• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Texas bans abortion.

Status
Not open for further replies.
People using a SCOTUS ruling to shore up and/or define their personal morality. They should call it, "playing the Roe card". As I say, laughable.
 
Last edited:
Warp12 said:
The result of it being overturned would of course pave the way for more conservative legislation. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

To the great detriment of the US.

Either way, it would actually be much more surprising if said legislation meaningfully impacted the opinions of the posters here. Roe v Wade rests on pretty much the strongest point of compromise to be had between the main directly conflicting issues, either way - the medical consensus about viability. That you are trying to portray it as prescriptive, rather than descriptive, is just wrong. Given your history - intentionally wrong seems to be reasonably likely, for that matter.
 
Last edited:
Aridas said:
To the great detriment of the US.

Either way, it would actually be much more surprising if said legislation meaningfully impacted the opinions of the posters here. Roe v Wade rests on pretty much the strongest point of compromise to be had between the main directly conflicting issues, either way - the medical consensus about viability. That you are trying to portray it as prescriptive, rather than descriptive, is just wrong.
Click to expand...

The way some people present this is, "see, here is my opinion...and Roe proves it right". Maybe not you, but definitely some. It's tiring. Also, I don't care about the medical consensus on "viability". That term is not used in the general sense that people understand it.

If I prepare a perfect cake mix and put it in the oven, but decide 5 minutes later I don't want a cake, and then throw it out...people will ask why. If I tell them it wasn't viable, only the liberals will understand.
 
A lump of cells does not have awareness and has never had it - you can't take away something that has never existed. It's not a baby, it's not an infant, it's a growth of cells. Towards the end of the pregnancy there however is a rudimentary awareness and consciousness that entitles the fetus to certain protection of the law. I wish this thing was black and white, but it isn't.
 
acbytesla said:
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.
Click to expand...
Or the morality of forcing women to endanger their lives and health by carrying a pregnancy to term.
 
Warp12 said:
The way some people present this is, "see, here is my opinion...and Roe proves it right". Maybe not you, but definitely some.
Click to expand...

It may be worth noting that it's pretty normal to play the endorsed/enforced by the government card when such happens to be on one's side. That may not directly indicate right or wrong, but the concepts of legal/illegal and right/wrong in a democratic society are supposed to have a strong correlation, though human nature largely assures that it's not likely to be a perfect one.

Warp12 said:
It's tiring. Also, I don't care about the medical consensus on "viability". That term is not used in the general sense that people understand it.
Click to expand...

Rather than not caring, you've pretty well shown active antipathy towards it and failed to back up that antipathy with logical or factual argument. Logical or factual argument would at least be worthy of reasonable argument. Instead, though, you've pretty well gone a route that's little more than attempted gotchas and emotional outrage at being confronted with unpleasant facts. While you've stirred up some similar responses, neither of those has much chance of leading to either reasonable or productive discussion.

I have no problem with taking you at your word that you think that the Texas law is a terrible one, though, either way.


Warp12 said:
If I prepare a perfect cake mix and put it in the oven, but decide 5 minutes later I don't want a cake, and then throw it out...people will ask why. If I tell them it wasn't viable, only the liberals will understand.
Click to expand...

You've tried that before, but I'm going to say simply that it just doesn't work like you wish it did.
 
Last edited:
kevbo said:
This is a reasonable expression of a position. :thumbsup: Thank you.

ETA: I would add that viability must enter any discussion at some point.
Click to expand...
"Viability" is one way to measure the extent to which a foetus had any rights. It is not ideal but we don't seem to have any other measure.

One problem with using "viability" is that as medical technology progresses, a foetus becomes viable at an increasingly earlier stage of development. (Who knows? Maybe the day will come when women don't carry a pregnancy to completion but choose to complete the final stages in an incubator!)
 
acbytesla said:
This is not a negotiation. The rules of Roe v Wade work just fine.




The only group I'm interested in participating in is group sex.
Otherwise, I'm not interested in a group which would have me as a member.
Click to expand...
It's often over-rated, complicated to manage and prone to fissioning off couples anyway.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
No, we CAN'T say that.
What we can say is that the older the fetus.gets, the more viable it gets to survive a premature birth.
But that doesn't translate into a right to live, not even according to Roe.
Click to expand...
"Rights" is not a dichotomy. Where the rights of two individuals conflict (in this case, the mother and the foetus), we have to decide who has the greater right. IE rights exist on a sliding scale.

If a foetus had no rights then the question of when it could be terminated would be moot.
 
Last edited:
psionl0 said:
"Viability" is one way to measure the extent to which a foetus had any rights. It is not ideal but we don't seem to have any other measure.

One problem with using "viability" is that as medical technology progresses, a foetus becomes viable at an increasingly earlier stage of development. (Who knows? Maybe the day will come when women don't carry a pregnancy to completion but choose to complete the final stages in an incubator!)
Click to expand...

I poked at this just barely before, but it may be worth remembering that artificial wombs are being researched and developed. If they become sufficiently advanced and widespread, that would fairly certainly change the conversation and equations significantly... and not always in straightforward ways.
 
Last edited:
psionl0 said:
"Rights" is not a dichotomy. Where the rights of two individuals conflict (in this case, the mother and the foetus), we have to decide who has the greater right. IE rights exist on a sliding scale.
Click to expand...

That is not an example of "the rights of two individuals" conflicting. You only mentioned one individual; the mother.
 
psionl0 said:
"Rights" is not a dichotomy. Where the rights of two individuals conflict (in this case, the mother and the foetus), we have to decide who has the greater right. IE rights exist on a sliding scale.
Click to expand...

Actually, human rights are very much a dichotomy: either you have them or you don't.
You don't get 3/5th of a Right to be considered a human.
 
smartcooky said:
That is not an example of "the rights of two individuals" conflicting. You only mentioned one individual; the mother.
Click to expand...
I said "individual" not "a human being".

But if you want to argue that a foetus has no individuality until the umbilical cord is cut then go ahead.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom