment.

Approximately 99 percent at least.

Science may say we are alive when we have a heartbeat but it would (should!) also say we are human from conception.

You might wish to read the SCOTUS ruling per Roe v Wade.
Should you choose to do so you'll find not only was the 4th amendment involved in the decision but so too was the 14th amendment.

This new Texas effort violates those amendments, as well as the 9th amendment. Just as the 9th amendment was at issue through the 24th in the original 1973 Roe v. Wade case.

The due process clause of the 14th amendment in this new Texas law making it a crime to assist a woman to get an abortion violates a woman's rights under that clause.

While SCOTUS would know that, their decision not to hear an objection to this new state law presumes they're aware of that fact.

However, given Democrats are majority in Congress, I think they're certain Congress will do their job for them.

Once, some years ago, a politician, Todd Aiken, stated abortion should not be allowed in the case of rape or incest because women cannot get pregnant then because they don't ovulate under stress of that nature.

He later walked back his remarks.

In point of fact research proves high rates of pregnancy occuring due to rape.
Rape results in more pregnancies not less.

You might wish to read the SCOTUS ruling per Roe v Wade.
Should you choose to do so you'll find not only was the 4th amendment involved in the decision but so too was the 14th amendment.

This new Texas effort violates those amendments, as well as the 9th amendment. Just as the 9th amendment was at issue through the 24th in the original 1973 Roe v. Wade case.

The due process clause of the 14th amendment in this new Texas law making it a crime to assist a woman to get an abortion violates a woman's rights under that clause.

While SCOTUS would know that, their decision not to hear an objection to this new state law presumes they're aware of that fact.

However, given Democrats are majority in Congress, I think they're certain Congress will do their job for them.

When you can show me abortion rights specifically in the Constitution or amendments then I’m all ears.

Liberty, etc has limits. You need to know what are inalienable rights and what are not.

Your first paragraph is a stunning Red Herring. I found it quite amusing.

I suggest you do some research about percentages of abortions due to rape or incest, since the topic is abortion laws.

Your first paragraph is a stunning Red Herring. I found it quite amusing.

I suggest you do some research about percentages of abortions due to rape or incest, since the topic is abortion laws.

Yes, because if the Federal Law is not constitutional, it is not supreme. And there is nothing in the constitution about “ rights to kill babies. “.

The argument you presented for abortion is clearly a misapplication of the fourth amendment. For example, do you have evidence that the ones who passed that amendment supported abortion rights or intended it to protect abortion?

That would be interesting if you could provide that.

Actually, it does...

It also says we are alive before, during, and after conception.

Modern science actually defines "life" based on cell-level-biology.

Thus, from sperm and egg to conception to newborn baby - there is never a moment when we are not alive.

Being human or a dog or a frog is defined by the DNA of the living cell.

Anyone who says "not alive until a heartbeat" is in direct defiance of the science.

So, there you have it - they are lying to themselves so they can "loophole" the science...

Actually, they don't "breathe" amniotic fluid.
Babies receive oxygen and all nutrients that sustain them in utero via the umbilical cord.

This Is How Babies Actually "Breathe" When They're In The Womb
by LINDSAY E. MACK
Feb. 20, 2018

Argumentum ab inertia

Well, so much for my effort to assist your lack of knowledge of the Constitution and the law surrounding abortion rights.

You tossed the red herring into this abortion thread and you were wrong.

To further entertain your fondness for junk cognition would be wrong.

…a ruling that used amendments that themselves had nothing to do with abortion, and that began with the unfounded presupposition that abortion was a constitutional right.


.

In other words, Roe v Wade used circular reasoning.

Roe v Wade dodged and ducked and weaved out of the way of deciding when Abortion is or is not murder. Instead they said that the right to privacy and unreasonable searches covered this issue, so basically it was the Federal government saying they have no right to inquire.

That said you do have a right to regulate abortion clinics and States do have a right to protect human life. Basically the ruling said that the first trimester would not be considered as viable but after that it was up to each State to legislate.

Texas deciding that a discernible heart beat is a reasonable law. Saying that the abortion clinics have to check for a heartbeat is a reasonable regulation. Allowing citizens to sue abortion clinics that fail to follow this regulation is quite reasonable.