Texas bans abortion.

[TurkeysGhost]

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.

I don't think they'd ever deliberately target IVF, for exactly the reasons you say, but it could get criminalized through careless law making meant to target abortion.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I don't think they'd ever deliberately target IVF, for exactly the reasons you say, but it could get criminalized through careless law making meant to target abortion.

The "Republicans are going to blunder into trapping their owns selves with their own laws" is right up there with the "Democrats are going to use this one weird trick to trap to use the Republicans laws against them" on the list of things that are never going to happen.

They'll just ignore any paradoxes they create and not think once, much less twice, about it.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

The "Republicans are going to blunder into trapping their owns selves with their own laws" is right up there with the "Democrats are going to use this one weird trick to trap to use the Republicans laws against them" on the list of things that are never going to happen.

They'll just ignore any paradoxes they create and not think once, much less twice, about it.

Maybe. Generally speaking, state level politicians tend to be much less careful and more crazy than their more sophisticated counterparts in higher offices.

A lot of these state reps are real rubes, I wouldn't put it past them to fumble it.


Thinking more on it, I wonder if any medical technology using fetal cells could be on the chopping block, and on purpose. We're already seeing a lot of right wingers take a "pro-life" stance as a pretext to be antivax, claiming it's immoral to take medicines like the covid vax that are developed using fetal cells.

I wouldn't be surprised if broad anti-vax views increasingly become "mainstream" in more red states.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I wouldn't be surprised if broad anti-vax views increasingly become "mainstream" in more red states.

You haven't heard the news from Florida I take it?

Florida state Sen. Manny Diaz, a Republican who chairs the state Senate Health Policy Committee, told FloridaPolitics.com he’s considering reviewing school vaccine requirements for illnesses such as mumps and measles.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommyb...-mandates-for-schoolchildren/?sh=6151bb29545d

 

[TurkeysGhost]

You haven't heard the news from Florida I take it?



https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommyb...-mandates-for-schoolchildren/?sh=6151bb29545d

That was the story I was thinking of.

There's definitely all the elements for right wing synergy here. Broad anti-vax views and anti-abortion views are all in the stew together, simmering. Who knows what might come out in states with sufficiently right wing government getting the green light from the SCOTUS.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Doesn't sound entirely unreasonable

Do you think sex is wrong?

 

[thaiboxerken]

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

This is exactly what they want to do. That's why there is this "accountability" issue they are bringing up.

 

[acbytesla]

Doesn't sound entirely unreasonable

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

I'm glad that someone caught that. I was beginning to think that no one would.

 

[Stacyhs]

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.

It is a scientific fact that a zygote, embryo, and fetus are parasites according to the very definition of the word. That this fact is inferred to be a negative is due to a person's non-scientific, emotional reaction and not because it is incorrect.

Anti-choice supporters insist that a zygote, embryo and fetus are not parasites and declare they are "babies" precisely because they want to play on that emotion. Take the emotion out of the word and you're left with a scientific fact: they are parasites. Science is based on empirical facts, not emotions.

The foetus as a parasite By D. J. NAISMITH, Department of Nutrition, Queen Elizabeth College, London, W8

One of the findings common to experiments with laboratory animals and to
surveys conducted on human subjects is that the birth weight of the foetus is not substantially influenced by the protein value of the diet consumed during pregnancy (Campbell, Innes & Kosterlitz, 1953 ; McGanity, Cannon, Bridgforth, Martin, Densen, Newbill, McCellan, Christie, Peterson & Darby, 1954; Thomson, 1959). Only when severe and prolonged malnutrition is experienced before conception, is obstetrical performance impaired (Beaton, 1961). It may be concluded, therefore, that on a low plane of nutrition, the foetus lives as a parasite, the tissues of the foetus having a prior claim on the nutrients circulating in the maternal blood stream.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/serv...65169000085a.pdf/the-foetus-as-a-parasite.pdf

Here is an extremely rare case of 'fetus in fetu', or a parasitic twin living off its own twin:

Man With Twin Living Inside Him -- A Medical Mystery Classic
Another person lived inside a man for nearly four decades.

At first glance, it may look as if Bhagat had given birth. Actually, Mehta had removed the mutated body of Bhagat's twin brother from his stomach. Bhagat, they discovered, had one of the world's most bizarre medical conditions -- fetus in fetu. It is an extremely rare abnormality that occurs when a fetus gets trapped inside its twin. The trapped fetus can survive as a parasite even past birth by forming an umbilical cordlike structure that leaches its twin's blood supply until it grows so large that it starts to harm the host, at which point doctors usually intervene.

Notice the use of the word "person" in the title. In fact, it was not a person, but the pieces and parts of what would have been a person if it had developed normally. I don't think anyone with any common sense would refer to it as a "person" unless they were going for an emotional reaction. And it was definitely surviving inside the man as a parasite for almost 4 decades.

So let's drop all this moral outrage that some are repeatedly harping on because they are doing it, not for it being incorrect, but for the emotional reaction they want.

 

[acbytesla]

It is a scientific fact that a zygote, embryo, and fetus are parasites according to the very definition of the word. That this fact is inferred to be a negative is due to a person's non-scientific, emotional reaction and not because it is incorrect.

Anti-choice supporters insist that a zygote, embryo and fetus are not parasites and declare they are "babies" precisely because they want to play on that emotion. Take the emotion out of the word and you're left with a scientific fact: they are parasites. Science is based on empirical facts, not emotions.


https://www.cambridge.org/core/serv...65169000085a.pdf/the-foetus-as-a-parasite.pdf

Here is an extremely rare case of 'fetus in fetu', or a parasitic twin living off its own twin:

Notice the use of the word "person" in the title. In fact, it was not a person, but the pieces and parts of what would have been a person if it had developed normally. I don't think anyone with any common sense would refer to it as a "person" unless they were going for an emotional reaction. And it was definitely surviving inside the man as a parasite for almost 4 decades.

So let's drop all this moral outrage that some are repeatedly harping on because they are doing it, not for it being incorrect, but for the emotional reaction they want.

From the CDC.
A parasite is an organism that lives on or in a host organism and gets its food from or at the expense of its host.

How exactly is a fetus NOT a parasite?

A fetus derives its nutrients and oxygen from its host. This is the textbook scientific definition.

That some individuals have a knee jerk emotional reaction is their issue not mine.

 

[Stacyhs]

From the CDC.
A parasite is an organism that lives on or in a host organism and gets its food from or at the expense of its host.

How exactly is a fetus NOT a parasite?

A fetus derives its nutrients and oxygen from its host. This is the textbook scientific definition.

That some individuals have a knee jerk emotional reaction is their issue not mine.

I suspect it's got more to do with them thinking they've got a 'gotcha' moment showing how horrible liberals are than anything else.

OH, MY GOD! How can these horrible people call precious little babies "parasites"?! It just goes to show how deranged they are!"

 

[acbytesla]

I suspect it's got more to do with them thinking they've got a 'gotcha' moment showing how horrible liberals are than anything else.

OH, MY GOD! How can these horrible people call precious little babies "parasites"?! It just goes to show how deranged they are!"

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_71669614e3b03578a6.jpg[/qimg]

Exactly! Except babies aren't parasites and fetuses are not babies.

 

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by psionl0
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.

Pointing out that you have deliberately and dishonestly edited a direct "copy & paste" quote from a source into order to make it appear to support your claim, when the original quote does not, is not a Rule 12 attack on you; it is not addressing YOU, it is addressing WHAT YOU DID.. its literally addressing the dishonesty of the argument you made by your own underhanded edit!

You tried to pull a fast one, you hoped you would get away with it, but you got caught when cosmigaug called out out on it.

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

I don't believe for one moment that it was an accident or error. What I do believe is that he knew exactly what he was doing, and why he was doing it.
.
.

 

[acbytesla]

Here is an extremely rare case of 'fetus in fetu', or a parasitic twin living off its own twin:

Man With Twin Living Inside Him -- A Medical Mystery Classic
Another person lived inside a man for nearly four decades.

At first glance, it may look as if Bhagat had given birth. Actually, Mehta had removed the mutated body of Bhagat's twin brother from his stomach. Bhagat, they discovered, had one of the world's most bizarre medical conditions -- fetus in fetu. It is an extremely rare abnormality that occurs when a fetus gets trapped inside its twin. The trapped fetus can survive as a parasite even past birth by forming an umbilical cordlike structure that leaches its twin's blood supply until it grows so large that it starts to harm the host, at which point doctors usually intervene.

I'm curious, under Texas law would this operation be illegal? After all, this fetus is older than 10 weeks.

 

[smartcooky]

The only reason that "parasite" has negative social connotations is because that scientific term has been hijacked/co-opted to be used as a term to describe a person who is living off the resources of other people. Those described as parasites have been people such as the homeless, people who live off the charity of others, people who live off social welfare benefits, undocumented worker who don't pay taxes etc. These are very negative connotations. I have even heard retirees described as parasites, by a (young) politician no less.

It is similar to "leech", a noun describing a living organism, that has been hijacked to become a verb describing a person who lives off another person's resources.

When used correctly, "parasite" has a very strict, scientific meaning, and an embryo/foetus of any mammalian species of animal matches that description in all aspects.
.
.

 

[Warp12]

The only reason that "parasite" has negative social connotations is because that scientific term has been hijacked/co-opted to be used as a term to describe a person who is living off the resources of other people. Those described as parasites have been people such as the homeless, people who live off the charity of others, people who live off social welfare benefits, undocumented worker who don't pay taxes etc. These are very negative connotations. I have even heard retirees described as parasites, by a (young) politician no less.

This is exactly what I meant when I was referring to some arguments being "oblivious" to the connotations, and reasons for such, attached to the word.

Thank you for providing a clear example.

 

[mgidm86]

- 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.

Not gonna happen. Oh wait, it's Sept 24, maybe this is the day.

 

[Stacyhs]

This is exactly what I meant when I was referring to some arguments being "oblivious" to the connotations, and reasons for such, attached to the word.

Thank you for providing a clear example.

The problem with your spin here is that I, and others, used the word according to its actual scientific meaning and a handful of people, including you, then attempted to foist their own negative emotional connotations onto it. We can't help it if you and some others can't get past that.

A good example is when Amanda Knox used the word "corpo" when she referred to Meredith Kercher's body. It was then translated by pro-guilt believers as "corpse" which they thought was completely cold and disrespectful and had a ****fit over it. It was an example of her sociopathy! Trouble was, it also means "body" in Italian. But instead of considering that fact, they chose to go with the translation that had a more negative connotation in English because it supported their agenda.

By the way, your whole "parasite" spiel is way past its due date for efficacy.

 

[Warp12]

By the way, your whole "parasite" spiel is way past its due date for efficacy.

Then stop bringing it up and/or trying to defend it. I am not the most recent person you challenged on it.

Also, until the minions stop with it, it is an open topic for debate.

 

[Stacyhs]

Then stop bringing it up and/or trying to defend it. I am not the most recent person you challenged on it.

Also, until the minions stop with it, it is an open topic for debate.

You brought it up yesterday at 1:22 PM, not me:

Originally Posted by JimOfAllTrades View Post
And who in this thread has argued against a proactive approach?

By all means, let them stand up and promote it fervently, if they in believe it is so important.

It would beat the hell out of the, "babies are parasites", "abortion is the same as any other form of birth control", and "abortion has great benefits as related to population control" ways of thinking that have been brought up. Not mention a few others.

Maybe a common ground? Although I thought we at least had one when I said that I don't support the TX law, as it is too restrictive.

Then xjx388 brought it up when responding to Joe Morgue. I did not bring it up:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
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.

I did bring it up in a post to you because it was an example of how YOU assign moral judgments to people which you had just done again. Why? Because you keep doing it. YOU bring it up more than anyone else. So don't give me this crap that "I" keep bringing it up. Since I did nothing wrong, I don't need to 'defend' it at all. It's you who keeps bringing it up in your obvious virtue signaling attempts.