Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
 
User avatar
PixelPilot
Posts: 713
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 1:19 am

Re: Texas abortion law

Fri Sep 10, 2021 6:53 pm

seb146 wrote:
PixelPilot wrote:
seb146 wrote:
So we have shifted into "we must have this law because morality" but not everyone lives by the same moral code. This is forcing everyone to live by one small group's moral code. It seems to me that code is: love and protect the fetus, hate and throw away the child. People are willing to force births but not lift a finger for the children and families who need assistance.


That's because nobody cares about the child once he/she is born. If it goes into the system somebody makes money so it becomes a product. A lot of product = a lot of money.
Interestingly enough the burden is on taxpayers but the profits fall into private hands..


https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/04/politics ... index.html
https://people.com/parents/neil-patrick ... -birthday/

Four kids adopted by stable homes but, both parents are men and the right is losing their minds. There are plenty of people who care about children.

There is another tenet of Republicanism: privatize the profits, socialize the losses. But, that is also for another thread....


Don't make it political. Makes your point moot.
This is a shit people thing not republican/democratic one.
https://booth.law/california-foster-care-system/
https://www.clccal.org/resources/foster-care-facts/

"...Too often, however, the children in foster lag behind national standards in relation to the minimal care and protection we strive to achieve for children. As a result, youth in foster care often transition into adulthood without the tools and support they need to thrive..."

"...Children in foster care have experienced abuse, neglect, and other adverse childhood experiences that can negatively impact their health. In fact, half of all kids in foster care have endured four or more adverse childhood experiences..."

That's a democratic state. Again, to me this means nothing. It is just shit people making shit decisions and not giving those kids proper care.
 
bpatus297
Posts: 276
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2016 4:51 am

Re: Texas abortion law

Fri Sep 10, 2021 7:14 pm

PixelPilot wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:

No one is born with any guarantee of a happy and successful life. No one. We all know this if we are adults, we all have dealt with issues. People born into wealth might also live bad lives, probably worse than those born in poverty. Money isn't everything.

Like I said, if you think you can't provide a good life to your kid, give it up for adoption. Now, like I said a middle ground would be this law, abortion till the 12th week. We on the right can't expect to have everything we want, we could reach half way.

I edited my previous post but will post it again in case you missed it cause your point of giving up for adoption is something completely foreign to me. I'm trying but fail to see any positives of this.
This was 2014. Now with the economic burden of the pandemic and all sorts of issues, these numbers will be exponentially higher yet you want to add another 1.3million kids to that system cause for some reason you think this is ok.

"...There are 107,918 foster children eligible for and waiting to be adopted. In 2014, 50,644 foster kids were adopted — a number that has stayed roughly consistent for the past five years. The average age of a waiting child is 7.7 years old and 29% of them will spend at least three years in foster care...."
"...There are no national statistics on how many people are waiting to adopt, but experts estimate it is somewhere between one and two million couples. Every year there are about 1.3 million abortions. Only 4% of women with unwanted pregnancies place their children through adoption..."



The adoption process needs to be reformed. When its easier to go overseas to adopt, we have a problem. I would bet that more people would adopt if the process was easier.
 
bpatus297
Posts: 276
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2016 4:51 am

Re: Texas abortion law

Fri Sep 10, 2021 7:17 pm

seb146 wrote:
PixelPilot wrote:
seb146 wrote:
So we have shifted into "we must have this law because morality" but not everyone lives by the same moral code. This is forcing everyone to live by one small group's moral code. It seems to me that code is: love and protect the fetus, hate and throw away the child. People are willing to force births but not lift a finger for the children and families who need assistance.


That's because nobody cares about the child once he/she is born. If it goes into the system somebody makes money so it becomes a product. A lot of product = a lot of money.
Interestingly enough the burden is on taxpayers but the profits fall into private hands..


https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/04/politics ... index.html
https://people.com/parents/neil-patrick ... -birthday/

Four kids adopted by stable homes but, both parents are men and the right is losing their minds. There are plenty of people who care about children.

There is another tenet of Republicanism: privatize the profits, socialize the losses. But, that is also for another thread....


The right isn't losing their minds, a small vocal fridge is. Big difference.
 
User avatar
PixelPilot
Posts: 713
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 1:19 am

Re: Texas abortion law

Fri Sep 10, 2021 7:18 pm

bpatus297 wrote:
PixelPilot wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:

No one is born with any guarantee of a happy and successful life. No one. We all know this if we are adults, we all have dealt with issues. People born into wealth might also live bad lives, probably worse than those born in poverty. Money isn't everything.

Like I said, if you think you can't provide a good life to your kid, give it up for adoption. Now, like I said a middle ground would be this law, abortion till the 12th week. We on the right can't expect to have everything we want, we could reach half way.

I edited my previous post but will post it again in case you missed it cause your point of giving up for adoption is something completely foreign to me. I'm trying but fail to see any positives of this.
This was 2014. Now with the economic burden of the pandemic and all sorts of issues, these numbers will be exponentially higher yet you want to add another 1.3million kids to that system cause for some reason you think this is ok.

"...There are 107,918 foster children eligible for and waiting to be adopted. In 2014, 50,644 foster kids were adopted — a number that has stayed roughly consistent for the past five years. The average age of a waiting child is 7.7 years old and 29% of them will spend at least three years in foster care...."
"...There are no national statistics on how many people are waiting to adopt, but experts estimate it is somewhere between one and two million couples. Every year there are about 1.3 million abortions. Only 4% of women with unwanted pregnancies place their children through adoption..."



The adoption process needs to be reformed. When its easier to go overseas to adopt, we have a problem. I would bet that more people would adopt if the process was easier.


That's a fact. 2 out of the 3 adopted in my family are from different countries.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 11532
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: Texas abortion law

Fri Sep 10, 2021 8:03 pm

bpatus297 wrote:
The adoption process needs to be reformed. When its easier to go overseas to adopt, we have a problem. I would bet that more people would adopt if the process was easier.

While you are correct it is likely equally impossible to do in the USA or similar country. Two factors are part of this.

One, other countries have few(er) legal protections for birth parents and relatives. Their rights can be terminated without recourse for numerous more reasons that is possible in the USA and similar countries. Beyond mothers and fathers, grandparents and equal relatives etc. will always have some level of standing to challenge/abrogate an adoption in countries with strong citizen laws. Others "easy to adopt" countries don't (though they have their own traps) and parental rights are terminated and almost no others would have any recourse. And in general once the child is in the USA any challenge would need to be done here in our courts which for most foreign persons is difficult to say the least.

Two, babies going from other countries are often "going to a better life" than the parent in the birth country can offer and they want that. As well as the black market element of profit, being "paid for the child" (though often illegal in the birth country). That makes it also less likely that an adoption will be challenged.

I myself know two families that went bankrupt (one losing their home after refi'ing their house to be able to afford the process - which was worth the lost house) fighting to keep their child and two others that had the adoptions challenged. It takes years, creating uncertainly and just awful... fear is the wrong word, not strong enough but it works, that lasted the whole time as they wondered if their child would be taken from them.

Adoption is a great thing but it is not easy or a slam dunk.

Tugg
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 20190
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Texas abortion law

Fri Sep 10, 2021 9:57 pm

AirWorthy99 wrote:
If your neighbors decided to kill their children because they can't take care of them, or its too much to handle, would you care? You would just let it slide?. Killing or death is bad for me, no matter if it doesn't involve me, much more when its an innocent child. Don't we care about that?

I mean really that's what you are saying. Its my neighbors business. But yet again, the debate will be that a 'fetus' is not life or is not a child, according to your individual beliefs.


You didn't answer the question, just offered a deflective strawman. If you're not the man involved, what business is it of yours what a woman decides to do with an unwanted pregnancy?

An non-viable clump of cells is not "an innocent child".
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 11532
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: Texas abortion law

Fri Sep 10, 2021 10:08 pm

scbriml wrote:
An non-viable clump of cells is not "an innocent child".

It would make a miscarriage murder...

Tugg
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 16451
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Texas abortion law

Fri Sep 10, 2021 11:04 pm

AirWorthy99 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:

No one is born with any guarantee of a happy and successful life. No one. We all know this if we are adults, we all have dealt with issues. People born into wealth might also live bad lives, probably worse than those born in poverty. Money isn't everything.

Like I said, if you think you can't provide a good life to your kid, give it up for adoption. Now, like I said a middle ground would be this law, abortion till the 12th week. We on the right can't expect to have everything we want, we could reach half way.

As for suffering, another subject which is tied to abortion is eugenics. Health technology has gotten so good that when the baby is on the womb you can determine probable diseases or health defects. If you look around not much down syndrome kids are any more. As technology advances, and are able to determine more probable health issues, you will see more abortions due to the preference of not bringing children to the world so that the parents and the children not deal with their health issues.

Many can agree to this, but this is a slippery slope that does indeed lead to infanticide, just bring children to the world if you can pay for them, or deal with the issues they have, and only perfect conditions exist to raise them and a great chance they will lead a happy and great life, where does it end?


Let’s cut to the chase again as my question went unanswered: why is it your business or anyone else’s as to what a woman decides? It’s great that you felt strongly about seeing your kids on ultrasound, but those feelings might differ for someone in different circumstances.


The answer to your question, its one of those personal beliefs that you can't just explain. As I am sure you have on other subjects which might be of my interest.

Let me ask you a question. If a couple has a child, and they see the newborn has some health defects only detected when it was born, and they decide to let the baby die of hunger, so it could die, and you know this, would you be OK with this?

This is the MO in the Netherlands, which happens to be the country of the OP https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4240050/


Sorry that’s not really an answer for butting into the private business of others. Legally there must be a *very* good reason for doing so all can agree on.

As to your question, of course I would not be okay with that. But as other posts pointed out, disallowing abortions may ultimately result in more infanticides.
 
Kent350787
Posts: 2094
Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:06 am

Re: Texas abortion law

Sat Sep 11, 2021 12:06 am

I'm still firmly of the view that this legislation is about politics and control of women by men rather than about reducing the number of rate of abortions.

Given that so many developed countries with less restrictive abortion rules than the USA have lower rates of abortion, perhaps the question ought to be about what factors keep the US rate so high. Access to abortion clearly isn't the distinctive factor, yet this is where the US focus always seems to fall with conservatives.

In other news, France, which has a much higher aboirtion rate than its neighbouring countries (but still lowerr than the US), is about to offer free GP contraception counselling and free contraception to women 25 and under. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... tion-women

Surely US conservatives can find more novel ways to seek to control womens' bodies? /s
 
User avatar
DarkSnowyNight
Posts: 2960
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 7:59 pm

Re: Texas abortion law

Sat Sep 11, 2021 12:16 am

DarkSnowyNight wrote:
There are times when one side of an argument is genuinely wrong. This is one.

bpatus297 wrote:
-Because people keep parroting that the pro-lifers just want to control women. That is not correct for a vast majority. Those folks genuinely are wrestling with the notion of when life begins.


Standing. That is the thing that they are not wrestling with, and it shows. Before one starts messing around with laws, one needs to fully understand whether or not they are qualified to do so. This is primarily about having the legal standing to weigh in on a thing and attempt to pass legislation so related. Anti-choicers have literally no concept of this, and why/how it is that this means they make a huge mess everywhere they go.


DarkSnowyNight wrote:
False Equivalency does nothing constructive.


The right wants to control women. This is by all objective accounts true.

bpatus297 wrote:
-Maybe in your mind,


Because my mind agrees with the objective realities present. If the right was not interested in controlling women in this fashion, they would learn what boundaries are and to respect them. The fact that they are not, and are going as far as stepping outside of constitutional legal protections to pass these laws, tells you precisely what this is about. These are not things one can relegate to subjectivity.





bpatus297 wrote:
-You are missing the point that the other side thinks its about two lives, not just the mother.



You are missing the point that it is not down to you to decide things like that.

DarkSnowyNight wrote:
Wrong argument. Look at it as a construction in stead.

If you are the only person who can save someone's life, you still cannot be compelled legally to do so.
bpatus297 wrote:
-I am not compelled to do so, but I am drawn to do so. I have been my whole life, I guess we are just wired different.


Not the point. I can watch you drown all day and not have committed a crime.

In fact, the only laws around such a scenario exist to prevent you from litigating against me in the case that in trying to save your life, I accidentally kill you more.

And there are very good reasons for that.



Yet TX seem to think a woman can and should be forced to host a fetus without regard to the risks involved, and completely without regard to the existing federal level case law. This is what makes any anti choicer legislation —as well as accompanying viewpoints— a strict no-go.
 
petertenthije
Posts: 4328
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 10:00 pm

Re: Texas abortion law

Sat Sep 11, 2021 12:33 am

AirWorthy99 wrote:
If a couple has a child, and they see the newborn has some health defects only detected when it was born, and they decide to let the baby die of hunger, so it could die, and you know this, would you be OK with this?

This is the MO in the Netherlands, which happens to be the country of the OP https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4240050/

Your own link says that withdrawal of life saving treatments account for 92% of neonatal abortions. Basically, pulling the plug on the ventilator / incubator. Of those 58% would have died no matter what doctors had done. That’s quite different from withholding food and waiting for the patient to die.

Also, to quote from your own source: “One case of deliberate ending of life was found. The authors concluded that the deliberate ending of life in severely ill newborns may occur less frequently than previously assumed.”.

To bring some more statistics:
Abortions in the Netherlands in 2018 for women aged 15-45: 8.8 per 1,000 women
https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/binaries/r ... rschap.pdf

Abortions in the USA in 2018 for women aged 15-44: 11.3 per 1,000 women
https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/ ... /index.htm

Yeah, as I thought, we’re not doing too bad compared to you.
 
emperortk
Posts: 110
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2018 2:01 pm

Re: Texas abortion law

Sat Sep 11, 2021 1:42 am

AirWorthy99 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:
Killing or death is bad for me, no matter if it doesn't involve me, much more when its an innocent child. Don't we care about that?


Great that you feel this way, but if so, where are your threads against the cartels in Latin America? Certainly they have killed innocent kids in the crossfire. Where are your threads about wanton killing of pregnant women in Nigeria and the Sudan? Where are the threads about *our* tax dollars supporting drone strikes that have killed innocent children and pregnant women in Afghanistan? How about the proxy war in Yemen that our leaders have sold arms to Saudi Arabia and the UAE in support of? I think we're up to 3,000 child deaths now.

https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/12/1078972

Killing of innocents is indeed to be avoided - the question is, how realistic and pragmatic are the efforts to prevent it? The reason in the case of abortion that the moral case of 'innocent life lost' is not used is because that's a philosophical question. Medical science agrees permanent viability of the fetus cannot be established until the 2nd trimester, and that's why most countries that allow abortion generally don't permit any after 20-23 weeks, when viability can be reasonably predicted. This is an acceptable compromise to reasonably minded people - taking into account both the legal considerations and the fact that a fetus declared viable by a doctor should be carried to term.


That's relative. Some science studies say that life begins way before that. For me its in conception. There isn't a complete consensus on that today, not even from scientists.

Virtual737 wrote:

Are you of the belief that a 43 day old fetus and a 6 year old child are pretty much equivalent?


Yes.


Why not go even further back than conception? Sperm cells are alive, so it's a bit bizarre to say that life "begins" at conception.

In my view, millions of men are responsible for the daily murder of literally quadrillions of lives, and I will not rest until my state government absolutely forbids these wanton crimes and punishes them with the swift and harsh hand of justice!
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 24064
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Texas abortion law

Sat Sep 11, 2021 4:50 am

bpatus297 wrote:
seb146 wrote:
PixelPilot wrote:

That's because nobody cares about the child once he/she is born. If it goes into the system somebody makes money so it becomes a product. A lot of product = a lot of money.
Interestingly enough the burden is on taxpayers but the profits fall into private hands..


https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/04/politics ... index.html
https://people.com/parents/neil-patrick ... -birthday/

Four kids adopted by stable homes but, both parents are men and the right is losing their minds. There are plenty of people who care about children.

There is another tenet of Republicanism: privatize the profits, socialize the losses. But, that is also for another thread....


The right isn't losing their minds, a small vocal fridge is. Big difference.


A small vocal fringe in control of media and governance. Yuge difference.
 
sierrakilo44
Posts: 642
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:38 am

Re: Texas abortion law

Sat Sep 11, 2021 7:08 am

seb146 wrote:
A small vocal fringe in control of media and governance. Yuge difference.


And you can appreciate the fear in the minds of many LGBT people. Abortion has been legal since 1974 but that hasn’t stopped the religious right trying to abolish it, and now after 50 years they’re almost about to succeed in the second most populous state and potentially a lot more.

So LGBT people must be in fear too, as once the religious right has gotten their way with abortion, they’ll go after LGBT people next. Bans on same sex marriage, bans on same sex adoption, can legally be fired if LGBT, gender confirmation surgery abolished.

Don’t think it can happen? I bet pro-choice advocates never envisioned this is where the paths would lead, they would expected safe and accessible Abortion services across the nation by now, not the current path where it’s going to be banned since a large proportion of the country and potentially more.
 
AirWorthy99
Posts: 1423
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2020 7:57 pm

Re: Texas abortion law

Sat Sep 11, 2021 12:37 pm

Aaron747 wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:

Let’s cut to the chase again as my question went unanswered: why is it your business or anyone else’s as to what a woman decides? It’s great that you felt strongly about seeing your kids on ultrasound, but those feelings might differ for someone in different circumstances.


The answer to your question, its one of those personal beliefs that you can't just explain. As I am sure you have on other subjects which might be of my interest.

Let me ask you a question. If a couple has a child, and they see the newborn has some health defects only detected when it was born, and they decide to let the baby die of hunger, so it could die, and you know this, would you be OK with this?

This is the MO in the Netherlands, which happens to be the country of the OP https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4240050/


Sorry that’s not really an answer for butting into the private business of others. Legally there must be a *very* good reason for doing so all can agree on.

As to your question, of course I would not be okay with that. But as other posts pointed out, disallowing abortions may ultimately result in more infanticides.


I am not using legal arguments, this is not a court. I am giving my personal opinion based on my feelings. Something that most of us do here.

Glad to hear you are against infanticide, because as you can see bellow, a user has already defended what the Dutch do of 'euthanizing newborns' another word for infanticide. Proves my point of all roads lead to infanticide.

petertenthije wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:
If a couple has a child, and they see the newborn has some health defects only detected when it was born, and they decide to let the baby die of hunger, so it could die, and you know this, would you be OK with this?

This is the MO in the Netherlands, which happens to be the country of the OP https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4240050/

Your own link says that withdrawal of life saving treatments account for 92% of neonatal abortions. Basically, pulling the plug on the ventilator / incubator. Of those 58% would have died no matter what doctors had done. That’s quite different from withholding food and waiting for the patient to die.

Also, to quote from your own source: “One case of deliberate ending of life was found. The authors concluded that the deliberate ending of life in severely ill newborns may occur less frequently than previously assumed.”.

To bring some more statistics:
Abortions in the Netherlands in 2018 for women aged 15-45: 8.8 per 1,000 women
https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/binaries/r ... rschap.pdf

Abortions in the USA in 2018 for women aged 15-44: 11.3 per 1,000 women
https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/ ... /index.htm

Yeah, as I thought, we’re not doing too bad compared to you.


BTW, its not 'neonatal abortion' you cant abort a baby already born. Your country calls it "neonatal euthanasia" to me that's infanticide. And I am amazed to find the first person to support it here on these forums.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 16451
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Texas abortion law

Sat Sep 11, 2021 1:34 pm

AirWorthy99 wrote:
I am not using legal arguments, this is not a court. I am giving my personal opinion based on my feelings. Something that most of us do here.


Nevertheless, you will not find many Americans supporting state monitoring of people's private life decisions over feelings.
 
petertenthije
Posts: 4328
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 10:00 pm

Re: Texas abortion law

Sat Sep 11, 2021 3:09 pm

AirWorthy99 wrote:
BTW, its not 'neonatal abortion' you cant abort a baby already born. Your country calls it "neonatal euthanasia" to me that's infanticide. And I am amazed to find the first person to support it here on these forums.
Please try not to get too technical when it comes to medical terms in what is not my first language. Especially when I am using the terminology used by your own website.

Anyway, these are babies that have severe medical issues. Not just a case of “i changed my mind on having a baby, let’s finish it”.

When the parents and doctors and a supervisory board agree that treatment if the illnesses is not feasible, only then is a neonatal euthanasia applied. If anyone disagrees, then no euthanasia is applied. Instead the baby will get the same care anyone gets under our universal healthcare system.

Please remind me again, how does your for-profit medical system treat such patients. If you are insured up the wazoo you are out of luck as soon as you run out of money for co-payments. If you are not insured, you’re F’d right?
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 24064
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Texas abortion law

Sat Sep 11, 2021 4:11 pm

sierrakilo44 wrote:
seb146 wrote:
A small vocal fringe in control of media and governance. Yuge difference.


And you can appreciate the fear in the minds of many LGBT people. Abortion has been legal since 1974 but that hasn’t stopped the religious right trying to abolish it, and now after 50 years they’re almost about to succeed in the second most populous state and potentially a lot more.

So LGBT people must be in fear too, as once the religious right has gotten their way with abortion, they’ll go after LGBT people next. Bans on same sex marriage, bans on same sex adoption, can legally be fired if LGBT, gender confirmation surgery abolished.

Don’t think it can happen? I bet pro-choice advocates never envisioned this is where the paths would lead, they would expected safe and accessible Abortion services across the nation by now, not the current path where it’s going to be banned since a large proportion of the country and potentially more.


Of course we are terrified of what evangelicals will do. They have been wanting to merge their brand of what they think is Christianity with government. We have gotten a taste with the "religious freedom" bills that allow shop owners to deny service to LGBTQ+ people. Evangelicals want to take that even farther.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 12667
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Texas abortion law

Sat Sep 11, 2021 4:31 pm

AirWorthy99 wrote:
BTW, its not 'neonatal abortion' you cant abort a baby already born. Your country calls it "neonatal euthanasia" to me that's infanticide. And I am amazed to find the first person to support it here on these forums.


Oh wow, that is quite a jump you make, no room for nuance in your emotional reasoning. The definition of Infanticide seems to be:
1. the crime of a mother killing her child within a year of birth.
2. a person who kills an infant, especially their own child.


What is legal in the Netherlands is euthanizing newborns, per very strict criteria, of course. And these babies would have died within months or be very severely handicapped and have a short and painful life. Calling that 'infanticide' is just trolling. But fine, if you want to call that 'infanticide', with all the safeguards given, with the outlook of the infant involved, from a human aspect, I will defend it. So you have two here. Euthanasia isn't murder, it is a medical treatment and so is abortion.
 
SL1200MK2
Posts: 220
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 11:00 pm

Re: Texas abortion law

Sat Sep 11, 2021 9:09 pm

Dutchy wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:
BTW, its not 'neonatal abortion' you cant abort a baby already born. Your country calls it "neonatal euthanasia" to me that's infanticide. And I am amazed to find the first person to support it here on these forums.


Oh wow, that is quite a jump you make, no room for nuance in your emotional reasoning. The definition of Infanticide seems to be:
1. the crime of a mother killing her child within a year of birth.
2. a person who kills an infant, especially their own child.


What is legal in the Netherlands is euthanizing newborns, per very strict criteria, of course. And these babies would have died within months or be very severely handicapped and have a short and painful life. Calling that 'infanticide' is just trolling. But fine, if you want to call that 'infanticide', with all the safeguards given, with the outlook of the infant involved, from a human aspect, I will defend it. So you have two here. Euthanasia isn't murder, it is a medical treatment and so is abortion.


I jump in here as a third that understands and respects the way the Dutch have chosen to address the issue of newborns that will not live a viable life and will only suffer to the inevitable end.
 
bpatus297
Posts: 276
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2016 4:51 am

Re: Texas abortion law

Mon Sep 13, 2021 12:41 pm

emperortk wrote:
AirWorthy99 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:

Great that you feel this way, but if so, where are your threads against the cartels in Latin America? Certainly they have killed innocent kids in the crossfire. Where are your threads about wanton killing of pregnant women in Nigeria and the Sudan? Where are the threads about *our* tax dollars supporting drone strikes that have killed innocent children and pregnant women in Afghanistan? How about the proxy war in Yemen that our leaders have sold arms to Saudi Arabia and the UAE in support of? I think we're up to 3,000 child deaths now.

https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/12/1078972

Killing of innocents is indeed to be avoided - the question is, how realistic and pragmatic are the efforts to prevent it? The reason in the case of abortion that the moral case of 'innocent life lost' is not used is because that's a philosophical question. Medical science agrees permanent viability of the fetus cannot be established until the 2nd trimester, and that's why most countries that allow abortion generally don't permit any after 20-23 weeks, when viability can be reasonably predicted. This is an acceptable compromise to reasonably minded people - taking into account both the legal considerations and the fact that a fetus declared viable by a doctor should be carried to term.


That's relative. Some science studies say that life begins way before that. For me its in conception. There isn't a complete consensus on that today, not even from scientists.

Virtual737 wrote:

Are you of the belief that a 43 day old fetus and a 6 year old child are pretty much equivalent?


Yes.


Why not go even further back than conception? Sperm cells are alive, so it's a bit bizarre to say that life "begins" at conception.

In my view, millions of men are responsible for the daily murder of literally quadrillions of lives, and I will not rest until my state government absolutely forbids these wanton crimes and punishes them with the swift and harsh hand of justice!


Sperm, just like an egg only have 23 chromosomes. A zygote, or fetus has 46, pretty big distinction.
 
bpatus297
Posts: 276
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2016 4:51 am

Re: Texas abortion law

Mon Sep 13, 2021 12:46 pm

DarkSnowyNight wrote:
DarkSnowyNight wrote:
There are times when one side of an argument is genuinely wrong. This is one.

bpatus297 wrote:
-Because people keep parroting that the pro-lifers just want to control women. That is not correct for a vast majority. Those folks genuinely are wrestling with the notion of when life begins.


Standing. That is the thing that they are not wrestling with, and it shows. Before one starts messing around with laws, one needs to fully understand whether or not they are qualified to do so. This is primarily about having the legal standing to weigh in on a thing and attempt to pass legislation so related. Anti-choicers have literally no concept of this, and why/how it is that this means they make a huge mess everywhere they go.


DarkSnowyNight wrote:
False Equivalency does nothing constructive.


The right wants to control women. This is by all objective accounts true.

bpatus297 wrote:
-Maybe in your mind,


Because my mind agrees with the objective realities present. If the right was not interested in controlling women in this fashion, they would learn what boundaries are and to respect them. The fact that they are not, and are going as far as stepping outside of constitutional legal protections to pass these laws, tells you precisely what this is about. These are not things one can relegate to subjectivity.





bpatus297 wrote:
-You are missing the point that the other side thinks its about two lives, not just the mother.



You are missing the point that it is not down to you to decide things like that.

DarkSnowyNight wrote:
Wrong argument. Look at it as a construction in stead.

If you are the only person who can save someone's life, you still cannot be compelled legally to do so.
bpatus297 wrote:
-I am not compelled to do so, but I am drawn to do so. I have been my whole life, I guess we are just wired different.


Not the point. I can watch you drown all day and not have committed a crime.

In fact, the only laws around such a scenario exist to prevent you from litigating against me in the case that in trying to save your life, I accidentally kill you more.

And there are very good reasons for that.



Yet TX seem to think a woman can and should be forced to host a fetus without regard to the risks involved, and completely without regard to the existing federal level case law. This is what makes any anti choicer legislation —as well as accompanying viewpoints— a strict no-go.


There is no reason to continue any conversation with you, as it will never be constructive. You think you know all of the answers, including what is the hears of other people. You refusal to even consider other opinions or idea of other people. Hell, apparently you want to tell me what I am thinking as well.

Have a good day.
 
FGITD
Posts: 1803
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:44 pm

Re: Texas abortion law

Mon Sep 13, 2021 1:04 pm

bpatus297 wrote:
DarkSnowyNight wrote:
DarkSnowyNight wrote:
There are times when one side of an argument is genuinely wrong. This is one.



Standing. That is the thing that they are not wrestling with, and it shows. Before one starts messing around with laws, one needs to fully understand whether or not they are qualified to do so. This is primarily about having the legal standing to weigh in on a thing and attempt to pass legislation so related. Anti-choicers have literally no concept of this, and why/how it is that this means they make a huge mess everywhere they go.


DarkSnowyNight wrote:
False Equivalency does nothing constructive.


The right wants to control women. This is by all objective accounts true.



Because my mind agrees with the objective realities present. If the right was not interested in controlling women in this fashion, they would learn what boundaries are and to respect them. The fact that they are not, and are going as far as stepping outside of constitutional legal protections to pass these laws, tells you precisely what this is about. These are not things one can relegate to subjectivity.





bpatus297 wrote:
-You are missing the point that the other side thinks its about two lives, not just the mother.



You are missing the point that it is not down to you to decide things like that.

DarkSnowyNight wrote:
Wrong argument. Look at it as a construction in stead.

If you are the only person who can save someone's life, you still cannot be compelled legally to do so.


Not the point. I can watch you drown all day and not have committed a crime.

In fact, the only laws around such a scenario exist to prevent you from litigating against me in the case that in trying to save your life, I accidentally kill you more.

And there are very good reasons for that.



Yet TX seem to think a woman can and should be forced to host a fetus without regard to the risks involved, and completely without regard to the existing federal level case law. This is what makes any anti choicer legislation —as well as accompanying viewpoints— a strict no-go.


There is no reason to continue any conversation with you, as it will never be constructive. You think you know all of the answers, including what is the hears of other people. You refusal to even consider other opinions or idea of other people. Hell, apparently you want to tell me what I am thinking as well.

Have a good day.



Yea, it sure sucks when other people make decisions for you, doesn’t it? When they just don’t care about your input or what you have to say, and they do it anyway!

But that’s of course not relevant at all to this topic. Oops.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 5138
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Texas abortion law

Mon Sep 13, 2021 1:55 pm

Infanticide (abandoning them) was practiced in England as late as the mid 1800s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide, I have read in other places that while officially banned it was not uncommon, nor even all that controversial. In my opinion the dynamic in this was practicality - if very poor people could not afford to raise the child some simply abandoned them, and while some of these abandoned children were rescued not all were. This was widely known, but again I suspect polite people simply did not talk about it. Christian and Jewish scriptures likely address this and it seems to never have been acceptable. BUT, so were fornication, taking the lord's name in vain, etc etc etc. It is wonderful to see and know those who honor and act upon the good things in their religion, but far more governments simply co-opt the honor and ignore the virtues. Rich Texans will simply go out of state.
 
bpatus297
Posts: 276
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2016 4:51 am

Re: Texas abortion law

Mon Sep 13, 2021 3:37 pm

FGITD wrote:
bpatus297 wrote:
DarkSnowyNight wrote:

Standing. That is the thing that they are not wrestling with, and it shows. Before one starts messing around with laws, one needs to fully understand whether or not they are qualified to do so. This is primarily about having the legal standing to weigh in on a thing and attempt to pass legislation so related. Anti-choicers have literally no concept of this, and why/how it is that this means they make a huge mess everywhere they go.




Because my mind agrees with the objective realities present. If the right was not interested in controlling women in this fashion, they would learn what boundaries are and to respect them. The fact that they are not, and are going as far as stepping outside of constitutional legal protections to pass these laws, tells you precisely what this is about. These are not things one can relegate to subjectivity.








You are missing the point that it is not down to you to decide things like that.



Not the point. I can watch you drown all day and not have committed a crime.

In fact, the only laws around such a scenario exist to prevent you from litigating against me in the case that in trying to save your life, I accidentally kill you more.

And there are very good reasons for that.



Yet TX seem to think a woman can and should be forced to host a fetus without regard to the risks involved, and completely without regard to the existing federal level case law. This is what makes any anti choicer legislation —as well as accompanying viewpoints— a strict no-go.


There is no reason to continue any conversation with you, as it will never be constructive. You think you know all of the answers, including what is the hears of other people. You refusal to even consider other opinions or idea of other people. Hell, apparently you want to tell me what I am thinking as well.

Have a good day.



Yea, it sure sucks when other people make decisions for you, doesn’t it? When they just don’t care about your input or what you have to say, and they do it anyway!

But that’s of course not relevant at all to this topic. Oops.


Again, people think there is a third person in the equation, not just the mom and dad. For them it's not about controlling the women, rather defending the innocent, but keep ignoring that.
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 14144
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: Texas abortion law

Mon Sep 13, 2021 4:03 pm

bpatus297 wrote:
FGITD wrote:
bpatus297 wrote:

There is no reason to continue any conversation with you, as it will never be constructive. You think you know all of the answers, including what is the hears of other people. You refusal to even consider other opinions or idea of other people. Hell, apparently you want to tell me what I am thinking as well.

Have a good day.



Yea, it sure sucks when other people make decisions for you, doesn’t it? When they just don’t care about your input or what you have to say, and they do it anyway!

But that’s of course not relevant at all to this topic. Oops.


Again, people think there is a third person in the equation, not just the mom and dad. For them it's not about controlling the women, rather defending the innocent, but keep ignoring that.



Don't use the word think for believe. The people that "Believe" this are not the mother or father. They are sticking their "Beliefs" in on private medical decisions.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 20190
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Texas abortion law

Mon Sep 13, 2021 4:07 pm

bpatus297 wrote:
FGITD wrote:
bpatus297 wrote:

There is no reason to continue any conversation with you, as it will never be constructive. You think you know all of the answers, including what is the hears of other people. You refusal to even consider other opinions or idea of other people. Hell, apparently you want to tell me what I am thinking as well.

Have a good day.



Yea, it sure sucks when other people make decisions for you, doesn’t it? When they just don’t care about your input or what you have to say, and they do it anyway!

But that’s of course not relevant at all to this topic. Oops.


Again, people think there is a third person in the equation, not just the mom and dad. For them it's not about controlling the women, rather defending the innocent, but keep ignoring that.


Why is it any of their business? An unviable clump of cells is not "a person".
 
bpatus297
Posts: 276
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2016 4:51 am

Re: Texas abortion law

Mon Sep 13, 2021 4:31 pm

scbriml wrote:
bpatus297 wrote:
FGITD wrote:


Yea, it sure sucks when other people make decisions for you, doesn’t it? When they just don’t care about your input or what you have to say, and they do it anyway!

But that’s of course not relevant at all to this topic. Oops.


Again, people think there is a third person in the equation, not just the mom and dad. For them it's not about controlling the women, rather defending the innocent, but keep ignoring that.


Why is it any of their business? An unviable clump of cells is not "a person".


Again, that is your opinion. When life begins is not settled science. After all, you are just a lump of cells too, albeit a few more than an embryo.
 
alfa164
Posts: 3997
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:47 am

Re: Texas abortion law

Mon Sep 13, 2021 5:36 pm

scbriml wrote:
Why is it any of their business? An unviable clump of cells is not "a person".


I wonder if these same deep thinkers believe that, if I pick up an acorn, I should be charged with cutting down an oak tree?

:roll:
 
bpatus297
Posts: 276
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2016 4:51 am

Re: Texas abortion law

Mon Sep 13, 2021 6:00 pm

alfa164 wrote:
scbriml wrote:
Why is it any of their business? An unviable clump of cells is not "a person".


I wonder if these same deep thinkers believe that, if I pick up an acorn, I should be charged with cutting down an oak tree?

:roll:

Really, you are comparing an acorn to a human fetus?
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 24064
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Texas abortion law

Mon Sep 13, 2021 7:45 pm

bpatus297 wrote:
There is no reason to continue any conversation with you, as it will never be constructive. You think you know all of the answers, including what is the hears of other people. You refusal to even consider other opinions or idea of other people. Hell, apparently you want to tell me what I am thinking as well.

Have a good day.


That is the point, though, isn't it? Republicans are passing laws based on feelings of some in their party because everyone must believe this, no matter what. Republicans refuse to consider other opinions or ideas of other people. They want to tell us all what to think.

Abortion is settled law. Republicans are trying to re-litigate it. As a man, I have no dog in this fight. Let women decide. Each and every individual woman, not Republicans. Not the right wing Supreme Court.
 
bpatus297
Posts: 276
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2016 4:51 am

Re: Texas abortion law

Mon Sep 13, 2021 7:47 pm

seb146 wrote:
bpatus297 wrote:
There is no reason to continue any conversation with you, as it will never be constructive. You think you know all of the answers, including what is the hears of other people. You refusal to even consider other opinions or idea of other people. Hell, apparently you want to tell me what I am thinking as well.

Have a good day.


That is the point, though, isn't it? Republicans are passing laws based on feelings of some in their party because everyone must believe this, no matter what. Republicans refuse to consider other opinions or ideas of other people. They want to tell us all what to think.

Abortion is settled law. Republicans are trying to re-litigate it. As a man, I have no dog in this fight. Let women decide. Each and every individual woman, not Republicans. Not the right wing Supreme Court.


I guess you missed where I said I don't like what Texas did.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 16451
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Texas abortion law

Mon Sep 13, 2021 8:31 pm

bpatus297 wrote:
scbriml wrote:
bpatus297 wrote:

Again, people think there is a third person in the equation, not just the mom and dad. For them it's not about controlling the women, rather defending the innocent, but keep ignoring that.


Why is it any of their business? An unviable clump of cells is not "a person".


Again, that is your opinion. When life begins is not settled science. After all, you are just a lump of cells too, albeit a few more than an embryo.


Partially true except philosophical questions like that are irrelevant to ‘settled science’ as they are outside its scope. As a medical procedure performed by board certified professionals, all that matters is what med schools teach, and that’s viability being established at 20-23 weeks.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 20190
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Texas abortion law

Mon Sep 13, 2021 9:39 pm

bpatus297 wrote:
scbriml wrote:
bpatus297 wrote:

Again, people think there is a third person in the equation, not just the mom and dad. For them it's not about controlling the women, rather defending the innocent, but keep ignoring that.


Why is it any of their business? An unviable clump of cells is not "a person".


Again, that is your opinion. When life begins is not settled science. After all, you are just a lump of cells too, albeit a few more than an embryo.


Unviable, being the key word.

You didn’t answer the question - why is it any of their business?
 
User avatar
DarkSnowyNight
Posts: 2960
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 7:59 pm

Re: Texas abortion law

Mon Sep 13, 2021 10:16 pm

casinterest wrote:


Don't use the word think for believe. The people that "Believe" this are not the mother or father. They are sticking their "Beliefs" in on private medical decisions.



Not only that, but such things move firmly into the Beliefs Only category the more loudly they reject the very settled science behind this.

Aaron747 wrote:
Partially true except philosophical questions like that are irrelevant to ‘settled science’ as they are outside its scope. As a medical procedure performed by board certified professionals, all that matters is what med schools teach, and that’s viability being established at 20-23 weeks.


And to humor their silly belief that embryo = sentience, it also neatly avoids the very real and legally established point that one is not obligated to save and care for a 'life' simply because it exists. No anti-choicer has been able to answer this to date.

scbriml wrote:

Why is it any of their business? An unviable clump of cells is not "a person".


Right. It is not. And that takes us back to why this can be about nothing other than controlling women. Poorly, at that.


sierrakilo44 wrote:
And you can appreciate the fear in the minds of many LGBT people. Abortion has been legal since 1974 but that hasn’t stopped the religious right trying to abolish it, and now after 50 years they’re almost about to succeed in the second most populous state and potentially a lot more.

So LGBT people must be in fear too, as once the religious right has gotten their way with abortion, they’ll go after LGBT people next. Bans on same sex marriage, bans on same sex adoption, can legally be fired if LGBT, gender confirmation surgery abolished.

Don’t think it can happen? I bet pro-choice advocates never envisioned this is where the paths would lead, they would expected safe and accessible Abortion services across the nation by now, not the current path where it’s going to be banned since a large proportion of the country and potentially more.


This a very real concern. Just as corrosion is the tendency of a metal to return to its ore state, so too is social and economic conservatism the tendency of a democracy to return to its feudal state.

It is important to take these —and any— attacks on reproductive rights very, very seriously. These people will not stop here, and will only become more and more extreme with encouragement. This is more hazardous still as their appeal is to a base that is relatively illiterate and highly emotive when it comes to virtually any social or economic issue.

The attacks on LGBT rights go hand-in-glove with attacks on reproductive autonomy, and whatever legal* tools are used here will undoubtedly be turned against LGBT members and minorities. It is important to remain vigilant in these matters in the same way it is important to stamp out an infection before one loses a limb over it.


* 'Legal' as in not at all. But when enough people look the other way, well...
 
User avatar
ER757
Posts: 4269
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 10:16 am

Re: Texas abortion law

Mon Sep 13, 2021 11:46 pm

phatfarmlines wrote:
Guess what? Governor Abbott is going to eliminate rape!

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott defends abortion law, says state will 'eliminate rape'

Source: USA Today

Coming late to the game here, but have to say that on the list of "stupidest things any governor has ever said," this one would be in the top five
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 24064
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Texas abortion law

Tue Sep 14, 2021 2:01 am

bpatus297 wrote:
seb146 wrote:
bpatus297 wrote:
There is no reason to continue any conversation with you, as it will never be constructive. You think you know all of the answers, including what is the hears of other people. You refusal to even consider other opinions or idea of other people. Hell, apparently you want to tell me what I am thinking as well.

Have a good day.


That is the point, though, isn't it? Republicans are passing laws based on feelings of some in their party because everyone must believe this, no matter what. Republicans refuse to consider other opinions or ideas of other people. They want to tell us all what to think.

Abortion is settled law. Republicans are trying to re-litigate it. As a man, I have no dog in this fight. Let women decide. Each and every individual woman, not Republicans. Not the right wing Supreme Court.


I guess you missed where I said I don't like what Texas did.


Some Republicans have buyers remorse, too. Just keep that in mind in November 2022 and November 2024.....
 
bpatus297
Posts: 276
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2016 4:51 am

Re: Texas abortion law

Tue Sep 14, 2021 11:16 am

Aaron747 wrote:
bpatus297 wrote:
scbriml wrote:

Why is it any of their business? An unviable clump of cells is not "a person".


Again, that is your opinion. When life begins is not settled science. After all, you are just a lump of cells too, albeit a few more than an embryo.


Partially true except philosophical questions like that are irrelevant to ‘settled science’ as they are outside its scope. As a medical procedure performed by board certified professionals, all that matters is what med schools teach, and that’s viability being established at 20-23 weeks.


Just because a medical school teaches a procedure doesn't mean it's based on settled science. Heck doctors used to have you ingest mercury to cure things such as syphilis.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 12667
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Texas abortion law

Tue Sep 14, 2021 11:33 am

bpatus297 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
bpatus297 wrote:

Again, that is your opinion. When life begins is not settled science. After all, you are just a lump of cells too, albeit a few more than an embryo.


Partially true except philosophical questions like that are irrelevant to ‘settled science’ as they are outside its scope. As a medical procedure performed by board certified professionals, all that matters is what med schools teach, and that’s viability being established at 20-23 weeks.


Just because a medical school teaches a procedure doesn't mean it's based on settled science. Heck doctors used to have you ingest mercury to cure things such as syphilis.


That in itself is true, of course. But given at 24 weeks is where they try to save a new-born baby, and even then the chances are small and almost impossible that he or she will not be handicapped. The 22weeks is because scientists can't be sure about the number of weeks. Perhaps science will find a way to keep babies alive at 20 or even 19 weeks, then we need to evaluate the 22weeks, not before. Your argument is bullocks because it doesn't say anything.
 
bpatus297
Posts: 276
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2016 4:51 am

Re: Texas abortion law

Tue Sep 14, 2021 11:37 am

scbriml wrote:
bpatus297 wrote:
scbriml wrote:

Why is it any of their business? An unviable clump of cells is not "a person".


Again, that is your opinion. When life begins is not settled science. After all, you are just a lump of cells too, albeit a few more than an embryo.


Unviable, being the key word.

You didn’t answer the question - why is it any of their business?


Lets assume for a minute that an embryo is a person. Then you are saying that the killing of an innocent human being isn't anyone's business so we should just ignore it. Got it. While the killing of another person might not technically be anyone's business that is not something that a civilized society can ignore. "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing".

So again, I can't say for sure when life begins, that is the crux of this argument. I am tired of people saying this is about control, for the vast majority of pro-lifers, it has to do with protecting an innocent life. Until that is accepted, we will never have a constructive dialog about this.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 16451
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Texas abortion law

Tue Sep 14, 2021 11:38 am

bpatus297 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
bpatus297 wrote:

Again, that is your opinion. When life begins is not settled science. After all, you are just a lump of cells too, albeit a few more than an embryo.


Partially true except philosophical questions like that are irrelevant to ‘settled science’ as they are outside its scope. As a medical procedure performed by board certified professionals, all that matters is what med schools teach, and that’s viability being established at 20-23 weeks.


Just because a medical school teaches a procedure doesn't mean it's based on settled science. Heck doctors used to have you ingest mercury to cure things such as syphilis.


That’s a straw man. We’re talking about medical consensus today, not whatever was happening in the 19th century. The two are incomparable. There was substantial research the last 35 years on embryonic/fetal viability and that data is what the current consensus derives from.

To be intellectually honest about what life is, you must differentiate between the intangibles that are philosophical and the tangibles observed via research. Medicine is concerned with the latter.
 
User avatar
DarkSnowyNight
Posts: 2960
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 7:59 pm

Re: Texas abortion law

Tue Sep 14, 2021 11:40 am

Dutchy wrote:
That in itself is true, of course. But given at 24 weeks is where they try to save a new-born baby, and even then the chances are small and almost impossible that he or she will not be handicapped. The 22weeks is because scientists can't be sure about the number of weeks. Perhaps science will find a way to keep babies alive at 20 or even 19 weeks, then we need to evaluate the 22weeks, not before. Your argument is bullocks because it doesn't say anything.



Right. His argument —if one can call it that— is bollocks because it is deliberately contrarian without offering anything like a reasonable standard of admissible evidence. And this speaks to the heart of the problem anti-choicers create. They purposely fail to understand a thing, and in so doing, make it everyone else's burden to clean up. It is not possible to have that stance without malice.
 
bpatus297
Posts: 276
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2016 4:51 am

Re: Texas abortion law

Tue Sep 14, 2021 11:42 am

Dutchy wrote:
bpatus297 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:

Partially true except philosophical questions like that are irrelevant to ‘settled science’ as they are outside its scope. As a medical procedure performed by board certified professionals, all that matters is what med schools teach, and that’s viability being established at 20-23 weeks.


Just because a medical school teaches a procedure doesn't mean it's based on settled science. Heck doctors used to have you ingest mercury to cure things such as syphilis.


That in itself is true, of course. But given at 24 weeks is where they try to save a new-born baby, and even then the chances are small and almost impossible that he or she will not be handicapped. The 22weeks is because scientists can't be sure about the number of weeks. Perhaps science will find a way to keep babies alive at 20 or even 19 weeks, then we need to evaluate the 22weeks, not before. Your argument is bullocks because it doesn't say anything.


I am not making an argument. I am point out the fact that a lot of people on here think the right wants to control a women, when this debate is about those on the right believing an embryo is a person. Just because an embryo is not self-sustainable until a specific time would not make it okay to abort it, if in fact it is alive. I can't say for sure if the embryo is alive or not, that is my position in this debate.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 16451
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Texas abortion law

Tue Sep 14, 2021 11:43 am

bpatus297 wrote:
scbriml wrote:
bpatus297 wrote:

Again, that is your opinion. When life begins is not settled science. After all, you are just a lump of cells too, albeit a few more than an embryo.


Unviable, being the key word.

You didn’t answer the question - why is it any of their business?


Lets assume for a minute that an embryo is a person. Then you are saying that the killing of an innocent human being isn't anyone's business so we should just ignore it. Got it. While the killing of another person might not technically be anyone's business that is not something that a civilized society can ignore. "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing".

So again, I can't say for sure when life begins, that is the crux of this argument. I am tired of people saying this is about control, for the vast majority of pro-lifers, it has to do with protecting an innocent life. Until that is accepted, we will never have a constructive dialog about this.


Except that’s not what reasonable people are saying. Pro-lifers want to apply their philosophical standard to everyone - how is that not control? SCOTUS was very clear in Roe that philosophical questions about life cannot be resolved in court. Evidence can be, so that’s why they resolved that private life/medical decisions must be protected. If women have the legal protection to make private decisions about their pregnancy up to a defined medical standard, why should a philosophy about life they may not share apply to their situation by fiat?
 
bpatus297
Posts: 276
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2016 4:51 am

Re: Texas abortion law

Tue Sep 14, 2021 11:48 am

Aaron747 wrote:
bpatus297 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:

Partially true except philosophical questions like that are irrelevant to ‘settled science’ as they are outside its scope. As a medical procedure performed by board certified professionals, all that matters is what med schools teach, and that’s viability being established at 20-23 weeks.


Just because a medical school teaches a procedure doesn't mean it's based on settled science. Heck doctors used to have you ingest mercury to cure things such as syphilis.


That’s a straw man. We’re talking about medical consensus today, not whatever was happening in the 19th century. The two are incomparable. There was substantial research the last 35 years on embryonic/fetal viability and that data is what the current consensus derives from.

To be intellectually honest about what life is, you must differentiate between the intangibles that are philosophical and the tangibles observed via research. Medicine is concerned with the latter.


Its not a strawman. I was pointing out past errors in medical teaching to show that just because it is taught for use in medicine doesn't make the teaching infallible. Medical doctors and schools get things wrong on occasion and I was pointing out the history of it. They base things on what we currently know and understand, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are right. We learn new things all the time.

Holly $*^T you guys are really trying hard to push the fact that an embryo has no possibility of being alive by attacking me. I have said repeatedly that I don't know when live begins, I wrestle with that.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 16451
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Texas abortion law

Tue Sep 14, 2021 11:52 am

bpatus297 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
bpatus297 wrote:

Just because a medical school teaches a procedure doesn't mean it's based on settled science. Heck doctors used to have you ingest mercury to cure things such as syphilis.


That’s a straw man. We’re talking about medical consensus today, not whatever was happening in the 19th century. The two are incomparable. There was substantial research the last 35 years on embryonic/fetal viability and that data is what the current consensus derives from.

To be intellectually honest about what life is, you must differentiate between the intangibles that are philosophical and the tangibles observed via research. Medicine is concerned with the latter.


Its not a strawman. I was pointing out past errors in medical teaching to show that just because it is taught for use in medicine doesn't make the teaching infallible. Medical doctors and schools get things wrong on occasion and I was pointing out the history of it. They base things on what we currently know and understand, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are right. We learn new things all the time.

Holly $*^T you guys are really trying hard to push the fact that an embryo has no possibility of being alive by attacking me. I have said repeatedly that I don't know when live begins, I wrestle with that.


It *is* a strawman because there was no prior mention of medical mistakes or the current consensus being in error.

As for ‘no possibility of being alive’ I never made such a statement. Please revisit my second paragraph because that’s the critical point here. The philosophy of life is subjective, the study of its physical propagation is objective.
Last edited by Aaron747 on Tue Sep 14, 2021 11:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
bpatus297
Posts: 276
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2016 4:51 am

Re: Texas abortion law

Tue Sep 14, 2021 11:53 am

DarkSnowyNight wrote:
casinterest wrote:


Don't use the word think for believe. The people that "Believe" this are not the mother or father. They are sticking their "Beliefs" in on private medical decisions.



Not only that, but such things move firmly into the Beliefs Only category the more loudly they reject the very settled science behind this.

Aaron747 wrote:
Partially true except philosophical questions like that are irrelevant to ‘settled science’ as they are outside its scope. As a medical procedure performed by board certified professionals, all that matters is what med schools teach, and that’s viability being established at 20-23 weeks.


And to humor their silly belief that embryo = sentience, it also neatly avoids the very real and legally established point that one is not obligated to save and care for a 'life' simply because it exists. No anti-choicer has been able to answer this to date.

scbriml wrote:

Why is it any of their business? An unviable clump of cells is not "a person".


Right. It is not. And that takes us back to why this can be about nothing other than controlling women. Poorly, at that.


sierrakilo44 wrote:
And you can appreciate the fear in the minds of many LGBT people. Abortion has been legal since 1974 but that hasn’t stopped the religious right trying to abolish it, and now after 50 years they’re almost about to succeed in the second most populous state and potentially a lot more.

So LGBT people must be in fear too, as once the religious right has gotten their way with abortion, they’ll go after LGBT people next. Bans on same sex marriage, bans on same sex adoption, can legally be fired if LGBT, gender confirmation surgery abolished.

Don’t think it can happen? I bet pro-choice advocates never envisioned this is where the paths would lead, they would expected safe and accessible Abortion services across the nation by now, not the current path where it’s going to be banned since a large proportion of the country and potentially more.


This a very real concern. Just as corrosion is the tendency of a metal to return to its ore state, so too is social and economic conservatism the tendency of a democracy to return to its feudal state.

It is important to take these —and any— attacks on reproductive rights very, very seriously. These people will not stop here, and will only become more and more extreme with encouragement. This is more hazardous still as their appeal is to a base that is relatively illiterate and highly emotive when it comes to virtually any social or economic issue.

The attacks on LGBT rights go hand-in-glove with attacks on reproductive autonomy, and whatever legal* tools are used here will undoubtedly be turned against LGBT members and minorities. It is important to remain vigilant in these matters in the same way it is important to stamp out an infection before one loses a limb over it.


* 'Legal' as in not at all. But when enough people look the other way, well...



You simply don't want to hear the other side of this argument. You are being sanctimonious and want to push your view on everyone else plain and simple. Please spare me that the pro-lifers (using anti-choice clearly shows your position) are trying to push their views on women. I have said over and over, if the embryo is a life, its not about the women's choice to abort the fetus, rather protecting the innocent life. Weather you agree with that or not doesn't change the fact that is what they think. I am done trying to have a conversation with you, it is pointless.

Have a good day.
 
User avatar
DarkSnowyNight
Posts: 2960
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 7:59 pm

Re: Texas abortion law

Tue Sep 14, 2021 12:27 pm

bpatus297 wrote:


You simply don't want to hear the other side of this argument.


There is not another 'side' here. If you were to tell someone that the quadratic formula is a method of planting vanilla pudding trees, that would not be a point. You would simply be wrong. This is not different to that.

There are people who respect a woman's physical sovereignty, and there are people who are wrong about that.

bpatus297 wrote:
You are being sanctimonious and want to push your view on everyone else plain and simple.


The irony of your feelings on that point have already been well covered.

bpatus297 wrote:
I have said over and over, if the embryo is a life, its not about the women's choice to abort the fetus,


And you have consistently failed to address the flaw in this attempt at reasoning by insisting that a woman has any obligation there.

And not to put too fine a point on it, but no woman should or need care what you 'think' or are 'struggling with' as it pertains. You have not addressed what it is that gives anti-choicers any standing to comment on this in the first place.
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 14144
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: Texas abortion law

Tue Sep 14, 2021 1:42 pm

bpatus297 wrote:
DarkSnowyNight wrote:
casinterest wrote:


Don't use the word think for believe. The people that "Believe" this are not the mother or father. They are sticking their "Beliefs" in on private medical decisions.



Not only that, but such things move firmly into the Beliefs Only category the more loudly they reject the very settled science behind this.

Aaron747 wrote:
Partially true except philosophical questions like that are irrelevant to ‘settled science’ as they are outside its scope. As a medical procedure performed by board certified professionals, all that matters is what med schools teach, and that’s viability being established at 20-23 weeks.


And to humor their silly belief that embryo = sentience, it also neatly avoids the very real and legally established point that one is not obligated to save and care for a 'life' simply because it exists. No anti-choicer has been able to answer this to date.

scbriml wrote:

Why is it any of their business? An unviable clump of cells is not "a person".


Right. It is not. And that takes us back to why this can be about nothing other than controlling women. Poorly, at that.


sierrakilo44 wrote:
And you can appreciate the fear in the minds of many LGBT people. Abortion has been legal since 1974 but that hasn’t stopped the religious right trying to abolish it, and now after 50 years they’re almost about to succeed in the second most populous state and potentially a lot more.

So LGBT people must be in fear too, as once the religious right has gotten their way with abortion, they’ll go after LGBT people next. Bans on same sex marriage, bans on same sex adoption, can legally be fired if LGBT, gender confirmation surgery abolished.

Don’t think it can happen? I bet pro-choice advocates never envisioned this is where the paths would lead, they would expected safe and accessible Abortion services across the nation by now, not the current path where it’s going to be banned since a large proportion of the country and potentially more.


This a very real concern. Just as corrosion is the tendency of a metal to return to its ore state, so too is social and economic conservatism the tendency of a democracy to return to its feudal state.

It is important to take these —and any— attacks on reproductive rights very, very seriously. These people will not stop here, and will only become more and more extreme with encouragement. This is more hazardous still as their appeal is to a base that is relatively illiterate and highly emotive when it comes to virtually any social or economic issue.

The attacks on LGBT rights go hand-in-glove with attacks on reproductive autonomy, and whatever legal* tools are used here will undoubtedly be turned against LGBT members and minorities. It is important to remain vigilant in these matters in the same way it is important to stamp out an infection before one loses a limb over it.


* 'Legal' as in not at all. But when enough people look the other way, well...



You simply don't want to hear the other side of this argument. You are being sanctimonious and want to push your view on everyone else plain and simple. Please spare me that the pro-lifers (using anti-choice clearly shows your position) are trying to push their views on women. I have said over and over, if the embryo is a life, its not about the women's choice to abort the fetus, rather protecting the innocent life. Weather you agree with that or not doesn't change the fact that is what they think. I am done trying to have a conversation with you, it is pointless.

Have a good day.


? Project much?

I understand that you want to give full personhood to an embryo that is still living in a host(female) body, but you fail to address the rights of the host.
 
alfa164
Posts: 3997
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:47 am

Re: Texas abortion law

Tue Sep 14, 2021 2:01 pm

bpatus297 wrote:
Lets assume for a minute that an embryo is a person.


... and that is the whole thing wrong with the anti-choice demagogues: their position is based on an assumption.

Medical policy should not be based on assumptions; it should be - and, indeed, it is - based on facts and science. Political positions should not be based on assumptions; it should be - but too often isn't - based on facts and science. When politicians ignore the facts and science, they start making laws to pander to their own dogmas - or the dogmas of their most rabid supporters. That's why we have such division in this country. It's not the division between right-and-left, but the division between people who believe in dogma and demagoguery, and people who can think.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 36 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos