• 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.
Stacyhs said:
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. :deadhorse
Click to expand...

What do you think a reasonable gestation limitation might be, if the TX law must be changed? Where do we draw the line, in your opinion?
 
Warp12 said:
Referring to a 23-week fetus as a "parasite" and/or "non-viable" are just ways to dehumanize the baby. I am pretty sure you know this.

Fortunately, statistically, not many of these "parasites" are aborted at that point or beyond. Probably still too many, though.

Now, this TX law is facing some serious scrutiny...as it should be. But, I wonder, at what length of term a restriction would be acceptable, to some? It could come down to that, I suppose.
Click to expand...

Again you refer to a an embryo or a fetus as a baby despite the obvious difference.

By defining it such you are attempting to humanize something that isn't. There is no evidence that it is more than a collection of cells that could grow into a baby. A ten week old fertilised egg is not even a fetus. It is an embryo.

BTW, there isn't actually anything in the Bible that says that defines it as a person. In fact, Jewish law actually points in the opposite direction.
 
acbytesla said:
Again you refer to a an embryo or a fetus as a baby despite the obvious difference.

By defining it such you are attempting to humanize something that isn't. There is no evidence that it is more than a collection of cells that could grow into a baby. A ten week old fertilised egg is not even a fetus. It is an embryo.

BTW, there isn't actually anything in the Bible that says that defines it as a person. In fact, Jewish law actually points in the opposite direction.
Click to expand...

Stacyhs said:
Some people need a course on reading comprehension here.
Click to expand...

Right? He is talking about 10 weeks, while quoting my statement of 23 weeks. Weird.

Also, who cares what the "Bible" says?? Now we have to add "Jewish Law" to the "parasite" and "witches" bin of wild references, I guess.
 
Last edited:
Warp12 said:
Right? He is talking about 10 weeks, while quoting my statement of 23 weeks. Weird.

Also, who cares what the "Bible" says?? Now we have to add "Jewish Law" to the "parasite" and "witches" bin of wild references, I guess.
Click to expand...

Jewish law is the biblical law. BTW, there is nothing in the New Testament that contradicts it.

And again, what's wrong with Roe v Wade? It makes it legal through the second trimester and offers extensions under certain circumstances. Third trimester abortions are extremely rare.

This is making a problem where there is none.
 
Last edited:
Why are you still using the word "baby" when it isn't appropriate? A foetus isn't a baby no matter how may times you whine or how sad it makes you.


As for your obvious "gotcha" attempt I would say once it becomes viable outside the womb unless carrying to term endangers the life of the mother in which case third trimester late term abortion is fine by me.

The Texas law shouldn't be "changed" it should be stricken.
 
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.
 
JoeMorgue said:
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.
Click to expand...

As best I can tell, most people with differing views are ran off from the board. Unless they want to be passive victims, that is.

I am not sure what "pro-life" or "pro-choice" definitively means, these days. I am not completely opposed to first trimester abortions, although I really wish more of a focus was put on accountability (and not just the woman, believe it or not...I always laugh when I hear "noble" men argue in favor of relaxed abortion law). Instead, I have to listen to people talk about "parasites" and "viability". It is hard to not have this kind of talk polarize my opinion.

I am trying to at least stay somewhat reasonable by saying, this current TX law is unacceptable.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
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.
Click to expand...

Since some people are so concerned with the "connotations" that words may have, I'd say "pro-life" qualifies for that concern. This implies that those who are not "pro-life" must be "anti-life" which connotes a moral judgment. I much prefer the terms "pro-choice" and "anti-choice" but I'm not going to have a conniption fit over its use.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
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?
Click to expand...
That "cluster of cells" is just a human being in an early stage of development.

Why is it so important to deny that it is in any way human? Just because you buy into the anti-abortionist argument that if it is human then abortion is "murder"? If so then you are giving too much credence to their argument.
 
Stacyhs said:
Since some people are so concerned with the "connotations" that words may have, I'd say "pro-life" qualifies for that concern. This implies that those who are not "pro-life" must be "anti-life" which connotes a moral judgment. I much prefer the terms "pro-choice" and "anti-choice" but I'm not going to have a conniption fit over its use.
Click to expand...

I've had my say in the past about this one dumb-ass debate co-opting terms as vague and generic and "choice" and "life" but they are the terms most associated with the debate and I don't feel like arguing the language right now.
 
psionl0 said:
That "cluster of cells" is just a human being in an early stage of development.

Why is it so important to deny that it is in any way human? Just because you buy into the anti-abortionist argument that if it is human then abortion is "murder"? If so then you are giving too much credence to their argument.
Click to expand...

Because a cluster of cells is no more a human being than a seed is a flower. It's a potential human being. By calling a cluster of cells a human being, it confers on it the status of a person which it isn't. You can't sell an engine, a stick shift, a steering wheel and a brake pad together and call it a car.
 
JoeMorgue said:
I've had my say in the past about this one dumb-ass debate co-opting terms as vague and generic and "choice" and "life" but they are the terms most associated with the debate and I don't feel like arguing the language right now.
Click to expand...

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".
 
Warp12 said:
As best I can tell, most people with differing views are ran off from the board. Unless they want to be passive victims, that is.

I am not sure what "pro-life" or "pro-choice" definitively means, these days. I am not completely opposed to first trimester abortions, although I really wish more of a focus was put on accountability (and not just the woman, believe it or not...I always laugh when I hear "noble" men argue in favor of relaxed abortion law). Instead, I have to listen to people talk about "parasites" and "viability". It is hard to not have this kind of talk polarize my opinion.

I am trying to at least stay somewhat reasonable by saying, this current TX law is unacceptable.
Click to expand...

You don't know what pro-life or pro-choice means? BOLLOCKS! You can easily get those definitions by just "googling."

I'm pro choice and that means a woman has full autonomy over her own body. She can choose to terminate a pregnancy or see that pregnancy through and give birth to a baby. There is no nobility involved. I don't think the State has a legitimate interest in her sexual health and should butt out.

What exactly do you mean by accountability? That 16 year olds must become parents because they had sex? That their entire future should be sacrificed because they were horny? Is that what you mean by accountability? That a girl should have to risk her life carrying and giving birth because you think that is what is needed?

And just because you don't like the words parasite and viability we shouldn't stop using them. BTW, Roe v Wade uses the term "viability".
Take your complaint to the I could give a crap department.
 
psionl0 said:
That "cluster of cells" is just a human being in an early stage of development.

Why is it so important to deny that it is in any way human? Just because you buy into the anti-abortionist argument that if it is human then abortion is "murder"? If so then you are giving too much credence to their argument.
Click to expand...

I don't deny they are human cells. So are the millions of skin cells that we exfoliate daily.

And your point is?

Are you suggesting that these cells are more than that? That they are sentient in some way?
 
Warp12 said:
As best I can tell, most people with differing views are ran off from the board.
Click to expand...
That happens sometimes, but I think you'll find it's not uncommon for them to "leave" (or be banned), only to warm up a decade-old sockpuppet from cold storage and keep on posting the same old hate at their usual clip.
 
Beelzebuddy said:
That happens sometimes, but I think you'll find it's not uncommon for them to "leave" (or be banned), only to warm up a decade-old sockpuppet from cold storage and keep on posting the same old hate at their usual clip.
Click to expand...

I'm really just looking at the overall groupthink vs dissenting opinion ratio.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom