Texas bans abortion.

[Stacyhs]

You can if it is a self assembling car.

And a seed is not a flower. You plant it (uterus), water and feed it (placenta) and it will eventually become a flower (baby). But without putting it in soil and giving it nourishment, it will stay a freaking seed.

Skin cells are not a human being and they will never grow to be a human being. A foetus is already a human being even if it is not developed sufficiently to survive outside of a womb.

That is a political and/or religious and/or personal opinion. It is not a scientific fact. You can argue it's a human being all day and all night, but it will remain an opinion.

This doesn't mean that you have to assign it the same rights as a fully birthed human but you don't have to deny that it is human to say it doesn't have the same rights.

But that is exactly what some states are trying to do. In Roe v. Wade, the state of Texas argued that "the fetus is a 'person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.
I also refer you to this IL case. That's the whole point of declaring a non-viable embryo/fetus a "human being" by conservative legislatures.[/I] By doing so, it can then be argued that, as a human being, it is protected by all kind of laws, including "the right to life" under the First Amendment and "equal protection" under the Fourteenth Amendment. If a miscarriage occurs due to a careless act by the woman like not wearing her seatbelt, she could be charged with manslaughter or negligent homicide. If she has an abortion, she could be charged with murder.

A. The Varieties of Fetal Protection Legislation

Legislation to protect fetuses can take many different forms. The extent to which such a bill may endanger reproductive rights depends on its specific terms and implications. For example, states may: 1) amend existing homicide statutes to include the fetus as a possible victim; 2) pass statutes defining the fetus as a person or human being, thereby making the fetus fall within the compass of other statutes applicable to all persons or human beings; 3) enact freestanding statutes to define and penalize a new crime of injury to a fetus, fetal homicide, or "feticide"; 4) extend wrongful death statutes to permit civil suits against individuals who cause the death of a fetus; or 5) enact new statutes to penalize injury to a pregnant woman that causes her fetus to die or be injured. In some instances, two or more of these approaches to fetal protection may be combined in a single bill.

In the past three years alone, women in Florida, Tennessee, and Illinois faced criminal charges after desperate attempts at aborting themselves. In State v. Ashley, Florida authorities are pursuing a manslaughter charge against a 19-year-old single mother who shot herself in the stomach after learning she could not obtain Medicaid funds for an abortion.

 

[psionl0]

In Roe v. Wade, the state of Texas argued that "the fetus is a 'person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

I have already agreed that if human being means something different in legalese then it is probably best not to use the term. I don't know why you changed human/human being into person for your argument though. Heck, the courts even regard corporations to be persons.

 

[Stacyhs]

I have already agreed that if human being means something different in legalese then it is probably best not to use the term. I don't know why you changed human/human being into person for your argument though. Heck, the courts even regard corporations to be persons.

I didn't change it; that is the term TX used in their argument. But now you're getting a bit nit picky because a "human being" is the same thing as a "person" legally:

(a)In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

( U.S. Code § 8)

...the (Supreme) Court ruled: 1) that at no time within the history of western civilization had a society endowed a fetus with the rights of personhood; therefore (the Court not being empowered to create law from nothing), Texas' claim to personhood could not be sustained; 2) that the idea the fetus is a human being (for which the state has in interest in preserving)is earnestly disputed and has been disputed throughout the history of western civilization -- the prevailing view has been the "soul" is not present at conception but develops over time. Upon this record, the Court could not decide whether life (human life) arises at any time before birth. Without a definitive answer to that question, there was no basis for the Court to adopt Texas' view of fetal life and sustain Texas' quest to protect it.

https://subscriptlaw.com/roe-v-wade...HbiRaQV6WgjCaHKIUC0O4bMpVZweH_AxoCi2wQAvD_BwE

 

[JimOfAllTrades]

Could be. After all, abortion is certainly a black-and-white issue. Like most others.

Many issues are not black and white, but in fact abortion is actually pretty straight-forward. It should be the woman's choice.

If you take the stance that that an embryo/fetus/unborn baby (depending on how many weeks the pregnancy has progressed) is a part of the woman's body, then it absolutely is her right to control it.

If you take the position that the embryo/fetus/unborn baby is a separate entity then the government has no right to say that the woman must use her body to support a separate entity, and again the woman has the right to control her body. We don't force parents to give a child a kidney, even if it's certain the child will die without it and will live with it. Why should an embryo, fetus, or unborn child have more claim on a person's body than a living child?

Medical decisions should be made by the people whose health and/or bodies are affected by the decision. If you're not a danger to the public, the public has no right to be involved in your decision.

 

[Stacyhs]

I believe Governor Abbott said the new law will give women another reason to say "no" to sex.

Aye, that's what we want. Sexually repressed females.

Further evidence that you are not wrong:

Former Texas solicitor general Jonathan Mitchell, who played a pivotal role in designing the legal framework of the state’s near-total abortion ban, also argued on behalf of anti-abortion group Texas Right to Life that women would still be able to terminate pregnancies if Roe was overturned by traveling to “wealthy pro-abortion” states like California and New York with the help of “taxpayer subsidies”.

“Women can ‘control their reproductive lives’ without access to abortion; they can do so by refraining from sexual intercourse,” Mitchell wrote in the brief. “One can imagine a scenario in which a woman has chosen to engage in unprotected (or insufficiently protected) sexual intercourse on the assumption that an abortion will be available to her later. But when this court announces the overruling of Roe, that individual can simply change their behavior in response to the court’s decision if she no longer wants to take the risk of an unwanted pregnancy.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ion-ban-jonathan-mitchell-supreme-court-brief

“One can imagine a scenario in which a woman has chosen to engage in unprotected (or insufficiently protected) sexual intercourse on the assumption that an abortion will be available to her later. "

Wow. Just wow. Spoken like only a man could. Abortions are painful both physically and emotionally. This ******* seems to think that getting one is like buying a dress off the internet on the assumption you can always send it back if you don't like it. Or getting a new hair cut on the assumption that it'll grow out if you don't like it. I'd like to slap his face silly.

 

[smartcooky]

I didn't change it; that is the term TX used in their argument. But now you're getting a bit nit picky because a "human being" is the same thing as a "person" legally:


( U.S. Code § 8)


https://subscriptlaw.com/roe-v-wade...HbiRaQV6WgjCaHKIUC0O4bMpVZweH_AxoCi2wQAvD_BwE

Smack, bang wallop!! Take that!!

End of story!

 

[smartcooky]

Further evidence that you are not wrong:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ion-ban-jonathan-mitchell-supreme-court-brief

“One can imagine a scenario in which a woman has chosen to engage in unprotected (or insufficiently protected) sexual intercourse on the assumption that an abortion will be available to her later. "

Wow. Just wow. Spoken like only a man could. Abortions are painful both physically and emotionally. This ******* seems to think that getting one is like buying a dress off the internet on the assumption you can always send it back if you don't like it. Or getting a new hair cut on the assumption that it'll grow out if you don't like it. I'd like to slap his face silly.

Have any of these utter morons heard the expression... "it takes two to tango"?

 

[catsmate]

You're now just being deliberately and obviously argumentative. Like I said, it's your problem. If you don't like it, I really couldn't give a rat's arse so I won't be responding again to your deliberate provocations on this.

He has no rational arguments for his supposed opinions and cannot engage in reasoned discussion, dodging difficult questions.
It's really not worth engaging with such people.
Next he'll be trotting out the "it's all for their own good" argument for restricting terminations, and listing the usual lies.

 

[catsmate]

This is so bizarre I could have sworn we had more than one pro-life person on this board. I wonder where they are all are.

There was another, I haven't seen him in the last week or so.

 

[Suddenly]

It's fascinating that no one on the anti-abortion side is complaining about The State abdicating its responsibility for investigating and prosecuting for what they call murder.

Calling out inconsistencies and hypocrisy in conservative politics is only interesting until one figures out that this is by design.

They have no ideological principles. It is only about maintaining the present power structure by any means necessary. Abortion is useful to them because so much of their base is hung up on it to the point they will ignore any other issues, and because lack of abortion rights increases wealth disparity and denies women autonomy.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I didn't expect an argument or want one from you. I was merely expressing my opinion on the term "pro-life" one time. As I said, I'm not going to get my knickers in a twist if someone uses "pro-life" instead of "anti-choice".

Sorry I probably came across as more confrontational as I meant. I was agreeing with you, the "pro-life" moniker is silly and intellectually dishonest.

I was just saying that since so much semantics was already been bounded about in the discussion I wasn't going to start another one, so just defaulted to the accepted term for clarify even if I'm not particularly a fan of it.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Calling out inconsistencies and hypocrisy in conservative politics is only interesting until one figures out that this is by design.

They have no ideological principles. It is only about maintaining the present power structure by any means necessary. Abortion is useful to them because so much of their base is hung up on it to the point they will ignore any other issues, and because lack of abortion rights increases wealth disparity and denies women autonomy.

In this case I disagree: they very clearly would prefer to live in Russia or Turkey as long as their guy is in charge.
They all want to be deputized and become the Freelance Police and arrest everyone they like.
Many Republicans might be confused, but these people hate the fact that they have to have fair elections.

 

[Suddenly]

In this case I disagree: they very clearly would prefer to live in Russia or Turkey as long as their guy is in charge.
They all want to be deputized and become the Freelance Police and arrest everyone they like.
Many Republicans might be confused, but these people hate the fact that they have to have fair elections.

Well, yes. Democracy and living in a free society are irrelevant to them. It is all about maintaining their power and they are pretty openly trying to transition the US to being one of those states.

This is completely consistent with what I am saying. It is about avoiding a state lacking traditional political and cultural domination of white men of wealth. Abortion is only an issue in that it pumps up the numbers and to a lesser extent because it makes it harder for women to have autonomy over their lives.

I'd bet money that most of the people supporting this law would leave the state to get an abortion if a pregnancy were inconvenient enough.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

I didn't change it; that is the term TX used in their argument. But now you're getting a bit nit picky because a "human being" is the same thing as a "person" legally:


( U.S. Code § 8)


https://subscriptlaw.com/roe-v-wade...HbiRaQV6WgjCaHKIUC0O4bMpVZweH_AxoCi2wQAvD_BwE

Piggybacking a random thought.

If corporations are persons, would dissolving one be murder?

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Isn't wordplay fun?

Maybe, maybe not. But much of this discussion has been over words used.

Is a fertilized egg, a blastosphere, an embryo or a fetus a fully actualized, complete “human being”? Of course not.

But it’s hard to deny that at any of those stages it’s human life. Though it appears some would like to deny even that, that definition only requires two elements.

1) Is that “thing” human? Of course it is. A sampling of DNA from it would clearly show if it was human, chimpanzee, chicken or toad. So, human it is.

2) Is it alive? Of course it is. Even if we choose to label it as a parasite, it’s alive. An obstetrician doing an ultrasound can determine whether that “thing” is still alive or has died. And certainly abortion renders it no longer alive.

So can’t we at least agree that, for better or worse, abortion ends a human life? Remember, I’m both an atheist and opposed to laws depriving a woman of her right to have an abortion. Just don’t try to deny its human life we’re talking about.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Maybe, maybe not. But much of this discussion has been over words used.

Is a fertilized egg, a blastosphere, an embryo or a fetus a fully actualized, complete “human being”? Of course not.

But it’s hard to deny that at any of those stages it’s human life. Though it appears some would like to deny even that, that definition only requires two elements.

1) Is that “thing” human? Of course it is. A sampling of DNA from it would clearly show if it was human, chimpanzee, chicken or toad. So, human it is.

2) Is it alive? Of course it is. Even if we choose to label it as a parasite, it’s alive. An obstetrician doing an ultrasound can determine whether that “thing” is still alive or has died. And certainly abortion renders it no longer alive.

So can’t we at least agree that, for better or worse, abortion ends a human life? Remember, I’m both an atheist and opposed to laws depriving a woman of her right to have an abortion. Just don’t try to deny its human life we’re talking about.

By that definition, so is cancer.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

And also regarding wordplay…

What’s a “baby”? I don’t much care for “Argumentum ad Dictionarium”, but before we scoff at the term being used incorrectly, we can at least look at how it’s commonly used.

Imagine a friend or relative who was pregnant comes to you and says that sadly, she “lost the baby”. In spite of the word chosen, isn’t it 100% clear what she means? If the ultrasound technician says “Let’s see how your baby’s doing today”, does anyone not understand what he or she means? And especially in the first case, who in their right mind would correct the grieving mother and tell her that, technically, it wasn’t a baby that she lost, but just an embryo or a fetus?

I guess my point is that one should not be ridiculed for calling that “thing” a baby. It’s commonplace enough that we understand what they mean, in spite of perhaps it not being 100% accurate.

 

[cosmicaug]

I am just puzzled about this fear of calling a foetus human. It is just a technical category. It is not some voodoo magic formula that instantly converts abortion into murder.

I'll take how to declare embryonic personhood without saying that I am declaring embryonic personhood for $500, Alex!

That "cluster of cells" is just a human being in an early stage of development.

Skin cells are not a human being and they will never grow to be a human being. A foetus is already a human being even if it is not developed sufficiently to survive outside of a womb.

You are equivocating and you are doing it on purpose.

Sperm cells are human is factual. Sperm cells are human beings is not.

 

[JoeMorgue]

And also regarding wordplay…

What’s a “baby”? I don’t much care for “Argumentum ad Dictionarium”, but before we scoff at the term being used incorrectly, we can at least look at how it’s commonly used.

Imagine a friend or relative who was pregnant comes to you and says that sadly, she “lost the baby”. In spite of the word chosen, isn’t it 100% clear what she means? If the ultrasound technician says “Let’s see how your baby’s doing today”, does anyone not understand what he or she means? And especially in the first case, who in their right mind would correct the grieving mother and tell her that, technically, it wasn’t a baby that she lost, but just an embryo ot a fetus?

I guess my point is that one should not be ridiculed for calling that “thing” a baby. It’s commonplace enough that we understand what they mean, in spite of perhaps it not being 100% accurate.

Indeed. I'm invoking of the ancient rites of "You know what people mean by context even if they are using the same words in different context so stop pretending you can't."

Unless you spend your life trying to zip up a small winged insect, everyone just stop throwing dictionaries at each other and pretending you can word **** the language until you've defined yourself as correct.

 

[cosmicaug]

It's fascinating that no one on the anti-abortion side is complaining about The State abdicating its responsibility for investigating and prosecuting for what they call murder.

That's a good point. How would this law hold up if it covered actual murder instead?