Texas Repubs pass abortion bill

[Belz...]

I wonder what Xjx would use as arguments if he thought the majority wasn't agreeing with him.

 

[funk de fino]

Not if she doesn't want to .

The point is that if a person wants there to be no chance they can make a baby, they shouldn't engage in the activity that makes babies. Intercourse always involves a risk of pregnancy. Sounds pretty elementary to me.

Further, If a married couple conceives while having sex for fun, I'd wager that the vast majority of them want keep the baby. Married couples who want to have sex for fun but hate kids and never want them should use BC like an IUD, tubial ligation or vasectomy.

What if they have sex for fun. Are using oral birth control. The birth control does not work and they end up with her pregnant but dont want the child.

Do they just have to suck it up and have a child they don't want?

 

[ArmillarySphere]

There is an inconsistency here if you have different restrictions between fetuses caused by rape/forced situations and those from consensual sex.

Why should a fetus caused by rape have any less right to life than one from a committed relationship? Is its DNA not just as unique? Can it not also feel pain? Does it not have just as much right to a productive life? If the debate was solely about the right to life, all fetuses should benefit from the same protections, rape or no rape.

By handling these cases differently, you have implicitly acknowledged that there is a link between the mother's behaviour and the coercion to continue the pregnancy. The unstated intent is that the continued pregnancy is not only to protect the life, but to control the behaviour of other women through fear - if she was raped, she is "blameless" and should not "suffer" through pregnancy and childbirth, thus abortion is permitted. However, if she voluntarily engaged in sex, the pregnancy is the just consequence.

If this link does not exist, why then the different treatment of the two situations?

 

[gnome]

Damn good question. On the other hand you could easily argue that's why those "traditional" exceptions are eroding as well.

 

[Belz...]

There is an inconsistency here if you have different restrictions between fetuses caused by rape/forced situations and those from consensual sex.

Why should a fetus caused by rape have any less right to life than one from a committed relationship? Is its DNA not just as unique? Can it not also feel pain? Does it not have just as much right to a productive life?

It depends from where the argument comes, I guess. I don't think exceptions for rape or health are inconsistent, but it depends on your stated reasons why you're against abortion in the first place.

 

[xjx388]

No you didn't. You tried to have it both ways by saying you wouldn't agree but that it was so some time ago. You also implied I had a black-and-white morality, which is not only an ad hominem but a silly dodge.

Put up or shut up: do you believe in the tyrrany of the majority, yes or no ?

I don't believe that the majority should be able to trample on the rights of minority groups. The unborn are definitely a minority group and worse, they don't even have their own voices yet. At some point, they deserve protection from the tyranny of people who would simply cut them out of existence. That point, IMO is when they are conceived. I would support a total ban of abortion except in the traditional limited circumstances.

However, I am a realist and so, I can accept the idea of abortion before viability being legal. But once that fetus is viable, it is as much a person as you or I and is deserving of protection.

 

[Belz...]

I don't believe that the majority should be able to trample on the rights of minority groups. The unborn are definitely a minority group and worse, they don't even have their own voices yet.

Great. You've managed to take my question and twist it around to serve your purpose rather than answer it. Rank dishonesty.

I am done with you.

 

[xjx388]

Psst. Public opinion matters little in this discussion, even though you're wrong about the majority agreeing with your position.

The polls speak for themselves; they've been pretty consistent across the last few decades. My position is that abortion should be legal before viability, then illegal afterwards except for the few stated exceptions. That is right in with the majority.

I wonder what Xjx would use as arguments if he thought the majority wasn't agreeing with him.

Well, theoretically, if I grew up and lived in a world where the majority believed that abortion should be legal in all circumstances and that the government should pay for it, I expect that my position would reflect that sentiment.

But if for some reason, in that theoretical world where abortion is provided by every doctor and is covered by all govt and private insurers, I was staunchly anti-abortion, wouldn't the majority be tyrannizing my minority position by making me pay for abortion? That's where this whole tyranny of the majority thing falls apart for me.

 

[thaiboxerken]

The unborn are definitely a minority group and worse, they don't even have their own voices yet.

I've yet to see any petition from a fetus, or group of fetus, demanding rights.

 

[xjx388]

Great. You've managed to take my question and twist it around to serve your purpose rather than answer it. Rank dishonesty.

I am done with you.

You asked: "Do you believe in the tyranny of the majority, yes or no?"

1)That's kind of an odd question

2)I answered that I didn't believe the majority should be able to trample on the rights of minority groups. I then applied it to the topic at hand.

How is that twisting your question (which is kind of a silly one to begin with) or "rank dishonesty?" If you disagree, I would expect you to make an argument that illustrates that. Unless of course, you have no arguments then you are doing exactly what I would expect.

 

[xjx388]

I've yet to see any petition from a fetus, or group of fetus, demanding rights.

Exactly, they are individuals at a stage of development where they cannot speak for themselves. Infants and toddlers can't petition or demand rights so do they not have them? The aged and disabled often lack the ability to communicate - so no rights for them?

This is exactly why we should be protecting their lives. Unless of course you can come up with an actual argument as to why fetuses are fundamentally different entities from infant, disabled and elderly people.

 

[thaiboxerken]

They are not individuals, as they are directly dependent on the another, host organism.

 

[Belz...]

You asked: "Do you believe in the tyranny of the majority, yes or no?"

1)That's kind of an odd question

2)I answered that I didn't believe the majority should be able to trample on the rights of minority groups. I then applied it to the topic at hand.

How is that twisting your question (which is kind of a silly one to begin with) or "rank dishonesty?" If you disagree, I would expect you to make an argument that illustrates that. Unless of course, you have no arguments then you are doing exactly what I would expect.

I've already noted that I saw your bait-and-switch attempt, xjx. No point in doubling down. I'm not playing your game.

 

[xjx388]

I've already noted that I saw your bait-and-switch attempt, xjx. No point in doubling down. I'm not playing your game.

Bait-and-switch? Please . . . who's playing games now? When you have actual arguments and not merely unfounded accusations, I'll still be here.

 

[xjx388]

They are not individuals, as they are directly dependent on the another, host organism.

So then, may I infer that your position is that a fetus is not an individual human being until it is born; i.e., that as long as it is in the womb it is actually just a piece of the mother?

If so, is it fair to further assume that your position on abortion is that it is acceptable up until birth?

 

[Alferd_Packer]

The unborn are definitely a minority group and worse, they don't even have their own voices yet. .
.

Ouch

The fail here is painful to read.

 

[xjx388]

Ouch

The fail here is painful to read.

Yeesh...Is this what the thread has devolved to?

Go ahead and pat yourself on the back... Ok.

It's obvious you disagree with me, but do you have anything besides snark to back it up with?

 

[gnome]

xjx388 I respect your ability to accept the legality of something that you don't personally agree with and I think from your standpoint you're holding up a better discussion than I usually get from someone who feels so strongly, and I respect you for that too.

If you don't mind my examining your beliefs just a little--if you believe that at conception the fetus deserves and needs protection, why no efforts to save the ones that fail to implant? To be consistent, would you ban the practice of fertilization treatments that create many fertilized eggs that will never be born?

 

[Belz...]

Bait-and-switch? Please . . . who's playing games now? When you have actual arguments and not merely unfounded accusations, I'll still be here.

Assuming for a moment that it wasn't intentional, and that you were actually answering me honestly, something I don't believe to be true, then for other reasons I won't mention here, there's still no reason left to debate this with you.

 

[xjx388]

xjx388 I respect your ability to accept the legality of something that you don't personally agree with and I think from your standpoint you're holding up a better discussion than I usually get from someone who feels so strongly, and I respect you for that too.

If you don't mind my examining your beliefs just a little--if you believe that at conception the fetus deserves and needs protection, why no efforts to save the ones that fail to implant? To be consistent, would you ban the practice of fertilization treatments that create many fertilized eggs that will never be born?

I think natural IVF should be preferred and personally would have an issue with discarding embryos I had a part in creating. However, the intent is to have a pregnancy. I can accept this practice as a necessary thing in order to give a couple a baby they desperately want. I would hope that one day science can solve fertility problems without the need to discard multiple embryos.

One area where I don't quote know how I feel is stem cell therapies.