Texas Repubs pass abortion bill

[xjx388]

Is a miscarriage murder?

Miscarriage is a spontaneous abortion due to natural causes. Since no one initiated the process it isn't murder.

Manslaughter?

Manslaughter is killing in a situation where there might be mitigating circumstances that reduce but do not extinguish culpability. It is legally inferior to murder. I don't see what thisnhasnto do with anything, but there you go.

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

If it results in significant harm to the kid then I think it should be. I don't expect this to become law though.

Is masturbation murder? (attempted murder?)

Since no human being was killed, then no.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Miscarriage is a spontaneous abortion due to natural causes. Since no one initiated the process it isn't murder.

The woman's body initiated the process.

What about fetal resorption?

 

[Alferd_Packer]

If it results in significant harm to the kid then I think it should be. I don't expect this to become law though.

And who is to judge what constitutes "significant harm?" You?

 

[xjx388]

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.

I could say the same about pro-Choicers but I prefer to engage in debate rather than hand wave.

Just because you don't agree with me doesn't mean that my logic has failed.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Since no human being was killed, then no.

Like in cases of abortion.

Got it.

Thanks.

 

[xjx388]

The woman's body initiated the process.

That's what I said.

What about fetal resorption?

Natural process.

In cases of miscarriage and related fetal deaths, there is usually a problem in fetal development that caused the miscarriage. There are no moral implications. And seeing how they occur before 20 weeks, it really doesn't apply to the topic at hand in any meaningful way.

 

[xjx388]

Like in cases of abortion.

Got it.

Thanks.

A human being is killed during abortion, After viability, SCOTUS ruled that the fetus's life must be protected over the right of the woman to privacy.

 

[RandFan]

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.

Not according to people who work with pregnant women. Viability at 20 weeks is 50%. Those that do survive will struggle to make it to their first year. Scientifically viability is generally viewed at 24 to 26 weeks.

There is no sharp limit of development, age, or weight at which a human fetus automatically becomes viable.[1] According to studies between 2003 and 2005, 20 to 35 percent of babies born at 23 weeks of gestation survive, while 50 to 70 percent of babies born at 24 to 25 weeks, and more than 90 percent born at 26 to 27 weeks, survive.[4] It is rare for a baby weighing less than 500g (17.6 ounces) to survive.[1] A baby's chances for survival increases 3-4% per day between 23 and 24 weeks of gestation and about 2-3% per day between 24 and 26 weeks of gestation. After 26 weeks the rate of survival increases at a much slower rate because survival is high already.[5]

 

[ehcks]

A human being is killed during abortion, After viability, SCOTUS ruled that the fetus's life must be protected over the right of the woman to privacy.

How many abortions are after viability?

 

[gnome]

If an embryo could be made by medical science to survive outside the womb from the moment of fertilization, would that change whether it was murder?

It seems odd if the status of, say, a 1 week old fetus would change despite being an identical organism to before.

 

[thaiboxerken]

If an embryo could be made by medical science to survive outside the womb from the moment of fertilization, would that change whether it was murder?

It seems odd if the status of, say, a 1 week old fetus would change despite being an identical organism to before.

I guess the argument can be summed up to "can technology determine if an action is murder or not?"

Are there pro-life women volunteering to have zygotes and fetus's transplanted to themselves?

 

[xjx388]

If an embryo could be made by medical science to survive outside the womb from the moment of fertilization, would that change whether it was murder?

I think that possibility is so remote as to be irrelevant. But in theory, this would obviate the need for abortion. The woman could simply have the embryo removed to be raised by an adoptive family.

It seems odd if the status of, say, a 1 week old fetus would change despite being an identical organism to before.

These are extremely gray areas, for sure, made only grayer in these kinds of far flung sci-fi scenarios.

 

[uke2se]

How many abortions are after viability?

xjx?

 

[RandFan]

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.

Let's grant your premise. When is it okay to control a woman's body? How does one balance the rights of women and the health of society? You've no evidence that abortions harm society. It's arguable whether prostitution and drug abuse harm society or if those laws improve society. But that is the rationale of those laws. That is not the argument against abortion. The argument against abortion is that it harms an unborn human being. Your analogy is fatally flawed.

It was not present at her birth and a woman can go her whole life without ever having a fetus inside her.

Pubic hair is not present at birth and a woman can go her whole life without pubic hair. Babies are very different things from adults. The woman's body produces the fetus. The woman's body provides sustenance necessary for the fetus to survive. By your logic cancer is not a part of a woman's body and therefore a woman has no right to remove it.

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...

Again, your analogy is fatally flawed. If a woman doesn't want to provide for the baby then it can be given to another.

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?

A person with severe cognitive disabilities can be cared for by the state. There is no need to kill a person with severe cognitive disabilities to protect the mother.

I don't want to kill fetuses, babies or disabled people. However, if you could demonstrate that doing so would make society a better place then I would consider the argument to do so. I think their is substantial evidence that protecting the most vulnerable in society is good for society. I think that there is no evidence that abortion on demand prior to 24 weeks harms society. On the contrary, nations that rank high in well being are typically those that allow abortion.

FTR: You are on record conceding that abortion prior to 20 weeks are permissible. The problem is not what you claim but is instead a matter of when.

 

[Dcdrac]

It has always struck me that religious extremists feel that women are some dark mysterious threat to society and need to be controlled in every way possible and have the right to make decisons about their own bodies and lives removed from them by law.

 

[RandFan]

I think that possibility is so remote as to be irrelevant. But in theory, this would obviate the need for abortion. The woman could simply have the embryo removed to be raised by an adoptive family.

Likewise sperm and ovum can be removed for the bodies of humans, combined and raised by an adoptive family. FWIW: I like your argument because I too make that argument for fetuses that are viable and have rudimentary cognitive ability to be somewhat aware and can suffer.

BTW: AS to your argument about mentally disabled people, most can suffer. You and I are mostly on the same page. We just disagree as to when a fetus should be protected. I say 24 weeks you say 20. I would much rather err on the side of the woman in this case. Forcing a baby to struggle outside of the mother's womb at 20 weeks only to have a small chance of life as it gains more and more appreciation to suffer strikes me as cruel and unusual. It also places unnecessary burdens on the woman for a shot at survival of a fetus.

 

[Belz...]

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.

All things that are illegal for no good reason, too.

 

[dudalb]

I am beginning to agree with General Sherman on Texas:

"If I owned Texas and Hell, I would rent out Texas and Live in Hell".

 

[gnome]

I think that possibility is so remote as to be irrelevant. But in theory, this would obviate the need for abortion. The woman could simply have the embryo removed to be raised by an adoptive family.

These are extremely gray areas, for sure, made only grayer in these kinds of far flung sci-fi scenarios.

I guess my point is if you're trying to make a distinction it would be better to base it on some property of the fetus itself, rather than a dividing line that is dependent on levels of technology.

 

[Mister Earl]

It has always struck me that religious extremists feel that women are some dark mysterious threat to society and need to be controlled in every way possible and have the right to make decisons about their own bodies and lives removed from them by law.

The point of it all, I believe, is not about welfare of either mother, nor child, but a religious point of view taken as something of an emergency measure to bolster flagging pew attendance. I'll elaborate.

The idea is to force women to raise children they didn't intend. Children these days are expensive. Poorer families tend to be religious families, and religious families tend to indoctrinate their children in their chosen faith. So at the modest tradeoff of the quality of life of their parishioners, church leaders get more attendance, more pennies in the pie tins, and more people willing to vote in the direction they prefer. It's about power.

But education is something that stands in the way of this. Sex education, rational thinking, et cetera, all are also roadblocks in the way of this sort of plan. You'd expect the religious right to also attack along these venues, and sure enough, they're there.

It is a callous, malicious practice that isn't even backed up by their own holy book. If left to their own devices, I imagine they'd convert areas under their control to conditions you see in third world countries... poverty stricken faithful, and the ruling class that has the vast majority of the nation's wealth.

Every time I see the religious right working some agenda in the political arena, I ask myself this question: "Is this an action consistent with christian teachings, or is this an action consistent with a subtle attack aimed at the working poor to keep them faithful and ignorant and obedient?" Want to guess how often it's the latter?

... anyway, sorry for the long rant. I have family that is unfortunately fundamentalist, so this is something I have to deal with all the bloody time, and it tends to get my hackles up a bit. Even to see them doing something so unchristianlike like trying to ban abortion.