Texas Repubs pass abortion bill

[Minoosh]

I think natural IVF should be preferred ...

Natural IVF?

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.

This gives people an opening to pick apart your words, you know. Necessary to satisfy their wants is also somewhat contradictory. If they're so damn desperate I imagine they could find a pre-existing baby to nurture. According to you they're lining up around the block to adopt.

If they want their own genetic child, or the woman wants the joy of pregnancy or whatever, that actually seems kind of selfish to me. Fill a need that actually exists, instead of manufacturing one and then thinking you're great because you fill this need you manufactured.

I know this seems insensitive to the heartbreak of infertility (violins) but there's no shortage of need in the world.

I had serious lifestyle issues during my most fertile years and went to great lengths not to conceive. (I was better-informed than most). And yet, if someone left a baby or young child on my doorstep, chances are I would get hooked in, because materially raising a kid would not be impossible at this point, and morally it would be as useful as just about anything else I could do.

I would hope that one day science can solve fertility problems without the need to discard multiple embryos.

IMO there are no fertility problems; there is plenty of fertility in the world to go around.

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

No contest. They don't have to wait till fetuses have little fingers and toes and central nervous systems to harvest stem cells. I totally lose respect for pro-life forces, even the sincere ones, at this, if there are legitimate chances of easing suffering by utilizing disposable embryos (sorry, they are) for research. Our presumption is these cell clumps aren't sentient, even if they do form the unique genetic blueprint etc. I argued for earlier.

And on opinion/zeitgeist. My opinion is that the American public feels strongly both ways.

I can't stand the whole Octomom scenario (nothing against her personally, really; I just thing a compulsion to reproduce is, while literally the most natural thing in the world, seriously outmoded).

If those zygotes/embryos were harvested for stem cells, I think I would feel inclined to hold a brief ceremony honoring their contribution, kind of like kosher/halal practices, before cannibalizing them for practical purposes. I'm OK with it being cannibalism. I have signaled understanding for the idea that "it's not a choice, it's a child." But underneath that I still want it to be a choice. I wanted a loving home waiting for every child born, and every child who needs adoption at an older age, and if that standard can't be met, I would rather that the life of the "child" was ended. I even have sympathy for infanticide in some cases. There should be consequences, but in certain desperate situations I don't consider it anything like first-degree murder. Sadly, perhaps, I don't have much of a "human life is sacred" ethic. It's always a question, what bright shining possibility might we be losing with each abortion? I think it's a healthy enough question but if babies aren't wanted ... then let's not pretend they are; let's end it humanely.

 

[gnome]

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.

Then I must ask, do you consider a discarded embryo a murder, or something less than murder but nonetheless still wrong?

I'm not sure why you would rank it as wrong to discard embryos in order to have a successful birth, because you are still doing so in service of a want. But I can't exactly dictate your moral calculus to you. It just seems odd.

 

[thaiboxerken]

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?

That is my position, yes.
Minority people are those that actually have cognitive ability. I doubt that a fetus has that quality as well.

 

[Belz...]

Then I must ask, do you consider a discarded embryo a murder, or something less than murder but nonetheless still wrong?

I'm not sure why you would rank it as wrong to discard embryos in order to have a successful birth, because you are still doing so in service of a want. But I can't exactly dictate your moral calculus to you. It just seems odd.

I'm not sure he knows why, either. He's not exactly consistent here. Nor honest in his answers.

 

[Vermonter]

It always amazes me that the right and christian right scream on about the State staying out of peoples lives but seem to want the State to control women's lives.....

Obviously women aren't people, duh. Get to the 15th century, man.

 

[xjx388]

Natural IVF?

Harvesting at natural ovulation rather than stimulating the ovaries for multiple eggs at a time.

This gives people an opening to pick apart your words, you know.

Perhaps, but what else is new?

Necessary to satisfy their wants is also somewhat contradictory.

I would rather someone be selfish toward the goal of procreation than destruction.

If they're so damn desperate I imagine they could find a pre-existing baby to nurture. According to you they're lining up around the block to adopt.

I agree. It's the route we would have taken if we couldn't have our own and natural IVF had failed for us.

If they want their own genetic child, or the woman wants the joy of pregnancy or whatever, that actually seems kind of selfish to me.

I consider it vastly less selfish than abortion in most cases.

IMO there are no fertility problems; there is plenty of fertility in the world to go around.

I think increasing population is a big potential problem. If like to see increased use of BC.

No contest. They don't have to wait till fetuses have little fingers and toes and central nervous systems to harvest stem cells. I totally lose respect for pro-life forces, even the sincere ones, at this, if there are legitimate chances of easing suffering by utilizing disposable embryos (sorry, they are) for research. Our presumption is these cell clumps aren't sentient, even if they do form the unique genetic blueprint etc. I argued for earlier.

My feeling is that if abortion is going to be legal, I'd like for the person to have the option to donate the embryo for such uses. But it still makes me feel a little icky.

And on opinion/zeitgeist. My opinion is that the American public feels strongly both ways.

Well, if you look at the polls, you will see that the public is pretty evenly divided on whether they consider themselves pro-life or pro-choice. But when you look at the specific questions, it becomes obvious that most Americans are against abortion after the 1st trimester and that there are moral issues attached to abortion. This means that the labels "pro-life" and "pro-choice" really carry little meaning; there is tremendous overlap in belief between people who identify with these two labels.

<snip> Sadly, perhaps, I don't have much of a "human life is sacred" ethic. It's always a question, what bright shining possibility might we be losing with each abortion? I think it's a healthy enough question but if babies aren't wanted ... then let's not pretend they are; let's end it humanely.

Well surely you must think human life is "sacred" -meaning valuable and worth protecting-on some level. I am sure you are against murder, torture, forced medical experimentation, etc. For me it's sacred from the start, not at some magical moment when a person is born.

 

[xjx388]

Then I must ask, do you consider a discarded embryo a murder, or something less than murder but nonetheless still wrong?

I'm not sure why you would rank it as wrong to discard embryos in order to have a successful birth, because you are still doing so in service of a want. But I can't exactly dictate your moral calculus to you. It just seems odd.

I think any abortion after the point where a fetus is viable is basically murder; unless the baby is severely malformed or the mother is in grave danger.

Before viability is a moral gray area. (Except In the case of rape where I have no issue) and I'm not going to hold others to my own moral standards. Because its a gray area, I'll err on the side of giving people the right to make their own choices. I am personally uncomfortable with the idea of terminating embryos in the service of any selfish "want," abortion or IVF, but I support people's rights to make other choices than I would. It isn't really any of my business at that point anyway.

 

[jhunter1163]

Do not personalize your arguments, and remain civil and polite.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jhunter1163

 

[xjx388]

That is my position, yes.

Fair enough. I respect your opinion on the matter but strongly disagree. Further, States aren't likely to craft laws that fit your position and SCOTUS is not likely to rule in such a way that abortion is legal at every stage of pregnancy, given the precedent set by Roe v Wade.

And let's grant your premise for a moment:

1. A fetus is a part of the woman's body.
2. Women can do whatever they want with their body.
3. Abortion should be legal.

I think the argument falls apart at 2. Even if 1 is true, 2 is most definitely not. She can't sell her organs. She can't sell her sexual services. She can't use illegal drugs. Since regulation of what people can do with their bodies is already an established principle, there is no logical reason that we can't regulate abortion.

Finally, I don't grant your premise that the fetus is part of a woman's body. It was not present at her birth and a woman can go her whole life without ever having a fetus inside her. It was created by a very specific process that required another person. The fetus is connected to her but is a separate organism with it's own DNA structure and it's own internal physiological processes.

Minority people are those that actually have cognitive ability. I doubt that a fetus has that quality as well.

I strongly disagree here as well. Babies and children don't have the cognitive ability to petition for their rights in any socially meaningful way until they reach their adolescent years; heck, they can't vote until they are 18. So if infants, toddlers and children deserve protection despite the fact that they can't really advocate for that protection, I don't see how that protection couldn't also pass down to the fetus.

Another issue is the rights of people with severe cognitive disabilities. You can't just kill them. So if they deserve protection, what makes a fetus different?

 

[gnome]

I think any abortion after the point where a fetus is viable is basically murder; unless the baby is severely malformed or the mother is in grave danger.

Before viability is a moral gray area. (Except In the case of rape where I have no issue) and I'm not going to hold others to my own moral standards. Because its a gray area, I'll err on the side of giving people the right to make their own choices. I am personally uncomfortable with the idea of terminating embryos in the service of any selfish "want," abortion or IVF, but I support people's rights to make other choices than I would. It isn't really any of my business at that point anyway.

That's clear enough to me... because you acknowledge the cause for disagreement, I see no need to press you further. Thank you.

 

[Lowpro]

xjx you realize that although you cannot sell your organs, you can donate them for free. The issue of selling body parts being illegal is that it's selling them. She isn't selling her fetus, she's terminating her pregnancy. Number 2 of thaiboxerken's point that you created stands.

But you said that there's no logical reason on why we can't regulate abortion and there is where I agree in some places and disagree in others. I like the idea of regulation of abortion in that it's regulated through healthcare systems to promote a safe abortion. That means earlier identification of pregnancy, providing multiple alternatives to abortion, and longitudinal care provided to the mother. THAT is what regulation of abortion means to me, not restriction even at any age of the fetal growth.

The thing is, the State doesn't actually need to do this, either guarantee it or regulate it or even restrict it; healthcare agencies can perform all this so to me the State needs to take a step away. Scrubs over suits. The regulation of abortion should be done through healthcare, not the state. Roe v. Wade is my mind fails that in a big way. I hate that it takes Roe v. Wade to guarantee the right to an abortion because it was a right that should have been guaranteed anyways, not delegated through law. Again, any woman can absolutely terminate her pregnancy at any age but it is risky to their health. Because of that, I'd rather there be safer practices with medical professionals involved. What Texas did was basically prohibit the healthcare aspect of abortion. They will not reduce the burden of health, they will not reduce abortions. All they've done is worsened their healthcare.

The fact of the matter with regards to a fetus is that it is not an individual life, it's dependent on the mother and that's actually far deeper than it seems. There's a LOT of healthcare that is involved in prenatal development. And a lot of it comes down to how the child develops in the womb. To pretend they are anything but completely dependent on the mother is delusion. It's a unique relationship that really does challenge black and white ethical thinking. Because of that I'm opposed to blanket laws against abortion as well especially by viability which is not a great metric anyways. I think people who use the argument are deluded by the soundbite. I've accused you of being "part of the mob" and you'll change your tune with the mob as soon as they enable you to. 20 weeks becomes 12 weeks becomes 12 hours etc etc. I know jhunter said not to make the arguments personalized but I really do think that you lack any exposure or information to make this a choice with a focus on ethics or healthcare. I think you've been spoon fed a bunch of bs.

However there is one argument I do like that you've made and that's recognizing the fetus as a disenfranchised minority that needs a voice. I completely agree with that. But abortions are not made in a vacuum, they almost always performed by physicians through a healthcare system such as those from Planned Parenthood that identify the circumstances and guide the decision, oftentimes away from abortion. That's a plain as day fact, if you can actually GO OUT THERE and work with these women you'll reduce abortions. Making them illegal and vilifying these women won't promote the fetus as a minority that deserves protection so I don't see why you've confused that. Your view on law is inherently contradictory which isn't a big deal, most people have a poor grasp of it.

And here's the thing, I have a feeling what you're going to say will be to the effect of "Of course I want these women to have that kind of care and outreach, I am not saying that they shouldn't have it but abortion shouldn't be included" or something like that. That would make sense except for the fact that it should in circumstances anyways, and your method of restriction is independent of these circumstances but even worse is that you're not actually promoting the health of anyone even the fetus. If a woman wants an abortion even after 20 weeks it would really be nice to know why. Is it for financial reasons? Emotional reasons? A mix of both? Maybe the opportunity loss outweighs the pregnancy? Maybe the father is a white trash 15 year old and it is the unfortunate outcome one bad night? These things are important to consider and trying to divorce that from the fetus is not fair. That's not how equal protection of the law works and it's not how you promote health. The state at most should serve to promote comprehensive care and abortion probably should be a part of it, like it or else. Making it illegal...will not get you what you want and it will not help people.

As for your view that abortion is akin to murder not only do I disagree but trying to invoke zeitgeist changes to determine that definition is honestly frightening. Murder is the unlawful killing which means it needs a law first. Regardless of what you consider it to be it's not murder. Calling it that is an appeal to emotion to demonize these women and doctors, to promote anger and hate. It's divisive and sadistic and shameful to see from people like that. Regardless of cognition the fetus is not an individual. If it was then we can just forgo abortion for extremely early birth past 20 weeks and let nature handle it, right? But of course not, that would put the very early fetus at a risk that you don't want either. I understand that you think the fetus not only has a right to protection but also a right to as healthy an outcome as possible to develop. Very noble, and I agree with it. But I won't ignore circumstances, and I won't disenfranchise the women who carry them. That fetus actually CANNOT be an individual until after birth at least by virtue of its dependency on the mother. When you prevent abortions you're literally forcing that mother to not just keep the child but act as its incubator by law. That's not fair and that's unprecedented in law, even by Roe v. Wade. It offers no alternative since we haven't made surrogate development incubators (actually we have but law doesn't recognize them as one). It's a VERY strange legal issue, more than you're really considering here. Because of that I don't think states should be involved. Healthcare should though and states should be involved in making abortion an outmoded procedure. Using law here is just ineffective, ethically inadequate, and woefully under-resourced anyways. The people's opinions don't match reality here and what you're doing xjx isn't actually promoting that change to reality, just codification of your opinion.

 

[gnome]

I understand from the technical standpoint that murder needs a law to be "unlawful killing"... but it's hardly unprecedented to refer to a "wrongful" killing as a murder, in a sense.

If the country went crazy and passed a law legalizing the killing of, say, left-handed piccolo players, I know I would still consider it murder when someone killed one.

 

[Lowpro]

I understand from the technical standpoint that murder needs a law to be "unlawful killing"... but it's hardly unprecedented to refer to a "wrongful" killing as a murder, in a sense.

If the country went crazy and passed a law legalizing the killing of, say, left-handed piccolo players, I know I would still consider it murder when someone killed one.

And that doesn't mean a damn thing. To me, using the term murderer is a VERY serious thing and shouldn't be used lightly. It's worse than any racial slur or insult. Abortion as practiced now is not murder and personally I think there's. lot of ways that killing any person or animal is not murder. Murder in many ways is not a black and white event and requires diligent consideration of mind and circumstance and abortion definitely gets a pass. You may not like it, it might shock you to the core ( it would lack poetry if it didn't...) but it's not murder and the people who perform abortions shouldn't be treated as such either. It's A sick game that anti-abortionists play with that word.

 

[gnome]

I'm actually opposed to calling early abortions murder... but I still think the term murder is applicable outside of law. I am just disputing the argument that the lack of a law keeps it from being murder.

I think it's not murder for different reasons than that.

 

[xjx388]

And that doesn't mean a damn thing. To me, using the term murderer is a VERY serious thing and shouldn't be used lightly. It's worse than any racial slur or insult. Abortion as practiced now is not murder and personally I think there's. lot of ways that killing any person or animal is not murder. Murder in many ways is not a black and white event and requires diligent consideration of mind and circumstance and abortion definitely gets a pass. You may not like it, it might shock you to the core ( it would lack poetry if it didn't...) but it's not murder and the people who perform abortions shouldn't be treated as such either. It's A sick game that anti-abortionists play with that word.

Murder is a legal word for taking the life of another without justification. I believe that the justification for abortion is weak outside of the few traditional exceptions. I think it becomes a murderous act when the fetus reaches viability. To put it another way, if you killed your 3 month old infant because you decided you didn't want a child, that justification wouldn't hold up as a defense to murder. I think the same should apply for a viable fetus. 20 weeks is plenty of time to decide you want an abortion.

Before viability, there really isn't a life to take, so it wouldn't be murder. I personally feel that it's akin to murder even at the early stages, but I don't expect the law to reflect my feelings.

 

[Lowpro]

Murder is a legal word for taking the life of another without justification. I believe that the justification for abortion is weak outside of the few traditional exceptions. I think it becomes a murderous act when the fetus reaches viability. To put it another way, if you killed your 3 month old infant because you decided you didn't want a child, that justification wouldn't hold up as a defense to murder. I think the same should apply for a viable fetus. 20 weeks is plenty of time to decide you want an abortion.
Before viability, there really isn't a life to take, so it wouldn't be murder. I personally feel that it's akin to murder even at the early stages, but I don't expect the law to reflect my feelings.

First of all, murder is the illegal killing a person and justification is a determination of circumstance, something you're trying to ignore when you want to prevent abortions after 20-28 weeks. That's my problem with your pursuit of regulation is that you're not actually considering the context. I'm not talking about rape or forced abortion. I mean individuals who do not want a child, who've made efforts to prevent a pregnancy (iirc ~50% of abortions occurred for women who did not want a child and were taking OC's properly.) And those who have an abortion after 16 weeks, because keep in mind most abortions occur well before 20 weeks (thank you Planned Parenthood!) those who get them later often have them due to internal issues such as familial dissent and lack of available care and capacity to have one. What did Texas just do xjx? They just made it more difficult to have earlier abortions. Way to go -.-

And you're trying to beg the question. Abortion is NOT murder so the justification is moot in that regard because it doesn't need to be defended against being murder.

And again...if you want to keep saying "it's not murder before viability" then you're both shoehorning in murder AND you're using a stupid metric. It's this kind of dishonest tactics in discussion that are truly harming reproductive care through this ignorance.

Here's what you are really saying: "If a woman can continue a pregnancy, she must continue it even if she doesn't want to, regardless of circumstances". That's NOT how you treat anyone. Pregnancy isn't a duty by anyone and the state cannot make it so. If you feel bad and if it gets under your skin then you go out to those clinics, you tell those women "don't get an abortion, I'll do what I can to give you the capacity to meet the needs that concern you on this". You know...do what Planned Parenthood does. Do what actual reproductive health professionals do. Meet the need, promote the healthcare. Stop siding with pricks in suits who have no understanding of the problems but enjoy stroking themselves to idealism.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

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?

If you can't see the glaringly obvious logical fails in your posts, then no amount of pointing them out will help you.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Murder is a legal word for taking the life of another without justification. I believe that the justification for abortion is weak outside of the few traditional exceptions. I think it becomes a murderous act when the fetus reaches viability. To put it another way, if you killed your 3 month old infant because you decided you didn't want a child, that justification wouldn't hold up as a defense to murder. I think the same should apply for a viable fetus. 20 weeks is plenty of time to decide you want an abortion.

Before viability, there really isn't a life to take, so it wouldn't be murder. I personally feel that it's akin to murder even at the early stages, but I don't expect the law to reflect my feelings.

Is a miscarriage murder?

Manslaughter?


Should a woman who smokes or drinks while pregnant be charged with child abuse?

Is masturbation murder? (attempted murder?)

 

[xjx388]

If you can't see the glaringly obvious logical fails in your posts, then no amount of pointing them out will help you.

So, I guess the answer to my question is, "No, I don't have anything besides snark to respond to you with."

 

[thaiboxerken]

So, I guess the answer to my question is, "No, I don't have anything besides snark to respond to you with."

Actually, it's more along the line of giving up because you seem unable to see the failings of your logic, even when pointed out. That's ok, just like there will always be creationists, there will always be anti-abortionists.