Texas bans abortion.

[Aridas]

There seems to be a common misconception that all of those who support limits on abortion are religious. I see this lobbed out frequently, around here.

It's well worth acknowledging, however, that the political forces that push for further restrictions are overwhelmingly "religious" or seeking to appease those "religious" forces. It's certainly true that not all of those who support some restrictions are religious, but even then, it's generally not something that they're going out of their way to prioritize politically and when they do delve into that arena, those forces tend to push for more reasonable restrictions that don't actually arose serious ire. At this point, though, the "religious" forces have largely driven the conversation for further restrictions past reasonable territory and into territory that only really does more harm than good. Furthermore, most of your arguments and rhetoric seems to have been poisoned by them. After all, to repeat a point as an example -

2nd trimester abortions are rare, 3rd trimester even rarer and done only because something has gone very, very wrong. People don't carry to the 3rd trimester just to have an abortion for funsies. These are people who probably already bought a crib.

Much of your rhetoric seems to be based on fundamentally false narratives and assumptions.

When one's job is more important than one's conscience...

Job for the most part, yes, but it's hard to ignore how death threats have increasingly become standard practice as a method for trying to sway Republican votes towards the unpatriotic side.

 

[Paul2]

It's well worth acknowledging, however, that the political forces that push for further restrictions are overwhelmingly "religious" or seeking to appease those "religious" forces. It's certainly true that not all of those who support some restrictions are religious, but even then, it's generally not something that they're going out of their way to prioritize politically and when they do delve into that arena, those forces tend to push for more reasonable restrictions that don't actually arose serious ire. At this point, though, the "religious" forces have largely driven the conversation for further restrictions past reasonable territory and into territory that only really does more harm than good.



Job for the most part, yes, but it's hard to ignore how death threats have increasingly become standard practice as a method for trying to sway Republican votes towards the unpatriotic side.

The absolutism of the anti-abortion folks (in general) doesn't have too many other sources than religion.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Do you also oppose birth control?

First, I don’t think it’s fair to say I “oppose” abortion. Just that I hate the idea.

Similarly, I also don’t “oppose” birth control. Plus, many common forms of contraception avoid the issue by stopping conception in the first place.

Finally, my conflicted position is NOT informed by religion. I’m an atheist, but that doesn’t preclude philosophical pondering about the value of human life, potential or actual.

 

[JoeMorgue]

No, it’s not. Not yet.

Most of the noise on this issue comes from the extremes, such that it’s hard to take a middle ground without being attacked by one or both of the extremes.

That “pile of cells” contains a unique combination of human DNA from its parents, one that has never been seen before in the history of the universe nor will ever be seen again. It has the potential to become a human being simply by letting nature take its course. A humanist, finding human life and potential a positive, would likely see it as a negative to snuff out that unique potential human being without very strong justification.

That said, I find it abhorrent that a woman could be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term against her will. Which is why I find myself in a conflicted middle ground, hating the idea and reality of abortion while at the same time hating the idea of draconian restrictions to a woman’s right to have one on her own terms. As the extreme positions battle it out and get the majority of air time, I wonder how many, like myself, just long for some compromise solution.

Oh horse hockey and nonsense. "Compromise" and "Middle Ground" my achin' ass.

Here's the compromise. You never have to get an abortion. If anyone ever tries to make you get one, I 100% promise, swear, and bow my allegiance to defending you.

Other people's abortions you can just not care about at all.

There, there's the "Middle Ground." And that's where we should be at.

 

[Aridas]

First, I don’t think it’s fair to say I “oppose” abortion. Just that I hate the idea.

Similarly, I also don’t “oppose” birth control. Plus, many common forms of contraception avoid the issue by stopping conception in the first place.

Finally, my conflicted position is NOT informed by religion. I’m an atheist, but that doesn’t preclude philosophical pondering about the value of human life, potential or actual.

It may be worth pointedly saying that this is actually a pretty standard position. Abortion is, at best, a necessary evil done for the sake of producing a better outcome, both for the women and thus for society by extension. Necessary evils are generally not popular, though, for obvious reasons.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

First, I don’t think it’s fair to say I “oppose” abortion. Just that I hate the idea.

Similarly, I also don’t “oppose” birth control. Plus, many common forms of contraception avoid the issue by stopping conception in the first place.

Okay, you hate the idea of birth control, then. Because it is doing the very same interfering with nature that you took issue with about abortion in decreasing the potential human population.

Finally, my conflicted position is NOT informed by religion. I’m an atheist, but that doesn’t preclude philosophical pondering about the value of human life, potential or actual.

Most philosophical ponderings about the value of human life take the quality of that life into account as well as the quantity. No one is ever blase about having an abortion. The people affected by this law are those that are keenly aware they aren't going to be able to give their child the life they deserve to have. Humanism is (or should be) staunchly on their side.

 

[sphenisc]

No, it’s not. Not yet.

Most of the noise on this issue comes from the extremes, such that it’s hard to take a middle ground without being attacked by one or both of the extremes.

That “pile of cells” contains a unique combination of human DNA from its parents, one that has never been seen before in the history of the universe nor will ever be seen again. It has the potential to become a human being simply by letting nature take its course. A humanist, finding human life and potential a positive, would likely see it as a negative to snuff out that unique potential human being without very strong justification.

That said, I find it abhorrent that a woman could be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term against her will. Which is why I find myself in a conflicted middle ground, hating the idea and reality of abortion while at the same time hating the idea of draconian restrictions to a woman’s right to have one on her own terms. As the extreme positions battle it out and get the majority of air time, I wonder how many, like myself, just long for some compromise solution.

I don't think you're alone in that.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_womb

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Oh horse hockey and nonsense. "Compromise" and "Middle Ground" my achin' ass.

Thank you for making my prediction accurate.

I think I’ve stated my position, as flawed as it may be. Going back-and-forth beyond this won’t accomplish anything.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Going back-and-forth beyond this won’t accomplish anything.

And that's the problem because the status quo of "Women not having control over their bodies" is not acceptable so we will accomplish something with or without you being on board.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

What is needed are artificial wombs, so male lawmakers so concerned with a baby's life can be implanted with fetuses that would otherwise be aborted and they can carry them to term.

 

[JoeMorgue]

What is needed are artificial wombs, so male lawmakers so concerned with a baby's life can be implanted with fetuses that would otherwise be aborted and they can carry them to term.

They would just abort them and remain 100% immune to the hypocrisy.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

And that's the problem because the status quo of "Women not having control over their bodies" is not acceptable so we will accomplish something with or without you being on board.

Against my better judgment…

It’s frustrating to write something and have it ignored or misrepresented. To wit:

“That said, I find it abhorrent that a woman could be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term against her will.”

 

[The Great Zaganza]

No, it’s not. Not yet.

Most of the noise on this issue comes from the extremes, such that it’s hard to take a middle ground without being attacked by one or both of the extremes.

That “pile of cells” contains a unique combination of human DNA from its parents, one that has never been seen before in the history of the universe nor will ever be seen again. It has the potential to become a human being simply by letting nature take its course. A humanist, finding human life and potential a positive, would likely see it as a negative to snuff out that unique potential human being without very strong justification.

...

the same argument, slightly modified, could be made of semen.

 

[Warp12]

Everyone is talking about the women affected by this law. How about the poor men who can't talk their girl into getting an abortion, now? I hate to see these Knights-In-Shining-Armor forced to suffer.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Against my better judgment…

It’s frustrating to write something and have it ignored or misrepresented. To wit:

“That said, I find it abhorrent that a woman could be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term against her will.”

Again arguing against something and then mouthing the words "But I still support it" thinking you will save face and cover your ass doesn't work. People play that game on this board way better than you do.

And yes suggesting women "compromise" or meet anti-abortion activist "halfway" is arguing against women being forced to carry unwanted pregnancies.

 

[Darat]

No, it’s not. Not yet.

Most of the noise on this issue comes from the extremes, such that it’s hard to take a middle ground without being attacked by one or both of the extremes.

…snip…

Sorry but there isn’t two extreme sides on this matter and therefore its a matter of ignoring them both.

The only extremists are those for no abortions.

 

[Warp12]

Sorry but there isn’t two extreme sides on this matter and therefore its a matter of ignoring them both.

The only extremists are those for no abortions.

Because legally being able to have an abortion at full-term isn't "extreme", right?

 

[ahhell]

I'm late to the thread, dunno if this has been brought up yet.

Exactly how will a legal challenge to this law be brought when there is no government official to sue because it's the vigilantes who enforce the law?

I've heard a lot in the past two days about how an injunction to stop the law before it went into effect would and did fail, but very little about what happens now.

Now that it is in effect, it will be brought to court.

Against my better judgment…

It’s frustrating to write something and have it ignored or misrepresented. To wit:

“That said, I find it abhorrent that a woman could be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term against her will.”

Among the many issues with this conversation is that the extremes can not see how extreme they are.
Almost nobody thinks that human life begins at conception or earlier and almost nobody thinks that human life begins at birth but if you don't agree with one of those ideas, you're the bad guy who hates women or babies, probably both.

Anyone who isn't at least a little ambivalent about abortion can't really be reasoned with. It is self evident that an embryo becomes a human sometime between conception and birth, when that is not in anyway clear and where ever you draw the line is inherently arbitrary.

 

[Darat]

I’m semi serious in this suggestion, if abortions are outlawed I would campaign for a woman being able to declare the baby unwanted and it will be put up for adoption if born and the state pays all medical costs and any other costs involved, such as maternity leave pay.

It really does seem that the extremists are only interested in the baby until the moment it is born, after that it can be brought up by the most unfit mother in the world and that doesn’t bother them.

 

[Darat]

Because legally being able to have an abortion at full-term isn't "extreme", right?

Indeed