Texas Repubs pass abortion bill

[Lowpro]

You are not a man so you don't get to judge how much punishment you think it is to either have our babies killed or make us be parents when we don't want to be. It's pretty bad.

Say what?

 

[xjx388]

Say what?

Satirical intent is hard to convey in simple text.

 

[Lowpro]

Satirical intent is hard to convey in simple text.

What gender do you think ANTpogo is?

 

[Mister Earl]

Would you change you mind, xjx388, if I told you that not only was the bible pro-abortion and even pro-sterilization, but could prove it?

 

[Minoosh]

But once you conceive that life, it shouldn't be so easy to destroy it; its not a waste product or parasite that can be discarded.

I don't think it is easy, for most women. Arguing that a human life begins at conception puts you in a logically problematic situation, because you support Plan B and apparently access to first-trimester abortions. So we are accepting this sacrifice, on balance. And apparently you and I agree that after some number of weeks the balance changes. What hadn't occurred to me before was a fairly fine point. If the state has an interest in a viable fetus, induce labor and the fetus, being by legal definition viable, can become a ward of the state.

I know this sounds weird.

When I used "parasite" it really was with no judgment attached. If it is dependent on a living host, it is a parasite. And, re, "easily discarded," that is what happens to excess embryos (zygotes?) after IVF. (Which I am also not a huge fan of). On the face of it I'm not opposed to bans on very late-term abortion (except in rare circumstances - life/health of the mother and babies with no brains), which is very rare anyway. If that's all these laws did or intended to do I would find less to quarrel with. But if a clear result is to deny health care (which clinics provide), and if key parts are based on a lie (rape kit function), it's a bad law.

So, while I think abortions should be legal and safe, I don't think they should be widely available.

And that disproportionately affects rural, low-income, low-education areas. It is discriminatory in practice and probably even in explicit intent. It's not fair. Life isn't fair but law should be. That's why we have laws - to make life somewhat more fair.

And it's great that you and your wife faced this, made adjustments and eventually prospered. The fact that you did this does not mean everyone can.

 

[xjx388]

A.) Your citations are missing. B.) Argument by assertion. C.) No it's not. Human sperm and ovum are living human cells. There is no point at which life "begins".

So we are all just, like on a continuum of life that had no beginning and will never end. That's heavy, man. Pass the bong. I kid.

Seriously, though...each person's individual life began at some point. I propose that, since each person is a unique combination of maternal and paternal chromosomes, we can say that their individual life began when the sperm and egg came together.

Now, do I really have to source that statement or is it pretty much scientifically accepted fact?

Neither the egg nor the sperm are living individual humans. An embryo is the earliest stage at which an individual is fully themselves, genetically anyway. Not that this is particularly germane to the discussion, since we all agree that abortion should be legal while in the embryonic stage.

Now, the point at which you want to legally define a fetus as a "person" is purely philosophical

The fertilized egg is not a human life

The blogger you link to says this: " I’m also confident that the freshly fertilized zygote is not human, either. There’s more to being human than bearing a cell with the right collection of genes." First of all: Argument by assertion (a fallacy).

But more importantly, he says there's more to being human but then doesn't ever tell us what that is. If a zygote isn't fully human, then how about a fetus? If you say, it's human when it's actually born, then I ask: what is the scientific process it undergoes while passing through the birth canal that renders "it" into "her" (or "him", I don't want to be sexist).

<snip, its a lot to get to and i need to break off for a bit. i will respond further later>

 

[Elizabeth I]

I don't know, that sounds pretty rapey to me . . .can you give me a scenario when a woman doesn't have a choice that is not rape?

Lots of women believe having sex with their husbands is their duty. It would never cross their minds to say no. Other women simply don't have the courage to.

Who is preventing her? Why doesn't she just say no to them?

Her husband or significant other. Because she doesn't know she can say no. Do you really need to have this stuff explained to you?

And is she mentally handicapped? Because they sell them in stores across the country.

No, they are not mentally handicapped, but nice condescending dig. They would die of embarrassment if they walked into a store to buy condoms (and their partners probably wouldn't use them anyway.) They are not health-care aware and simply don't go to doctors. Lots of women are not clear on how conception happens (they understand the intercourse connection, but not the mechanics) and find such discussions unwomanly, immodest, and mortifying, so they're also not clear on how to prevent conception. They are ignorant, through no fault of their own. I talked to literally hundreds of these women.

Regardless, after viability, the baby must be protected.

That's your moral position. Others take other moral positions.

And it's great that you and your wife faced this, made adjustments and eventually prospered. The fact that you did this does not mean everyone can.

Quoted for truth.

 

[Dessi]

This has nothing to do with God or sacred. Scientifically, conception is the point at which a human life is created. Legally, viability is the point at which the State has an interest in protecting the fetus that overtakes the mother's right to abort (right to privacy, technically for you sticklers).

Sperm is not a human life. Women shed eggs every month. These are not human lives. An embryo is, without question.

But at some point, the embryo becomes a fetus. And at some point, that fetus could be born and survive. That is the point at which it is every bit as human as a 40 week baby about to be born and the point at which it must be protected.

And reducing motherhood to a health decision devalues it.

A human embryo has no particular moral advantage over any non-human embryo at a similar mental level. I hope I'm not the only person who thinks taxonomic classifications has nothing to do with the ethics of abortion.

 

[RandFan]

So we are all just, like on a continuum of life that had no beginning and will never end.

Do you think that day is a continuum that has no beginning and will never end? I think that life had a beginning (see abiogenesis.) just as our Sun had a beginning. I believe that day begins each morning but I don't know precisely when it begins (see Lokis Paradox).

Seriously, though...each person's individual life began at some point.

Each individual begins separately as sperm and egg. Identical twins start separately, combine into a single organism and then separate into separate organisms again. I can confidently state that a new organism begins before conception, as sperm and egg separately. Children are not clones of each other. This can only happen if each sperm is unique from each other. My children did not get exactly the same DNA from my wife and myself. If they did they would all be the same.

I propose that, since each person is a unique combination of maternal and paternal chromosomes, we can say that their individual life began when the sperm and egg came together.

We can also say that their individual life began when the sperm and ovum were created inside of the father and the mother respectively. We can also say that their individual life began when the fertilized egg attaches to the uterine wall. Identical twins often begin long after conception.

Neither the egg nor the sperm are living individual humans.

I reject that premise as being without evidence. You have chosen an arbitrary philosophical line to draw in the sand. That organism will not come to fruition if it fails to attach to the uterine wall. An individual human has the functions and form of a human, most importantly the ability to think.

Let me ask you a question. We are getting closer and closer to brain transplants. Would you prefer to be the donor or the recipient of a brain transplant? It's the one area that I personally would prefer to be the donor. What makes me, me? My my memories, thoughts and feelings. A fetus lacks these abilities until viability.

An embryo is the earliest stage at which an individual is fully themselves, genetically anyway.

A.) An arbitrary delineation. B.) You are equivocating. An individual is not fully "themselves" until they are moral agents able to think and feel. You need to be more specific. You should state that an organism does not have a full set of chromosomes until conception. So, by your logic, such an organism is not fully human if it has any defects that result in missing chromosomes, right? Fetuses with missing chromosomes by your definition are not "fully human" and therefore can be aborted, correct?

Now, the point at which you want to legally define a fetus as a "person" is purely philosophical

A.) The point at which you want to legally define a human being and/or a person is just as philosophical. B.) It is not purely philosophical. It's informed by science. The consensus of developmental biologist (experts) do not agree with you. They think your arbitrary delineation is silly and absurd.

The blogger you link to says this: " I’m also confident that the freshly fertilized zygote is not human, either. There’s more to being human than bearing a cell with the right collection of genes." First of all: Argument by assertion (a fallacy).

He is a developmental biologist. This is a valid appeal to authority. Your smilie is not appropriate here. I'm quoting a scientists whose job it is to know what is and is not a human from a developmental POV.

But more importantly, he says there's more to being human but then doesn't ever tell us what that is. If a zygote isn't fully human, then how about a fetus?

You are playing semantic games and moving goal posts in an ad hoc fashion to rescue your thesis. A zygote is "human" I assume by "fully human" you mean 32 chromosomes. A zygote is closer along the continuum of "human" than sperm and egg but a viable fetus that can think and feel is also further along the spectrum. What else would sperm be if it isn't human? What is more to being human is the ability to think and feel. See my thought example of the brain transplant above.

• If you had a brain transplant and your old brain was tossed into the trash would you be you?
• If you were the donor of the brain and had a different body thus leaving you with the same memories, thoughts and feelings that you have now would you cease being you?

Our memories, thoughts and feelings are what make us individuals more than anything else.

If you say, it's human when it's actually born, then I ask: what is the scientific process it undergoes while passing through the birth canal that renders "it" into "her" (or "him", I don't want to be sexist).

I do not believe that birth fundamentally changes anything other than the ability to breath and exist outside of the womb. That's an interesting scientific and philosophical discussion but I don't have a dog in that hunt. Viability happens at about the time a fetus has the ability to think and feel. I see no reason to terminate a viable fetus. It has to be delivered dead or alive. If it can survive on its own and the woman does not want it then deliver it alive and make it a ward of the state.

 

[gnome]

As I see it, the desired dividing line is a combination of philosophy and science--we use philosophy to ask ourselves what properties of life we are protecting, and science to tell us when that point is.

 

[thaiboxerken]

When I say, "they can decide not to have sex," I shouldn't have to specify that I'm not talking about rape victims.

But you keep having fun building straw men...

Yet, that's exactly what the GOP is pushing.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Why do conservatives defending the new Texas laws have to lie in order to defend it? XJX is trying to convince people that there are no new barriers to abortion?!

 

[Dorian Gray]

Neither the egg nor the sperm are living individual humans. An embryo is the earliest stage at which an individual is fully themselves, genetically anyway. Not that this is particularly germane to the discussion, since we all agree that abortion should be legal while in the embryonic stage.

So why do they need to change the law concerning the requirement of hospital privileges and doctors being present and such? I thought you said nothing was being changed. If you think they should be legal, then clinics should be left exactly as they are, right? But wait....

something is different...

 

[RandFan]

...since we all agree that abortion should be legal while in the embryonic stage.

So why do they need to change the law concerning the requirement of hospital privileges and doctors being present and such? I thought you said nothing was being changed. If you think they should be legal, then clinics should be left exactly as they are, right? But wait....

something is different...

Bingo. These are trap laws. Designed to take away a woman's right to have an abortion. Why differentiate between embryonic and viability? What's the magical change to move the standard from viability? If you can agree that abortion should be legal while in the embryonic stage then why can't we agree that abortion should be legal until viability?

 

[xjx388]

Why do conservatives defending the new Texas laws have to lie in order to defend it? XJX is trying to convince people that there are no new barriers to abortion?!

I never said no new barriers, I said that not much would change. Rural Texans will still have to travel for abortion, while the people in population centers will have limited access. A slight change from today.

 

[RandFan]

I never said no new barriers, I said that not much would change. Rural Texans will still have to travel for abortion, while the people in population centers will have limited access. A slight change from today.

You are just asserting this. But it does raise the question as to why change things at all?

New abortion law could leave patients across Texas with few options

Whole Woman’s Health, which serves mostly poor and black women, is the only abortion clinic in Beaumont. The next closest one is 80 miles away in Houston. Health care experts predict that most of the 42 abortion clinics in Texas, including this one, could close if the nation’s most restrictive anti-abortion law takes effect as scheduled in September.

Is there any data that the new law is needed? Absent such data can we admit that these are just trap laws?

 

[A'isha]

I never said no new barriers, I said that not much would change.

Oh?

There are no barriers to abortion that didn't exist before.

I don't think the Texas law will change access to abortions one iota. There is no undue burden to abortion. There are no more roadblocks now than there were then.

There will be no more roadblocks than currently exist.

This bill doesn't make things any worse than they are now.

And women who choose abortions will not have their access restricted anymore than it is now.

This law doesn't change anything.

Hmmm...

 

[respect]

The blogger you link to says this: " I’m also confident that the freshly fertilized zygote is not human, either. There’s more to being human than bearing a cell with the right collection of genes."

Not really, that is a very silly response for a biologist. If you are a member of the homo genus you are a human by definition. The only debatable point here is whether or not a zygote qualifies yet as an organism. If it does, then it belongs to a species and if that species falls under the homo genus then it is a human.

RandFan is just being dishonest as usual and will accuse anyone who disagrees with his nonsense of special pleading when it is in fact him who is assigning nonexistent qualifications to join one's own species. Being able to think and feel can certainly be relevant to a discussion about what, if any, rights one should have at different stages of maturity but is not relevant to whether or not one is a human. That is basic taxonomy. There is no requirement of thinking and feeling to join the homo genus or any other. Likewise, you cannot leave the homo genus by losing this nonexistent qualification. If injury or disease leaves you in a vegetative state you do not stop being a human and become a member of a different species.

Cue pointless claims about how a caterpillar isn't a butterfly because he seems to think that metamorphosis is speciation and doesn't realize that this is akin to saying a baby isn't an adult.

 

[A'isha]

Likewise, you cannot leave the homo genus by losing this nonexistent qualification. If injury or disease leaves you in a vegetative state you do not stop being a human and become a member of a different species.

And yet, the life of someone in a vegetative state can be ended upon the request of the person empowered to make medical decisions for them.

 

[respect]

I hope I'm not the only person who thinks taxonomic classifications has nothing to do with the ethics of abortion.

It doesn't, we assign many rights on the basis of maturity (see any legal age restrictions) but it would be nice if we could get past this nonsense where people claim that fetuses are not humans based on nonexistent qualifications. If your parents are human, you are human for your entire life cycle, what point of maturity you are at in your life cycle has no bearing on this.