• 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.
ahhell said:
The anti abortion crowd includes those that are opposed to on account of religion, it also includes those that see a fetus as a human being and not just a parasite. There's no point in debating the first group.
Click to expand...

Stacyhs said:
Literally NOBODY is saying that a fetus is "JUST a parasite". Please don't continue with that misrepresentation of what has been said.
Click to expand...

Stacyhs said:
Or put another way, whether a woman has the right to expel an unwanted, partially formed parasite from her uterus.
Click to expand...

Stacyhs said:
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.
Click to expand...

Warp12 said:
You were saying?
Click to expand...

Stacyhs said:
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.

I told you what I would do if you did not stop this continual baiting and now I will follow through.
Click to expand...

First, the 19th was not "a full 20 days ago". But, whatever. Anyone can check the posts and see the arguments that were presented regarding the term. Simple.

Second, numerous people promoted the "parasite" idea over multiple pages. The mods can easily verify this.

Third, I don't think there is a rule against posting someone's own quotes when challenging their argument.

Fourth, "I told you what I would do" sounds an awful lot like a threat. Seems rather like a bullying tactic, tbh. And one without merit, imo.
 
Last edited:
Warp12 said:
First, the 19th was not "a full 20 days ago". But, whatever. Anyone can check the posts and see the arguments that were presented regarding the term. Simple.

Second, numerous people promoted the "parasite" idea over multiple pages. The mods can easily verify this.

Third, I don't think there is a rule against posting someone's own quotes when challenging their argument.

Fourth, "I told you what I would do" sounds an awful lot like a threat. Seems rather like a bullying tactic, tbh. And one without merit, imo.
Click to expand...

I have looked back at all Stacy's posts you mentioned. I don't see what you are seeing.

Move on, and stop your harassment!
 
Last edited:
ahhell said:
So you won't answer the question. That's fine but you are an extremist on this issue and out of step with the vast majority of people, not just Americans, Europeans too. Just be aware of that.
Click to expand...

To poke at this - I'm fine with agreeing that that position is out of step with the majority. On the other hand, I firmly disagree with putting the extremist label on that position. On this issue, the extremist positions are forced birth on the one side and forced abortion on the other (alternately, forced sterility). Forced abortion proponents have largely fallen out of favor in more recent times, but convincing oneself that eugenics is gone just because the proponents are not as vocal is fairly certainly a distinct mistake - especially when it might well be quietly on the rise again.

Warbler said:
Yes, the Texas law is excessive. As for outlawing abortion, I am not crazy about it, but I think maybe some should (not in cases of rape, incest, where the life of the mother is in danger), maybe not right at conception or in the weeks or so, but maybe later in development when the fetus is more than "a clump of cells". I just think the fetus is something of value, something that may have rights separate from that of the women.
Click to expand...

That sorta begs a question. How comfortable are you with Roe v Wade remaining as is and using that as reference for an acceptable point of compromise?
 
Last edited:
A growing fetus is literally, physically a part of the woman.
And it is genetically closer to her than anything else in the world, including the father.

Until the fetus is viable, there is no point in talking about it as anything other than a part of the womb.
 
Warp12 said:
... dehumanizing the unborn by referring to them as "parasites". ....
Click to expand...

The key word is "unborn", so not really human to be dehumanised. Also, as usual, you are being dishonest with your response. The difference between the embryos at various developmental has already been explained umpteen times in this thread.

I guess it is ok in your circle to dehumanise the living.
 
Last edited:
The Great Zaganza said:
A growing fetus is literally, physically a part of the woman.
And it is genetically closer to her than anything else in the world, including the father.

Until the fetus is viable, there is no point in talking about it as anything other than a part of the womb.
Click to expand...

A fetus is literally a part of its mother considering it has half her DNA. Some people don't seem to get that.
 
Stacyhs said:
A fetus is literally a part of its mother considering it has half her DNA. Some people don't seem to get that.
Click to expand...

Brothers and sisters share 50% DNA, too. So? I guess I'm literally a part of my sister, by that logic.
 
Susheel said:
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
Brothers and sisters share 50% DNA, too. So? I guess I'm literally a part of my sister, by that logic.
Click to expand...
In that case your understanding of "logic" is flawed and has not evolved from your days in the school playground.
Click to expand...

It certainly isn't grounded in science since siblings do share DNA, but not from each other. They share DNA that they each inherited from their parents. Thus they are literally part of their parents, but not part of each other. Simple logic and biology.
 
Stacyhs said:
A fetus is literally a part of its mother considering it has half her DNA. Some people don't seem to get that.
Click to expand...

Warp12 said:
Brothers and sisters share 50% DNA, too. So? I guess I'm literally a part of my sister, by that logic.
Click to expand...

Stacyhs said:
It certainly isn't grounded in science since siblings do share DNA, but not from each other. They share DNA that they each inherited from their parents. Thus they are literally part of their parents, but not part of each other. Simple logic and biology.
Click to expand...

Got it. So, then the baby is literally part of its father then, equally. So, he should have equal dominion over an abortion, I guess? :thumbsup:
 
Last edited:
Dr. Keith said:
And yet doctors don’t make medical decisions for their patients, they merely inform them of the relative risks.
Click to expand...
Doctors like that seem few and far between.

Most of the doctors I have seen appear to believe that what they do to a patient's body is none of the patient's business (patients are too stupid to understand medical issues anyway).
 
Warbler said:
technically any cell has life. If you can't see the different between a sperm cell and a fertilized egg that is developing into a human being, I don't know.
Click to expand...
From the moment of conception, a separate living thing complete with its own unique DNA is created.

To say that this living thing is no different to sperm or ova (or cancer cells) is false and if this is the main argument for saying abortion doesn't matter at that stage then the argument is on shaky grounds.
 
Last edited:
Stacyhs said:
But it's not non-religious as you've been told over and over again. When it's used that way, it's just another way of saying "a supernatural force" we're not going to actually call 'a Creator'. The FF were ...here we go again...founding that on Locke's "nature is what God intends" philosophy.
Click to expand...
We may not be able to demonstrate that rights are given by a higher power (whatever that is) but we don't have to insist that the exact opposite is true (that rights are a purely human construct).

We can start from a simple logical premise that any rights that exist must apply to all humans equally. No human has a greater set of rights than any other human and when it comes to a particular right, no human has priority over any other human in the exercise of that right. An individual might modify their rights through their choices or actions but the starting point must be equality.

From that starting point, it shouldn't be to difficult to enumerate some rights that must exist universally.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom