• 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.
The disagreement we're having is one side pretending the problem is any one specific term when it's not.
 
Stacyhs said:
Warbler, the disagreement was over the use of the word "human". A tumor is made up of 'human' cells just as a zygote is made up of 'human' cells.
Click to expand...

Is a cancer cell a human cell, though? I'm not a doctor, so I don't can't say for certain, but but I've never considered them human cells. They certainly aren't normal human cells.


Stacyhs said:
By the way, your image did not post correctly. You can always check if an image or video is going to post correctly by clicking on "preview post" after clicking on Go Advanced below the reply box. The way it will post is in the box above the reply box. If you need to correct something, you can edit in the reply box and then post it.
Click to expand...

I think it did post correctly. I mean I am seeing a pic of a bady in my post. What are you seeing?
 
We've already been up and down the "But it's a potential human!" road. We aren't going to recap. Read the thread.
 
JoeMorgue said:
You can't "but it's morality" a clump of cells into being a human being.
Click to expand...

perhaps at the beginning, near conception, you can argue that it is just a clump of cells, but I think it obvious eventually before it is born, it becomes something that you can't really argue is just clump of cells. Just take a look at pics of fully developed fetuses nearing birth.
 
Warbler said:
perhaps at the beginning, near conception, you can argue that it is just a clump of cells, but I think it obvious eventually before it is born, it becomes something that you can't really argue is just clump of cells. Just take a look at pics of fully developed fetuses nearing birth.
Click to expand...

1. Again we've already had the "But it's a potential human!" debate, I'm not going through the motions for your benefit.

2. The other big pro-lifer in this thread already feel for the "You can't tell the difference between a human and elephant" trick so I'm not pulling that one again either, but you're argument is nonsensical.
 
Warbler said:
perhaps at the beginning, near conception, you can argue that it is just a clump of cells, but I think it obvious eventually before it is born, it becomes something that you can't really argue is just clump of cells. Just take a look at pics of fully developed fetuses nearing birth.
Click to expand...

How's it look at 6 weeks, the limit that Texas has set for latest legal abortion?
 
JoeMorgue said:
We've already been up and down the "But it's a potential human!" road. We aren't going to recap. Read the thread.
Click to expand...

Sorry for not wanting to read almost 50 pages of a thread, before taking part in the thread. You realize how long that would take, right?
 
Warbler said:
Is a cancer cell a human cell, though? I'm not a doctor, so I don't can't say for certain, but but I've never considered them human cells. They certainly aren't normal human cells.




I think it did post correctly. I mean I am seeing a pic of a bady in my post. What are you seeing?
Click to expand...

See my ETA above in my original reply.

And yes, a tumor is made up of human cells that grow uncontrollably.

Cancer is a disease in which some of the body’s cells grow uncontrollably and spread to other parts of the body.
Click to expand...
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/understanding/what-is-cancer
 
Ah. So is this the part of the argument where I post a harlequin icthyosis baby and say, sometimes they come out like this instead of your cute one! In case everybody has forgotten what sorts of things inspire later term abortions.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
How's it look at 6 weeks, the limit that Texas has set for latest legal abortion?
Click to expand...

I am not exactly sure how far developed the fetus is at 6 weeks. For all I know it does resemble a clump of cells for a some amount of time after 6 weeks. Also may be different with each fetus. Some might develop faster/slower than others.
 
smartcooky said:
The picture is oversized and breaks the forum formatting. Either resize the image, or use [IMGW] tags to limit its size.
Click to expand...

I not was aware I broke forum formatting. I have not heard of this IMGW tags before. I will try to make the pic smaller.
 
Last edited:
Warbler said:
Sorry for not wanting to read almost 50 pages of a thread, before taking part in the thread. You realize how long that would take, right?
Click to expand...

I don't blame you for not wanting to read the entire thread first. You're new here and I think a bit of leeway should be given. :)

To recap for you: the anti-pro-choice argument is that a 'baby' is a human being from conception. The pro-choice argument is that while, human, it is not a human being until it becomes a viable entity . Here is a good explanation of the SC's decisions regarding this:

The United States Supreme Court stated in Roe v. Wade (1973) that viability (i.e., the "interim point at which the fetus becomes ... potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid"[22]) "is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."[22] The 28-week definition became part of the "trimester framework" marking the point at which the "compelling state interest" (under the doctrine of strict scrutiny) in preserving potential life became possibly controlling, permitting states to freely regulate and even ban abortion after the 28th week.[22] The subsequent Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) modified the "trimester framework," permitting the states to regulate abortion in ways not posing an "undue burden" on the right of the mother to an abortion at any point before viability; on account of technological developments between 1973 and 1992, viability itself was legally dissociated from the hard line of 28 weeks, leaving the point at which "undue burdens" were permissible variable depending on the technology of the time and the judgment of the state legislatures.
Click to expand...
 
Paul2 said:
W12, what would accountability look like in the following:

There is some small percentage of women who know correctly that they will never, ever want a child, even if they became pregnant and even if they delivered the child. Also, besides abstinence, no form of birth control is 100% effective.

That means that there will be some small number of women who don't, have never, and never will want a child but will become pregnant unless they are abstinent.

Unless you're willing to say that such women should be abstain from sex throughout their entire lives (because no form of birth control is 100% effective), what form would accountability look like for those women who did use birth control as best as would be possible, yet it still failed and they became pregnant?
Click to expand...


It might look like an early term abortion. Of course, some will decide to carry a baby to term, even under these circumstances. I mean, if you have taken precautions (and even if you haven't) and a pregnancy occurs, the next decision is whether to carry to term. Being personally accountable is to make that decision as early as possible.

I don't support this TX law, because 6 weeks is earlier than many women will even know they are pregnant. I have stated repeatedly that I understand that things occur in life that require a reactive response. I understand that birth control is not perfect, and I am not suggesting that women abstain from sex.
 
Last edited:
Warbler said:
I was aware I broke forum formatting. I have not heard of this IMGW tags before. I will try to make the pic smaller.
Click to expand...


That's a Rule 6 violation

Here, this is how it works

[imgw=250]https://www.dropbox.com/s/4hif0xqsntotn7a/BuickGSX%281970%29.jpg?raw=1[/imgw]


[imgw=350]https://www.dropbox.com/s/4hif0xqsntotn7a/BuickGSX%281970%29.jpg?raw=1[/imgw]

Quote my post and preview it to look at how I did that

The 250 and 350 in the tags denote the pixel width of the image
 
Last edited:
Thanks! I have fixed it. Oh, and I meant to say I was NOT aware I broke forum formatting.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom