• 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.
Norman Alexander said:
And if a woman chooses to carry the child to term and adopt it out after birth rather than abort it, then they will know there is a willing parent available. But her choice comes ahead of that event. Some life decisions are VERY tough.
Click to expand...

true, life decisions can be tough. But they will have multiple months to find appropriate parents and I do think there should be entities available to help them find such parents.


Norman Alexander said:
For him to adopt, some woman chose to carry, gestate and birth that child, then chose to give it up.
Click to expand...

The child had already been given up by the parents before my brother and his wife entered the picture.

Norman Alexander said:
The issue is about choices. Which is why the opposition to such laws as adopted in Texas is called "Pro-Choice", not "Pro-Abortion" as the religious crazies think.
Click to expand...

As I said, I think the new Texas law is terrible.
 
Norman Alexander said:
So if the doctor assesses that she would have no issues carrying to term, should she be forced to do so?
Click to expand...

maybe depending upon other factors. Rape and incest come to mind. Also the health and the condition of the fetus are also factors.
 
Norman Alexander said:
It follows that they are not female and of child-bearing age. They are not equipped or experienced in that particular situation, and never will be.
Click to expand...

That doesn't automatically invalidate their opinion. Women whom have never been pregnant also are not experienced in that particular situation, neither are pro choice males.

Norman Alexander said:
They have only opinions about it, based on their religious views from afar, and nebulous notions about bills of rights that have no bearing on the situation at all.
Click to expand...

I don't base my opinions on my religious beliefs. Look at my posts on the subject. Show me where I brought up my religious beliefs. And of course the Bill of rights have bearing here. Roe v. Wade was based upon an interpretation of the first amendment was it not?
 
Norman Alexander said:
What rubbish. Yes, she does have that choice. She has the SOLE right and responsibility to do so. Nobody else, no laws, no doctor, no god.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's how I live my life, too. I ain't got no need for them doctors or stupid dang laws. What I say goes! :thumbsup:
 
thaiboxerken said:
The fetus is her, it is part of her, it is an extension of her. It is not an independent being, it is not a person, it has no rights.
Click to expand...


If you compare the dna of the fetus to that of the mother, you will find they are two separate entities.
 
Warp12 said:
Yeah, that's how I live my life, too. I ain't got no need for them doctors or stupid dang laws. What I say goes! :thumbsup:
Click to expand...
Good morning, Mr Trump! Sleep well? ;)


ETA. But more seriously, yes, that's how the calculation goes. When women are considering abortion seriously, the law is the least of their worries, with doctors a close second. You do know why the term "back yard abortion" came about, don't you. Unqualified practitioner performs unclean procedure in an illegal situation. And yet it happened and still happens.
 
Last edited:
Norman Alexander said:
Some women may choose to proceed in the face of such odds. And many may not. As above it is HER INDIVIDUAL CHOICE. Legislating to remove that choice is what amplifies the danger.
Click to expand...


If she wants to proceed with the pregnancy despite the doctor saying it is too dangerous that is her right. I am just saying when the doctor says it is too dangerous, she shouldn't be forced to carry it to term.
 
The only rights we have are the ones granted to us by the people with all the power and weapons. Some people in this world have no rights at all, nature be damned.
 
thaiboxerken said:
In reality, rights come from society. Your beliefs don't matter.
Click to expand...

1. tell that to founding fathers.
2. if they come from society, then no one person has to right to say the fetus doesn't have rights. Only society can say that.
 
Warbler, this's a tad OT, but you should be made aware of it: The Declaration of Independence is not law. It's an 18th. century political pamphlet. That phrase "endowed by their Creator" is rhetoric, and quite to be expected in the manifestos, arguments, claims, shouts, and solemn pronouncements of that day. The clever bit is "we hold these truths to be self-evident." That's not just reversing the burden of proof, but leaping lithely right over it, because the assertion that men have inborn rights feels true and just to every self-respecting person.

I'll hazard a guess that it feels especially true and just to a woman in Texas who wants to get an abortion.
 
thaiboxerken said:
I would say a person (of sound mind) is more qualified to make their own medical decisions than anyone else. A doctor should be there to help them make informed decisions, not make the decisions for them.
Click to expand...

Just because one has a sound mind, doesn't mean they have any medical expertise. We were discusses when it was/wasn't too dangerous to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term.
 
Warbler said:
No, as an American, I believe rights come from nature.
Click to expand...

Then you believe incorrectly. Show me an example of a specific right granted by "nature".

Warbler said:
agree the laws as they stand now do not give the fetus rights.
Click to expand...

And since laws are the only way that rights can be granted, and since they do not grant rights to a fetus, the only logical conclusion is that a fetus does not have any rights.

Warbler said:
It is a declaration of the ideas of what America is all about. It is a declaration that rights do not come from a king or government, but from nature.
Click to expand...

No, its actually a declaration of war, but lets put that aside for now.

You are forgetting the three most important words in the Declaration of Independence... "We, the People"...

"We the People of the United States,
in Order to form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,
provide for the common defence, promote
the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings
of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,
do ordain and establish this Constitution
for the United States of America."
​


This is the people, establishing a Constitution; as the basis for all the laws of the land, laws that grants rights. It does NOT declare rights to come from "nature", those right come from "the people"

If you are going argue that the "Creator" is nature, then you are quite simply wrong. This "Creator" mentioned in the DoI is just a fictional character in religious texts.... nothing to do with nature.

The Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments to the Constitution) is the declaration of rights, made by the people, for the people.

Number of times "people" is mentioned = 5
Number of times "person" or "persons" is mentioned = 4
Number of times "fetus" or "fetuses" is mentioned = ZERO
Number of times "embryo" or "embryos" is mentioned = ZERO
Number of times "unborn" is mentioned = ZERO
 
thaiboxerken said:
Who says it does?
Click to expand...

who it says it doesn't?

thaiboxerken said:
By default, it has no rights. Prove that it should have rights. And then, convince society that it should.
Click to expand...

It has no rights by default? Prove that. prove that it should have no rights. And then, convince society that it should have no rights.

We could continue going back and forth like this, but lets not.
 
smartcooky said:
No, not my opinion... fact. This has already been explained you multiple times. Rights can only be granted by laws.
Click to expand...

You should go back in time and advocate for George III. Again you are going against what America stands for. America stands for the idea that rights come from nature or a creator, not from a King or man or government.
 
Norman Alexander said:
Abortion is natural. Miscarriage is natural. Stillbirth is natural. Abandoning your own offspring to ensure personal survival is natural. Nature is cruel and uncompromising, it is not compassionate, there are no "natural rights". Only humans have lawyers arguing for compassion and rights. These are human constructs, the product of human imaginations, and are not agreed or shared equally by all humans. So any notion that the US Bill of Rights somehow confers natural separate agency on a clump of cells in a woman's body is laughable.
Click to expand...

As I said before, you should go back in time and advocate for George III.
 
Warbler said:
You should go back in time and advocate for George III. Again you are going against what America stands for. America stands for the idea that rights come from nature or a creator, not from a King or man or government.
Click to expand...

Nope, it literally does not say that at all.

It says America stands for the idea that rights come from "the people"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom