Supreme Court blocks Louisiana abortion law as John Roberts joins liberal justices in 5-4 ruling

[txradioguy]

Even if I did not have faith that God existed, I would still be pro life.

In other words, there are good and moral reasons to oppose taking the life of a baby because of it’s inconvenience, that are outside of religious objections.

@aligncare

QFT

[txradioguy]

You assert religious bias, but I am talking about simple genetics. Hardly a religious bias.

Pete, the only religious bias here is your ANTI-religious bias. I get that, you have run into some hypocrites who have not only not lived up to their pious claims, but maybe used that position to injure people, perhaps getting very personal, and you hate them and the God they claimed to represent over it. That makes as much sense as hating Ford or Chevy or Dodge because you ran into some dealers who were crooks and jerks, but it's your Right to believe what you believe, for whatever reason you believe it.

But, since I am a scientist, let's get something straight.

Regardless of what I may believe about how everything came into being, it doesn't change the fact that a human sperm and a human egg combined produce a human being and nothing else.
 
It works the same way for any species which engages in sexual reproduction.
 
In fact, it is so specific, that for most species, you can't combine two different species and get a critter at all, and with critters with similar DNA, if you do, it is a hybrid that can't reproduce. (Ligers, Hinnies, Zorses, mules, beefalos), but get dissimilar enough, and you won't get anything at all.

In nature, it takes a genetic contribution from one of each sex, and when those are combined, you get another member of that species. Whatever embryo that results is known by its species, It might be a chicken embryo, a dog embryo, but it is still a chicken or a dog. Nothing else will result, unless you kill it. The fetal pigs dissected in comparative anatomy classes in pre-med are still pigs.
That isn't religion, it isn't a religious bias, it's Biology.

The genetics determine the nature of the offspring.
Incidentally, those same genetics determine whether a child is male of female, and no amount of addadictomie/lopitoff surgery, hormone manipulation, mental illness, and social cruelty will make it anything else. The process isn't completely perfect, there are mutations, genetic damage, even bad genes contributed by one parent or the other which can lead to variations in human form, but the whole genetic thing has been pretty well mapped out, at least at the basic level.
You can play games with when you call the result of two humans mating a human being, but either that ovum and sperm combine or they don't. If they don't--nothing happens. If they do, a human being results whether you decide to play definition games and not consider them "human" when they are conceived, until they are born, until they wear long pants, until they can vote, until their IQ reaches a certain level, whatever games you want to play with deciding to call the result "human" the result is the same: a human.

The deception of calling the result less than human just makes it more palatable to the average person who doesn't want the actual blood on their hands to farm out a license to kill, whether the 'subhumans' be the unborn, people from another tribe of humans, or another race, that gimmick has been used to justify subjugation, robbery, enslavement, and slaughter since people started killing people.

Now, though, it is being used to kill three times as many Americans as were killed in the industrially efficient genocide mills of the 1940s, which incidentally, used the same logic to justify their actions--that the victims were less than human.

Once you let that argument stand, all you have to do to justify killing anyone is move the goalposts and change the definition of who is or isn't "human". It is almost always someone the people writing the definition want to rip off, whether that be for their land, their gold, their art, or their very lives.

Aside from that biological argument, though, there is the fact that legally, (as I mentioned), if someone kills a pregnant woman, they can be charged with two murders--one for the mom, and one for the infant.
Legally, that victim of murder is considered human; another human life has been taken.

Otherwise, it'd be like shooting a tumor, a "mass of tissue", and from warts to cancer, we kill tumors--"masses of tissue"-- every day.

How, in the one case, can killing the little human inside be deemed cause for a murder charge, and in another case, be just shredded "tissue" in the waste bin--even if you can count the fingers and toes? That's legally inconsistent.

So, from implanted zygote to embryo to fetus to newborn to toddler to child to teenager (pre- and post-pubescent) to premenopausal (reproductively viable) adult to to postmenopausal adult to senior to rickety old fart, the result is still genetically (scientifically) human, all else is just a matter of terminology and legal definition.
Even defining that embryo, less visually recognizable as a human being at that stage of development a 'less than human' doesn't justify the destruction of those after 8 weeks of development (now called a fetus) who are recognizably human, who have developed genitalia, fingers, toes, etc., and definitely not those who could survive a natural birth (or c-section), given basic support given to those born early. Two of my great grandchildren were born at 33 weeks due to complications (twins). They continued to develop and are in school now. The latest laws would allow the killing of children older, more fully developed, and even more likely to survive without any neonatal care beyond that given for a 'natural' full term birth.

While any sub group of humans can be excluded from that semantic definition of "human", and historically have been to justify murder on a grand scale, no slaughter so has been so grand in the history of the planet as that of the abortion mills right here in the USA. Keep in mind that other instances of slaughter on a grand scale were justified by first defining those to be killed as somehow less than "human", and it would be inconsistent to say that this is any different, just this time the victims can't fight back.

@Smokin Joe out freaking standing! 

[txradioguy]

It is a developing, pre-viable human being,  that as a biological reality is under the complete dominion and control of the mother.   

Are you really that obtuse when it comes to biology?

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Are you really that obtuse when it comes to biology?

For clarification:

ob·tuseDictionary result for obtuse

adjective

annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand.
"he wondered if the doctor was being deliberately obtuse"
synonyms:   stupid, dull, slow-witted, slow, dull-witted, unintelligent, witless, half-baked, halfwitted, doltish, lumpish, blockish, imperceptive; uncomprehending, bovine, stolid, crass, insensitive, thick-skinned; informaldim, dense, thick, thickheaded, dimwitted, slow on the uptake, dumb, dopey, dead from the neck up, boneheaded, blockheaded, lamebrained, chuckleheaded, dunderheaded, wooden-headed, pig-ignorant, log-headed, muttonheaded; informaldivvy, dozy; informalglaikit; informaldumb-ass, chowderheaded; informaldof; informaldotish; rarehebete

[Bigun]

I would still like for someone to answer the question @Hoodat posed about two pages back.

Louisiana can already regulate hospitals, movie theaters, chemical plants, schools, and even your own house out of existence because of safety. Why is an abortion clinic any different?

[sneakypete]

I would still like for someone to answer the question @Hoodat posed about two pages back.

Louisiana can already regulate hospitals, movie theaters, chemical plants, schools, and even your own house out of existence because of safety. Why is an abortion clinic any different?

@Bigun

Excellent question,and I don't have a clue why they can't. At a bare minimum the state should be able to force them to follow every health and safety law on the books.

[mountaineer]

Excellent question,and I don't have a clue why they can't. At a bare minimum the state should be able to force them to follow every health and safety law on the books.

As I recall, "Dr." Gosnell's clinic in Philadelphia was completely unsanitary and should have been shut down for that reason alone. This is from the WashPost:

... What happened at his abortion clinic?

The grand jury report is full of horrific and gruesome details about the clinic that Gosnell ran for more than three decades. Patients were neglected; providers were not certified; and cats were allowed to roam and defecate in the clinic.

"The walls appeared to be urine-splattered," the Philadelphia district attorney's office found when it inspected the clinic in August 2010, months after it had closed that February. "The procedure tables were old and one had a ripped plastic cover. Suction tubing, which was used for abortion procedures – and doubled as the only available suction source for resuscitation – was corroded."  ...

"The Pennsylvania Department of Health has records as far back as the 1980s documenting Gosnell’s dangerous practices," the grand jury found. "For decades, Gosnell did not staff his facility with licensed or qualified employees. He never properly monitored women under sedation. He botched surgeries and then failed to summon emergency help when it was needed."  ...

More, from 2013.

Authorities in every state must thoroughly inspect - and sanction - abortion clinics for such practices, if found.

[Bigun]

@Bigun

Excellent question,and I don't have a clue why they can't. At a bare minimum the state should be able to force them to follow every health and safety law on the books.

As it happens @sneakypete, I know the answer to @Hoodat's question.

Planned Parenthood is a MAJOR conduit through which money is siphoned from the U.S. Treasury into the campaign coffers of the Democrat party!

[sneakypete]

As it happens @sneakypete, I know the answer to @Hoodat's question.

Planned Parenthood is a MAJOR conduit through which money is siphoned from the U.S. Treasury into the campaign coffers of the Democrat party!

@Bigun

I have heard that before,but not all judges are Dims.