Texas bans abortion.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Warp12 said:
I noticed you didn't comment on the whole Thanos-like "benefits of abortion as related to population control" angle that someone posted. I wonder why that is?

I'll just take it you were in agreement with that, too.

You're right, we don't agree about what "crazy" is.
Click to expand...

How about providing a link directly to that post so we can all refresh our memories on exactly what was actually said instead of relying on what could be your interpretation of it?
 
Stacyhs said:
How about providing a link directly to that post so we can all refresh our memories on exactly what was actually said instead of relying on what could be your interpretation of it?
Click to expand...

This is the relevant text:

acbytesla said:
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
Click to expand...

The evils of "more people".

Some can try to dance around this business...the primary part of the post, in order to cloud the message. No doubt, they will.

This abortion logic make you think of the Third Reich. I mean, there were a lot of practical reasons to kill Jews, right? I mean, in regards to the reasons above, of course. Yes, I am Godwinning, because it is totally applicable in this case.

Defending this is simply untenable. No matter how much you love groupthink. Silence about atrocity is the same as endorsement.

Now run tell that.
 
What if?

The "what if" argument. You know, the one that Warp made saying that the aborted fetus may have grown up to be a member of Mensa. But that of course is only one "what if" question associated with abortion.

"What if" my friend in college didn't have the abortion option? This friend of mine is one of the smartest people I know. She became pregnant after a one night stand after a college party. She was on scholarship and had few resources. She went to planned parenthood and they provided her options. Everything from having the child and giving it away to the name, address and phone of health clinics where she could get an abortion. Because school meant everything to her she arranged to have the abortion. She would have had to drop out and lose her scholarship if she had the child.
Today, my friend is a Doctor of Oncology.
 
Last edited:
Warp12 said:
The evils of "more people".

Some can try to dance around this business...the primary part of the post, in order to cloud the message. No doubt, they will.

This abortion logic make you think of the Third Reich. I mean, there were a lot of practical reasons to kill Jews, right? I mean, in regards to the reasons above, of course. Yes, I am Godwinning, because it is totally applicable in this case.

Defending this is simply untenable. No matter how much you love groupthink. Silence about atrocity is the same as endorsement.

Now run tell that.
Click to expand...

I'm not dodging it. But I absolutely refuse to buy into your obscene comparison.

I'm not arguing for genocide. Or killing of any living human being. The demarcation line being birth.

But I am arguing for birth control. First contraception and then if necessary and chosen by the mother abortion.

Nowhere in my world is the state killing people. And I don't buy the facetious claim that the woman is either.


And yes, I repeat:
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
Feel free to present evidence that these claims are false. I dare you.
 
Warp12 said:
This is the relevant text:



The evils of "more people".
Click to expand...

Once again, you left out the remainder of his post:

The most effective method to reduce poverty is to empower women starting with allowing them to be in charge of their sexual health.And you want to do the opposite.
Click to expand...

Do you deny that what acbygtesla said is correct? Sexual health encompasses birth control, too.

It's worth noting that no part of men's health is controlled by the government. It was once illegal in the US to have a vasectomy except under certain conditions. I know my dad had one when we live in Germany because it was legal there and he did not meet any of the US exceptions. This was pre-BC pill, my parents had two children and didn't want any more.


Some can try to dance around this business...the primary part of the post, in order to cloud the message. No doubt, they will.
Click to expand...

Your defensive reaction is to relegate anyone who disagrees with you as "dancing" around it and clouding YOUR message, not 'the' message.

This abortion logic make you think of the Third Reich. I mean, there were a lot of practical reasons to kill Jews, right? I mean, in regards to the reasons above, of course. Yes, I am Godwinning, because it is totally applicable in this case.
Click to expand...

No, it's not. What he is stating are facts: all those things are affected by population. You are the one assigning a moral judgment to Ac just as you assign one to my scientifically correct statement that a zygote, embryo, fetus is a parasite.

Additionally, Hitler killed human beings...living, breathing, sentient human being. Nor were those people given a choice to live or die. That's why it's called 'murder'. Acbytesla is not advocating killing existing human beings at all. Once again, false equivalency.

Defending this is simply untenable. No matter how much you love groupthink.
Click to expand...

No, it's not untenable.

Silence about atrocity is the same as endorsement.

Now run tell that.
Click to expand...

After this post, don't ever accuse someone else of intentionally using emotionally charged words in an attempt to influence people.
 
Stacyhs said:
No, it's not. What he is stating are facts: all those things are affected by population. You are the one assigning a moral judgment to Ac just as you assign one to my scientifically correct statement that a zygote, embryo, fetus is a parasite.
Click to expand...

This rant has a certain "Eva Braun" feel to it, tbh.

But, whatever you say. :thumbsup:
 
Last edited:
Warp12 said:
This rant has a certain "Eva Braun" feel to it, tbh.

But, whatever you say. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

This knee jerk response has a certain "troll" feel to it, tbh.

It also shows you obviously have no idea about Evan Braun. You probably even pronounce her name wrong.


Answer my question:

Do you deny that what acbygtesla said is correct?
 
smartcooky said:
Just like "accountability"!
Click to expand...

This is the problem with the pro-life position. It's totally lacking in accountability.

It doesn't address the problems that unwanted pregnancies create. It doesn't address that sex is fun. That people enjoy this activity. That their hormones stimulate their desires to have sex. That contraception is not foolproof

Everything is that dirty slut. If she only kept her legs together and said "no" she wouldn't have this problem.

She and society will just have to deal with it. Nevermind the societal ills this causes.

I guess that people should only have sex if they want children. And that includes women that get raped. Because this is EXACTLY what Warp is saying.
 
acbytesla said:
This is the problem with the pro-life position. It's totally lacking in accountability.

It doesn't address the problems that unwanted pregnancies create. It doesn't address that sex is fun. That people enjoy this activity. That their hormones stimulate their desires to have sex. That contraception is not foolproof

Everything is that dirty slut. If she only kept her legs together and said "no" she wouldn't have this problem.

She and society will just have to deal with it. Nevermind the societal ills this causes.

I guess that people should only have sex if they want children. And that includes women that get raped. Because this is EXACTLY what Warp is saying.
Click to expand...

The problem is also that it doesn't account for pregnancies due to rape. The Texas law make no exceptions for this. If a woman is raped, and becomes pregnant, that Texas law still applies.
 
Boudicca90 said:
That has been the tactic of choice of many anti-choice activists over the years.

If you classify a fetus or zygote as a full person, then they also inherit the rights that a full person is granted by our legal system. It's a basis on which they can try to ban abortion.
Click to expand...
Dear me no, that is not the goal at all.

The end game is to control women.
 
smartcooky said:
The problem is also that it doesn't account for pregnancies due to rape. The Texas law make no exceptions for this. If a woman is raped, and becomes pregnant, that Texas law still applies.
Click to expand...


Exactly, the law doesn't address any of the nuances or the issues that this causes. BTW, I see that a Florida state representative has introduced a bill that is a carbon copy of the Texas legislation.
 
Stacyhs said:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_71669614d1c75a47b2.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

JimCarrey-thumbsup.gif
 
abaddon said:
Dear me no, that is not the goal at all.

The end game is to control women.
Click to expand...


Indeed. I posted this earlier in the thread, and I think it bears repeating.


ON ANTI-ABORTION POLITICIANS
Cruelty is the plan - cruelty and control over women. You can tell this is true by the number of "pro-lifers" that are also "anti-birth control".

• The more pregnant women who are forced to term against their will, the easier it is to inflict economic hardship on them.

• The more women who are forced into economic dependence, the fewer who will find a way to escape an abuser.

• The more women in poverty, the more control and domination there is over them.

• The more raped women who are denied the right to terminate, the more they will be inflicted with trauma and narrowed options, and the more they will themselves be collateral desperate dependants.

Anti-choice is the hard mechanics of misogyny.
Cruelty is the mathematics of control.​
 
I'm wondering what "I don't support the TX Ban" boils down to.
Not supporting any Republican until it's changed?
Calling your Representative?

Or maybe quietly disapproving?
 
cosmicaug said:
The quote "human being for which the state has in interest in preserving" was originally "the idea the fetus is a human being (for which the state has in interest in preserving)is earnestly disputed". The object here is "a human being". He is forcing a reading here in which the object becomes "a human being for which the state has in interest in preserving". Thus, as he has explained, he is making the erroneous point that the court is creating the class of human beings for which the state has an interest in preserving and the class of human beings which do not fall in that category (presumably zygotes, embryos, fetuses, sperm & ova).
Click to expand...
I have reviewed this argument and I now see the logic in it. It's like saying "gas (which has no fixed volume)". The part in parentheses is listing one of the properties of the gas, not stating that there is a kind of gas that does have a fixed volume.

So the statement "fetus is a human being (for which the state has in interest in preserving)" could be interpreted as meaning "IF a foetus is a human being THEN the state has an interest in preserving it".

It was never a central point but my missing this subtlety gave you the opportunity to launch a rule 12 attack against me calling me a troll etc so, you're welcome.
 
NOBODY CARES WHAT YOU CALL THE GODDAMN CLUMP OF CELLS!

Call it a fetus, call it a zygote, call it Steve. Call it a human being. Screech about how it's a precious life that da baby jeebus put a soul in.

NOBODY CARES AND IT CHANGES NOTHING.

STOP... *******... ARGUING... ABOUT... TERMINOLOGY.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom