Texas bans abortion.

[Warp12]

Oh no you don't. You brought the numbers into it expecting it would support your narrative.

Quite frankly, you haven't posted anything relevant to, or that even disputes, my statement. It doesn't matter how wordy your response is, when it doesn't even address the point that was made.

 

[smartcooky]

Quite frankly, you haven't posted anything relevant to, or that even disputes, my statement. It doesn't matter how wordy your response is, when it doesn't even address the point that was made.

If you think that, then you have had a Failure of Understanding

NONE OF WHAT I POSTED WAS AN ATTEMPT TO DISPUTE WHAT YOU SAID!

It doesn't simply address the point that was made, it goes beyond that point and explores the details and implications.

If you had even bothered to read what was posted instead of firing off your usual knee-jerk post without reading, you would have realised that.

I know your understanding of the issues is limited to "ban abortion" and "punish da bitches", but you could at least make an effort to expand your understanding beyond your blinkered view.

 

[Warp12]

I know your understanding of the issues is limited to "ban abortion" and "punish da bitches", but you could at least make an effort to expand your understanding beyond your blinkered view.

Your statement is puzzling. In my post regarding the issue of maternal deaths (on this page, and supposedly the driver of your argument), I stated the following:

This doesn't really impact my position on abortion, as I don't favor outlawing it.

I therefore find this statement of yours to be quite ironic:

If you had even bothered to read what was posted instead of firing off your usual knee-jerk post without reading, you would have realised that.

I have been very consistent in opposing this TX law, as well as being clear that I do not endorse “banning abortion”. There is nothing to debate here.

 

[Warp12]

Actually, under Roe v Wade, dogs and cats actually do have more rights than a first trimester zygote, embryo.

It is hard to interpret this in a favorable light.

 

[Stacyhs]

It is hard to interpret this in a favorable light.

No, it's not.

A zygote and embryo cannot feel or think. They have only a very rudimentary brain and central nervous system, if at all. Dogs and cats can can both feel and think and are independent, living beings.

 

[Warp12]

No, it's not.

A zygote and embryo cannot feel or think. They have only a very rudimentary brain and central nervous system, if at all. Dogs and cats can can both feel and think and are independent, living beings.

Dogs and cats don't develop into human babies, either. Of course, not everyone feels that aspect adds any value, obviously.

 

[mgidm86]

I'm not so sure this DNA/separate/unique entity argument is the slam dunk some here think it is. If it's a unique/separate individual then it has no right to invade the body of another unique/separate individual.

If you have to resort to DNA and genetics to argue abortion you are wasting your time, as seen here for the last several pages. People put far less thought into it than this, in fact it's mostly emotional, especially for the anti-crowd.

Abortion is either okay, icky, gawd's against it, or it's murder. Science has nothing to do with their stance, unless of course it can support their already established feelings.

 

[Stacyhs]

This constant response that something "WILL develop into a human baby" is the go to for those who don't want to deal with the "what is" at the moment. Whenever we talk about the zygote/embryo stage when there is no brain or central nervous and no sentient being (first trimester, early second), they go to "but it WILL be a baby/human being" because they want to confer upon it the status of "person" and "baby". It's an attempt to emotionalize it...an appeal to emotion.

 

[Warp12]

This constant response that something "WILL develop into a human baby" is the go to for those who don't want to deal with the "what is" at the moment. Whenever we talk about the zygote/embryo stage when there is no brain or central nervous and no sentient being (first trimester, early second), they go to "but it WILL be a baby/human being" because they want to confer upon it the status of "person" and "baby". It's an attempt to emotionalize it.

Yawn. It's "scientific fact", as you like to say. What exactly do you think the zygote/embryo develops into? I get dehumanizing it at every turn, as that supports your argument. But the fact of the matter is, it develops into a human baby.

Unlike dogs and cats.

 

[The_Animus]

If a bill were introduced to ban abortion except in cases of rape or severe complications which put the mother at risk, but it included requirements to pay for the costs to carry the child to term as well as covering costs to ensure the wellbeing of the child until they're an adult (so food, education, Healthcare and such)... would Republicans support it?

I know they wouldn't like the exceptions, or the financial assistance but one would think with how they scream about how abortion = murdering babies they would reluctantly pass it because it's better in their eyes than the current law. Right? Right?

I don't think they would. But it would be funny to make them vote it down and then throw all their baby killers rhetoric right back at them

 

[Stacyhs]

Yawn. It's "scientific fact", as you like to say. What exactly do you think the zygote/embryo develops into? I get dehumanizing it at every turn, as that supports your argument. But the fact of the matter is, it develops into a human baby.

Unlike dogs and cats.

NO, not as I "like to say": it is scientific fact.

I never denied it develops into a baby. But you just admitted that it develops into, not that it is a 'human baby'. Progress.

I also get why some need to "babyize" it after every turn, as they think that supports their argument. But the fact of the matter is, a zygote/embryo is not a 'baby'....yet.

 

[Stacyhs]

If a bill were introduced to ban abortion except in cases of rape or severe complications which put the mother at risk, but it included requirements to pay for the costs to carry the child to term as well as covering costs to ensure the wellbeing of the child until they're an adult (so food, education, Healthcare and such)... would Republicans support it?

I know they wouldn't like the exceptions, or the financial assistance but one would think with how they scream about how abortion = murdering babies they would reluctantly pass it because it's better in their eyes than the current law. Right? Right?

I don't think they would. But it would be funny to make them vote it down and then throw all their baby killers rhetoric right back at them

They'd rage against it. But right now, they're too busy pushing the "rigged election" Big Lie and the Great Replacement Lie.

 

[Warp12]

If a bill were introduced to ban abortion except in cases of rape or severe complications which put the mother at risk, but it included requirements to pay for the costs to carry the child to term as well as covering costs to ensure the wellbeing of the child until they're an adult (so food, education, Healthcare and such)... would Republicans support it?

I know they wouldn't like the exceptions, or the financial assistance but one would think with how they scream about how abortion = murdering babies they would reluctantly pass it because it's better in their eyes than the current law. Right? Right?

I don't think they would. But it would be funny to make them vote it down and then throw all their baby killers rhetoric right back at them

As though liberals would sincerely propose or accept such legislation. That is the most humorous part of your scenario.

 

[The_Animus]

NO, not as I "like to say": it is scientific fact.

I never denied it develops into a baby. But you just admitted that it develops into, not that it is a 'human baby'. Progress.

I also get why some need to "babyize" it after every turn, as they think that supports their argument. But the fact of the matter is, a zygote/embryo is not a 'baby'....yet.

I have a piece of coal and over enough time with the proper inputs and conditions it will develope into diamond so I think I should get diamond pricing for my coal.

Also I thought I've read stuff about stem cells or even skin cells being able to be developed into a baby. Are we murdering babies every time we take a shower?

 

[Warp12]

I have a piece of coal and over enough time with the proper inputs and conditions it will develope into diamond so I think I should get diamond pricing for my coal.

Also I thought I've read stuff about stem cells or even skin cells being able to be developed into a baby. Are we murdering babies every time we take a shower?

We just raised the plateau, yet again, for ridiculous arguments.

 

[smartcooky]

Your statement is puzzling. In my post regarding the issue of maternal deaths (on this page, and supposedly the driver of your argument), I stated the following:



I therefore find this statement of yours to be quite ironic:



I have been very consistent in opposing this TX law, as well as being clear that I do not endorse “banning abortion”. There is nothing to debate here.

Then in future, don't bring figures to the table if you are not prepared for them to be analysed and challenged!

 

[Warp12]

Then in future, don't bring figures to the table if you are not prepared for them to be analysed and challenged!

But, you didn't challenge them. You posted the same statistic as I did, relating to the maternal death rate. The link I provided was much more centered on abortion stats in the US, however. This is the country we are generally discussing in this thread. This debate, or non-debate, has no further merit.

 

[The_Animus]

As though liberals would sincerely propose or accept such legislation. That is the most humorous part of your scenario.

Why do liberals have to propose it? I thought this is like an ongoing mass murder of babies? So why don't Republicans propose it? They want to save the child. This saves it in and out of the womb. Even if liberals voted against it, that would be a vote on record to use against them.

 

[Stacyhs]

I have a piece of coal and over enough time with the proper inputs and conditions it will develope into diamond so I think I should get diamond pricing for my coal.

Also I thought I've read stuff about stem cells or even skin cells being able to be developed into a baby. Are we murdering babies every time we take a shower?

They'll need a remake of Pysycho.

 

[The_Animus]

We just raised the plateau, yet again, for ridiculous arguments.

Zygotes/ embryos aren't a baby.

But they can develope into a baby so they should be treated as such.

So can stem cells or skin cells.

Ridiculous argument!