• 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.
Warp12 said:
So, just so I am 200% clear: Do you personally advocate for unconditional third trimester abortions? There are 7 states which already have no gestation restrictions for abortion.
Click to expand...

"So, just so I am 200% clear, do you understand that I intentionally phrasing the question badly to catch you in a gotcha?"

There, fixed it for you.
 
JoeMorgue said:
"So, just so I am 200% clear, do you understand that I intentionally phrasing the question badly to catch you in a gotcha?"

There, fixed it for you.
Click to expand...

Joe, what you even talking about? I am simply asking for clarification on the OP's personal stance.
 
Warp12 said:
Whatever. The context is in the statement made. Can you let the OP answer?
Click to expand...

I'm not stopping him.

"Let him answer" as if this isn't a public forum and I barged in on some private discussion you two were having. Sod off with that crap.
 
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...

So, just so I am 200% clear: Do you personally advocate for unconditional third trimester abortions? There are 7 states which already have no gestation restrictions for abortion.
 
Warp12 said:
So, just so I am 200% clear: Do you personally advocate for unconditional third trimester abortions? There are 7 states which already have no gestation restrictions for abortion.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm in favor of that but not strenuously. As long as those restrictions aren't interfering in emergency cases I'm fine.

I think that having an abortion after you've gotten other people emotionally invested in your new kid by throwing a baby shower just because you've changed your mind and would rather plan a vacation is depraved, for example. Is there enough of that kind of depravity happening that I think it presents a problem to society? No. Do I want to interfere in emergency cases when problems like that aren't even known to be happening? Also, No.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Yes and if that was the argument you'd have a point.

But it's not and you know it.
Click to expand...
No I don't, as far as I can tell that is the argument you have offered in support of no restrictions on third trimester abortion. I'm willing to listen if I have misunderstood.
 
ahhell said:
No I don't, as far as I can tell that is the argument you have offered in support of no restrictions on third trimester abortion.
Click to expand...

Well your understanding of my argument is not something I'm going to adjust it for at this point.
 
If those same late-term abortions already only happen in the cases that those advocating banning are willing to exclude from the ban, why bother making the ban at all?
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
Yes, I'm in favor of that but not strenuously. As long as those restrictions aren't interfering in emergency cases I'm fine.

I think that having an abortion after you've gotten other people emotionally invested in your new kid by throwing a baby shower just because you've changed your mind and would rather plan a vacation is depraved, for example. Is there enough of that kind of depravity happening that I think it presents a problem to society? No. Do I want to interfere in emergency cases when problems like that aren't even known to be happening? Also, No.
Click to expand...

Right, but that is different from "unconditional". Do you think it is not possible to legislate third trimester abortions in a way that allows for medical concerns to the mother and baby? If it is possible, is there an issue with legislating that it must be due to a pressing medical concern (life/health) with mother or baby?

It seems that in a lot of cases, that legislation already exists:

https://www.kff.org/womens-health-p...0&sortModel={"colId":"Location","sort":"asc"}
 
Silly Green Monkey said:
If those same late-term abortions already only happen in the cases that those advocating banning are willing to exclude from the ban, why bother making the ban at all?
Click to expand...

Because it's never been about abortion but punishing/controlling women.

That's why none of their argument can stay consistent or make sense.
 
Silly Green Monkey said:
If those same late-term abortions already only happen in the cases that those advocating banning are willing to exclude from the ban, why bother making the ban at all?
Click to expand...

Well, by that argument, then what is wrong with legislation that restricts what you say doesn't ever happen, anyway?

In such a utopian society, why have any laws? Right?
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
What's different from "unconditional"? You asked a question that had the word unconditional in it and I said yes.
Click to expand...

RecoveringYuppy said:
Yes, I'm in favor of that but not strenuously. As long as those restrictions aren't interfering in emergency cases I'm fine. I think that having an abortion after you've gotten other people emotionally invested in your new kid by throwing a baby shower just because you've changed your mind and would rather plan a vacation is depraved, for example. Is there enough of that kind of depravity happening that I think it presents a problem to society? No. Do I want to interfere in emergency cases when problems like that aren't even known to be happening? Also, No.
Click to expand...

It doesn't sound like you support it unconditionally. It sounds like you just want to be sure that the restrictions don't interfere with medical concerns.
 
Warp12 said:
Well, by that argument, then what is wrong with legislation that restricts what you say doesn't ever happen, anyway?

In such a utopian society, why have any laws? Right?
Click to expand...

What is wrong with making laws that restrict what doesn't happen? I'm sure it makes the lawmakers and advocates feel good about themselves, pat themselves on the back for making a difference, but it takes up time that they could be spending on things that actually happen, and aren't merely for appearance's sake.
 
Warp12 said:
It doesn't sound like you support it unconditionally.
Click to expand...
I said yes for crying out loud. Did I make your job of cramming me in to some box too difficult by going on to explain why I'm in favor of no restrictions and telling you what compromises I'm OK with?
 
Last edited:
Silly Green Monkey said:
What is wrong with making laws that restrict what doesn't happen? I'm sure it makes the lawmakers and advocates feel good about themselves, pat themselves on the back for making a difference, but it takes up time that they could be spending on things that actually happen, and aren't merely for appearance's sake.
Click to expand...

That ship has long since sailed in this country, I'm afraid.

But, irrelevant, really. There are probably some towns that have never had a murder occur. Should killing be legal there? I mean after all, it never takes place, right?

Then again, I don't think anyone is claiming that 3rd trimester abortions without medical cause NEVER take place. They are saying it is extremely rare. There is a difference.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom