Texas bans abortion.

[The Great Zaganza]

...
Calling the unborn “parasites” is stripping the humanity from them. It is putting them on par with a creature such as a tick or tapeworm. It is grotesque, at best.

consider that, where I'm coming from, putting them on par with a newborn is grotesque.

 

[smartcooky]

Please quote and cite anyone here, but most especially me, who has said the zygote, embryo, or fetus is not 'human'.

Claiming that "they may not wish to characterize the unborn as human" is blatantly dishonest because it has been pointed out many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many times that the point of contention is "human" versus "human being/person". You know this. And so do we.

FTFY

 

[mgidm86]

Just drop the gawdamn parasite thing already geez.

 

[acbytesla]

Just drop the gawdamn parasite thing already geez.

Okay.

We can talk about the societal ills of overpopulation and how providing women with choices beyond child bearing improves a nation's economic welfare.

 

[Aridas]

Just drop the gawdamn parasite thing already geez.

The main relevance that it has in the first place is pretty much just countering the purely emotive angle of "It's so horrible to murder cute, innocent, harmless, defenseless human babies that haven't been born yet!" And the response to that counter is little more than "It's so sick that you wouldn't count them as cute, innocent, harmless, defenseless human babies that just haven't been born yet!" and "Stop saying they're not human!"

It's certainly true that it's not a bad thing to drop the parasite tangent. It would be best to just leave out the entire appeal to "But they're babies!" in the first place, though.

 

[Aridas]

Okay.

We can talk about the societal ills of overpopulation and how providing women with choices beyond child bearing improves a nation's economic welfare.

Correction - providing women with safe options beyond child bearing and unsafe abortion methods.

 

[acbytesla]

The main relevance that it has in the first place is pretty much just countering the purely emotive angle of "It's so horrible to murder cute, innocent, harmless, defenseless human babies that haven't been born yet!" And the response to that counter is little more than "It's so sick that you wouldn't count them as cute, innocent, harmless, defenseless human babies that just haven't been born yet!" and "Stop saying they're not human!"

It's certainly true that it's not a bad thing to drop the parasite tangent. It would be best to just leave out the entire appeal to "But they're babies!" in the first place, though.

The point of the term parasite is that this organism (fetus) is sometimes unwanted and that it takes a health toll on the person that has it. It's wrong for me or anyone to force another to endure that toll when that person doesn't want to.

 

[smartcooky]

Just drop the gawdamn parasite thing already geez.

We would if the "pro-lifer" anti-abortion crowd were prepared to accept scientific facts rather go off on a fit of emotional pearl-clutching!

 

[Stacyhs]

We would if the "pro-lifer" anti-abortion crowd were prepared to accept scientific facts rather go off on a fit of emotional pearl-clutching!

Exactly.

 

[psionl0]

We would if the "pro-lifer" anti-abortion crowd were prepared to accept scientific facts rather go off on a fit of emotional pearl-clutching!

So you go in for a bit of tit-for-tat "emotional pearl-clutching" as well?

The point in the development cycle where we shut the gate on an abortion is just an arbitrary number that is set by the court. That is not a "scientific fact" but a judicial opinion.

 

[acbytesla]

So you go in for a bit of tit-for-tat "emotional pearl-clutching" as well?

The point in the development cycle where we shut the gate on an abortion is just an arbitrary number that is set by the court. That is not a "scientific fact" but a judicial opinion.

And your point is? Yes it's arbitrary. I agree with that point. So?

We could make it aginst the law for a male to masturbate or wear a condom or a female to wear a diaphragm because that kills sperm like the Catholic Church has done. That's arbitrary too.

Being pro-choice allows the individual most affected by the pregnancy to make that arbitrary decision. It prevents holier than thou religious prima donnas to dictate that line.

And ANYTHING TO get the religious turds from getting involved.

 

[abaddon]

Why not kill them at 5 years old?

Abso;utely not. WE should provide health care and welfare to such children, right? So that they need for nothing, right?Naw. Once they are born, you do not care about the child's wellbeing. That would be socialism, or communism, or marxism. You already told us that. No, force a woman to give live birth and then one can throw the baby on the trash heap.

I mean accountability is accountability...no matter when you make the choice. Right?

Unless one is a male. In whixh case one is in no way accountable, because one was merely sowing some wild oats, right? That doesn't really count. right? After all, they are mere splittails, not to be considered as even vaguely human, right?

 

[abaddon]

Let me put this simply:

When I gave a direct response to your question about the difference between abortion and other means of birth control, you disregarded it as a "troll" answer", it seems. Everyone obviously knows that conception is the difference, however. And that is the most direct answer I could possibly give.

Since that wasn't clear enough for you, I am not going to address your questions or statements here any further, right now. There is obviously no point in doing so.

And you ignored the fact that abortion IS NOT A MEANS OF BIRTH CONTROL


No, you simply made that up. Like most of the nonsense you post.

 

[Aridas]

The point of the term parasite is that this organism (fetus) is sometimes unwanted and that it takes a health toll on the person that has it. It's wrong for me or anyone to force another to endure that toll when that person doesn't want to.

In short, they're a burden. A burden that the woman may not be prepared or able to handle at that time. If one wants to count it as a potential investment, that works, too, with a slightly more positive rhetorical spin to that.

 

[Stacyhs]

The SC did not set the third trimester as some "arbitrary" and "unscientific" limit; the set it because that is when a fetus, by medical consensus, becomes viable. It has developed enough that it stands a fair to good chance of surviving outside the womb.

 

[smartcooky]

The SC did not set the third trimester as some "arbitrary" and "unscientific" limit; the set it because that is when a fetus, by medical consensus, becomes viable. It has developed enough that it stands a fair to good chance of surviving outside the womb.

This cannot be stressed enough. Only week 28 as the beginning of the third trimester has the medical consensus endorsement of the vast majority of the medical profession

All other proposed points "in the development cycle where we shut the gate", without exception, are arbitrary.. They are made up by the religious, the pro-lifer anti-abortionists and those who are trying to make political capital from the oppression of women and from denying them the right to choose what happens with their own bodies. They make up those arbitrary points, not because there is any scientific merit or medical evidence to support them, but because it suits their above mentioned agendas to do so.

 

[Aridas]

The SC did not set the third trimester as some "arbitrary" and "unscientific" limit; the set it because that is when a fetus, by medical consensus, becomes viable. It has developed enough that it stands a fair to good chance of surviving outside the womb.

As a bit of a tangent, it could be somewhat interesting to revisit that particular topic if sufficiently advanced artificial wombs become reasonably widespread.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

We would if the "pro-lifer" anti-abortion crowd were prepared to accept scientific facts rather go off on a fit of emotional pearl-clutching!

I think it’s very difficult to boil questions of morality down to scientific facts.

Not to imply that either side of this issue is inherently immoral. Just that people can come to different personal evaluations of right and wrong from the same set of facts. There are many things going on on this planet that seem profoundly wrong to me that others just casually do in their day to day lives. Philosophers have long pondered a rational basis for ethics and morality, and I don’t think they can even agree on that. Religion can play a huge part in someone’s morality, but hard core atheists wrestle with moral choices as well.

Here, from the same set of facts, some see abortion as wrong, some see denying a woman’s right to an abortion as wrong, and many, many are just trying to find a “least wrong” solution that does the least harm.

 

[JoeMorgue]

"jUsT drOP the ParasITE thinG!"

I notice no calls for the anti-choice side to "just drop" calling a clump of a dozen cells "a baby."

 

[Stacyhs]

"jUsT drOP the ParasITE thinG!"

I notice no calls for the anti-choice side to "just drop" calling a clump of a dozen cells "a baby."

I believe mgidm86 was addressing that to those who keep bringing it up as an "OMG! How can you call a precious baby a parasite?" bit.