Texas bans abortion.

[JoeMorgue]

What other reason could there be for being so woefully, intentionally wrong?

It's easier than thinking?

 

[Aridas]

I find it humorous that some people think that those who aren't radically pro-choice must be religious.

Or very likely to have latched onto Religious Right-spawned political propaganda. It is true, though, that there have been other underlying drivers. Fears of demographic changes as the wealthier white wives had fewer babies (as wealthier women tend to in general), and poorer people, especially those of color, had relatively more is just one example. There's not much in the way of actually pleasant underlying drivers, quite frankly, even if many of those who have worked to weaponize it also try to provide window dressing.

 

[acbytesla]

The word "parasite" has negative connotations associated with it and if you use the same word to describe a foetus then even if it is scientifically accurate, you are bringing the same negative connotations against the foetus.


These are valid arguments and bringing the word "parasite" into it doesn't enhance them in any way.

Aye that's the problem the word has negative connotations. But the reality is, a fetus is very much a parasite. It's very survival is dependent on its host. And like other parasites it sometimes negatively affects and even results in the death of that host.

This is why it is important that the person who is pregnant have the right to make decisions about their own health. The state should play no part in those decisions.

 

[JoeMorgue]

It has negative connotations because if you don't want it pregnancy IS having a parasite and that is a negative thing.

 

[Aridas]

What other reason could there be for being so woefully, intentionally wrong?

Motivated logic isn't solely restricted to religion. As touched on barely above, rationalizing and acting on fears of demographic change has played a notable role in the past (and probably present). There's something to be said about lessons to be learned from the conflict between obstetricians and midwives as the former sought to take over the market, as another more specific example.

The antiabortion campaign had its greatest success when it focused its attention not on physicians or on the women who had abortions, but on midwives. Between 1890 and 1920, physicians, public-health workers, and reformers across the United States debated "the midwife problem."[38] Part of the "problem," as many observers defined it, was the practice of abortion by midwives. F. Elisabeth Crowell, a nurse and an investigator of midwives, reported in 1907 that New York City officials and physicians agreed that midwives were primarily responsible for abortion. "Indeed," she concluded, "some go so far as to say that the two terms 'midwife' and 'abortionist' are synonymous."[39] As obstetricians tried to establish their specialty, they focused on midwives as the source of their field's low status and led a campaign to control their competitors.[40] Identifying midwives as abortionists proved to be an effective weapon in the battle to bring midwives under medical scrutiny, and state control. The anti-midwife and antiabortion campaigns became intertwined into one. This campaign arose out of the interests of a small group of specialists, but it won public attention and legislative action as it spoke to larger social concerns about the welfare of immigrant motherhood and the sexuality of young women in the modern American city.

Physicians downplayed the medical side of the abortion story and stressed the role played by midwives, suggesting that all midwives were dangerous. Specialists in obstetrics led this campaign, but condemning midwives for abortion implicitly made all physicians appear morally upright in contrast and shifted attention away from the abortion practices of physicians. Attributing abortion to midwives matched obstetricians' custom of proclaiming their own superiority over midwives (and, later, general practitioners), whom they blamed for overall maternal mortality.[41]

Desire for paternal control of their daughter's sexual activity is poked at a little in that and fairly certainly is worth delving into in further depth when it comes to reasons to engage in motivated reasoning, to give another example.

 

[Warp12]

I don't agree with the Texas law, as I already stated much earlier. However, watching a group of people preach that a baby up until 24 weeks is just a "parasite"...well, it gives some insight as to why such drastic legislation might be endorsed by some. Very polarizing.

 

[Aridas]

However, watching a group of people preach that a baby up until 24 weeks is just a "parasite"...well, it gives some insight as to why such drastic legislation might be endorsed by some. Very polarizing.

Oh no! People worked hard to politicize the issue with inaccurate and emotionally laden language and some of those who didn't buy their schtick fight back with much more scientifically accurate labelling like "parasite" that has opposing connotations. The horror! Yup, it's all gotta be the latter's fault.

 

[acbytesla]

I believe Governor Abbott said the new law will give women another reason to say "no" to sex.

Aye, that's what we want. Sexually repressed females.

 

[Stacyhs]

Motivated logic isn't solely restricted to religion. As touched on barely above, rationalizing and acting on fears of demographic change has played a notable role in the past (and probably present). There's something to be said about lessons to be learned from the conflict between obstetricians and midwives as the former sought to take over the market, as another more specific example.



Desire for paternal control of their daughter's sexual activity is poked at a little in that and fairly certainly is worth delving into in further depth when it comes to reasons to engage in motivated reasoning, to give another example.

Very interesting article. I think the fact that all midwives were women and virtually all OB-GYNs were men played no small role in the attack on midwives. Women have always been an easy target to place blame on because of their lack of political power, a patriarchal society and the conscious or subconscious belief that women are inherently 'evil' and/or immoral due to religious influence. These are the same reasons why people who were executed as witches were overwhelmingly women, too.

 

[Stacyhs]

I don't agree with the Texas law, as I already stated much earlier. However, watching a group of people preach that a baby up until 24 weeks is just a "parasite"...well, it gives some insight as to why such drastic legislation might be endorsed by some. Very polarizing.

Oh, stop it. Neither I nor anyone else said a baby is "JUST a parasite".

"...it gives some insight as to why such drastic legislation might be endorsed by some."

Absolute rubbish. What a pathetic attempt to connect the two.

Gov. Abbott and other anti-choicers: Oh, my! Someone said an embryo/fetus is a parasite! OH, THE HORROR! THE INHUMANITY!! Well, that convinces ME that we need to stop women from getting abortions!!



I had no idea I had such influence!

 

[Warp12]

Damn. We've got people calling babies "parasites" and talking about witches, up in this camp. Pretty wild stuff.

This Doctor has taken a stance and boldly violated the TX law:

"I fully understood that there could be legal consequences — but I wanted to make sure that Texas didn't get away with its bid to prevent this blatantly unconstitutional law from being tested," he wrote.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/19/politics/texas-doctor-violated-abortion-ban/index.html

Not only is he a hero, but I bet this ramps up his patient count, too! So noble!

 

[Stacyhs]

Damn. We've got people calling babies "parasites" and talking about witches, up in this camp. Pretty wild stuff.

Obvious: predictable and lacking in subtlety.

 

[acbytesla]

Damn. We've got people calling babies "parasites" and talking about witches, up in this camp. Pretty wild stuff.

Again, a zygote or a fetus isn't a baby.

And regardless of the number of times you say it is, that doesn't make it so.

A parasite however is a more accurate description. Even if you don't like the word. It may be a welcome parasite, but it still fits the definition. BTW, a baby doesn't fit the definition.

parasite noun

par·​a·​site | \ ˈper-ə-ˌsīt , ˈpa-rə- \
plural parasites

1. : an animal or plant that lives in or on another animal or plant and gets food or protection from it.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/parasite

 

[ZiprHead]

I don't agree with the Texas law, as I already stated much earlier. However, watching a group of people preach that a baby up until 24 weeks is just a "parasite"...well, it gives some insight as to why such drastic legislation might be endorsed by some. Very polarizing.

Says the guy who continuously calls abortion "murder".

 

[JoeMorgue]

Yet another rousing game of "Oh I totally don't (wink, wink) agree with this, but I'm going to spend my entire time arguing for it and ridiculing and misrepresenting all arguments against it."

 

[Stacyhs]

An embryo is even less of a baby. But let's get all hysterical and moralizing because I called it a parasite and apparently influence right wing legislatures to outlaw abortions. Who knew I had such power?

 

[Warp12]

An embryo is even less of a baby. But let's get all hysterical and moralizing because I called it a parasite and apparently influence right wing legislatures to outlaw abortions. Who knew I had such power?

That's not emotionalizing anything. Those are facts. A <24 week gestation fetus is only partially formed, feeds off the host, and it cannot live outside the host body. That's a parasite.

I've already said that 6 weeks is too early for such a law. I mean, the woman might not even know at that point, unfortunately. But, there is a big difference between an "embryo" and a fetus at 23 weeks. I am certain you are aware of this. But hey, they're just "parasites" anyway, I guess.

No comments on the bold Doctor who performed an abortion outside of the TX law, partially to test the law?

 

[Stacyhs]

I've already said that 6 weeks is too early for such a law. I mean, the woman might not even know at that point, unfortunately. But, there is a big difference between an "embryo" and a fetus at 23 weeks. I am certain you are aware of this. But hey, they're just "parasites" anyway, I guess.

This is the second time I've corrected you: I never said they were 'JUST parasites". And a 23 week fetus is , by definition, a parasite as has been shown by citation. That you don't like that fact is not my problem; it's yours. Deal with it.

No comments on the bold Doctor who performed an abortion outside of the TX law, partially to test the law?

I think he's doing what needs to be done.

 

[Warp12]

And a 23 week fetus is , by definition, a parasite as has been shown by citation. That you don't like that fact is not my problem; it's yours. Deal with it.

Referring to a 23-week fetus as a "parasite" and/or "non-viable" are just ways to dehumanize the baby. I am pretty sure you know this.

Fortunately, statistically, not many of these "parasites" are aborted at that point or beyond. Probably still too many, though.

Now, this TX law is facing some serious scrutiny...as it should be. But, I wonder, at what length of term a restriction would be acceptable, to some? It could come down to that, I suppose.

 

[Stacyhs]

Referring to a 23-week fetus as a "parasite" and/or "non-viable" are just ways to dehumanize the baby. I am pretty sure you know this as well.

Fortunately, statistically, not many of these "parasites" are aborted at that point or beyond. Probably still too many, though.

Now, this TX law is facing some serious scrutiny...as it should be. But, I wonder, at what term a restriction would be acceptable, to some? It could come down to that, I suppose.

You're now just being deliberately and obviously argumentative. Like I said, it's your problem. If you don't like it, I really couldn't give a rat's arse so I won't be responding again to your deliberate provocations on this.