Texas Repubs pass abortion bill

[RandFan]

¹But sure, we all have different ideas about the issue.

²Why is it tyranny of the majority in the case of abortion and not in the case of evolution? Don't minority positions deserve to be protected? Don't they have Constitutional rights?

³I don't support abortion, personally. I would never allow my wife or my daughter to even consider it and if they did, it would drastically change my perception of who they are. Neither one of them find it morally acceptable. However, we recognize that our philosophy isn't universal. Therefore, we see room for compromise on the issue. Although, my daughter seems to be more anti-abortion than I am.

⁵But there is no Constitutional right to murder. As long as Americans are uncomfortable with abortion in the later stages of pregnancy, abortion will continue to be heavily restricted. And each State should be able to draw it's own lines where it sees fit. Otherwise, what's the purpose of States?

⁶Compare this to slavery. Even after the founding of the Constitution, SCOTUS upheld the Federal Fugitive Slave Act and slavery continued, mostly in the Southern States, for another 70+ years until the zeitgeist changed after the Civil War. So the interpretation of the Constitution and what constitutes any rights that are reserved to the people depends entirely on the social structure and environment in place at the time the interpretation is made.

⁷Says you. But there are plenty of people even on this forum who argue strenuously for gun control. I think sweeping gun control could happen before abortion is liberalized.

⁸They would say that gun control advocates sure care a lot about controlling guns because they kill people but they don't care two cents for all the babies being slaughtered in the womb. It's all a matter of perspective.

⁹They certainly protect fetuses. You can't say that every woman who can't get a legal abortion will seek out an illegal abortion.

Thanks for the response. I appreciate your tone. If I were in your shoes I would probably not be so nonplussed.

1. Yes but differences of opinion are not enough to deny someone their rights.
2. I assume you are talking about teaching evolution in school. If so then I've explained this many, many times. The state must have a compelling reason to violate the first Amendment.
3. Is your daughter a minor? If not, what if you didn't approve of her choice of whom to marry?
4. It is an obvious infringement as SCOTUS has ruled that it is. Your premise about guns is not apropos because SCOTUS has already ruled on viability as the delineation.
5. It's not murder. You are begging the question.
6. No, it's determined by SCOTUS and nothing else. SCOTUS could alter precedent by upholding the Texas Law. If they were to do so then that would be a major reversal like Brown v Board of education. However, there is no doubt that at this moment SCOTS has ruled that abortions are a constitutional right until viability. Would you please acknowledge this fact?
7. You are changing my argument. SCOTUS is not likely to throw out the 2nd Amendment. Can you find a better example? I know I was the one who introduced the example but it is an enumerated right put into the constitution. I don't think there are any constitutional scholars that believe that SCOTUS will throw out the 2nd Amendment.
8. Your argument is not analogous. Guns don't kill fetuses. It's a non-sequitur.
9. I really don't understand your premise. Well, I understand it but it's presumptive. I gave you a link that demonstrated that abortions are equivalent regardless of laws that seek to prevent them. But even if I granted your premise. Harming a woman and taking away her constitutional right to an abortion up until viability, as ruled by SCOTUS, to save a mass of tissue that we know scientifically cannot think or suffer is irrational and unreasonable. Your Don Quixote zeal to protect a mass of tissue that cannot think and cannot suffer is fine but it has nothing to do with the Constitution and it ignores science and subjugates women. It harms women.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Ectopic pregnancies are not viable. It may be medically necessary to remove the affected "woman part." This is not considered an illegal abortion except in those really strict Catholic countries. Indeed, this can be devastating for a woman who loses a baby this way.

Now we are moving goal posts about what is and what isn't an abortion. 20 weeks and older it is occurring because something is wrong. Either the fetus has birth defects, it is a risky pregnancy or anti abortion laws made it so difficult to get an abortion that it took a lot longer than they want.

I have no issue with excising the ectopic pregnancy as it cannot grow in a fallopian tube or ovary. I have great sympathy for women who lose their babies in this way and even more for women who's future fertility is affected because they had to remove her "woman parts."

And what about when it was done by unnessacarly harmful techniques at a catholic hospital, because it isn't an abortion if you remove the whole fallopian instead of just removing the problematic issue. But you can't mandate proper medicsl care of women because it is immoral to so many.

I hope one day medical science can develop a safe way to save these pregnancies and the future fertility of the woman.

So you want your daughter to be used to incubate a fetus that will die shortly and painfully after birth?

These laws do cause unnecessary suffering because doctors do refuse to perform medically indicated abortions because they are afraid of being charged that the womans life wasn't really in danger.

 

[xjx388]

Again just to make sure you get it abortion is not a public act, it is a private act, and therefore the public have no say in whether a woman chooses to have one or not.

It is not a matter for public law.

I understand your argument perfectly. You think abortion is entirely a private matter. I would assume you think this is true even after the fetus is viable. If the woman wants the fetus inside her aborted at any point in the pregnancy, then that is her right and it's nobody's business but hers and her doctor's. Have I summarized that accurately?

If so, then you are simply wrong. SCOTUS has ruled that the State interest in protecting the fetus at viability supersedes the woman's right to make a private decision.

If you are saying that SCOTUS is wrong and the State should never have a right to supersede the woman's privacy, then you are certainly entitled to your opinion. I emphatically disagree with you. And your opinion doesn't reflect the reality of current US law or even a possible reality in the foreseeable future. There are still too many Americans who support some kind of regulation of abortion for it to be a politically viable platform -especially in States like Texas.

 

[xjx388]

Now we are moving goal posts about what is and what isn't an abortion. 20 weeks and older it is occurring because something is wrong. Either the fetus has birth defects, it is a risky pregnancy

-I have no issue with abortions for these purposes assuming it's risky because there is significant risks to the mother's health-

or anti abortion laws made it so difficult to get an abortion that it took a lot longer than they want.

I have more of a problem here. More difficult does not mean impossible. I could accept a law which allowed for hardship exemptions up until 24 weeks.

And what about when it was done by unnessacarly harmful techniques at a catholic hospital, because it isn't an abortion if you remove the whole fallopian instead of just removing the problematic issue. But you can't mandate proper medicsl care of women because it is immoral to so many.

As far as I know, that would be malpractice in the US. I can't speak to other countries because I don't know enough about them and their culture to judge.

So you want your daughter to be used to incubate a fetus that will die shortly and painfully after birth?

I'd rather that not happen.

But I support abortion in a case where the fetus is so diseased/malformed/defective as to have no chance to live or to live a normal, healthy life.

These laws do cause unnecessary suffering because doctors do refuse to perform medically indicated abortions because they are afraid of being charged that the womans life wasn't really in danger.

I've never heard of a case in the US where a doctor was afraid to save the life of the mother so they didn't do an abortion. Do you have a cite?

 

[RandFan]

-I have no issue with abortions for these purposes assuming it's risky because there is significant risks to the mother's health-I have more of a problem here. More difficult does not mean impossible. I could accept a law which allowed for hardship exemptions up until 24 weeks.

You still haven't provided a rational basis for denying women their constitutitional rights (yes, until viability it is a constitutional right.

I'd rather that not happen.

I'd rather not get in a car accident but I purchase insurance anyway. Kids don't stop having sex because their parents don't want them having sex.

I've never heard of a case in the US where a doctor was afraid to save the life of the mother so they didn't do an abortion. Do you have a cite?

How about a cite from a pro-life website?

Accomplishment #8: Most doctors now refuse to do abortions

Phelps noted that only 2% of obstetricians perform over 50% of all abortions, and declared that without providers, “abortion may as well be illegal.”

xjx, you don't have to answer for anyone other than yourself. You don't have to defend the goals of the pro-life movement to stop abortion altogether but could you acknowledge that it is happening? Mississippi now only has one abortion clinic.

Also, could you give the pro-life credit for being honest in their attempts to harass women and close clinics so they can deny women their constitutional right to have an abortion?

Yes, it is constitutional and you refuse time and again to acknowledge that fact. You might not agree with the ruling but it is the ruling and it is constitutional.

 

[xjx388]

Thanks for the response. I appreciate your tone. If I were in your shoes I would probably not be so nonplussed.

I enjoy these debates and they have many times caused me to change my opinion about something. That wouldn't happen if there was nothing but snark and disrespect. Gay marriage is one issue on which I recently changed my mind and I believe you were involved in that discussion . . .

*Yes but differences of opinion are not enough to deny someone their rights.

I agree. But if the judges, lawmakers and bulk of society all believe that abortion should be regulated, then it will be regulated. That's where we are right now.

*I assume you are talking about teaching evolution in school. If so then I've explained this many, many times. The state must have a compelling reason to violate the first Amendment.

Right; that's my point. In the case of abortion, the compelling reason to violate the privacy of the mother is the life of the fetus after viability.

*Is your daughter a minor? If not, what if you didn't approve of her choice of whom to marry?

I probably wouldn't like the guy very much, but I'd keep it to myself and smile at dinner. My father-in-law did not like me at first, but I won him over . . . eventually.

*It's not murder. You are begging the question.

If ending the life of a viable fetus is not murder, then what is it? Certainly it's akin to murder because the State has an interest in protecting it's life -just like it has an interest in protecting mine or yours. So call it feticide. Whatever the semantics, the concept holds.

*No, it's determined by SCOTUS and nothing else. SCOTUS could alter precedent by upholding the Texas Law. If they were to do so then that would be a major reversal like Brown v Board of education. However, there is no doubt that at this moment SCOTS has ruled that abortions are a constitutional right until viability. Would you please acknowledge this fact?

I do. But my point is that SCOTUS is nothing more than citizens appointed to the bench. They can't help but reflect the zeitgeist. Many here (not you AFAIK) seem to advocate for abortions after viability. This is not likely to change anytime soon because too many of the people still want abortion to be regulated -even made illegal after the 12th month.

*I really don't understand your premise. Well, I understand it but it's presumptive. I gave you a link that demonstrated that abortions are equivalent regardless of laws that seek to prevent them. But even if I granted your premise. Harming a woman and taking away her constitutional right to an abortion up until viability, as ruled by SCOTUS, to save a mass of tissue that we know scientifically cannot think or suffer is irrational and unreasonable. Your Don Quixote zeal to protect a mass of tissue that cannot think and cannot suffer is fine but it has nothing to do with the Constitution and it ignores science and subjugates women. It harms women.

I am not trying to take away their right to abort before viability. I'm simply saying that the State has rights to define when they think viability is as defined by the will of their people. Texas is more conservative than most. I think the 20 week ban will hold up fine. The provision to meet the requirements of an ASC are not particularly onerous, IMO, and are within the scope of the State to regulate medicine but are probably not on as solid ground as the 20 week part. I disagree with the restrictions placed on RU486 but again, the State has a right to regulate the practice of medicine. I would hope that pro-abortion proponents would focus on allowing medical abortions to happen in a doctor's office.

I wonder if you think that people other than doctors should be allowed to perform abortions. What about midwives who are trained in the techniques? What about professional abortionists who are not doctors or nurses but are well-trained and licensed? Should pharmacists be allowed to dispense abortifacients without a prescription like they do for "morning after" contraceptives?

 

[xjx388]

You still haven't provided a rational basis for denying women their constitutitional rights (yes, until viability it is a constitutional right.

A woman has a right to privacy in her decisions until viability. I accept and acknowledge this.

I'd rather not get in a car accident but I purchase insurance anyway. Kids don't stop having sex because their parents don't want them having sex.

But that wasnt' what was asked. The poster asked if I thought my daughter should be forced to carry a baby who would just die anyway.

How about a cite from a pro-life website?

That's fine but not what I was after. I want to see a case in the US where a woman died or was severely harmed by a doctor's refusal to perform an abortion that would save her life. Like that case in Ireland that was cited earlier, but in the US.

Accomplishment #8: Most doctors now refuse to do abortions

This is true. Most doctors won't perform them and not just because they are afraid of the law. There are very few doctors in my neck of the woods who will do them because most of them are Catholic. Heck, there are a few doctors who won't even give out scripts for contraceptives because of their views.

xjx, you don't have to answer for anyone other than yourself. You don't have to defend the goals of the pro-life movement to stop abortion altogether but could you acknowledge that it is happening? Mississippi now only has one abortion clinic.

I acknowledge it.

Also, could you give the pro-life credit for being honest in their attempts to harass women and close clinics so they can deny women their constitutional right to have an abortion?

I acknowledge that they harass women have the goal of closing all abortion clinics.

Yes, it is constitutional and you refuse time and again to acknowledge that fact. You might not agree with the ruling but it is the ruling and it is constitutional.

Before viability, however that's defined, it is a right. I acknowledge this. But that doesn't mean the State has a duty to ensure it is available. People have many rights: Smoking, to drink as much soda as they want, to buy alcohol when they want it etc. Yet States erect barriers to these rights all the time.

 

[Lowpro]

Before viability, however that's defined, it is a right. I acknowledge this. But that doesn't mean the State has a duty to ensure it is available. People have many rights: Smoking, to drink as much soda as they want, to buy alcohol when they want it etc. Yet States erect barriers to these rights all the time.

The states don't have the right to erect barriers that deny women those options either though. Remember these aren't state-run facilities they're blocking, they're independently funded healthcare facilities that were developed to reduce access to healthcare barriers. The state is directly harming their own citizen's access to healthcare which is something they cannot do. Just because a state does not have to provide these clinics doesn't mean they can directly deny them too.

To put it another way for you. The state does not have to provide mandatory prenatal care. They couldn't even if they wanted to, but let's just play around with it. The state also cannot purposefully prohibit access to prenatal care. ESPECIALLY if it's because they, for one reason or another, find prenatal care repulsive. The government of Texas were deliberately being seditious and vile by forcibly prohibiting these abortion clinics under the guise of improved healthcare provisions; they were too cowardly to openly try closing them on their moral grounds. How about if the state of Alabama tried closing prenatal care clinics because it artificially reduces viability gestation far too much, which is against nature and God's will and it makes me feel bad. If viability is directly correlated with immediate healthcare availability then you're going to have to measure it by that. Otherwise 20 weeks is just a number pulled out of your ass.

Remember when I said this was the same as the state saying "pull yourself up by your bootstraps!" as they're taking away the boots? Yea, that's exactly what Texas is doing. But I'll tell you what. If you're willing to give your daughter up as a surrogate uterus for these women in lieu of abortion I will fight to make that happen.

 

[xjx388]

The states don't have the right to erect barriers that deny women those options either though.

I don't think you fully agree with your own statement. The State already erects barriers to abortion even if they have the most liberal abortion laws in the world. It's called regulation of the practice of medicine; you have to be a doctor to perform an abortion. That alone would erect barriers for rural women who don't live close to a doctor. So unless you think that any Juanito Sople from Bruni, TX should be able to perform an abortion, you are already in favor of barriers to abortion.

Remember these aren't state-run facilities they're blocking, they're independently funded healthcare facilities that were developed to reduce access to healthcare barriers. The state is directly harming their own citizen's access to healthcare which is something they cannot do. Just because a state does not have to provide these clinics doesn't mean they can directly deny them too.

But they do. I can't open a medical clinic and provide care. I'm not a doctor. That is a barrier to healthcare. They erect regulations that make running a doctor's clinic very expensive. That is a barrier to healthcare.

To put it another way for you. The state does not have to provide mandatory prenatal care. They couldn't even if they wanted to, but let's just play around with it. The state also cannot purposefully prohibit access to prenatal care. ESPECIALLY if it's because they, for one reason or another, find prenatal care repulsive.

I cannot imagine such a scenario, but OK.

The government of Texas were deliberately being seditious and vile by forcibly prohibiting these abortion clinics under the guise of improved healthcare provisions; they were too cowardly to openly try closing them on their moral grounds.

Those laws would be unconstitutional on their face. But Texas is well within it's rights to push the envelope on Roe v Wade.

How about if the state of Alabama tried closing prenatal care clinics because it artificially reduces viability gestation far too much, which is against nature and God's will and it makes me feel bad. If viability is directly correlated with immediate healthcare availability then you're going to have to measure it by that. Otherwise 20 weeks is just a number pulled out of your ass.

Which number do you pull out of your tuchas?

Remember when I said this was the same as the state saying "pull yourself up by your bootstraps!" as they're taking away the boots? Yea, that's exactly what Texas is doing.

An opinion I disagree with.

But I'll tell you what. If you're willing to give your daughter up as a surrogate uterus for these women in lieu of abortion I will fight to make that happen.

I have no idea how this follows from the former statements you made. And I'm sure that my daughter would willingly take over if such a thing were possible. So would many women who can't conceive on their own for whatever reason. Barring that, many couples would adopt the baby and pay for the prenatal care and any care the mother needed afterwards. But again, I'm not sure how this relates . . .

 

[Minoosh]

I wonder if you think that people other than doctors should be allowed to perform abortions. What about midwives who are trained in the techniques? What about professional abortionists who are not doctors or nurses but are well-trained and licensed? Should pharmacists be allowed to dispense abortifacients without a prescription like they do for "morning after" contraceptives?

Interesting question not aimed at me. I wouldn't have a huge objection. Nurse practitioners can now do things once forbidden. If there were a way to ensure access to an ER in the event of complications, it might be OK to delegate simple abortions to a less-than-doctor-level health-care practitioner.

 

[Lowpro]

I don't think you fully agree with your own statement. The State already erects barriers to abortion even if they have the most liberal abortion laws in the world. It's called regulation of the practice of medicine; you have to be a doctor to perform an abortion. That alone would erect barriers for rural women who don't live close to a doctor. So unless you think that any Juanito Sople from Bruni, TX should be able to perform an abortion, you are already in favor of barriers to abortion.

I also work in public health where we try to eliminate those barriers. You have to be a doctor to perform an abortion procedure, but anyone with a coathanger can actually do it. These barriers are everywhere and not just with abortion. There are barriers to education, provision, racial barriers in the case of ALabama and Mississippi etc etc. You're not dumb but you sure seem to talk like it. I can't put a hospital or clinic on every street corner, I'm limited by my means. But artificial limits like the ones for these clinics in Texas are purposefully seditious.

But they do. I can't open a medical clinic and provide care. I'm not a doctor. That is a barrier to healthcare. They erect regulations that make running a doctor's clinic very expensive. That is a barrier to healthcare.

And a lot of people are trying to reduce those barriers. Public Health and the State often are at odds. It's why I accuse you of ignorance as often as I do when you think that resorting to legislation will (A) get you to the goals you want of no abortion and (B) that the State can legislate a goal. More often than not the State fails them and it fails healthcare. Public Health is probably the most effective at picking up these pieces but it's a long way to go. The State needs to piss off and let the actual professionals handle this. Suits won't compare to scrubs here.

I cannot imagine such a scenario, but OK.

Of that I have no doubt, you lack imagination.

Those laws would be unconstitutional on their face. But Texas is well within it's rights to push the envelope on Roe v Wade.

Yea, it's the "separate but equal" mentality. I hope the Supreme Court slaps it down.

Which number do you pull out of your tuchas?

None as far as legislation. Gestational age is a proxy, not a rule. Harlequin babies will almost never be viable for instance. At the moment, as I said before if that baby is hooked up to the mother and will die without her, then it is NOT viable. If that mother cannot induce a pregnancy at 28 weeks or 39 weeks because that child will die, that is an admission that the unborn is not viable. Viability is not an intrinsic factor, so stop pretending it is. If you are going to carry this debate you're going to have to own up to the douchebaggery that comes with it. You're not arguing to protect the child, you're arguing to prevent the mother from terminating her pregnancy; "viability" is just a pragmatic threshold. But the State cannot simply force a mother to carry anyone's child, even if the child's life is at risk if she wants to terminate her pregnancy. The state should instead offer OTHER means instead to curb abortion utilization. As I've said before, abortion is a symptom of deeper health disparities. If you relieve those disparities, you reduce abortions. And you never had to make it illegal to do this too. Many countries have demonstrated this.

An opinion I disagree with.I have no idea how this follows from the former statements you made. And I'm sure that my daughter would willingly take over if such a thing were possible. So would many women who can't conceive on their own for whatever reason. Barring that, many couples would adopt the baby and pay for the prenatal care and any care the mother needed afterwards. But again, I'm not sure how this relates . . .

Then do it. You don't NEED to ban abortions to do this. I don't see Texas doing this at all. Texas didn't say these clinics need to improve adoption infrastructure, they purposefully made it so the clinics couldn't be open...AT ALL. It's nothing but sadism.

 

[xjx388]

Interesting question not aimed at me. I wouldn't have a huge objection. Nurse practitioners can now do things once forbidden. If there were a way to ensure access to an ER in the event of complications, it might be OK to delegate simple abortions to a less-than-doctor-level health-care practitioner.

I can see PAs or NPs supervising medical abortions, but not performing surgical ones. I think the ER proviso is appropriate for medical doctors as well because there is a risk of uterine perforation. If that happens, even if it's rare, you definitely need to be within 30 miles of a hospital if not closer.

That's why I don't think this law is as onerous as some would make it out to be.

 

[Minoosh]

And I'm sure that my daughter would willingly take over if such a thing were possible. So would many women who can't conceive on their own for whatever reason. Barring that, many couples would adopt the baby and pay for the prenatal care and any care the mother needed afterwards. But again, I'm not sure how this relates . . .

I'm not sure you're on such solid ground here. I don't have numbers, do you? These arrangements happen but I don't know how common they are.

I understand your position regarding the 20-week viability line. If Texas has to defend that line, which seems likely, it will. What I don't understand is the state's compulsion to make it harder for women to get safe, legal abortions when they are well short of that line. It makes sense if the intent is to go as far as it can toward a ban in an attempt to load the case up with issues that can be adjudicated by the Supreme Court. That seems very cynical to me but I probably should not be surprised.

 

[xjx388]

I also work in public health where we try to eliminate those barriers. You have to be a doctor to perform an abortion procedure, but anyone with a coathanger can actually do it.

Ok. So should coat hanger abortionists be legal? Or should doctors be able to delegate this to NPs or PAs?

These barriers are everywhere and not just with abortion. There are barriers to education, provision, racial barriers in the case of ALabama and Mississippi etc etc.

Right. You can't legislate away all barriers.

You're not dumb but you sure seem to talk like it.

Thanks?

I can't put a hospital or clinic on every street corner, I'm limited by my means.

The State couldn't either. It would make no economic sense to do so. People choose to live in rural communities and they understand what goes along with that.

But artificial limits like the ones for these clinics in Texas are purposefully seditious.

Medical regulation is, itself, an artificial limit. Eliminate the Texas Medical Board and the onerous laws against medical practice by non-licensed people and medical clinics will pop up everywhere at a price everyone can afford. But I'm pretty sure you are OK with some barriers to medical care.

And a lot of people are trying to reduce those barriers. Public Health and the State often are at odds.

That is true. That's why doctors from our community go out to provide free healthcare to the poor rural communities and other communities where there is lack of access. There are numerous solutions and they don't all involve legislation.

It's why I accuse you of ignorance as often as I do when you think that resorting to legislation will (A) get you to the goals you want of no abortion and (B) that the State can legislate a goal.

I acknowledge that there will never be a point where there is no abortion. Just as I acknowledge that laws against infanticide, drugs and rape will not eliminate those things. You can't legislate problems completely away. But such laws certainly do keep the undesired behaviors in check because they punish violators. And before you have a conniption, by punish I mean that if a woman has an abortion after the legal limit, they can be prosecuted as can their doctors.

More often than not the State fails them and it fails healthcare. Public Health is probably the most effective at picking up these pieces but it's a long way to go. The State needs to piss off and let the actual professionals handle this. Suits won't compare to scrubs here.

And the scrubs do handle it, for the most part. That's why most doctors do plenty of charitable care and here in my neck of the semi-desert, donate their time to public health clinics and free care for rural communities.

Of that I have no doubt, you lack imagination.

I guess so. I cannot imagine a scenario in which someone would think prenatal care is disgusting or would advocate for its abolition. I mean, I can imagine it but only in the sense that I can Imagine Dragons.

Yea, it's the "separate but equal" mentality. I hope the Supreme Court slaps it down.

I hope slap some of it down (the RU486 stuff).

None as far as legislation. Gestational age is a proxy, not a rule. Harlequin babies will almost never be viable for instance.

THey are viable and are often born. They may die very young though. I have no issue if a woman decided to abort a baby if they discovered the disease as there is no point in having a baby only to suffer. But not all people choose that route and I admire their outlook.

At the moment, as I said before if that baby is hooked up to the mother and will die without her, then it is NOT viable.

They don't always die and their lives are not always meaningless.

If that mother cannot induce a pregnancy at 28 weeks or 39 weeks because that child will die, that is an admission that the unborn is not viable.

And such a diagnosis would be a good reason for abortion.

Viability is not an intrinsic factor, so stop pretending it is.

I'm not. I've always allowed for abortions in the case of fetal abnormalities.

If you are going to carry this debate you're going to have to own up to the douchebaggery that comes with it.

Like using words like "ignorant," "dumb," and "douchebaggery?" You first

You're not arguing to protect the child, you're arguing to prevent the mother from terminating her pregnancy;

Same thing. The fetus deserves protection. Except in the case of rape (but even then 20 weeks is plenty of time), grave threat to mother or fetal abnormality.

"viability" is just a pragmatic threshold. But the State cannot simply force a mother to carry anyone's child, even if the child's life is at risk if she wants to terminate her pregnancy.

You mean someone else's child? That wouldn't even be feasible.

The state should instead offer OTHER means instead to curb abortion utilization. As I've said before, abortion is a symptom of deeper health disparities. If you relieve those disparities, you reduce abortions. And you never had to make it illegal to do this too. Many countries have demonstrated this.

Increase BC availability to the poor. I've said this many times. But abortion should still be regulated. We disagree on this point.

Then do it. You don't NEED to ban abortions to do this. I don't see Texas doing this at all. Texas didn't say these clinics need to improve adoption infrastructure, they purposefully made it so the clinics couldn't be open...AT ALL. It's nothing but sadism.

I'm all for improving adoption infrastructure. But they are so clogged with people waiting for babies. And these people will pay for all healthcare that would be necessary. We need less abortion clinics and more babies for adoption. Then we can worry about expanding the adoption infrastructure.

 

[RandFan]

A woman has a right to privacy in her decisions until viability. I accept and acknowledge this.

But that wasnt' what was asked. The poster asked if I thought my daughter should be forced to carry a baby who would just die anyway.

That's fine but not what I was after. I want to see a case in the US where a woman died or was severely harmed by a doctor's refusal to perform an abortion that would save her life. Like that case in Ireland that was cited earlier, but in the US.

I understand on both points. I don't know of such a case.

This is true. Most doctors won't perform them and not just because they are afraid of the law. There are very few doctors in my neck of the woods who will do them because most of them are Catholic. Heck, there are a few doctors who won't even give out scripts for contraceptives because of their views.

I acknowledge it.

I acknowledge that they harass women have the goal of closing all abortion clinics.

Before viability, however that's defined, it is a right. I acknowledge this. But that doesn't mean the State has a duty to ensure it is available. People have many rights: Smoking, to drink as much soda as they want, to buy alcohol when they want it etc. Yet States erect barriers to these rights all the time.

Thank you for the response. I do appreciate it. I'll let you focus on someone else for awhile. Let me acknowledge your premise that states don't have a duty to ensure availability. While I understand your argument and agree it has some merit I hardly think it equates. We will have to wait to see if SCOTUS would agree. I certainly don't.

 

[Dcdrac]

Although the state as a public body does not have a duty to provide an abortion clinic, it also has no right to stop them operating nor has it any right to decide what decisions women can make about their own bodys.

 

[respect]

You can argue that but you can also argue that is exactly when my life cycle began. The DNA that was contained in the sperm and ovum are the very same DNA that I'm composed of now. It was the same as the zygote which is is long since gone.

Which started with unique sperm and ovum. There is nothing that is false about that. All of us started as sperm and ovum. That's a fact. They are just microscope cells. Each stage is crucial to our existence. You want to give some magic to conception. As I've stated, developmental biologists do not refer to a zygote as a human (noun). They refer to it as human (adjective).

PZ Myers, a developmental biologist has made quite clear that a fertilized egg is not a human.

That is 2 experts. Your position is not shared by the consensus of scientists. You want me to adopt your arbitrary designation. That's like asking me to reject the scientific consensus on evolution.

You are not going to get anywhere by ignoring science. And don't say you are not ignoring science. You haven't produced one iota of evidence for what science says on the matter.

If you are going to insist that you used to be a sperm and an egg you might as well insist that you used to be a singularity. There is no part of you that wasn't present at the beginning of the universe. In any normal understanding of you, it is you the organism, not all of the events that led up to the creation of you, the organism.

As for Myers, it is difficult to comment without him telling us what he thinks a human is. All he has told us is that it isn't biological, likely indicating that his view is philosophical. At least we can safely assume he wouldn't suggest that there needs to be anything like a soul. Alternatively, I doubt he would disagree that a fetus qualifies under the homo genus standard, and it would be quite odd if he insisted that other species of humans weren't humans.

 

[respect]

If you order chicken at a restaurant, would you be upset if they served you a chicken embrio? If so, why?

In that context it would be commonly understood that the term chicken referred to an adult chicken, not an egg (or chick).

 

[thaiboxerken]

In that context it would be commonly understood that the term chicken referred to an adult chicken, not an egg (or chick).

Oh.. so context matters with food. But when it comes to abortion, a human is a human is a human.....

 

[respect]

Yep, there is no distinction between a chicken zygote, embrio or adult chicken.
Somehow, I think some special pleading will be introduced by respect.

Of course there are distinctions, numerous terms can be used to describe levels of maturity in an organism, but no organism ever changes species during its life. There is no special pleading involved to point this out. It is you guys who are doing all of the special pleading, insisting that describing an organism as a member of its species is somehow incorrect at some stages of maturity.