Texas bans abortion.

[Warbler]

Figured you were all talk and no action.

sheesh, did you even read the list I made?

1. I don't know that I would make a good father.
2. I don't think I have the means to support a child at this time.
3. I am not married and have no significant other. Maybe someday I will meet ms. right.

read those things and tell me it would be appropriate for me, with how my life is currently, to adopt a baby. My goodness.

 

[Dr. Keith]

sheesh, did you even read the list I made?

1. I don't know that I would make a good father.
2. I don't think I have the means to support a child at this time.
3. I am not married and have no significant other. Maybe someday I will meet ms. right.

read those things and tell me it would be appropriate for me, with how my life is currently, to adopt a baby. My goodness.

I read those things and wonder why you think it is appropriate for you, with how your life is currently, to opine on how women deal with their pregnancies. My goodness.

 

[Warbler]

I notice that when people use the magic book that mentions unicorns 9 times to justify why women shouldn't control their bodies, nobody complains.

But the second an atheist points out that the magic book that mentions unicorns 9 times is bunk, they do.

Funny... that.

I don't know if you are referring to me or not, but if you read all I of my posts in this thread, I don't think you will find one where I referred to "the magic book".

Also the word unicorn does not appear if all English translations of "the magic book' I think it is mostly in older translations like the King James.

 

[Warbler]

The mythology around "You can be wrong forever as long as you stay surface level check in the box civil about it" is one of the reasons discourse is in the toilet.

If every possible way that 2+2=5 is wrong has been explained to you and you still insist that 2+2=5, you're being uncivil no matter how much you smile and keep your voice low while you say it. And the person who eventually gets tired of telling you that 2+2 doesn't equal five and starts to lose their patience and get snarky isn't the bad guy.

"Civil Discourse" isn't the same thing as "Making it easier and easier for the wrong side to be wrong."

"I'm willing to listen to other people's opinion" is a good quality to have, it's not a dump stat where the further you push that envelope the better person you become.

I think abortion issue it a bit more complicated than simple arithmetic and added 2+2.

 

[Warbler]

Yes I know I've already gotten the "Oh by a magical continually ongoing coincidence every time I'm wrong the question is really subjective so I'm not wrong" argument.

if the issue is truly subjective, the "Oh by a magical continually ongoing coincidence every time I'm wrong the question is really subjective so I'm not wrong" argument would be valid. If the issue were truly subjective.

A clump of cells the size of a pin is not human is as much a fact as 2+2.

opinion. also remember it is a clump of cells that is slowly developing into a human being.

You can be as arrogant as you wish but it won't change the fact that the subject of abortion is a bit more complicated that 2+2=4.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

if the issue is truly subjective, the "Oh by a magical continually ongoing coincidence every time I'm wrong the question is really subjective so I'm not wrong" argument would be valid. If the issue were truly subjective.



opinion. also remember it is a clump of cells that is slowly developing into a human being.

You can be as arrogant as you wish but it won't change the fact that the subject of abortion is a bit more complicated that 2+2=4.

On the flipside, the damage done to pregnant people who no longer have access to abortion is very uncomplicated and easy to understand.

 

[Warbler]

I tried to post this yesterday, but God forbade it. I'll try again:

If someone must speak for the fetus, let it be the woman carrying it. She's surely the person most closely concerned.

the parents of a child do not alone decide whether or not the child has rights. Parent can't say "my child has no right to live" and then kill the child. (to be clear, I am talking about a child after birth).

The mother of a fetus alone doesn't not decide what rights it does and does not have.

 

[JoeMorgue]

sheesh, did you even read the list I made?

1. I don't know that I would make a good father.
2. I don't think I have the means to support a child at this time.
3. I am not married and have no significant other. Maybe someday I will meet ms. right.

read those things and tell me it would be appropriate for me, with how my life is currently, to adopt a baby. My goodness.

The board doesn't give out a fruitbasket for getting as close to the point as possible without getting it.

 

[Warbler]

"I oppose abortion because I think God puts a magical soul in the widdle babies."
"There's no evidence your God exists."
"Oh well... now you're being mean."

There is a difference between saying that you believe God doesn't exist or that you don't believe in God and mocking those that do believe in God. If you can't see the difference, I can't help you.

I personally think it is a good thing to respect and not mock those that believe differently than yourself.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

There is a difference between saying that you believe God doesn't exist or that you don't believe in God and mocking those that do. If you can't see the difference, I can't help you.

I personally think it is a good thing to respect and not mock those that believe differently than yourself.

I find it difficult to respect those that would use the power of the state to enforce their religious orthodoxy.

 

[JoeMorgue]

There is a difference between saying that you believe God doesn't exist or that you don't believe in God and mocking those that do. If you can't see the difference, I can't help you.

I personally think it is a good thing to respect and not mock those that believe differently than yourself.

When religion stops making problems, I'll be nicer to it.

If your goal is to hijack this discussion into "OMG stop being so mean to religion" don't bother. That's not the topic.

 

[Paul2]

They are not open to persuasion. Why bother? Just point and laugh.

Surely many people are not open to persuasion, and you may say that the most fundamentalists are not open to persuasion, and will never change their mind. However, some will change their mind, over a period of time, after many arguments are repeated for them again and again.

The problem is, you don't know whether you are talking to one of the large majority who will never change their mind, or one of the minority to might eventually change their mind.

So, if your goal is to persuade people eventually, to be a part of that long, slow process, then mockery may well not be a good technique. Or, it may have varying results depending on other factors. Surely, there will be some people for whom mockery will not work.

In other words, it's hard to say, so do what has the best chance of working. If you think that is mockery on a logical basis, go for it.

 

[Warbler]

So how is that not just your opinion and why should other people run their lives based on your opinion?

I don't know. But society and law must make some decision(s) regarding whether or not the fetus has rights. I could ask others the same question how is it not just your opinion that the fetus as no rights and why should other people run their lives based on your opinion?

 

[JoeMorgue]

I tell you what. Anyone who thinks mocking religious people doesn't work, tell us what does.

 

[Warp12]

Forget it. The poster somehow thinks godless atheists are advocating third trimester abortion.

There are seven states without gestational term limits.

Not really interested why your third world banana republic chooses to violate women.

So, to clarify, you are against any gestational limits?

 

[ahhell]

Because very late term abortions are quite rare, and really only ever needed in extreme situations where the mother’s life is at risk or the fetus will not survive, I feel like making them illegal is not warranted.

If you have examples of late term abortions that you think the law should address then please bring them forward. Note the word examples is not synonymous with the word hypothetical.

My experience is that laws that don’t address actual problems tend to create more problems than they solve.

You wait for the baby to crown and check to see what color their eyes are before deciding if you want to continue the birth or abort.

*Rolls Sure* Sure you can hunt 2 year olds for sport.

Can we keep like one toe in actual reality for once? Would be a nice change of pace around here.

Abortions later in the pregnancy are incredibly rare and usually have special circumstances. The woman who just wakes up and decides at 39 weeks, 6 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes, and 59 seconds to have an abortion just for the ***** and giggles of it is such a rare occurrence I'm not going to factor it in to my worldview.

So you won't answer the question. That's fine but you are an extremist on this issue and out of step with the vast majority of people, not just Americans, Europeans too. Just be aware of that.

To my actual point that is being ignored. There is a spectrum of belief on when a fetus counts as a person. Everyone draws a line somewhere, it is necessarily arbitrary. Science can inform on this issue as noted above but its not like there is some point where this is definitely a baby and that is definitely not. The vast majority of people are willing to draw it sometime before birth and after the first trimester, which places essentially no burden on women. We can have laws that reflect that reality.

How rare are they? Legit question. I fully admit they are rare, I also think that making them illegal except for health and safety of the mother is fine. Down side, something that almost never happens won't happen anymore and it makes the law reflect both reality and popular opinion. Upside, it would defang the issue with almost no actual impact on the rights of women.

Literally NOBODY is saying that a fetus is "JUST a parasite". Please don't continue with that misrepresentation of what has been said.

Worth noting that this was taken of context. As I was using the phrase to reference folks who don't support unlimited abortion rights but rather more modest changes to the law.

Here's the thing, this debate isn't just between folks who want to ban all abortions and folks that wouldn't even ban abortions that the vast majority would. The vast majority of people are somewhere in between. When nut pick and strawman the other side and won't even consider banning very late term abortions, those folks in between aren't going to be on your side.

 

[Warbler]

Speaking for the rights of something that has no rights

opinion.

About 30 weeks. It cannot be sentient until it has a functioning brain

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/14767059209161911

"It is concluded that the basic neuronal substrate required to transmit somatosensory information develops by mid-gestation (18 to 25 weeks), however, the functional capacity of the neural circuitry is limited by the immaturity of the system. Thus, 18 to 25 weeks is considered the earliest stage at which the lower boundary of sentience could be placed. At this stage of development, however, there is little evidence for the central processing of somatosensory information. Before 30 weeks gestational age, EEG activity is extremely limited and somatosensory evoked potentials are immature, lacking components which correlate with information processing within the cerebral cortex. Thus, 30 weeks is considered a more plausible stage of fetal development at which the lower boundary for sentience could be placed"
​

....that is well into the third trimester.

not being an sort of expert myself, I will have to take your word for it.

False equivalence: a fetus is not a person ("potential person" doesnlt count).

in your opinion a potential person that is slowing developing into an actual person, doesn't count.

 

[JoeMorgue]

As I was using the phrase to reference folks who don't support unlimited abortion rights but rather more modest changes to the law.

Keep pretending like "modest changes in the law" is the Republican goal.

You can live in the consequence free, Polysci 101 thought experiment "Both sides are wrong LOL" fantasy world where if we give them an inch they won't take a mile if you want. The women this effects in the real world don't have that luxury.

 

[Warbler]

That decision is a lot easier if you just trust the mother to make that call, with input from her doctor. She knows what risks she is willing to tolerate and she is in a better position to know all of the risks that she faces.

No need to fry your noodle over someone else’s medical choices when they are completely competent to make them on their own.

If it were just her medical choices, I would agree, she would also be making medical choices for the fetus.

 

[Stacyhs]

and if the law has not enumerated a right, that right does not exist. That is what you are saying.

No, that is not what I am saying. I'm saying that rights are not given to us by a Creator or nature. The law does not specifically say I have a right to choose what kind of music I listen to, but that right is implied by our culture, our society, our philosophy about personal choice. It is not given to me by a Creator or nature.

That is what I disagree with. The founders disagreed with it as well. I believe rights are more than just what is and is not recognized by government. Also since the founders feared any rights specifically not enumerated would, by default, NOT be rights, we can assume they recognized the existence of rights that were not enumerated.

But you are disagreeing with something I did not say. What we disagree on is the source of our rights, not that they do not exist whether enumerated or not.

This whole thing started when someone said to me that the the fetus has no rights in law or nature.

I agreed with him in with the law as it currently stands. But I did not agree with in regards to natural rights. If natural rights are indeed a human construct, and not tangible or provable, it follows one can not matter of factually state a fetus has no natural rights.

The idea of anyone having "rights" is a human construct in itself. How would you prove a 'right' exists except by arguing what we believe? There is no memo from a Creator or nature saying so, nothing provable except by what 'the people" say is so.