Texas bans abortion.

[Warp12]

<some stuff>

Hey, just a heads-up:

I am still coming to grips with you tying "less pollution" into the benefits of abortion. Give me perhaps a week and I might be able to take your arguments seriously, again. Doubtful, but possible.

You see, I look at this from a practical perspective.

More people means overcrowding,.
It means more demand.
It means higher prices
It means more homelessness
It means greater inequality.
It means more poverty
It means more pollution

Until then, I am just disregarding your comments.

 

[Stacyhs]

Hey, just a heads-up:

I am still coming to grips with you tying "less pollution" into the benefits of abortion. Give me perhaps a week and I might be able to take your arguments seriously, again. Doubtful, but possible.



Until then, I am just disregarding your comments.

Quick, acbytesla! To the fainting couch!

 

[acbytesla]

Hey, just a heads-up:

I am still coming to grips with you tying "less pollution" into the benefits of abortion. Give me perhaps a week and I might be able to take your arguments seriously, again. Doubtful, but possible.

Until then, I am just disregarding your comments.

Of course you are. You can't deal with direct honest questions about the stance you are taking in this thread.

Run away Brave Sir Robin.

But I'll address your failure to grasp how more people results in more pollution.

More people mean an increased demand for more resources including heat, shelter, food and transportation. It means more cars, more trucks, more tractors and more internal combustion engines burning more fuel producing MORE CO2.

The average American produces directly and indirectly 16 tons of CO2 annually. The rest of the world the average human being produces 4 tons and that number is increasing. Scientists say that we must reduce our production of CO2 to under two tons per person by 2050.

And this is only one form of pollution created by the the personal needs of every human. There is lead, mercury arsenic and dozens of other pollutants that each of us own a share in.

It's pretty damn sad that you won't address and defend your own strongly held beliefs.

 

[smartcooky]

Not necessarily for conservatives as not all are anti-choice. It's a (temporary) victory for anti-choice proponents. Expect this to be challenged in court, too.

And not all anti-choice are conservatives either.

 

[Stacyhs]

And not all anti-choice are conservatives either.

True. I have a neighbor who, shall we say, is not the brightest star in the sky. She's not a conservative but she was anti-choice. We were discussing abortion and when I said to her "But, Karen (yes, her name really is Karen), no one will ever force you, or any woman, to get an abortion if you think it's wrong. But the anti-choice people want to deny women an abortion even if they don't share that belief. They want every woman to live by their beliefs. " She actually looked at me and said, "Well, I never thought of it that way." Like I said, not the brightest.

 

[Warp12]

True. I have a neighbor who, shall we say, is not the brightest star in the sky. She's not a conservative but she was anti-choice. We were discussing abortion and when I said to her "But, Karen (yes, her name really is Karen), no one will ever force you, or any woman, to get an abortion if you think it's wrong. But the anti-choice people want to deny women an abortion even if they don't share that belief. They want every woman to live by their beliefs. " She actually looked at me and said, "Well, I never thought of it that way." Like I said, not the brightest.

Meanwhile, she posted on FB, "I listened to my neighbor babble about the reason it's ok to kill babies (what she calls "parasites")...I didn't want to disagree, because it would make the annual cookout uncomfortable".

 

[Stacyhs]

Meanwhile, she posted on FB, "I listened to my neighbor babble about the reason it's ok to kill babies (what she calls "parasites")...I didn't want to disagree, because it would make the annual cookout uncomfortable".

I see you're into recycling. Good for you.

 

[psionl0]

In this context ("is human", etc.), "human" is not a synonym for "human being".

You play stupid, troll word games.

 

[psionl0]

The point is that, legally, the foetus has no standing until birth.

In the Salem witch trials, legally, some people were witches.

The point is that courts make decisions based on legal arguments and not scientific arguments. They have ruled that up to a certain stage of development, a zygote/embryo/foetus does not have the same right to life that other human beings have.

As for the Roe vs Wade Ruling that Stachys linked to (https://subscriptlaw.com/roe-v-wade...HbiRaQV6WgjCaHKIUC0O4bMpVZweH_AxoCi2wQAvD_BwE), the court did not actually deny that the foetus is a human being. Instead it stated, "the idea the fetus is a human being (for which the state has in interest in preserving)is earnestly disputed". That is, it created two classes of human beings: one for which the state has an interest in preserving and one for which it doesn't.

As for the question of "human life" (or is that a derail?) the court stated, "Upon this record, the Court could not decide whether life (human life) arises at any time before birth". They simply bowed out of that question.

So the court rulings have not proven that one definition of human/A human/human being/etc is more valid than another.

 

[JimOfAllTrades]

Wait, is there a problem with discussing or referencing very late abortions? If we talk it about three times in front of a mirror will they spontaneously start happening?

I didn't claim there was...I claimed that some were referencing such things.


Clear?

Not exactly. Lets look at my entire response, including the part you disingenuously left out.

The woman can choose, but if the medical professionals don't agree, she's going to have a hard time getting it done. She may look for other professionals who may agree with her, but it's going to be tough to find other options in a just a couple of weeks. (Why does that sound familiar?)

Abortions done at 36 weeks and later are essentially never done except for extreme medical reasons, and it's likely that it's the medical professionals recommending it. The number of women who would carry for 36 weeks and then decide to terminate the pregnancy for no medical reason has to be incredibly small.

I specifically said that such procedures would almost certainly be at the advice of the medical professionals, and only in extreme medical circumstances. Funny how you left that part out.

And as Stacyhs points out, the termination of the pregnancy would probably be via a delivery (natural or caesarian) unless there were, as mentioned above, some very extreme medical reasons. Honestly, I didn't even think of that at the time I made the post.

But in any case, the final choice should be mother's, as the final choice for any medical procedure should be the patient's.

 

[Upchurch]

"I demand we agree on language that forces you to already agree with me before discussion starts" is a time honored tactic from people who don't have facts on their side.

Don't ascribe dishonest intent to a situation where you might just not understand the argument being presented.

 

[Stacyhs]

In the Salem witch trials, legally, some people were witches.

The point is that courts make decisions based on legal arguments and not scientific arguments. They have ruled that up to a certain stage of development, a zygote/embryo/foetus does not have the same right to life that other human beings have.

False. Courts take into account scientific facts vs opinion (which is all you have) when they make their rulings. To claim they don't is ludicrous.

As for the Roe vs Wade Ruling that Stachys linked to (https://subscriptlaw.com/roe-v-wade...HbiRaQV6WgjCaHKIUC0O4bMpVZweH_AxoCi2wQAvD_BwE), the court did not actually deny that the foetus is a human being, it stated, "the idea the fetus is a human being (for which the state has in interest in preserving)is earnestly disputed". That is, it created two classes of human beings: one for which the state has an interest in preserving and one for which it doesn't.

You misunderstand. The "state" was Texas that was arguing that a fetus is a human being and that was in their interest to preserve that idea in order to support their anti-abortion position. The Supreme Court was NOT creating "two classes of human beings".

Again, you insist on calling the embryo/fetus a 'human being'

As for the question of "human life" (or is that a derail?) the court stated, "Upon this record, the Court could not decide whether life (human life) arises at any time before birth". They simply bowed out of that question.

So the court rulings have not proven that one definition of human/A human/human being/etc is more valid than another.

The Supreme Court did not, but you still ignore the definition of what a 'person' or 'human being' is under US law which I've now provided for you twice.

Stop trying to convince us that you are right and we are wrong because you have a different OPINION. We at least have US law on our side. You have nothing but an OPINION.

 

[abaddon]

Exactly. And anyone who argues otherwise is either lying or oblivious, imo.

You have never had a child, nor had a failed child. That is obvious.

 

[psionl0]

Stop trying to convince us that you are right and we are wrong because you have a different OPINION. We at least have US law on our side. You have nothing but an OPINION.

You do NOT have the court on your side. At no stage in Roe vs Wade did the court categorically state that the foetus is NOT a human being.

At best, it equivocated on the question and even then it was addressing a much narrower issue. Namely "human being for which the state has in interest in preserving" and not human beings in general. It did not answer the question on whether human life arises before birth at all.

Incidentally, it is anticipated that the SC may reverse the Roe vs Wade decision some time in the future. This is why the Texas law says that you can't rely on past (current) rulings by the courts (it sounds a little "ex post facto" to me but the SC hasn't struck down that provision yet). If the SC in future rules that a foetus is a human being for which the state has in interest in preserving are you suddenly going to reverse your position?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

A Court would have to outright state that a fetus is a human being for that to have any legal consequences.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

A pregnant woman taking drugs would be giving drugs to a minor if a fetus was a human being.

 

[cosmicaug]

You misunderstand. The "state" was Texas that was arguing that a fetus is a human being and that was in their interest to preserve that idea in order to support their anti-abortion position. The Supreme Court was NOT creating "two classes of human beings".

The text is clear enough & he understands it perfectly well. It is part of his troll shtick to pretend otherwise.

 

[psionl0]

A pregnant woman taking drugs would be giving drugs to a minor if a fetus was a human being.

This is what I am getting at. Whether a foetus is human (sorry, A human being) has nothing to do with biology.

Those who declare that it is not a human being do so for fear the legal consequences otherwise. The idea that this is a biological issue is just a pretence.

 

[psionl0]

The text is clear enough & he understands it perfectly well.

I'm sure that you do too and are just copying a poster who pretends otherwise.

 

[abaddon]

As the saying goes: opinions are like ***holes; everyone has one.

Well, as a bloke, I have been present at four births of my own progeny. Two survived and two not. I would not have it any other way and would move heaven and earth to make it so. My two sprogs were drop kicked at me in the delivery room And I am glad of it. It is ,perhaps the most rewarding thing anyone can ever do.

Amusingly, it turns out they are godless heathens. Not any of my doing. Those are conclusions they arrived all of their lonesome without any prompting.
When they were younger (they are all growed up now) I instituted bible reading. It was hilarious.