• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Texas bans abortion.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Warp12 said:
What part has you confused? Just because I don't want to encourage abortion, doesn't mean I am completely unreasonable about reality. It also doesn't mean that I am going to accept a blanket license to endorse such a thing.
Click to expand...

The part where you call aborting early stage 'babies' (aka embryos) murder but then say you're against the TX abortion ban. So, if I drew the kind of conclusions you do, I'd have to say you're either not against the abortion ban or you think it's OK to 'murder babies' under 6 weeks gestation.
 
Warp12 said:
I like how some seem to find every way and word to avoid calling an embryo or fetus "human", but lament the use of "problematic language". :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

No one is doing that. Some are avoiding calling it "a human", "a human being", "a person". We are not avoiding calling it human.

Others are being pretty clear on this. You, on the other hand, are deliberately equivocating.
 
Warp12 said:
I am not going to try to explain a concept that we all understand, yet some refuse to accept. A complete waste of time.
Click to expand...

BULL CRAP!

You either meant something by personal accountability or your ass is doing the typing for you.

From my perspective, having an abortion is demonstrating personal accountability. As another poster said, it demonstrates more accountability than having the State or others raise the child.

What does being accountable for an unwanted pregnancy mean in real life?
Should women and men not engage in sexual activity if they don't want children?
Do you think sex is for procreation only?
What is the responsible action for an unwanted pregnancy?

Do you get laid?
 
Stacyhs said:
The part where you call aborting early stage 'babies' (aka embryos) murder but then say you're against the TX abortion ban. So, if I drew the kind of conclusions you do, I'd have to say you're either not against the abortion ban or you think it's OK to 'murder babies' under 6 weeks gestation.
Click to expand...

Incorrect logic. One can fundamentally oppose an action, but also understand where certain realities preclude absolute enforcement and/or realization of the ideal.
 
Last edited:
Warp12 said:
If you decide to have sex, you have made a choice. Even if using birth control, you know that there is a chance that you may become pregnant.

I don't believe in virgin births, do you? Of course not. I do believe though, that personal accountability is important...and that seems to be a lost concept with some people (not saying you).
Click to expand...

Accountability here may mean that one chooses not to carry a conceptus to term. If you don't allow for this possibility as one way of taking responsibility for one's actions (as they impinge on one's body) you are just treating birthing (and its risks) as a punishment (and you would have company in thinking in this way).
 
Warp12 said:
Incorrect logic. One can fundamentally oppose an action, but also understand where certain realities preclude absolute enforcement and/or realization of the ideal.
Click to expand...

LOL! You insist on calling it MURDER and now you want to tell us that you think MURDER is OK due to "certain realities" that "preclude absolute enforcement and/or realization of the ideal."

 
OK Warp12, you say you are not religous: then what do you base your total oppostion to abortion on.
The last month, you can make an argument it's nearly a human being..and i admit I feel very queasy about late abortions...but you seem to be a "Human from conception" kind of person,and what the hell can you base that on except religious beleif in a soul?
 
acbytesla said:
Psion's insistence that we label a fetus, zygote, embryo etc a "human being." Is a deliberate attempt to sneak language into the discussion that is inherently problematic to the pro-choice position. I'm confident that he knows this.

Human beings have rights. Embryos, zygotes and fetuses etc up until the third trimester don't. And their rights are limited even then.

This is an attempt to win an argument based on semantics.

Sorry, Psion it's not that simple.
Click to expand...
Obviously you haven't read anything I posted then. Whether they are human beings in an early stage of development and whether a woman has a right to an abortion are two separate and unrelated questions.

This irrational determination to label a fetus, zygote, embryo etc as inhuman is just pedantry.
 
psionl0 said:
This irrational determination to label a fetus, zygote, embryo etc as inhuman is just pedantry.
Click to expand...

And your determination to label it as human is just logical and default we should all agree, right?

In other words more "No you have to agree I'm right before the conversation starts" crap.
 
psionl0 said:
Obviously you haven't read anything I posted then. Whether they are human beings in an early stage of development and whether a woman has a right to an abortion are two separate and unrelated questions.

This irrational determination to label a fetus, zygote, embryo etc as inhuman is just pedantry.
Click to expand...

No one is doing that. We're saying it's not a "A human" (which is different than "human") or a "human being". That's been explained many times but it doesn't seem to be sinking in.
 
psionl0 said:
Obviously you haven't read anything I posted then. Whether they are human beings in an early stage of development and whether a woman has a right to an abortion are two separate and unrelated questions.

This irrational determination to label a fetus, zygote, embryo etc as inhuman is just pedantry.
Click to expand...

No one said they were inhuman. You did. You insisted they should be labeled human beings. A label that carries an entirely different meaning.

Are you now willing to stop insisting that a fetus is a human being?
 
Warp12 said:
Incorrect logic. One can fundamentally oppose an action, but also understand where certain realities preclude absolute enforcement and/or realization of the ideal.
Click to expand...
So you are not pro forced birth because abortion is legal; but you would be pro forced birth the moment that ceased to be the case?
 
Stacyhs said:
No one is doing that. We're saying it's not a "A human" (which is different than "human") or a "human being". That's been explained many times but it doesn't seem to be sinking in.
Click to expand...
I just don't understand why you fear calling it "A" human. It makes no difference to the abortion issue other than as a legal argument in court and that is only because the courts are only interested in technicalities.
 
cosmicaug said:
So you are not pro forced birth because abortion is legal; but you would be pro forced birth the moment that ceased to be the case?
Click to expand...

Incorrect. My position is not based on law alone; it is based on certain realities. You cannot achieve the absolute ideal of no abortions, imo. Nor should that be the goal.

However, at least one person has recently tried using "law" as the absolute definition of what is acceptable. I do not ascribe to that notion.
 
Last edited:
psionl0 said:
I just don't understand why you fear calling it "A" human. It makes no difference to the abortion issue other than as a legal argument in court and that is only because the courts are only interested in technicalities.
Click to expand...

BECAUSE IT ISN'T "A" HUMAN! I don't call a seed a flower, or an engine a car, or a bucket of water a swimming pool, either.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom