Texas bans abortion.

[Stacyhs]

Because, the concept of murdering a child by choice has nothing to do with being forced to do so? Trying to decode your riddle

Trying to decode what the hell that means.

 

[Aridas]

Trying to decode what the hell that means.

Sounds like an assumption that you were making a significantly different argument than you actually did.

 

[Stacyhs]

Sounds like an assumption that you were making a significantly different argument than you actually did.

Spinning just ain't for spiders!

 

[Hellbound]

Spinning just ain't for spiders!

 

[psionl0]

Did you know that the kangaroo, one of the imaginary god's creatures, can abort on demand if needed due to some external stressor?

Ask a Zookeeper- Sacrificing BabiesApparently some religious people look at this and declare it doesn't apply to humans.

Some monkeys: The Bruce effect – why some pregnant monkeys abort when new males arrive

Wow, I can't believe that nobody saw the tongue icon (I was trying to convey that my post was "tongue in cheek").

My point was that equating a sperm to a foetus is silly.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Wow, I can't believe that nobody saw the tongue icon (I was trying to convey that my post was "tongue in cheek").

My point was that equating a sperm to a foetus is silly.

How so?
Either can become a human under the right conditions, for get ejected because of natural events.

Every explanation on how they are different requires the kind of science most abortion critics claim to reject.

 

[Lurch]

If they can't abide by the law, they brought it on themselves. Plenty of proactive measures out there. Not so different from covid, tbh...personal accountability and common sense. Preach.

That's easy to say when you're male. I wonder how your tune would go if you were female...

I get the impression that where 'permanent' birth control measures are concerned, women are under more pressure to undertake a tubal ligation than are men to have a vasectomy. At least I've encountered that attitude more than the reverse.

Unless she's your wife or daughter, men have no business butting in where a woman's reproductive system is involved.

 

[Hellbound]

That's easy to say when you're male. I wonder how your tune would go if you were female...

I get the impression that where 'permanent' birth control measures are concerned, women are under more pressure to undertake a tubal ligation than are men to have a vasectomy. At least I've encountered that attitude more than the reverse.

Unless she's your wife or daughter, men have no business butting in where a woman's reproductive system is involved.

Even then it's not an unlimited right to butt in, I'd think.

 

[Stacyhs]

That's easy to say when you're male. I wonder how your tune would go if you were female...

I get the impression that where 'permanent' birth control measures are concerned, women are under more pressure to undertake a tubal ligation than are men to have a vasectomy. At least I've encountered that attitude more than the reverse.

Unless she's your wife or daughter, men have no business butting in where a woman's reproductive system is involved.

Men have been controlling, or trying to control, women's reproductive system ever since they discovered their 'pride and joy' had something to do with making babies. Control that and they insure their offspring are really theirs.

 

[Stacyhs]

Even then it's not an unlimited right to butt in, I'd think.

True. Ultimately it's HER body, not his.

 

[Hellbound]

True. Ultimately it's HER body, not his.

Exactly. I might take a shotgun to her boyfriend, but she makes her own decisions

 

[psionl0]

How so?
Either can become a human under the right conditions, for get ejected because of natural events.

Every explanation on how they are different requires the kind of science most abortion critics claim to reject.

You could say the same thing about a culture in a petri dish if you really wanted to stretch it. At some point you have to say "stop!"

The argument is about whether a woman has the right to deny a foetus the protection of her womb and not whether there is any moral obligation to preserve a sperm or ovum.

 

[Stacyhs]

You could say the same thing about a culture in a petri dish if you really wanted to stretch it. At some point you have to say "stop!"

The argument is about whether a woman has the right to deny a foetus the protection of her womb and not whether there is any moral obligation to preserve a sperm or ovum.

Or put another way, whether a woman has the right to expel an unwanted, partially formed parasite from her uterus.

 

[Lurch]

So the woman is accountable to herself? Then why is a "fries cook" like yourself butting in?

I know, right? Outta one side of that kind of male Karen's mouth comes, "The woman is the creator of life, and has an awesome responsibility." Then outta the other side of the fetid orifice comes, "But I have the right to control women's reproduction."

 

[Stacyhs]

What the hell is a 'fries cook'? It's 'fry cook'. Unless, of course the only thing he cooks are french fries aka 'freedom fries' .

 

[Hellbound]

I know, right? Outta one side of that kind of male Karen's mouth comes, "The woman is the creator of life, and has an awesome responsibility." Then outta the other side of the fetid orifice comes, "But I have the right to control women's reproduction."

You can't have a baby factory without a factory manager. Just basic logic, really.

 

[psionl0]

Or put another way, whether a woman has the right to expel an unwanted, partially formed parasite from her uterus.

Emotionalizing the question like this adds absolutely nothing to the debate.

 

[psionl0]

What the hell is a 'fries cook'? It's 'fry cook'. Unless, of course the only thing he cooks are french fries aka 'freedom fries' .

Either way, it is still a "warped" argument.

 

[Stacyhs]

Emotionalizing the question like this adds absolutely nothing to the debate.

That's not emotionalizing anything. Those are facts. A <24 week gestation fetus is only partially formed, feeds off the host, and it cannot live outside the host body. That's a parasite.

 

[Aridas]

Just to put this out there, in some ways, I am arguably a horrible person. Neither the baby murder nor women having x level of control over their body arguments actually sways my opinion much on the topic.

Other factors factor into my position fairly strongly, though. For example -

Making abortion legal improved public health: overall maternal mortality dropped dramatically. In New York City, maternal mortality fell 45 percent the year after the state legalized abortion. "In 1971," city health officials reported, "New York City experienced its lowest maternal mortality rate on record." California and North Carolina reported similar improvement.[4] Septic abortion wards closed. As a public-health measure, the legalization of abortion represented an improvement in maternal mortality that ranks with the invention of antisepsis and antibiotics.[5] In countries where abortion remains illegal, abortion is a significant contributor to maternal morbidity and mortality.[6] The open availability of safe abortions in the U.S. benefited in particular low-income women and women of color, who had had the least access to skilled practitioners and were most likely to be injured or die as a result of illegal abortion. In New York City, over half the women who had abortions after legalization belonged to minority groups.[7]

The legalization of abortion strengthened patients' rights. The recognition of a fundamental right of women to make decisions about pregnancy reinforced the rights of patients to be protected against coercive medical treatment and to make decisions regarding their own medical care. Women's reproductive rights challenge male supremacy uniquely, but patients' rights and reproductive rights alike challenge medical authority. Both seek greater medical and legal acknowledgment of patients' decision making and autonomy. Yet this is not simply a battle between doctors and patients, because, as we have seen, the medical profession is not uniform in its thinking or practice. Indeed, this study has uncovered a long tradition of physicians listening to and learning from patients and treating health care as a partnership. A significant segment of the medical profession prefers a more egalitarian, rather than authoritarian, mode of physician-patient relations.

<snip>

Finally, the legalization of abortion strengthened civil liberties. As the state pressed the medical profession into investigating illegal abortion, due process rights guaranteed citizens under the Constitution were eroded. When doctors and hospital staff questioned patients at the behest of the state, physicians became police, patients became suspects. Medical surveillance of patients—whether for the progress of pregnancy, the use of illegal drugs, or the presence of stigmatized infectious diseases such as HIV—compromises constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure by the state as well as the rights to bodily integrity and privacy. Furthermore, the acceptance of this policing function by medical personnel diminishes respect for patients, damages patient confidentiality, and threatens the health of the patients they serve. As public-health professionals understand, making it dangerous to present a particular malady to health-care workers results in people delaying or avoiding care and risking their lives in order to avoid punitive measures. Using health-care professionals to serve as the state's investigators is dangerous public policy.

<snip>

The women whose reproductive rights are most abridged and vulnerable to attack are teenagers and low-income women. The New Right expresses particular hostility toward sexually active teenage girls, whom they perceive as beyond parental, specifically paternal, control.[12] This is a change; the plight of pregnant single women garnered the greatest sympathy at the turn of the century and evoked sympathy among many reformers in the 1960s. Single women were then perceived as victims; today's antiabortion movement blames them for being sexual actors. Conservative attacks on "welfare"[13] and abortion are related, for both seek to control women and their reproduction. The efforts to dismantle welfare and to require that minors notify their parents or obtain their consent for abortion are both intended to hurt young women and to punish them for their sexual behavior. In calling for an end to Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), or for mandatory sterilization or contraception for poor women, conservatives attempt to stop one group of women (stereotyped as poor black women) from bearing children. In restricting abortion use, they attempt to force a different group (middle-class white women) to bear children. The racial stereotypes obscure the fact that both black and white women use legal abortion and social assistance; few are teenagers. Conservatives hope that making pregnancy a punishment for sex will make young (white) women either forego sex or enter marriage. Sexism, racism, and elitism are embedded in the twin assault on welfare and abortion.

In short, the effects on society are what sway me the most, with my opinion on the validity of underlying purpose of the pushers of each side factoring in to a lesser degree.