Texas bans abortion.

[Shalamar]

third time, she doesn't it is matter of having to choose between two rights: the woman's right bodily autonomy and the fetus' right to live.

It absolutely is a choice.

At what point during a womans pregnancy should she lose rights?

it is not a matter of the "potential human" having more value than an actual human. We are not talking about choosing between life of the mother and the life the fetus. We are talking about choosing between the right to bodily autonomy and the right of the fetus to live.

You says it's not about choosing, then say we are choosing.

At what point during a womans pregnancy should she lose rights?

 

[Paul2]

Agreed. Do not conflate "held accountable" with the concept of "personal accountability".

What’s the difference in the case I mentioned? I don’t get that at all.

 

[smartcooky]

what about the fetus? what about it's rights and life?

It doesn't have any.

I agree, they don't lose rights upon becoming pregnant. But maybe at some point after conception and before birth, the fetus gains rights.

Nope, it gains rights when its born.

If the medical decision only affected the woman, I would agree it would be between her and her doctor or doctors. But it also affects the fetus.

Irrelevant. People have rights, the fetus does not.

I don't think saying so dehumanizes women.

A bunch of old grey men forcing their unwanted, arbitrary medical decisions of a woman doesn't dehumanize that woman?

Got it!

 

[Aridas]

You forgot about putting baby up for adoption, which basically takes care about the concern finances, lack of home, lack of stable environment, and lack of ability to care for the child.

Just to poke at a factor being neglected here - the pregnancy itself is a serious burden on the pregnant person in a number of ways, some of which can last long after the pregnancy, even in the cases where it's not directly life-threatening.

It's a comparison to point out that the Texas law is not really about any medical situation or even medical morals. It's about the primitive Middle Eastern culture, from which the Christian bible is evolved, of men controlling and owning women like cattle.

...It's not even that, honestly. To a *very* large extent in the US, it's a Religious Right reinterpretation created and emphasized to influence politics as part of their backlash against desegregation, rather than having a firm foundation in primitive Middle Eastern culture.

To poke a little more at that subject, though -

There is no direct reference in the Hebrew Bible to an intentional termination of pregnancy. However, Numbers 5:11–31 refers to a priest preparing "bitter water", which causes an unfaithful wife to miscarry when she drinks it. Further, Exodus 21:22 refers to a birth or miscarriage as a result of a violent altercation. This deals with a situation of men inadvertently striking a pregnant woman, causing her to either give birth prematurely or to miscarry, and reads:

And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart (i.e., stillbirth), and yet no harm follow, he shall be surely fined ... and he shall pay as the judges determine.

The ancient Jewish historian Philo taught that the term "harm" refers exclusively to the child, and whether a fine is imposed or capital punishment depends on whether the fetus has sufficiently formed.[1] According to Rashi and other Talmudic commentators, the term "harm" refers only to the mother, and traditionally, unless the mother was harmed too, only a fine was imposed for causing a miscarriage.[1]

 

[Norman Alexander]

law? That might be true due to roe v wade. But it could be overturned.

nature? that is opinion.

Nope, it's fact. Many pregnancies end in miscarriage anyway, at many points along through gestation. This is "natural". Some also end in stillbirth, i.e. the fetus is potentially viable but dies in the womb. This is also "natural".

Why do these events happen? In Nicaragua, ANY premature end of pregnancy is taken as being "wrong" and illegal. Even these natural events. Women are in jail right now because they had a miscarriage or a stillbirth because that is seen legally as "murder". So not only the heartbreak of a failed pregnancy but the prospect of years of deprivation of liberty due to a natural event. This is the type of legislation just introduced in Texas.

 

[Norman Alexander]

It's a comparison to point out that the Texas law is not really about any medical situation or even medical morals. It's about the primitive Middle Eastern culture, from which the Christian bible is evolved, of men controlling and owning women like cattle.

...It's not even that, honestly. To a *very* large extent in the US, it's a Religious Right reinterpretation created and emphasized to influence politics as part of their backlash against desegregation, rather than having a firm foundation in primitive Middle Eastern culture.

Granted. But that, too, is rooted in deliberate and primitive ignorance and "othering" of cultures considered foreign to one's own.

The Good Samaritan fable relates to this - someone of another Jewish tribe who lived not among Jesus' crew or town but just a little ways elsewhere in the region was considered "foreign" enough to be relatable as a potentially awful person. In the same way that the Religious Right hate desegregation, and they hate uppity women having rights they have not approved.

 

[psionl0]

You forgot about putting baby up for adoption, which basically takes care about the concern finances, lack of home, lack of stable environment, and lack of ability to care for the child.

Adoption is not really an alternative to abortion. Women who carry a pregnancy to full term generally prefer to keep the baby even if they didn't want it during pregnancy. And those who give the baby away for adoption usually find it a very traumatic experience.

 

[psionl0]

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 .

It's more than that. According to pro-choicers, the zygote/embryo/foetus is no different to a parasite or cancer or unfertilized ovum etc.

It is silly to think that a choice of words would make a difference (and especially silly to sic an angry pitch fork wielding mob against anybody who says "human" instead of "a human"). All of these adjectives might be technically correct but the choice of which one to use is mostly an appeal to emotion rather than fact.

This is supposed to be about the rights of a pregnant woman. As far as a foetus is concerned, all we can say is that the more developed it becomes, the greater its right to live. It is unfortunate that we have to impose a terminatable/unterminatable dichotomy on the status of a foetus but at some point we have to decide whether the rights of a pregnant women to make her own choices continue to exceed the rights of the foetus to live.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

No, we CAN'T say that.
What we can say is that the older the fetus.gets, the more viable it gets to survive a premature birth.
But that doesn't translate into a right to live, not even according to Roe.

 

[kevbo]

It's more than that.

...

This is supposed to be about the rights of a pregnant woman. As far as a foetus is concerned, all we can say is that the more developed it becomes, the greater its right to live. It is unfortunate that we have to impose a terminatable/unterminatable dichotomy on the status of a foetus but at some point we have to decide whether the rights of a pregnant women to make her own choices continue to exceed the rights of the foetus to live.

This is a reasonable expression of a position. Thank you.

ETA: I would add that viability must enter any discussion at some point.

 

[Stacyhs]

law? That might be true due to roe v wade. But it could be overturned.

No, it's not due to R v W. I previously cited this which is the legal definition of a person. This law gave legal protection and rights to any fetus BORN ALIVE, not pre-born:

U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

(a)In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b)As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

(c)Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8

nature? that is opinion.

Nature aborts pregnancies all the time; it's called a spontaneous abortion aka miscarriage. Spontaneous abortions are any loss of pregnancy before 20 weeks gestation without elective medical or surgical measures.

About 10 to 20 percent of known pregnancies end in miscarriage. But the actual number is likely higher because many miscarriages occur so early in pregnancy that a woman doesn't realize she's pregnant.

My great-grandmother had several miscarriages and fetal deaths in her third trimester. The cause was unknown. My grandmother was induced when her mother was 8 months along because the doctors feared she, too, would die before she was full term.

My friend's niece had a fetal death in her 5 month this summer and had to take Misoprostol to cause her to expel it. It was extremely painful.

 

[HoverBoarder]

I don't support the TX law. Believe it or not, one may not favor abortion, but understand that things happen. However, it doesn't mean that there should be no focus on personal accountability. I know numerous people who have either had abortions, or carried "accidents" to term...when they chose not to use birth control. Some of them with multiple instances of each, sometimes by different fathers.

Instead of any reasonable position, though...we have people in here calling the unborn "parasites", talking about 40-week abortions, and espousing the benefits of abortion as related to population control.

It's ludicrous.

I think it's pretty common for abortion discussions to get ludicrous when it is such a passionate issue for people.

In general one of the more interesting things is that abortion opponents don't spend more time trying to reduce abortions rather than restrict them.

Abortions are going to happen whether they are legal or not. If you reduced the cost of child care, and increased access to birth control, than there would be fewer people seeking abortions.

The interesting thing is that some of the same people opposing abortions are the same ones that advocate for policies that increase the number of people who would seek them.

If reasonable people on both sides came together and looked at ways to reduce the need for abortions, than you could actually get positive progress for both sides.

 

[Warp12]

No, we CAN'T say that.
What we can say is that the older the fetus.gets, the more viable it gets to survive a premature birth.
But that doesn't translate into a right to live, not even according to Roe.

I like how people are using Roe v. Wade as their moral compass, lol. If it were repealed and replaced with much more conservative legislation, would that be your new definition of morality? Laughable.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I like how people are using Roe v. Wade as their moral compass, lol. If it were repealed and replaced with much more conservative legislation, would that be your new definition of morality? Laughable.

strawman.

 

[Warp12]

strawman.

That's one way to avoid answering the question.

 

[Aridas]

I like how people are using Roe v. Wade as their moral compass, lol. If it were repealed and replaced with much more conservative legislation, would that be your new definition of morality? Laughable.

You like demonstrating that you don't know what you're talking about, eh?

 

[Warp12]

You like demonstrating that you don't know what you're talking about, eh?

And that's another way to avoid the question.

 

[Aridas]

And that's another way to avoid the question.

What question? All I see there is inanity born of false premises.

When will you stop beating your wife, by the way?

 

[Warp12]

What question? All I see there is inanity born of false premises.

When will you stop beating your wife, by the way?

I guess that is a third way to avoid the question.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

That's one way to avoid answering the question.

you didn't pose a question.
you just set up a strawman in an attempt to undermine someone else's argument.


are you knew to this?