Lawsuit seeks to overturn abortion regulations including Michigan’s 24-hour waiting period
Lawsuit seeks to overturn abortion regulations including Michigan’s 24-hour waiting period
Saying three long-established state abortion regulations, including a 24-hour waiting period, “run roughshod” over Michigan’s constitutionally-guaranteed right to an abortion, a reproductive rights organization has filed suit against the state. The Center for Reproductive Rights filed the lawsuit la...
An individual’s right to reproductive freedom shall not be denied, burdened, nor infringed upon unless justified by a compelling state interest achieved by the least restrictive means.
Seems pretty clear to me that the waiting period and proscribed literature are a burden, and that any state interest they serve could be less restrictively fulfilled by normal informed consent rules we already have.
Human life starting at fertilization is a biological fact.
Biologists overwhelmingly agree that human life starts with fertilization (5337/5577 surveyed, or 96%).
Biologists from 1,058 academic institutions around the world assessed survey items on when a human's life begins and, overall, 96% (5337 out of 5577) affirmed the fertilization view. The founding principles of the field Science Communication suggest that scientists have an ethical and professional obligation to inform Americans, as well as people around the world, about scientific developments so members of the public can be empowered to make life decisions that are consistent with the best information available.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36629778/
edit: downvote all you want, it wont change the facts
You’re statement is full of shit as well as incorrect.
A cell is alive at fertilization.
But a cell is not a human.
Neither is a fetus.
Facts.
You also kill thousands of living human cells every time you take a poop, they are as much of a human being as a fertilized egg is.
Abortions for Lucifer!!!! 🤘
You can argue all you want but we will still give our abortion sacraments unto Baphomet. Praised be his name!
I'm not a christian, I'm a satanist, so... maybe not the dunk you're looking for lol.
Reminder that our argument is seemingly over tenet III:
One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.
Where I would argue there are two bodies involved, regardless the size, as you seem to be arguing.
But also, keep in mind tenet V:
Beliefs should conform to one's best scientific understanding of the world. One should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one's beliefs.
Extra link just for fun: https://biologydictionary.net/organism/
Forrest Valkai, a biologist on YT, has a fantastic response to this. He can argue about when/how life starts, but the argument isn’t about this, this is about bodily autonomy instead.
I'm actually really interested in watching whatever video you are referencing, are you by chance able to provide a link? I'm not closed minded, but I do generally try to listen to what the majority of scientist [in whatever relevant area of the topic of discussion] are saying.
edit: I'm unsure why this comment is being down voted but I'm genuinely interested in watching whatever video you are referencing, as simply by looking at their channel I was unable to find a video that is seemingly relevant to the topic at hand
- That assertion has nothing to do with the legal standing of a waiting period for abortion.
- that article is not from a reliable source. "Issues in Law and Medicine" is a biased journal that does not represent scientific consensus. They have close connections with anti choice organizations and also publish antivax propaganda. I would be extremely skeptical of any information found in association with them.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term="Issues Law Med"[jour]
Note the articles about "abortion causing breast cancer" (it doesn't), "how to run a pro choice private practice", and why pharmacists should be able to refuse to dispense medication.
If it's a fact then why did 240 scientists disagree? What were their findings? Science doesn't create facts, it supports or rejects hypothesizes based on the original question. Calling science fact was your first mistake. Missing the entire point of the argument by cherry-picking data sets that fulfill your narrative was the second.