Texas bans abortion.

[JoeMorgue]

Can you provide an example of a situation where the mothers life is not at stake?

Well he obviously mean where the mother's life is at stack... to a degree that bothers him.

 

[smartcooky]

It's a pity that you are not.

I am very well educated thanks, but it is quite apparent that you have a comprehension deficiency.

More importantly, your silly semantic game about "individual" proves nothing.

Nope, it was you who tried to shoehorn your false equivalence fallacy by using "individual" to describe both a mother (a person, and human being) and a fetus (not a person and not a human being)

Since you are the one claiming that a fetus has rights, you are the one making the affirmative claim, therefore it is your burden to prove. Show us your evidence.

 

[Stacyhs]

If your preference for not aborting is based on "OMG, think of the child!", I do not understand what rape or incest have to do with it.

The exception for rape and incest has always puzzled me because it's contradictory to the anti-choice philosophy that "all 'babies' have a right to life". Is the 'baby' conceived by rape or incest any less 'precious'? Does it have any less 'right to life'? Apparently so if a girl/woman can have an abortion because she's the victim of rape or incest.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The exception for rape and incest has always puzzled me because it's contradictory to the anti-choice philosophy that "all 'babies' have a right to life". Is the 'baby' conceived by rape or incest any less 'precious'? Does it have any less 'right to life'? Apparently so if a girl/woman can have an abortion because she's the victim of rape or incest.

That's where I'm at. The current anti-choice position doesn't leave any logical place for exceptions for rape/incest.

Ironically "I hate women for being sluts" does leave places for those exceptions.

 

[Stacyhs]

That's where I'm at. The current anti-choice position doesn't leave any logical place for exceptions for rape/incest.

Ironically "I hate women for being sluts" does leave places for those exceptions.

Not if you think that it's the woman's fault for being raped because she was wearing too short a skirt, was drunk, shouldn't have been in that part of town, was a flirt, etc.

 

[Warbler]

Then you are not against abortion at all. Or did you mean to say something else?

I said I am not against abortion when the mother's life is stake. I assume by what you said you meant refer to the fact that technically in every pregnancy there is also some small percentage of chance that the mother could die. Obviously I was talking about cases where the risk to the mother is higher than normal, one where her doctor thinks the risk is too great for her to go through with going to labor.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I said I am not against abortion when the mother's life is stake. I assume by what you said you meant refer to the fact that technically in every pregnancy there is also some small percentage of chance that the mother could die. Obviously I was talking about cases where the risk to the mother is higher than normal, one where her doctor thinks the risk is too great for her to go through with going to labor.

Seems like just letting the woman decide if the risk is worth it or not would be a lot easier.

 

[Stacyhs]

When the reasons for the abortion in lack of finances, home, stable environment, lack of ability to care for the child, perhaps yes, in some cases. (not rape, incest, or when the woman's life is in danger)

Adoption solves the problems you mentioned in your previous post, that was my point.

Why not in the cases of rape or incest? Why is that 'baby' any less deserving of being adoption over abortion?

 

[Warbler]

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

You referred to choosing between the life of the mother and the life of fetus. It is not a choice between two lives in a normal pregnancy, it is a choice between the mother's the right to bodily autonomy and the fetus' right to live.

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

when the right of the fetus to live exceeds the right of the mother's right to bodily autonomy. As for when that is, I am not certain. But I do believe it comes sometime after conception and before birth. psionl0 said it better than I could. (although he did misspell fetus)

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.

 

[Warbler]

It doesn't have any.



Nope, it gains rights when its born.



Irrelevant. People have rights, the fetus does not.

That is all opinion.

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

Got it!

Ah, the tire old logical fallacy of trying to invalidate the opinion by attacking the age and gender of the opinion holder. Besides not everyone on the pro life said is old or male. Some are female, some are young, some are both. Also some on the pro choice are both old and male, yet that doesn't invalidate there opinion. Finally what you said implies that there is something wrong with being either old or male or both, there isn't.

 

[Warbler]

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.

I realize it puts a serious burden on the pregnant person, but it is either that or the fetus, which may have rights will die. That is why forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term, should not be taken lightly. However, I think you can argue death is a much more serious burden, which is what the fetus faces if you abort.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I realize it puts a serious burden on the pregnant person, but it is either that or the fetus, which may have rights will die. That is why forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term, should not be taken lightly. However, I think you can argue death is a much more serious burden, which is what the fetus faces if you abort.

Realistically what the fetus faces now is a black market RU486 pill or a drive over state lines to be legally aborted.

 

[JoeMorgue]

"You can't outlaw abortions. You can only outlaw safe abortions"

 

[Warbler]

Nope, it's fact.

This is what I was replying to when I said "nature that is opinion":

A fetus has no "right to live," or any other rights for that matter. This is well established both by law and nature.

It is not fact that in nature the fetus has no right to live, that is opinion. (Unless you can prove scientifically that in nature it has no right to live.

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?

You might as well ask why does anyone die. It happens. It doesn't mean that people don't have a right to live. The same is true with stillbirths, miscarriages and the fetus.

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.

I agree jailing a woman as murderer because her pregnancy ended in miscarriage or the baby was still born. That is despicable.

And I said previously, I do not support the new Texas legislation.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I agree jailing a woman as murderer because her pregnancy ended in miscarriage or the baby was still born. That is despicable.

Okay but... why?

Within your own arguments you've already made... why? Why isn't that a perfectly logical response? If it's an innocent life/human/individual/soul/whatever why isn't killing it murder?

Or you could answer the question as to why there are exceptions for rape and incest. How are the babies any less innocent in those cases?

 

[Stacyhs]

You referred to choosing between the life of the mother and the life of fetus. It is not a choice between two lives in a normal pregnancy, it is a choice between the mother's the right to bodily autonomy and the fetus' right to live.



when the right of the fetus to live exceeds the right of the mother's right to bodily autonomy. As for when that is, I am not certain. But I do believe it comes sometime after conception and before birth. psionl0 said it better than I could. (although he did misspell fetus)

You may not be 'certain' but the problem is that some people are certain. But that certainty is not based on any science but solely on personal opinion. In essence, their personal opinion is the basis for thinking they can legislate what girls/women can do with their own bodies.

psion10 did not misspell "fetus" as "foetus" is the correct British spelling.

 

[Warbler]

Adoption is not really an alternative to abortion.

Is it an option if the concern is that you don't have the finances, house, stable environment, and/or ability to care of the child. Those problems can be solved by adoption. Just be careful whom you allow to adopt the child, make sure they do have the finances, house, stable environment, ability to care of the child, willingness to care for and love the child.

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.

While it might be very difficult to give the child up, the child would still be better off in the hands of a couple such as I described above that to have been aborted.

Also I am not so certain it would be such a traumatic experience for a woman to give up a child when they were willing to abort same if it hadn't been for adoption. Finally, aborting the child also might cause trauma. The woman would have live with the fact that she let her own fetus be killed and forever wondering what the child would have been like if she had carried the baby to term.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Yes. You've found a solution in the magic fairyland where there are unlimited people waiting to take in children.

Back here in reality, ya know the place this conversation is happening, it's ludicrious.

How many children have you adopted I wonder? I'm gonna guess zero.

 

[Stacyhs]

It is not fact that in nature the fetus has no right to live, that is opinion. (Unless you can prove scientifically that in nature it has no right to live.

Yes, it is fact. "Nature" does not give "rights" to anything. Nature is not a thinking entity. It gives nothing. Nature simply "is". You are personifying nature. People, in the form of government, give "rights".

You might as well ask why does anyone die. It happens. It doesn't mean that people don't have a right to live. The same is true with stillbirths, miscarriages and the fetus.

Because that is the essence of nature: all living things die.

 

[Blank]

when the right of the fetus to live exceeds the right of the mother's right to bodily autonomy. As for when that is, I am not certain. But I do believe it comes sometime after conception and before birth. psionl0 said it better than I could. (although he did misspell fetus)

Just checking where are we at here.. Do you agree that a homeless persons right to live would outweight any other persons right to private property in cases like the extreme cold spell at Texas last year? Or in any northern state?

In other words, would you agree that not allowing a homeless or anyone crash under your roof in these cases even without permission is ok when there might be life threatening circumstances?

A bit of a tortured comparison, but I've noticed pro-lifers usually be a bit more rabid on the "stand your ground" issues and be pretty gun-ho, when it comes to private property.