Texas bans abortion.

[JoeMorgue]

Define, in actual human words, the actual object problem the Texas Law is trying to solve and how it solves it.

Somebody have the single, tiniest shred of intellectual honesty to do that.

 

[psionl0]

NOBODY CARES WHAT YOU CALL THE GODDAMN CLUMP OF CELLS!

Then stop screaming about it as if you do care.

The description you give to the unborn should have no impact on the rights of the carrier - regardless of the fact that the courts revel in these technicalities.

 

[psionl0]

Define, in actual human words, the actual object problem the Texas Law is trying to solve and how it solves it.

The Texas legislators want more power over people and this "bounty hunter" legislation is a way that they think they can achieve that without having to worry about the bill of rights.

If it is allowed to stand then you can see more bills like this so that they can control other aspects of people's lives.

 

[smartcooky]

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.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Has Warp12 answered as to whether or not having sex is an immoral act or wrong? I'm trying to understand the accountability point he makes about having sex.

 

[Hevneren]

....
What's the answer? They're screwed because they had sex? I mean we're talking about accountability after all.

Doesn't sound entirely unreasonable

 

[Aridas]

Doesn't sound entirely unreasonable

In the "If you screw, you're screwed!" way, eh?

 

[Stacyhs]

This can go here and in the MTG thread because her crazy is just too crazy to be restricted to one thread. On Monday, MTG claimed, among several nutty claims, that Dems are trying to pass a federal law making abortions available up to the day of birth:

“But heading into this week, perhaps the most evil and disgusting thing that is going to happen in this 117th Congress is the bill that's going to be introduced that makes it a federal law to allow abortion up until the day of birth,” Greene said. “This wall says 'In God We Trust,’ and if that is the case, then this Congress will reject this evil bill and protect the innocent unborn.”

“If this nation becomes a nation where we have such a federal law that can kill a baby up until the day of birth,” she added, “then God will no longer provide protection and his grace over America.”

In reality, the bill Greene referenced, the Women’s Health Protection Act, would prohibit restrictions on abortions “prior to fetal viability,” which the legislation defines as “the point in a pregnancy at which… there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained fetal survival outside the uterus with or without artificial support*.”

*Medical consensus say about 24 weeks gestation.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

So you think "fertilization" is irrelevant?

Explain why I shouldn't.

By that logic any matter at all could be considered human (since one could be constructed from it) or no person is human because nobody has reached the perfect stage of development.

What logic are you referring to? My point is that any attempt to demarcate personhood based on developmental stage is arbitrary. Fertilization, viability, birth...none is more compelling nor less arbitrary than another. The question is simply: what do we as a community want?

It's hard to argue that something is black or white when it is actually a shade of grey but that's what you are doing.

It is the pro-life position that wishes to dispel any ambiguity or gradation on what is and isn't a person; they wish to argue that something that is not obviously a person is, in fact one. One cannot make early-term abortions half-illegal.

 

[Boudicca90]

Dear me no, that is not the goal at all.

The end game is to control women.

Well yes, of course that is the end game. It always has been, despite the façade of 'protecting unborn life', which is a huge oxymoron.

But one of the main tactics they use to get to that point is to give the fetus enough rights that it is impossible to legally abort it.

Another, like what Texas is doing, is to make anyone wanting or assisting an abortion fear the repercussions for doing so. Forcing clinics to close and providers to offer services on the down low under an atmosphere of fear.

 

[xjx388]

This is so bizarre I could have sworn we had more than one pro-life person on this board. I wonder where they are all are.

I’ve had this argument waaayyy too much on this board. I take issue with the “parasite” theory of pregnancy. I take issue with the “clump of cells” argument. But there’s really no point in beating a dead horse about “where to draw the line.”

But yeah, I have ethical issues with abortion, I actually live in Texas AND I have a problem with this law. I had no big issues with abortion law prior to this.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

I’ve had this argument waaayyy too much on this board. I take issue with the “parasite” theory of pregnancy. I take issue with the “clump of cells” argument. But there’s really no point in beating a dead horse about “where to draw the line.”

But yeah, I have ethical issues with abortion, I actually live in Texas AND I have a problem with this law. I had no big issues with abortion law prior to this.

Other than not living in Texas, I think this sums up my take on the matter. Thanks for being concise.

 

[cosmicaug]

Sidestepping how your initial statements were things like this which seemed to be referring to individual women at large:

Nobody is shaming women for having sex. They oughta spread them legs as much as they want. But they have a higher level of accountability, since they can produce life. What an awesome gift that is.

Nobody is denying them birth control.

Actually, you will find I made multiple statements about proactive vs reactive focus which fairly clearly define how I view accountability.

I see you claiming clarity and yet I still don't understand what these statements are supposed to mean. Is this a societal thing or is this addressed all the participants in this forum (am I supposed to walk over to random women & telling them that they better not spread their legs or at least they should use contraception if they do)?

I honestly don't even understand how we are concluding that anyone is having a "reactive vs. proactive" focus. Is this some conclusion that you have drawn because, in one way or another, most posts on this thread, a thread titled Texas Bans Abortion, are actually about abortion (which you consider reactive)?

I don't even know what having a proactive vs reactive focus actually looks in term of actual policy (if this is a societal thing). How is it supposed to be different from whatever it is from the status quo that clearly displeases you: what needs to be made to happen and who can make it happen?

 

[cosmicaug]

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.

So you accidentally dropped both the opening & closing parentheses in a copy & paste operation?

 

[JoeMorgue]

- What exactly do we need to hold women "accountable" for when they get as many abortions as they want to have?
- What problem (and why it is a valid problem) is the Texas Law intended to fix and how is it fixing it?

Again non troll, non-semantic answers to any of these questions would just be... like super.

 

[tyr_13]

Again, the IVF clinics still operating in Texas prove without any doubt that this is about controlling and punishing women for having sex, and zero about saving 'lives'.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Again, the IVF clinics still operating in Texas prove without any doubt that this is about controlling and punishing women for having sex, and zero about saving 'lives'.

Yes and I'd like a non-troll, non-semantic answer as to why they are any different as well.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Yes and I'd like a non-troll, non-semantic answer as to why they are any different as well.

I wonder if this will ever become a live issue. I wouldn't be surprised if one of these red states passed some virtue signaling "life begins at conception" law that would make this kind of fertility treatment dubious.

 

[cosmicaug]

I wonder if this will ever become a live issue. I wouldn't be surprised if one of these red states passed some virtue signaling "life begins at conception" law that would make this kind of fertility treatment dubious.

I wouldn't doubt it.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I do. They want to punish women, not "save da prewcsious widdle embryos."

IVF and similar cost a lot of money, the realm of well to do very upper middle class at worst. Not the demographic they are aiming the cruelty at.

Sure they might see them as acceptable friendly fire, but why do that when you can when they have no reason to? Again their hypocrisy isn't hurting them and nobody is ever going to find a way to make it hurt them.