• 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.
Shalamar said:
I do get it. I'm not sure you understand.

You are valuing a potential person over that of actual person.

WHY does a fetus have rights over that of the woman?
Click to expand...

I don't think you do get.

The women has rights, the fetus has rights, sometimes the conflict.

Some folks think a right to life tends to trump a right for someone else to not be burdened.

And again this is really about when a potential person becomes an actual person. Its not a debate if you think the potential person is an actual person right. I assume you think a 3 year old is a person. Would it be reasonable to ask a parent to sacrifice 9 months for a 3 year olds life? Now, try and image that you thought a fetus at 8 months is an actual person? A fetus at 7, 6......

Personally, I'm sure a recently inseminated ova is not a person, I'm certain a fetus about to crown is a person, I don't really know when that transition occurs so, I can empathize with folks who draw the line at different times than I do. I really wish I were as certain as some folks. It would make life easier, but then I'm a skeptic, certainty is a privilege I don't have.
 
ahhell said:
stop acting like someone that thinks there ought to be any limits are effectively the same as that 10%.
Click to expand...
As has been pointed out repeatedly, the pattern of abortions seen when it's totally and completely legal already matches what you describe. You don't need to ban third-trimester abortions (except in specific cases) because outside of those specific cases no one is getting a third-trimester abortion. Arguing that there ought to be limits when the limitations wouldn't actually limit anything accomplishes nothing except opening the door to your 10% (or whatever the real number is) to insist on further limits, so they are effectively the same.

ahhell said:
Personally, I'm sure a recently inseminated ova is not a person, I'm certain a fetus about to crown is a person, I don't really know when that transition occurs so, I can empathize with folks who draw the line at different times than I do. I really wish I were as certain as some folks. It would make life easier, but then I'm a skeptic, certainty is a privilege I don't have.
Click to expand...
If you have no reason whatsoever to disagree with your 10% pushing the limits all the way to insemination, after all they are far more certain than you are, do you really not see how someone would lump you with them?
 
Last edited:
And that's why I'm comfortable calling this a dishonest discussion.

Abortions that are rare and early in the pregnancy is WHAT YOU GET when you just leave women alone.

You already have what you (excuse me "the vast majority of people who totally aren't me") claim you want. So you still arguing suggests you aren't being honest with either your opinion or your reading of the situation.

We're at Vegas and you're demanding the Craps Dealer have a scenario ready for if one of the dice lands perfectly balanced on a corner as if that happens with same regularity as rolling a 7. (You want a 7 in craps right? I dunno gambling)
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
No it doesn't. It means we're not pretending to take into account abortions that stastically next to never happen.

Abortions after, I wanna say 11 weeks (something like, I could be off by a week or two but my point stands) are the vast, vast (90+%) majority of abortions and abortions later in pregnancy almost always have legit medical reasons.

Again you're doing the "Shades of grey, not black and white" dance to pretend that the woman who just wakes up and decides to have an abortion just for the ***** and giggles of it all at 39 weeks, 6 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes, and 59 seconds is really a thing that we have to either worry about or acknowledge in the discussion for sake of "completeness" and we don't.

Abortions that are rare and early in the pregnancy, what you are screaming about "Vast majority of people wanting" is exactly what you already get when you leave women alone and don't put restrictive abortion laws on them.
Click to expand...

So why do you worry so much about something we don't have to worry about? That's just not a very convincing argument. Put yourself in the mindset of the majority of people. They think late term abortions are pretty close to murder. How could you convince them that murder should not be illegal if its very rare.
 
psionl0 said:
We shall see.


You can semanticize all the distinctions away until there is no difference between a human being and a rock. That doesn't change the fact that only a fertilized ovum will develop into a distinct human being (identical twins not withstanding).
Click to expand...
I didn't do that, I merely said that "unique DNA" gets problematic for the sole criterion for personhood, given identical twins and chimeras. I also said that being physically separate is problematic, too, given conjoined twins.

My final point is that there's nothing clear and easy out there.
psionl0 said:
It is perfectly valid to say that this does not give a zygote any rights whatsoever (including the right to life).

However, to say that this is an artificial or arbitrary distinction and the same arguments can equally be applied to sperm or cancer cells reeks of desperation.
Click to expand...
I wasn't the one referencing sperm or cancer, I was only talking about unique DNA.
 
Convince me that having the law reflect what happens in reality is a bad thing?

I agree it is a dishonest conversation.
 
Last edited:
ahhell said:
So why do you worry so much about something we don't have to worry about? That's just not a very convincing argument. Put yourself in the mindset of the majority of people. They think late term abortions are pretty close to murder. How could you convince them that murder should not be illegal if its very rare.
Click to expand...

Did you miss the "and most of the late term abortions that do happen have legit medical reasons" thing or just dishonestly ignore it?
 
Paul2 said:
My final point is that there's nothing clear and easy out there.
Click to expand...
Sentience. Doesn't depend on DNA, conjoinment, chimerism or any soul foolishness. Also doesn't kick in until a year after birth, so you can draw a firm line at childbirth and still say with confidence that no sentient beings were injured.

ahhell said:
Convince me that having the law reflect what happens in reality is a bad thing?
Click to expand...
No.
 
Last edited:
One day I'll meet someone who argues for how vague the line is without already assuming they are obviously on the right side it.

"It's not simple... therefore I'm right."
 
ahhell said:
Practically did a spit take when I realize who wrote this.

Whatever, just know that almost nobody else sees it that way, and that's basically an argument for murder shouldn't be illegal because what's so special about a person anyway? Almost all humans tend to think humans are in fact special and some if not most think that at some point a fetus becomes a human and thus also special when that happens. The argument over abortion is and should be, "When does a fetus become a human." That is the argument the "antiwomen":rolleyes: side is making. They just think it happens a lot earlier than the antibaby:p side does. Earlier and probably for different reasons.
Click to expand...

As George Carlin said, life is a continuous process and has been going on for billions of years. Our reification of "person" chops into discrete pieces that continuous process.

But we need to make practical decisions (h/t Joe) beyond the ontology of personhood, which is what Roe did so well. We even make a practical decision when we decide to give certain rights to newborns, but not the earlier-than-newborns, regardless of whether a person now exists contra the continuous process.

We can make the practical decisions without the reification.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
I’m reading a bit of Asimov’s “Foundation”.

This quote came up last night:

“Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right”.

Has a Zen koan feel to it, but make of it what you will
Click to expand...

I've phrased it in the past as "I don't have morals, I have standards."

A lot, and I mean a lot, of evil people sleep at night because no matter what evil they do, they know they aren't evil "in their heart of hearts."
 
JoeMorgue said:
A lot, and I mean a lot, of evil people sleep at night because no matter what evil they do, they know they aren't evil "in their heart of hearts."
Click to expand...

I imagine some of those people might even be staunchly pro-choice. Imagine that.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Did you miss the "and most of the late term abortions that do happen have legit medical reasons" thing or just dishonestly ignore it?
Click to expand...
You clearly missed the point. Nobody cares if something almost never happens.

Is there anything that you think is bad where the argument, "it should be legal because it almost never happens" would convince you that it should be legal?

In 2016 there were 49 hate crimes reported against Asian, I guess hate crimes against Asians should be legal! That is not an argument that would ever convince anyone of anything they didn't think was ok in the first place.
 
ahhell said:
Is there anything that you think is bad where the argument, "it should be legal because it almost never happens" would convince you that it should be legal?
Click to expand...

And you missed the point that that isn't all of the argument. Nobody has articulated a reason why late term abortions are bad. People have articulated that most late term abortions are necessary. Late term abortion laws can interfere with medically necessary abortions. I need to hear a good reason to want to interfere with people's medical decisions and family planning before I impose other people's opinions on them. And I need to know that there is a problem to be fixed in the first place before even bothering to think about it.

BTW you're probably being casual with the word "bad" but note that there are a lot of things that are "bad" that aren't made illegal.
 
Last edited:
Nobody is not seeing through the theatrics here.

"Abortions are bad because some of them are late term" and then you ignore why the late term abortions happen by shifting lanes into "Well if they are so rare why care blah blah blah..."

You think we're going to fall for you having segments of the debate here and there.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
And you missed the point that that isn't all of the argument. Nobody has articulated a reason why late term abortions are bad. People have articulated that most late term abortions are necessary. Late term abortion laws can interfere with medically necessary abortions. I need to hear a good reason to want to interfere with people's medical decisions and family planning before I impose other people's opinions on them. And I need to know that there is a problem to be fixed in the first place before even bothering to think about it.

BTW you're probably being casual with the word "bad" but note that there are a lot of things that are "bad" that aren't made illegal.
Click to expand...

You are correct, I was being sloppy with bad. I'm merely point out that its a **** argument, "It almost never happens so why make it illegal?" Is a **** argument.

The vast majority of Americans and even Euros think that banning later term abortions except for life and health of the mother and in the case when the child would not be viable or live a short miserable life is quite reasonable. There are about 20% of Americans that think that late term abortions should not be restricted in anyway. At least on this forum, the argument for that has been, It almost never happens. Its a **** argument that wouldn't convince anyone of anything. You have offered the I need to hear a good reason to interfere with peoples medical decisions to restrict them. Which is better. I would offer the evidence of Europe, where that sort of restriction is quite common and where it is, its very rarely a significant imposition. It true that on paper at least, most European countries have more restrictive abortion laws than most US states. Its not such an issue there on account of the laws generally reflecting the consensus.
 
ahhell said:
You are correct, I was being sloppy with bad. I'm merely point out that its a **** argument, "It almost never happens so why make it illegal?" Is a **** argument.
Click to expand...

Yes and if that was the argument you'd have a point.

But it's not and you know it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom