Texas bans abortion.

Status
Not open for further replies.
smartcooky said:
Nope, you just used the incorrect term

You are claiming that others are saying that a foetus is "not human". Literally no-one has said that, and acbytesla actually explained this to you....

"A fetus is human, it is not a human being"

Saying that people fear calling a foetus "human" is misstating what they are actually saying. Then using your characterisation to arguing against it? Well, there is a name for that... we call it a "strawman"


ETA:

For the avoidance of doubt...

https://pediaa.com/difference-between-human-being-and-being-human/

'human being' is generally defined as being a member of Homo sapiens race,

'being human' means displaying characteristics that are unique to human beings
Click to expand...

There is a legal definition as well. Simply by labeling an embryo or a fetus a human being you have bestowed upon it certain rights.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Sorry I probably came across as more confrontational as I meant. I was agreeing with you, the "pro-life" moniker is silly and intellectually dishonest.

I was just saying that since so much semantics was already been bounded about in the discussion I wasn't going to start another one, so just defaulted to the accepted term for clarify even if I'm not particularly a fan of it.
Click to expand...

Saul Goodman. :D
 
Suddenly said:
Well, yes. Democracy and living in a free society are irrelevant to them. It is all about maintaining their power and they are pretty openly trying to transition the US to being one of those states.

This is completely consistent with what I am saying. It is about avoiding a state lacking traditional political and cultural domination of white men of wealth. Abortion is only an issue in that it pumps up the numbers and to a lesser extent because it makes it harder for women to have autonomy over their lives.

I'd bet money that most of the people supporting this law would leave the state to get an abortion if a pregnancy were inconvenient enough.
Click to expand...

Speaking of: Tim Cook (aka Tim Apple) has told his employees in Texas that they will help or pay for them to go to other states if they are seeking an abortion.

Apple is one of the bigger tech companies taking a position in Texas politics concerning reproductive rights. Hewlett-Packard Enterprise, Match Group (Tinder's parent company), dating app Bumble, and some smaller companies like online survey software company QuestionPro, have also committed to helping Texas-based employees who need to travel for abortion access.

Software giant Salesforce went a step further, offering to pay workers and their families to relocate out of the state altogether.

Ride-hailing companies Lyft and Uber have vowed to pay any legal fees for drivers sued for helping someone access an abortion. Other tech companies have interfered with the law in other ways, like domain hosting service GoDaddy cutting off Texas' abortion whistleblower website.
[/Qhttps://mashable.com/article/apple-tim-cook-texas-abortion-banUOTE]
Click to expand...
 
Fast Eddie B said:
Maybe, maybe not. But much of this discussion has been over words used.

Is a fertilized egg, a blastosphere, an embryo or a fetus a fully actualized, complete “human being”? Of course not.

But it’s hard to deny that at any of those stages it’s human life.
Click to expand...

So are gametes (unfertilized eggs and sperm).

Why are fertilized eggs more special than unfertilized ones?
 
Last edited:
Here we go: the doctor who publicly said he performed an abortion in TX is now being sued by an Arkansas felon...disbarred lawyer.
 
Stacyhs said:
This is the second time I've corrected you
Click to expand...
It's a waste of time to correct someone who's being wrong on purpose. Better just to remark that they continue to misquote or misstate.

Stacyhs said:
You're now just being deliberately and obviously argumentative.
Click to expand...
For some, being deliberately and obviously argumentative is the whole point.

Stacyhs said:
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. :deadhorse
Click to expand...
That's an excellent idea. It seldom accomplishes much beyond preserving the non-respondent's sanity, but that's something.

Stacyhs said:
Some people need a course on reading comprehension here.
Click to expand...
When reading incomprehension is deliberate, a course is unlikely to help.

Stacyhs said:
I didn't expect an argument or want one from you.
Click to expand...
No one expects the Spanish Inquisition, but there is no excuse for failing to anticipate an argument from certain people, especially in this thread.

Beelzebuddy said:
"No one is agreeing with me" doesn't imply groupthink. Could just be you're wrong.
Click to expand...
:thumbsup:
 
psionl0 said:
We must not call a foetus a human being because it has horrendous legal consequences but that doesn't mean that we can call it a sperm or ovum. That's ridiculous!
Click to expand...

Argument from Straw!

Literally no-one is making this argument, at all.


OH, and just to head your anticipated reply off at the pass, Reformed Offlian was not making an argument in post #1485, he was posing a question!
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
OH, and just to head your anticipated reply off at the pass, Reformed Offlian was not making an argument in post #1485
Click to expand...
Sure, a statement is not an argument. :rolleyes:

smartcooky said:
he was posing a question!
Click to expand...
This may be way too complicated for you to understand but there is actually a difference between a fertilized and an unfertilized ovum.
 
Last edited:
psionl0 said:
Sure, a statement is not an argument. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Correct, but there was no statement of a claim in that post. He was agreeing with the claim made by Fast Eddie B.

psionl0 said:
This may be way too complicated for you to understand but there is actually a difference between a fertilized and an unfertilized ovum.
Click to expand...

This may be way too complicated for you to understand, but there is actually a difference between making a claim, and agreeing with a claim!

This may also be way too complicated for you to understand, but there is actually a difference between making a claim and asking a question!
 
psionl0 said:
You must have been reading a different post. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Jesus Ass-riding Christ:rolleyes: Do you really need this to be spelled out for you in crayon!!

This is a question, followed by its answer
Fast Eddie B: Is a fertilized egg, a blastosphere, an embryo or a fetus a fully actualized, complete “human being”? Of course not. But it’s hard to deny that at any of those stages it’s human life.

This is agreement with the answer
Reformed Offlian: So are gametes (unfertilized eggs and sperm).

Please point out the claim being made by Reformed Offlian!?
 
Last edited:
Fast Eddie B said:
Maybe, maybe not. But much of this discussion has been over words used.

Is a fertilized egg, a blastosphere, an embryo or a fetus a fully actualized, complete “human being”? Of course not.

But it’s hard to deny that at any of those stages it’s human life
Click to expand...

I deny that a cluster of cells that is not viable (cannot survive outside of its mother) is a human.

A fertlized egg is not a human
A blastosphere is not a human
An embryo is not a human
A foetus before 20 weeks is not human and will not survive if born premature

The earliest a baby has ever been born and survived is 21 weeks 4 days. She weighed 410 grams, her whole hand was the size of her mother's index fingertip, and she spent the first 6 months of her life in intensive care.

Survival rates for premature births declines sharply the closer you get to 20 weeks. A baby born between 20 and 26 weeks is a considered to be periviable, or born during the window when a fetus has at least some chance of surviving outside the womb.

Before 24 weeks 50%
Before 23 weeks 10-35%
Before 22 weeks 0-10%
Before 21 weeks 0%
 
I'm not onboard with the viability argument:

for starters, it makes a general assumption about highly individual conditions
secondly, it depends on local availability of premature birth care
And there is the issue of medical advances allowing for earlier and earlier births to be viable, even if it's not great for the child.

Until we have artificial wombs, I'd be much happier with an easy Roe-like fixed system that errs on the side of what the woman wants.
 
psionl0 said:
This may be way too complicated for you to understand but there is actually a difference between a fertilized and an unfertilized ovum.
Click to expand...
Sure there is. That's why they have different names. In the contexts of the current thread's silliness, though, they are the same: both are human.
 
smartcooky said:
I deny that a cluster of cells that is not viable (cannot survive outside of its mother) is a human.
Click to expand...

I think this is just a subtle semantic difference.

To say “It’s not a human” certainly implies a complete human being. Agreed that it’s not.

To say “It’s human” simply delineates that it’s human, as opposed to chimp or chicken or toad.

If it’s both human and alive, at least accept it’s human life, albeit not “a” human.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom