The contradictory federal court rulings about the abortion pill is going to have to be resolved by SCOTUS. I did think that this was… interesting, I guess. Infuriating?
Allison Whelan, assistant professor in Georgia State University College of Law who filed a legal brief in favour of keeping FDA approval, said the ruling – which refers throughout to “unborn humans”, not fetuses – was “inflammatory”.
“The politics and ideology motivating Judge Kacsmaryk’s decision could not be made any clearer by the inflammatory anti-abortion language used throughout the opinion,” she told the BBC.
While not the chosen language of the Left, “unborn humans” is a perfectly accurate description of an unborn human. How is that inflammatory? I suppose you could argue that it is anti-abortion, because it acknowledges the fact that fetuses are, in fact, unborn humans, but if anything, “unborn humans” is far more accurate description in common language.
Frankly, I appreciate the abortion supporters who are at least honest and admit that they want to kill the babies instead of hiding behind words to obfuscate the fact.
Mifepristone is already outdated; there’s a newer one on the market. So that slaughter will continue, regardless of SCOTUS ruling.
A fetus is a stage in a human being’s development. Next they will say an infant or toddler is not a human being. Abortion has normalized the killing of unwanted human beings.
>Last week, the Democratic governor of Washington state announced that a three-year supply of mifepristone had been stockpiled by state officials in the event that it became unavailable nationwide.
Interesting, I’ve never seen any drug with an expiration date of 3 years. How is this possible and safe?
> How is this possible and safe?
Evidently it’s not a primary consideration.
Evidently the right to kill unborn humans outweighs the risks outlined by the FDA… just ask the …. FDA.
I don’t know, maybe it is my belief in God without the organized religious programming guides, but I just don’t see it the same way as most pro-lifers. The greatest difference, I think, is that I do believe souls are eternal and are given choices of ‘living’ multiple times to perfect their souls rather than being given eternal perfection or eternal damnation at death. I also believe that every soul has God’s purpose or blessing and that includes multitudes of unborn babies. Do people die meaninglessly in the womb at the hand of a murderer, cancer, or accidents or is there a plan for everything by God? I hear he words ‘God’s plan’ an awful lot and combined with omniscience it gives Him a bit more understanding than any human. And since he gifted free will to us and is honoring that gift, it is our responsibility to find the best path to a better afterlife not His. Would having a trillion people on this earth, then 2 trillion be the best path? Maybe, I guess. I don’t know, but I am pretty sure it would be considered just as barbaric to force all births with no system in place to support those babies than to allow women/couples to decide not to have children in the first place via safe means.
Surely no one here thinks couples should not be allowed sex unless they want children, right? Since there is no ‘perfect’ much less guaranteed safe means to prevent pregnancy outside of extremes like complete hysterectomies it follows logically that there must be some sort of post-impregnation stopper available.
Because when a life is a separate being from its mother is not specifically stated in the Bible that I have seen or read, then as a Christian it is like ‘the glass is half full or empty’ theory to me.
If you choose to believe that every sperm and egg is sacred, ordained by God, and that human life begins at conception, then it follows that you would fight for every life and for the support of those babies including things like no charge hospital fees and quality institutions able to take on the unwanted. (Why you would fight for only the first of those things is beyond me and short-sighted in the extreme). If you use quotes in the Bible like ‘protect the innocent’ doesn’t that mean that all babies should be protected by all those of your belief after it is born as well, rather than say, forced upon a 15 year old with no insurance or job or means to raise it? If you do believe there should be some post-birth safeguards, you suck at making them a reality, as the state of our orphanages and adoption system can attest, or you just suck if you think it is your responsibility to make it get born, but not have any institution to help the young mother or baby afterwards.
If you choose to believe that birth or a certain level of physical development is when the baby is a human baby WITH RIGHTS, your fight begins at a different point in unborn baby development. I believe the baby is a human with rights at the point where it can be extracted from the mother and live, thus I believe abortion is a viable choice for the unborn baby before that point. As medical science increases, that point will change and laws should shift accordingly. After all, if a mother is killed in a car accident early in the pregnancy, the baby has no choice or chance but to die as well. As long as it is parasitic to one specific being, the rights are hers.
Now go ahead and pick that apart with reasoned thought or by just calling me insane and we can have good discussion or name calling as you prefer. My exact positions have changed multiple times from reasoned conversation in my life, never once from name calling, but your choices are yours to make.