• 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.
psionl0 said:
You no longer care that this analogy has been shot to ribbons. This is your analogy and you are sticking to it.
Click to expand...


YOU may think you have shot it to ribbons, but you have done no such thing. All you have really done is play a lot of stupid word games.

That analogy stands. If you want to arbitrarily make conception the line in the sand, then anyone else can make their line in the sand anywhere they wish.
 
Okay someone has to fill in a blank for me.

1. Everything related to abortion I'm expected to back up is just a matter of subjective point of view opinion subjectively opinionating that's a moral ethical questions with no answers where there are not facts so nobody can correct because I say so.
2. ???
3. Therefore I should get my way.

If it is all "Just a matter of opinion" then you still lose. Most Americans are pro-choice.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
You know what this thread needs? Jabba.
Click to expand...
Oh sweet jeebus no. Not the Shroud of Turin again.

lobosrul5 said:
Dude what in the actual ****? Are you being intentionally obtuse are do you actually not understand statistics? 17.4 per 100,000 is meaningless to A SPECIFIC PERSON with a much much higher chance of death. It would be like hearing a loud bang on an airplane, looking out the window and upon seeing the engine on fire, the guy next to you says "lol don't worry there's only like a 1 per 100,000 risk of death when traveling by jet".
Click to expand...
Again, to state the obvious he's engaged in his usual puerile trolling (not that he actually cares about women's lives).

cosmicaug said:
To be clear (for their benefit), a doubling in risk is a 100% increase in risk. 15x is a 1400% increase in risk.
Click to expand...
Normally I'd say that goes without saying, but sometimes it's necessary to state the obvious, yes.

cosmicaug said:
It's all bad but how bad it is also varies considerably between the states (and TX is not one of the good ones —for that matter, worse outcomes would seem to be correlated with being a "red state"). Also, it is definitely not an unchangeable attribute of a given state; rather, it seems to be something affected by policy such that when state governments have chosen to get serious about changing this, improvements have followed.
Click to expand...
Yes,that is also true and perhaps something I should have specified.
Maternal mortality in the USA ranges from an almost acceptable *by European standards) 4.0 in California to a truly awful 58.1 in Louisiana. The latter is comparable to "semi-developed" countries likes Ecuador and Brazil and about half that of India.
Texas, at 38.1 per 100k is comparable to Thailand and worse than Cuba; it's the eighth worst in the USA.
 
Last edited:
lobosrul5 said:
And what if its a condition that makes the risk of death 1 in 1000, 1 in 100, 1 in 10 when carrying the fetus to term? Its for the person exposed to the risk to make a choice, not for me, you, or a politician to decide whats too risky and what isn't. Its their life.
Click to expand...
Is it really worth engaging with someone who demonstrates such contempt for women? Next he'll be trotting out the "abortion causes breast cancer" lie.
 
Dr. Keith said:
Yeah, old doctors scare me a bit.
Click to expand...
I think it's more a personality thing than strictly an age thing. I've known a couple of physicians in the 'elderly' category who displayed no such contempt for patients and were patience itself in explaining things. My previous GP and my father's oncology consultant being prime examples.

Of course these days I have the advantage of a physician on-call 24/7 (more or less). :D

Dr. Keith said:
I’m not sure it is going to sway anyone, but back when our pregnancy related mortality rate in the US was a bit better, the abortion mortality rate was still much better.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22270271/

From that time period: 8.8 vs 0.6 per 100k

“Conclusion: Legal induced abortion is markedly safer than childbirth. The risk of death associated with childbirth is approximately 14 times higher than that with abortion. Similarly, the overall morbidity associated with childbirth exceeds that with abortion.”
Click to expand...
O remember reading that a couple of years ago when we had the last "pro-life" nutter spamming lies here.
 
Last edited:
cosmicaug said:
psionl0 said:
human, unique and different from that of either their mother or father. Exactly what makes them separate individuals is probably beyond my level of biological knowledge.
Click to expand...
It's not that hard, really.

At early stages of development, you can take this mass of cells, separate it into two separate masses and end up with two separate developing organisms. You might intuitively think that this would kill (or at least damage & result in abnormality) but early enough it isn't so —as the developmental "program" seems to be flexible enough to handle this in early enough stages of development. Sometimes this can happen spontaneously. I doubt that anyone knows why (if anyone knows of any clues, I'd love to see some references to explanations).
Click to expand...

Looking at what I wrote again, I think I may have answered a different question than what you were posing. Sorry about that.

The short answer is that development is complicated and that it involves genetic influences, environmental influences and chance too.

Basically, DNA is not computer code (such an explanation is, at best, a lie to childrenWP, and I wish it was used somewhat less often). DNA is not a set of step by step instructions that deterministically dictates all (or most) of your characteristics. It makes it so that things work in roughly some way when placed in a particular developmental context. In a different context, you might have a tumor (or even something else).

In a way, this is a bit of a useful segue back into some of the claims being made here such as how many folk (you included) are claiming that the moment gametes fuse they become "a human" since we have created a scenario where such folk would be claiming that someone who was absolutely, positively a person at some point absolutely positively became what certainly seems to be two people.

Does this mean that two human beings who are monozygotic twins used to be a single human being? Does it mean that they are a single human being represented in two bodies? Does is mean that they are two different human beings and that when they were a single cell mass they used to be yet a different human being who ceased to exist once it split into two cell masses?
 
Suddenly said:
All we have is a strong popular consensus, science, and the concept of medical choice and privacy.

What they have is a screwy electoral map.

So we lose.
Click to expand...

I know. But I want one of the "Bu muh opinion!" people to explain to my why if it's just a matter of opinion they automatically get their way.
 
Also, to add to my previous post, when we have conjoined twins we have what used to be a single fertilization event and a single person (according to those folk who see personhood, by whatever name, happening at conception) remaining as a single body, of sorts. Nevertheless, we have the contradiction here that (almost?) everyone would recognize such conjoined twins as two separate individuals (at least when we are seeing two brains).
 
If we have to go down this sort of insane degree a parasitic twin would be a better metaphor and nobody complains when doctor's remove one of those.
 
cosmicaug said:
At early stages of development, you can take this mass of cells, separate it into two separate masses and end up with two separate developing organisms. You might intuitively think that this would kill (or at least damage & result in abnormality) but early enough it isn't so —as the developmental "program" seems to be flexible enough to handle this in early enough stages of development. Sometimes this can happen spontaneously. I doubt that anyone knows why (if anyone knows of any clues, I'd love to see some references to explanations).
Click to expand...
Haven't read the thread to the bottom so may be repeating, but this can go the other way too. Two separate embryos merging to become one individual.
 
JoeMorgue said:
If we have to go down this sort of insane degree a parasitic twin would be a better metaphor and nobody complains when doctor's remove one of those.
Click to expand...

All twins are parasitic, but some are more parasitic than others.
 
Suddenly said:
I mean, really.

When they wrote about the health of the mother in Roe they were talking about it not being done with a rusty clothes hanger.
Click to expand...

That is one of the benefits of making abortions illegal, it brings parity to the mortality stats.
 
smartcooky said:
Nice catch - that's a Freudian slip if ever there was one! :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

Between sphenisc and joe my sock drawer is getting stuffed. Although, Unbiblical Chord is probably a better album name than anything else.

You would have to have a cover of Hallelujah on that album, though.
 
Last edited:
Okay before we get to Star Trek Transporter Duplicates I think we can drop this, especially since like I said it's a red herring since more restrictive abortion laws don't make abortions go down.

Let's stop discussing a Trolley Problem when the train doesn't even come through here anymore.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom