• 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.
catsmate said:
May I suggest you ignore (or Ignore) the misogynistic trolling?
Click to expand...

Or, radical idea, we get rid of the misogynistic troll so we don't have to ignore him or get mother henned over not ignoring him.

He's on the board. Engaging with him should be the default. If we can't do that, he shouldn't be here.

For the 50th billionth time (no I will not get over this or drop it) if someone is only here to be ignored, they shouldn't be here.
 
smartcooky said:
Your sadface does not contravene the science!

https://www.reading.ac.uk/news-archive/press-releases/pr9938.html

"The placenta uses a cloaking device similar to that used by parasites to avoid detection by the mother's immune system. MRC funded scientists looking to develop a diagnostic test for pre-eclampsia, a major and potentially fatal cause of fetal and maternal illness, made the amazing discovery which could have far reaching implications."

"What we found next was most unusual. It appeared the placental NKB contained the molecule phosphocholine which is used by filarial nematodes, a type of parasitic worm to escape host immune systems! I have had two or three 'Eureka!' moments in my career. This one, at 63, I am happy to bow out on."

"The human foetus and placenta have a different genotype from the mother. The foetus has been described before as acting in a parasitic way: it avoids rejection by the mother and exerts considerable influence over her metabolism for its own benefit, in particular diverting blood and nutrients. Now it would appear the similarities go much further. Although the mode of attachment of the phosphocoline (PC) is different in the mammalian placenta, its presence is startling. "

​
Click to expand...

The female body can also react to a pregnancy as if it had to fight an infection, that's why you have an issue with Rh negative mothers with Rh positive foetuses and their second and subsequent pregnancies. During the 1st pregnancy blood cells from the foetus pass into the mother's body, the mother's body treats them as a foreign cell and starts to attack them. The first pregnancy primes the mother's body to develop antibodies, if the second and subsequent pregnancies are also Rh positive foetuses these can pass into the foetus through the placenta.
 
Last edited:
Stacyhs said:
This is the Great Problem with the abortion issue: when does an egg/sperm combo become a "human being? Science can't tell us because it's based on empirical evidence and repeatable results.
Click to expand...
Science can. It's about a year after birth.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
There's also that part about spilling your seed on the ground being a sin. That means men who masturbate are wasting that sperm and that is a sin. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

I think you are overgeneralizing. God hates men who masturbate (practice coitus interruptus, really) while there's a brother's widow available for impregnation. The passage is not relevant to the more general case.
 
Well, the argument from the more honest Christian Cults is that abortion/masturbation/birth control is bad because you owe The Lord a "quiver full" of offspring, to be used as cannon fodder in holy wars.
But we all know it's to hasten the arrival of Case Nightmare Green.
 
Hellbound said:
I think what they didn't consider is that, if this flies, the left can take advantage of the loophole too.
Click to expand...

Another thinking that this is one clever trick that will backfire. :rolleyes:

Not going to happen. Not going to be allowed to happen.
 
acbytesla said:
It has long been believed that this was an effective wedge issue as long as it was never actually made into law. That the GOP has always had an unholy alliance with religious zealots. They want the issue as long as they don't have to defend the consequences of such a law.
Click to expand...

Skeptic Ginger said:
I hope folks give that nonsense up, ignore the trollish exchange and get back to the new stuff. The TX GOP is sorry what they wished for. They are great with slogans: outlaw abortion; repeal the ACA. But when they get what they wished for, whoops! That wasn't supposed to happen. :p
Click to expand...

High ranking Republican politicians may not be making hay out of this right now because they aren't 100% sure of what political consequences there may be for them in this;... but there aren't any. They are old, stodgy white guys who are still learning the Trump presidency lessons. They still can't fully believe that there's nothing that they can't get away with. They nevertheless also know that they should not speak against draconian abortion restrictions or try to promote some mythical middle of the road third way to not drive out pro-choice folk (and they aren't speaking out that way, they are just keeping their mouth shut).

The modern Republican voter is, for most purposes, a single issue voter. That issue is loyalty to The Party. If The Party says a thing is good, that thing is good. The leadership (Republican politicians at all levels, really) is more afraid of the Religious right voters (who are seen as possible exceptions to party loyalty tests if pushed too hard) than of the mythical pro-choice Republican women voters. They are correct.

There's even a small subset of the Republican electorate who'll go on forums such as this one strenuously denying party affiliation & pretending they would be almost as likely to vote for Democrats (if only Democrats tuned their platform just right); but who will, in practice, go for the guy with the R after their name every time (at best they might vote third party in a safe Republican district). These folk are not going to change their mind on who to vote for because of abortion. These folk are more likely to (if needed), change their minds about abortion to better align with The Party that the other way around (or they'll simply keep claiming to be pro-choice while still voting otherwise).

In any case, giving political power to the party representing the most votes is soo 20th century. It's a more worthy Republican project to fix that shortcoming of our system than to instead worry about what might happen when the dog finally catches up to the car (again, nothing will happen).

There are no consequences to banning abortion in post-reality politics.
 
Stacyhs said:
This is the Great Problem with the abortion issue: when does an egg/sperm combo become a "human being? Science can't tell us because it's based on empirical evidence and repeatable results. But no zygote, embryo, or fetus can tell us anything. But religion 'can' because it's based solely on faith, what some "holy book" and/or religious leaders decide is true. And they can't even agree which is evidence that they don't know jack crap more than anyone else.

That a 'soul' exists is not based on any empirical evidence. There is nothing to test or observe. It's 100% a matter of belief. Some think our laws should be based on these religious beliefs even though they are not based on anything but belief and others may/do not agree with those beliefs. That is the ultimate conceit. This is what I believe; therefore you must live by my beliefs rather than your own. After all, I'm right!

My personal opinion is that a fetus is not a baby until it has a fully functioning brain and is viable. Until then, it is just in the process of becoming a baby just as a seed eventually become a flower. But the difference between me and the so called pro-life people is that I recognize that is MY belief and not necessarily THEIRS. But, unlike them, I would never tell a woman that she HAS to have an abortion. But, damn, they sure feel they have the right to tell others to live by their beliefs.
Click to expand...

We prefer, generally, either/or, mutually exclusive options, so it's easy to latch onto the idea that something is completely a person/human/baby or not at all a person/human/baby, and conception provides that on/off trigger. It's ontologically clear.

But what a difficult ontology when you see gestation as a gradual, developmental process. There's nothing clear, like conception, by which to draw the line (which is why Roe is a pretty good decision, drawing the line when there's not much guiding you).
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Every argument you can make why a fertilized egg should have the protection of a human because it's going to become a human you can also make of sperm.
Click to expand...

Every sperm is sacred
Every sperm is great
If a sperm is wasted
God gets quite irate
 
cosmicaug said:
I think you are overgeneralizing. God hates men who masturbate (practice coitus interruptus, really) while there's a brother's widow available for impregnation. The passage is not relevant to the more general case.
Click to expand...
It's even more specific: Onan willingly porked his sister-in-law but pulled out, presumably so they could continue porking. How this got turned from a very specific technical violation of a legal statute to "thou shalt not choke thy chicken" is an interesting study in theological expansionism.
 
If a human had the brain activity that a 6 week into development embrofetugyote has it would be clinically brain dead.

We have to pretend there's some deep "omg but where does life begin" debate because what people are really saying is the difference is God put a soul in the widdle unborn baby.
 
JoeMorgue said:
If a human had the brain activity that a 6 week into development embrofetugyote has it would be clinically brain dead.

We have to pretend there's some deep "omg but where does life begin" debate because what people are really saying is the difference is God put a soul in the widdle unborn baby.
Click to expand...

god puts the soul into the baby with it's first breath.
That's the Gospel Truth.
 
JoeMorgue said:
We have to pretend there's some deep "omg but where does life begin" debate because what people are really saying is the difference is God put a soul in the widdle unborn baby.
Click to expand...

For our purposes, lfe doesn't begin. That some focus on conception merely reflects society's ploidy based prejudices.
 
I find it humorous that some people think that those who aren't radically pro-choice must be religious.
 
Warp12 said:
I find it humorous that some people think that those who aren't radically pro-choice must be religious.
Click to expand...

That's not true. Some of them just hate women. Others are just trolls.

They are all wrong.

Now pro-life as a social/political movement wouldn't exist without religion to be sure.
 
They needent be, but it certainly helps.

I mean, outside of the ridiculous idea of souls, why else would someone declare a cluster of cells to be a human? What other reason could there be for being so woefully, intentionally wrong?
 
psionl0 said:
The word "parasite" has negative connotations associated with it and if you use the same word to describe a foetus then even if it is scientifically accurate, you are bringing the same negative connotations against the foetus.


These are valid arguments and bringing the word "parasite" into it doesn't enhance them in any way.
Click to expand...

If people infer a negative connotation because I stated a biological fact, that's not my problem. Nor is it going to affect their opinion either way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom