Texas bans abortion.

Status
Not open for further replies.
acbytesla said:
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.
Click to expand...


:thumbsup::thumbsup: on both sentences.
 
Stacyhs said:
:thumbsup::thumbsup: on both sentences.
Click to expand...

It just annoys the hell out of me that Warp is complaining about the viability argument. This is exactly why the Court in Roe v Wade set up the the three trimester delineation.

To balance women's rights to privacy and state governments' interests in protecting mothers' health and prenatal life, the Court created a framework based on the three trimesters of pregnancy. During the first trimester, when it was believed that the procedure was safer than childbirth, the Court ruled that a state government could place no restrictions on women's ability to choose to abort pregnancies other than imposing minimal medical safeguards, such as requiring abortions to be performed by licensed physicians.[6] From the second trimester on, the Court ruled that evidence of increasing risks to the mother's health gave states a compelling interest that allowed them to enact medical regulations on abortion procedures so long as they were reasonable and "narrowly tailored" to protecting mothers' health.[6] From the beginning of the third trimester on—the point at which a fetus became viable under the medical technology available in the early 1970s—the Court ruled that a state's interest in protecting prenatal life became so compelling that it could legally prohibit all abortions except where necessary to protect the mother's life or health.[6]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
Click to expand...
 
Stacyhs said:
You can't sell an engine, a stick shift, a steering wheel and a brake pad together and call it a car.
Click to expand...
You can if it is a self assembling car.

acbytesla said:
I don't deny they are human cells. So are the millions of skin cells that we exfoliate daily.
Click to expand...
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.

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.
 
psionl0 said:
You can if it is a self assembling car.


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.

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.
Click to expand...

I never said skin cells are a human being. I said that the cells were human. My organs are human tissue for sure, but to say they are a human being is a gross exaggeration.

A fetus is human, it is not a human being. Regardless if it will become one if carried to term and is delivered.
 
psionl0 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Again :rolleyes: The Texas law that is the subject of THIS THREAD incorrectly refers to an embryo, which is a near formless collection of cells, as a foetus. They use this incorrect medical terminology in order to claim the existence of a "foetal heartbeat" at six weeks, when there it is in fact NO heart even detectable. No heart, No heartbeat... its that simple.

You are using the same incorrect medical terminology to justify your position.
 
Warp12 said:
What do you think a reasonable gestation limitation might be.... Where do we draw the line, in your opinion?
Click to expand...

During the first trimester, up to week 12, a woman should have the absolute, unconditional right to have an abortion. 100% her choice.

During the second trimester, week 13 to week 28, a woman should still be allowed to have an abortion, particularly (but not exclusively) if continuing the pregnancy carried some associated health risk for her.

During the third trimester, week 29 to week 40 or beyond (the point of viability) and abortion should not be allowed unless continuing the pregnancy carried serious risk to her life or health.

(I think I read I read something like this somewhere, perhaps in a Law book/website)

Therefore, I would have 28 weeks as a reasonable gestational limit.

Warp12 said:
...if the TX law must be changed?
Click to expand...

Its should be changed, it should be struck down.

Changing the limit from six weeks to 28 weeks would not make the Texas law any better. This Law effectively creates government sponsored vigilantes and bounty hunters to pursue victims with lawsuits, and the victims pay all the costs even if they win (thereby re-vicitimizing them). THAT is the problem with this law - it cannot be fixed, it is bad law, and unconstitutional.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
acbytesla said:
It just annoys the hell out of me that Warp is complaining about the viability argument. This is exactly why the Court in Roe v Wade set up the the three trimester delineation.
Click to expand...

I figure that I'll also state that I'm just fine with the balance between the different concerns that Roe v Wade strikes.
 
smartcooky said:
You are using the same incorrect medical terminology to justify your position.
Click to expand...
I haven't taken a pro or anti position on abortion (other than that it is not within my authority to say "yea" or "nae" to somebody seeking one).

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.
 
psionl0 said:
I am just puzzled about this fear of calling a foetus human a person, a human being. It is just a technical category. It is not some voodoo magic formula that instantly converts abortion into murder.
Click to expand...

Its not fear, it is simply acceptance of medical and scientific fact.

A foetus is not a person/human being, nor is an embryo...... and an embryo is neither a foetus nor a person/human being.
 
Last edited:
Calling something "a" human has dramatic legal consequences.
And even just calling it human (without the a) makes life a whole lot more difficult if you are working in a cell culture lab.

So there is a lot to be said about keeping the term as far away from non/pre-viable biological entities as possible.
Why not call it simian instead?
 
smartcooky said:
Its not fear, it is simply acceptance of medical and scientific fact.

A foetus is not a person/human being, nor is an embryo...... and an embryo is neither a foetus nor a person/human being.
Click to expand...
When the dictionary fails you, just change the words in somebody's argument. :rolleyes:
 
psionl0 said:
I am just puzzled about this fear of calling a foetus human.
Click to expand...

A human is a person, and a fetus isn't a person, so it's a matter of terminological accuracy. A fetus has the potential of being a human, which is not quite the same thing as being one. Hasn't this been covered already?
 
psionl0 said:
When the dictionary fails you, just change the words in somebody's argument. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Nope, you just used the incorrect term

You are claiming that others are saying that a foetus is "not human". Literally no-one has said that, and acbytesla actually explained this to you....

"A fetus is human, it is not a human being"

Saying that people fear calling a foetus "human" is misstating what they are actually saying. Then using your characterisation to arguing against it? Well, there is a name for that... we call it a "strawman"


ETA:

For the avoidance of doubt...

https://pediaa.com/difference-between-human-being-and-being-human/

'human being' is generally defined as being a member of Homo sapiens race,

'being human' means displaying characteristics that are unique to human beings
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom