• 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.
Maybe so, he was still correct, the debate about the Bill of Rights at the time was the Federalist saying it wasn't necessary and would imply that other rights were not protect while the anti-federalists thought they were necessary because the lack of them would imply that we didn't have them.
https://billofrightsinstitute.org/primary-sources/bill-of-rights
https://blog.acton.org/archives/994...5kf__R3CC34g15gNr7EOAc6G6KxEI-axoCkIMQAvD_BwE



https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1184/federalists

Almost anything you can find on the debate over the bill of rights say the same thing.

And as I previously wrote and which I just reposted, I am not arguing with thatpoint. I wrote: " The opposition to a Bill of Rights was because they feared any rights specifically not enumerated would, by default, NOT be rights. Therefore, Madison included that Rights were not restricted only to those in the B of R in the 9th Amendment ."

What he is not correct about is because some FF's feared people would think rights didn't come from a Creator/ nature.
 
Your arbitrary choice is birth then? Is there no limit you would accept?

I will no declare myself the winner.

Because very late term abortions are quite rare, and really only ever needed in extreme situations where the mother’s life is at risk or the fetus will not survive, I feel like making them illegal is not warranted.

If you have examples of late term abortions that you think the law should address then please bring them forward. Note the word examples is not synonymous with the word hypothetical.

My experience is that laws that don’t address actual problems tend to create more problems than they solve.
 
It is true I don not know when the fetus becomes sentient, but I do think that that some point before birth it becomes something of worth, something that has rights that are separate from the mother and certainly something that is more than just a "clump of cells".
So how is that not just your opinion and why should other people run their lives based on your opinion?
 
Literally NOBODY is saying that a fetus is "JUST a parasite". Please don't continue with that misrepresentation of what has been said.

Or put another way, whether a woman has the right to expel an unwanted, partially formed parasite from her uterus.
That's not emotionalizing anything. Those are facts. A <24 week gestation fetus is only partially formed, feeds off the host, and it cannot live outside the host body. That's a parasite.

You were saying?

I'm sure there's a Sesame Street episode that teaches the word "Just" you can go watch.

The "gotcha" attempts are getting sadder and sadder.

Do you think that people haven't watched the non-stop defense and justification of the "parasite" characterization that has been presented in this thread? I mean, we are talking pages of this activity.

Even when told numerous times that it is a dehumanizing term, nobody was willing to back down or even add a qualifier. But now, suddenly, it's not "just" a parasite. I guess that it is a "super-duper-groovy parasite"? Who knows?

Forget a "gotcha". This is revisionist history.
 
Agreed. The only difference is that, in reality, third trimester abortions are extremely rare and almost always done for medical reasons.

Forget it. The poster somehow thinks godless atheists are advocating third trimester abortion. His solution is to let them all die. They are mere property after all.
 
No. We're saying that the law has enumerated who has rights: those BORN. I've presented that law to you twice now. So it doesn't matter what rights are enumerated or not because the UNBORN are not included in who has rights.

and if the law has not enumerated a right, that right does not exist. That is what you are saying. That is what I disagree with. The founders disagreed with it as well. I believe rights are more than just what is and is not recognized by government. Also since the founders feared any rights specifically not enumerated would, by default, NOT be rights, we can assume they recognized the existence of rights that were not enumerated.

This whole thing started when someone said to me that the the fetus has no rights in law or nature.

I agreed with him in with the law as it currently stands. But I did not agree with in regards to natural rights. If natural rights are indeed a human construct, and not tangible or provable, it follows one can not matter of factually state a fetus has no natural rights.
 
It's irrelevant because you are have not been, are not, and will never be put in the position to make that choice. So it doesn't matter if it doesn't make sense to you that a woman would "experience all that much trauma giving up the baby for adoption when they were ready to abort same some months ago." What is relevant is how those women feel.

I will admit that maybe I should learn more about this trauma what women go through when giving up for adoption their baby after almost aborting it months ago if not for adoption. I need to have a better understanding of it.
 
Forget it. The poster somehow thinks godless atheists are advocating third trimester abortion. His solution is to let them all die. They are mere property after all.

There are seven states without gestational term limits.

Not sure of the religious status of the lawmakers, but it wouldn't surprise me if the they were "godless atheists". Not that it matters either way.
 
These are different roles. The doctor has some expertise in quantifying risk (though it is not entirely quantifiable, of course). The patient has the right to use that quantified risk and base her decision regarding whether she is willing to undergo that risk upon that quantification.

Informed consent.

Information comes from the healthcare professionals.
Consent comes from the patient.

What I was talking about was when to decide a risk to the mother was so great that an abortion should be allowed when otherwise it would not be by law. If that case think you rely on medical experts.
 
I have split your quote and addressed them out of order

What I should have said is that someone should speak for its rights.

Speaking for the rights of something that has no rights :rolleyes:

It is true I don not know when the fetus becomes sentient, but I do think that that some point before birth it becomes something of worth, something that has rights that are separate from the mother and certainly something that is more than just a "clump of cells".

About 30 weeks. It cannot be sentient until it has a functioning brain

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/14767059209161911

"It is concluded that the basic neuronal substrate required to transmit somatosensory information develops by mid-gestation (18 to 25 weeks), however, the functional capacity of the neural circuitry is limited by the immaturity of the system. Thus, 18 to 25 weeks is considered the earliest stage at which the lower boundary of sentience could be placed. At this stage of development, however, there is little evidence for the central processing of somatosensory information. Before 30 weeks gestational age, EEG activity is extremely limited and somatosensory evoked potentials are immature, lacking components which correlate with information processing within the cerebral cortex. Thus, 30 weeks is considered a more plausible stage of fetal development at which the lower boundary for sentience could be placed"

....that is well into the third trimester.


You are right we have no way of knowing what a fetus would want, so we have to assume it would prefer to live, just if a patient were to come into a hospital unconscious, the doctors assume the would prefer to receive life saving medical care. They err on the side of life.

False equivalence: a fetus is not a person ("potential person" doesnlt count).

Additionally, a fetus has no way of "knowing" anything, since it does not have a functioning brain until, at the absolute minimum, 18 weeks, far more likely 30 weeks.
.
.
 
Everyone? You write as if government was some detached entity having nothing to do with the people. We just agreed that founding fathers erred here. That's where this "government failed to recognize" came from so it can't be everyone.

I should have said most everyone in the modern world recognizes that black people have and had rights and that those rights were violated by slavery. We believe that even though the government back in the day did not recognize those rights.
 
I will admit that maybe I should learn more about this trauma what women go through when giving up for adoption their baby after almost aborting it months ago if not for adoption. I need to have a better understanding of it.

That would be a good exercise. I think we can all wait patiently if you’d like to take a break until you have done so. No shame in doing a bit of homework between posts.
 
Why not apply the same rationale for all births? Reversible sterilisation at puberty and mandatory licenses for children.

huh? I was talking about making sure that babies put up for adoption (to avoid abortion) go to good homes where they will be loved and provided for.
 
There are seven states without gestational term limits.
Not really interested why your third world banana republic chooses to violate women.

Not sure of the religious status of the lawmakers, but it wouldn't surprise me if the they were "godless atheists". Not that it matters either way.
Well it does. MTG, BOHO. Gaetz, and so forth are all engaged in making the US a theocracy. As much as you claim to be an atheist, you are still supporting it. Unless it is some "splittail" that you ploughed the furrow with. That doesn't count.
 
What a ******* cop-out. You really lack the courage to support you beliefs don't you?

Its not a cop out, I am merely for letting medical experts assess the risk of carrying a baby to term. They know more than I do.
 
What I was talking about was when to decide a risk to the mother was so great that an abortion should be allowed when otherwise it would not be by law. If that case think you rely on medical experts.

That decision is a lot easier if you just trust the mother to make that call, with input from her doctor. She knows what risks she is willing to tolerate and she is in a better position to know all of the risks that she faces.

No need to fry your noodle over someone else’s medical choices when they are completely competent to make them on their own.
 
I look forward to you demonstrating the courage of your opinions by jumping off a fifty metre building and showing how your "right to life" trumps gravity,
:rolleyes:

Sigh. To comply with the forum rules wrt advocating suicide this would be a bad thing to do. Gravity would win and you'd be splattered all over the place, requiring others to clean up the mess. Do not jump off high surfaces.

ha ha. That is not what I or the founding fathers meant by natural rights, and I think you know that.
 
You were saying?

At it again, I see. As soon as the word parasite was posted, I knew you'd pop up with your usual crap.

Nowhere did I say a fetus was JUST a parasite. I clarified that on Sept 19...a full 20 days ago when you started this harassment.

Oh, stop it. Neither I nor anyone else said a baby is "JUST a parasite".

I told you what I would do if you did not stop this continual baiting and now I will follow through.
 
Its not a cop out, I am merely for letting medical experts assess the risk of carrying a baby to term. They know more than I do.

And yet doctors don’t make medical decisions for their patients, they merely inform them of the relative risks.

You may want to ask doctors if they want to change that paradigm and be looped into your scheme. I bet they don’t.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom