• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Texas bans abortion.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Two disbarred lawyers sued a Texas doctor who performed an abortion. Flustered ‘pro-lifers’ are backpedaling

Anti-choice groups are embarrassed that their draconian law is being enforced the way it was designed

Dr Alan Braid, an OBGYN based in San Antonio, broke the law on purpose. In an essay published in the Washington Post last Saturday, the doctor announced that he performed an abortion on a woman who was past six weeks of gestation, the limit imposed by Texas’s new abortion ban, SB8.

... Two complaints – both from men living out of state – were filed against Dr Braid on Monday morning. One, a rambling, weird document, comes from a convicted felon and disbarred former attorney named Oscar Stilley, who is serving a prison term on house arrest in Arkansas. That complaint, which Stilley seems to have written himself, makes multiple references to Dr Braid’s conduct regarding “bastards” and his supposed belief in a god referred to by the Hebrew name “Elohim.” Stilley, who has said he does not personally oppose abortion, feels strongly that “if there’s money to be had, it’s going to go in Oscar’s pocket.”

The second lawsuit is from a man named Felipe Gomez of Illinois, another disbarred lawyer, who labels himself “pro-choice plaintiff”, and whose complaint asks only that SB8 be overturned. These test cases, strange and off-putting as they are, now represent the best chance for SB8 to be vacated, and for abortion rights to be returned to Texans – at least for now.

... Interestingly, the anti-choice movement doesn’t seem entirely happy that the lawsuits that enforce the abortion ban they championed are now actually arriving in Texas courts. John Sego, a legislative director of the anti-choice group Texas Right to Life, which supports SB8, expressed displeasure that the law is being enforced – well, exactly the way it was designed.

...It might be that Sego and his anti-choice colleagues are embarrassed to have their interests represented by a plaintiff like Stilley, with his flamboyant feloniousness. Maybe they have realized that the bounty-hunting provision of the law is deeply unpopular, and that the suits are terrible PR for the anti-choice movement.
Click to expand...
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-doctor-abortion-sued-pro-lifers-backpedaling

Oh dear.
 
Norman Alexander said:
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-doctor-abortion-sued-pro-lifers-backpedaling

Oh dear.
Click to expand...

Oh dear indeed! It has backfired on them very badly... who knew that would happen? *** snigger ***

I have only one further comment to make about this...











SplutterLaugh.gif
 
"You let your barber cut your hair! Well I guess you're fine with your barber cutting your head off! No I can't be wrong it's a moral position, you can't be bringing science and facts into it! Lookit at me being an original thinker unlike the rest of you sheep."
 
smartcooky said:
No it isn't.

As John Adams once said, "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence". Facts are facts, they are immutable and unarguable. They do not bend or reshape themselves to fit or accommodate the pleadings and emotional arguments of the religious or from non-religious moralists

It really is that simple!
Click to expand...

I beg to differ.

I think we can 100% agree on certain facts:

The “thing” developing is human.

The “thing” developing is alive.

The “thing” which is developing transitions through stages ranging from a single fertilized egg to a fetus ready to be delivered.

The “thing” going through those phases is not viable outside the womb up until a certain stage.

That there is no evidence of a “soul”.

Those are facts. Those are scientific.

I was speaking of morality. That’s where it’s hard to come up with scientific answers. You can ask a scientist when a developing human may feel pain or have a semblance of consciousness, and get an answer. But the question of whether the mother’s right to autonomy over her own body completely supersedes any protections of the developing “thing” at any and all stages of development, that’s a moral question and different people, and different scientists, can and will differ on the answer. I’m leaning to the position that it does, but am troubled by the mechanics of terminating a pregnancy that’s continued beyond a certain point.

I love science, and biology, and Evolutionary Theory. But some moral and ethical dilemmas don’t lend themselves to easy, black and white answers, scientific or otherwise.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
I beg to differ.

I think we can 100% agree on certain facts:

The “thing” developing is human. (so is a cancerous tumour)

The “thing” developing is alive. (so is a cancerous tumour)

The “thing” which is developing transitions through stages ranging from a single fertilized egg to a fetus ready to be delivered. (correct, but irrelevant to the issue)

The “thing” going through those phases is not viable outside the womb up until a certain stage. (correct)

That there is no evidence of a “soul”. (correct)

Those are facts. Those are scientific.
Click to expand...

My comments italicised.

Please note: I am not likening a zygote/embryo/foetus to a cancerous tumour, I merely point out the cold, hard scientific fact that they are they are both human.

Fast Eddie B said:
I was speaking of morality. That’s where it’s hard to come up with scientific answers. You can ask a scientist when a developing human may feel pain or have a semblance of consciousness, and get an answer. But the question of whether the mother’s right to autonomy over her own body completely supersedes any protections of the developing “thing” at any and all stages of development, that’s a moral question and different people, and different scientists, can and will differ on the answer. I’m leaning to the position that it does, but am troubled by the mechanics of terminating a pregnancy that’s continued beyond a certain point.

I love science, and biology, and Evolutionary Theory. But some moral and ethical dilemmas don’t lend themselves to easy, black and white answers, scientific or otherwise.
Click to expand...

A person (man or woman) should have absolute autonomy over their own body, so long as allowing them that autonomy does not impact on the health or well-being of any other person, or put any other person or persons at risk.

My morality is that my personal choices with regard to my body trumps everyone else's morality. That means if I get a serious illness, I alone decide if and how I want to treat it, or not (unless of course, that illness creates a danger to others). If it becomes terminal, I alone choose how to proceed.

If I was a woman, I would still demand the same absolute autonomy over my body to decide what is right for me. I alone can choose to end my own pregnancy - My Body, My Choice! End of discussion.

NO faceless politician should ever have any say whatsoever in a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy if she so chooses.
 
Last edited:
While I am somewhat pro-life, Texas' method of banning abortion leaves me with a bad taste. I think it is a terrible idea. Allowing people to sue everyone whom could possibly be involved in an abortion. stupid, wrong, and reckless and bad precedent. It is also a clear violation of Roe v Wade.
 
Warp12 said:
Mischaracterized argument. Personal accountability is a thing, for all parties. See my statements on proactive vs reactive birth control measures.
Click to expand...

No, you want to hold women accountable for getting pregnant (ie, having sex). It doesn't surprise me, after all, the christian religion views pregnancy as a punishment.
 
smartcooky said:
Fast Eddie B said:
The “thing” developing is human. (so is a cancerous tumour)

The “thing” developing is alive. (so is a cancerous tumour)
Click to expand...
Please note: I am not likening a zygote/embryo/foetus to a cancerous tumour,
Click to expand...
:dl:

smartcooky said:
I merely point out the cold, hard scientific fact that they are they are both human.
Click to expand...
The difference between a zygote/embryo/foetus and other human cells is that only a zygote/embryo/foetus can grow to be a fully developed independent human being.

Your semantic word play is designed to draw attention away from this fact.
 
psionl0 said:
:dl:


The difference between a zygote/embryo/foetus and other human cells is that only a zygote/embryo/foetus can grow to be a fully developed independent human being.

Your semantic word play is designed to draw attention away from this fact.
Click to expand...

Thank you for admitting that a zygote/embryo/foetus isn't a human being.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom