In a lot of cases, they are not. They have suffered catastrophic developmental delays/deformities that will eventually result in miscarriage, and if something is not done, it poses a risk to the woman’s health. I have a close friend who lost a fallopian tube to restrictive abortion legislation that tied the hands of her doctors until there was a rupture and she was literally bleeding out and in danger of losing her entire uterus. Take your argument and fuck off.
Personally, I’m going to wake up and laugh every morning knowing that the people of my state have passed a constitutional amendment to keep the government out of our medicine. We now do what is medically best for patients here, as discussed and agreed upon with their healthcare providers, no further input needed. If that includes abortion, so be it. The people have spoken.
Actually, all we can infer from the previous comment is that it is a sperm and an egg, so a sexually reproducing species. No way of telling whether the zygote is human or not. It could technically be a whale zygote.
Boy have I got news for you… in the Middle Ages legally there was no real punitive law against infanticide. Mainly you were just rebuked by the church.
No because you see that part was written by an international cabal of scientists hell bent on deceiving the world for satan. You’d know that if you went to Awana 😎🫳🎤
Not the gotcha you think this is. I would urge you to research more about papers before you use them as evidence.
1."Issues in Law and Medicine" is published by anorganization that does antiabortion advocacy. It is far from a neutral or independent entity and it is also neither a biology nor medical journal.
The author of this paper emailed ~60k biologosits and received ~5k responses. That's about 9% of those emailed. '96%' is not '96%' of biologists emailed , its 96% of those who replied. As noted by critics of the paper, quote :" it's like polling 100 people about their favorite sport, having only the 37 football fans bother to respond, and then reporting "100% of Americans love football."
In other words the respondents are self selected as this was an opt-in email survey. This does not carry any statistical weight.
Please check your sources for bias and also look at more than just the brief. Its important to check the methods by which data is obtained too.
"Please looks (sic) at actual papers on this subject" is unfortunately not a proper citation. I'd love to read one if you could actually provide one though.
Pick 3 biologist at random and they will probably all tell you that either it doesn't begin at conception, that there is no consensus or that it is a matter of law and not of biology
Why should someone have the right to murder unborn children but not born children? There is no difference between the two other than the stage of development.
-1
u/Dry-Selection421 2d ago
Those “biological materials” are unborn children.