Texas bans abortion.

[Warbler]

No, it's not due to R v W. I previously cited this which is the legal definition of a person. This law gave legal protection and rights to any fetus BORN ALIVE, not pre-born:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8

I don't think I knew about that law. I think there is also a new bill some in congress are attempting pass that would protect a mother's right to choose.

In any case, both could be re-written, amended, overridden by a constitutional amendment or ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court(not that I think any of that is likely)

Nature aborts pregnancies all the time; it's called a spontaneous abortion aka miscarriage. Spontaneous abortions are any loss of pregnancy before 20 weeks gestation without elective medical or surgical measures.

Yes, I know and people also die all the time. It doesn't mean they don't have rights, same is true with the fetus.

My great-grandmother had several miscarriages and fetal deaths in her third trimester. The cause was unknown. My grandmother was induced when her mother was 8 months along because the doctors feared she, too, would die before she was full term.

My friend's niece had a fetal death in her 5 month this summer and had to take Misoprostol to cause her to expel it. It was extremely painful.

Sorry that your great-grandmother and grandmother and your friend's niece had all thes difficulties.

 

[Warbler]

To what extent is it acceptable to force a woman to risk her life carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term? 25% greater risk of death? 50%? 100%? 200%? 400%? 800%?

Good question. I would say it is when a legit and qualified MD Doctor whom the mother is patient of, says the risk is too great for the mother to carry the baby to term and recommends abortion.

 

[smartcooky]

That is all opinion.

Nope, its fact.

Rights are defined and enshrined in laws... without those laws, there are no rights for any individual*. These laws specifically say to whom those rights are granted. Fetuses, embryos, zygotes and the unborn are nowhere mentioned in any laws that define human rights.

Therefore, those laws to not apply to them.

Therefore, fetuses, embryos, zygotes and the unborn have no rights. This is an irrefutable fact.

*NOTE: See North Korea as an example of somewhere in which people have no rights.

Ah, the tire old logical fallacy of trying to invalidate the opinion by attacking the age and gender of the opinion holder.

Go away and read a primer on what "logical fallacy" means so that you don't use terms that you don't understand.

Besides not everyone on the pro life said is old or male. Some are female, some are young, some are both. Also some on the pro choice are both old and male....

The vast majority of the Texas Republican legislature are white men.

https://apps.texastribune.org/features/2020/2021-texas-legislature-representation/

White|94
Asian|2
Hispanic|2
Black|1

Men|86
Women|13

And most of the whole legislature are old

Aged 65+|37
Aged 50-64|77
Aged 35-49|61
Aged 20-34|4

...yet that doesn't invalidate there opinion.

They are entitled to their opinions, but those opinions are not what I object to. It is what they do that I object to. No-one, BUT NO-ONE in a civilised society should be allowed to deny any person autonomy over their own body, unless doing so is a matter of public safety.

Finally what you said implies that there is something wrong with being either old or male or both, there isn't.

FAIL! It does no such thing.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Good question. I would say it is when a legit and qualified MD Doctor whom the mother is patient of, says the risk is too great for the mother to carry the baby to term and recommends abortion.

Why is the doctor making the decision and not the mother?

 

[JoeMorgue]

I wish every time I was wrong about something I could just go "Whoops sorry just an opinion."

 

[Warbler]

FFS there is no such thing as a "God given" or "Natural born right". Try dropping someone into the middle of the Atlantic and see how their "right to life" fairs against the forces of nature; exhaustion, dehydration and hypothermia.

I didn't say God given. But I do things whether or not one has rights more complicated than whether or not the rights in question are recognized in law. That idea was also an important part of the Declaration of Independence.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

 

[Warbler]

The nature of such clinics is that excess embryos are almost always created. That is, embryos will be created that will never develop into human beings (I assume they remain stored for some time & then get discarded?).

In fact, it's not out of the question that multiple embryo transfer will be done to increase the chances of a successful pregnancy and that, if the process results in multiple embryos successfully implanting & developing, "selective reduction" (euphemism for selective abortion) will be performed (it reduces the chance of various complications including miscarriage).

Good points. They may indeed cause some on the pro life side to oppose such clinics.

 

[Stacyhs]

Is it an option if the concern is that you don't have the finances, house, stable environment, and/or ability to care of the child. Those problems can be solved by adoption. Just be careful whom you allow to adopt the child, make sure they do have the finances, house, stable environment, ability to care of the child, willingness to care for and love the child.

Yes, it is an OPTION. In other words, a CHOICE that the woman alone has to ultimately make. It is not up to anyone else.
No one can "make sure they do have the finances, house, stable environment, ability to care of the child, willingness to care for and love the child." Finances change, people get divorced, people die, etc.

While it might be very difficult to give the child up, the child would still be better off in the hands of a couple such as I described above that to have been aborted.

Again, you are giving a clump of cells or a partially formed, non-sentient entity the same equivalency as a "child". The vast, vast majority of abortions happen within the first couple of months of conception. It is not a "child" who is "better off".

Also I am not so certain it would be such a traumatic experience for a woman to give up a child when they were willing to abort same if it hadn't been for adoption.

Again, you are giving a clump of cells or a partially formed, non-sentient entity the same equivalency as a "child". Aborting an early stage embryo/fetus is not the same damn thing as giving up a fully formed, sentient CHILD that you've carried for 9 months and felt moving within you.

Finally, aborting the child also might cause trauma. The woman would have live with the fact that she let her own fetus be killed and forever wondering what the child would have been like if she had carried the baby to term.

Do you honestly think women don't think about that before making a choice to abort or not? Do you think they take it lightly? Like it's a choice between buying white or wheat bread? But women can only make the decision for themselves at the time they are pregnant. What they MAY feel in the future cannot be controlled or predicted.

 

[Warbler]

If your preference for not aborting is based on "OMG, think of the child!", I do not understand what rape or incest have to do with it.

As some point, as in cases or rape or incest, it becomes cruel to force the female to carry the pregnancy to term. Maybe I am being incontinent in that stance, I don't know. But I do know I don't want to force the rapped to carry the child to term, same with incest.

 

[Norman Alexander]

Good question. I would say it is when a legit and qualified MD Doctor whom the mother is patient of, says the risk is too great for the mother to carry the baby to term and recommends abortion.

Does the mother get a say in this? She may have other reasons besides medical ones NOT to be forced to be a breeding incubator.

 

[catsmate]

The exception for rape and incest has always puzzled me because it's contradictory to the anti-choice philosophy that "all 'babies' have a right to life". Is the 'baby' conceived by rape or incest any less 'precious'? Does it have any less 'right to life'? Apparently so if a girl/woman can have an abortion because she's the victim of rape or incest.

It's purely a sop to "moderation", to avoid the hypocrisy and misogyny of their policies being pointed out.

 

[Warbler]

Well sometimes, I mean it isn't like pregnancies before 10 are low risk. But maternal mortality is of course just damn funny when it happens to a pregnant child.

I wasn't referring to pregnant children. Like I said I am willing to listen to legit MD medical experts to determine when the risk is too great. If we are talking about a child age 10 or younger. I doubt I would oppose an abortion in that case, especially if risk to the pregnant child is high.

 

[Warbler]

Can you provide an example of a situation where the mothers life is not at stake?

No, but think you know that in normal pregnancies, the risk to the mother is low.

 

[smartcooky]

I didn't say God given. But I do things whether or not one has rights more complicated than whether or not the rights in question are recognized in law.

All well and good, but what YOU personally do is irrelevant.

Rights only exist as a result of the legal framework that grants them. No legal framework, no rights.

There is no legal framework that grants a fetus rights, therefore they have no rights. This is not just an opinion, it is a fact!

That idea was also an important part of the Declaration of Independence.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

The Declaration of Independence is a declaration of war, not a law.

 

[Warbler]

Seems like just letting the woman decide if the risk is worth it or not would be a lot easier.

maybe but someone does need to speak for the rights of the fetus.

 

[catsmate]

You referred to choosing between the life of the mother and the life of fetus. It is not a choice between two lives in a normal pregnancy, it is a choice between the mother's the right to bodily autonomy and the fetus' right to live.

Carrying a pregnancy to term involves significant health risks.

A simple question: to what degree do you consider it acceptable to risk the life of the pregnant woman, over and beyond the normal risks of death?
A 25% increase?
50%?
100%?
200%?
400%?
800%?

 

[Warbler]

Why not in the cases of rape or incest? Why is that 'baby' any less deserving of being adoption over abortion?

no, but it does seem cruel to force a victim of rape or incest to carry a child to term. My stance maybe it inconsistent, but there we are.

 

[Warbler]

Realistically what the fetus faces now is a black market RU486 pill or a drive over state lines to be legally aborted.

true illegal and/or unsafe abortions are a problem. Also true that women will attempt to go to places where abortions are not illegal.

 

[Norman Alexander]

maybe but someone does need to speak for the rights of the fetus.

That would be its mother. It would not be where it is but for its mother. It's a highly responsible position. So she gets to make the tough decisions about it, not some lawyer or doctor or politician. And she needs to be supported when she makes those decisions, not condemned.

 

[Warbler]

"You can't outlaw abortions. You can only outlaw safe abortions"

that may be correct. There definitely truth in what you say. Some will always seek abortions whether or not they are legal or safe.