• 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.
Shalamar said:
"I think X should have more rights than Y"

"Why do you value X over Y?"

"I don't. I'm only saying that X should have rights, and not Y. Why do you not understand that I don't value one over the other, I just think one should have rights, and not the other."
Click to expand...
X is innocent and Y is a dirty slut.
 
Warbler said:
Well you did argue the the embryo/zygote was part of the mother and not a separate lifeform.
Click to expand...

Nope. Never said that. I suggest you go back and read what I did say.



Warbler said:
well we will just have to disagree. I don't think your mother every owned you. She was mother, your parent, but not your owner.
Click to expand...

Your opinion. As long as I was in her body, she had complete control of me.
 
Warbler said:
So you think your mother owned you at one point? okay.
Click to expand...
You were promoting biblical principals at some time. So are you disputing whether it was the father that had the ownership rights, per the Bible? And that he didn't cease to own her at birth, but rather that he owned under he sold to a willing buyer? What exactly is your point here?
 
cosmicaug said:
What's your solution?
Click to expand...

More education, more access to free birth control, more community outreach? I mean, that is all I can think of, to start.

Of course I would also like to see a greater emphasis put on responsible behavior and personal accountability. But I don't know exactly how to make that happen. Sadly, that ship may have sailed.

Obviously nobody wants to have an abortion, at the end of the day. But, without a greater focus on the above mentioned, things are not likely to change much. Relaxing abortion law and focusing on freedoms is not going to help matters in the long run, imo.
 
Warp12 said:
More education, more access to free birth control, more community outreach? I mean, that is all I can think of, to start.

Of course I would also like to see a greater emphasis put on responsible behavior and personal accountability. But I don't know exactly how to make that happen. Sadly, that ship may have sailed.

Obviously nobody wants to have an abortion, at the end of the day. But, without a greater focus on the above mentioned, things are not likely to change much. Relaxing abortion law and focusing on freedoms is not going to help matters in the long run, imo.
Click to expand...

Yet in the countries with 'relaxed' abortion laws the spectre of abortion-as-birth-control simply does not exist to the extent suggested by the posters here.

I'm not claiming it does not happen at all, but even then not in the third trimester.

You'd have to translate from dutch of course, but statistics can be found here in the downloadable pdf.
https://www.igj.nl/publicaties/rapporten/2021/03/29/jaarrapportage-wafz-2019
 
Yes it would, as removing the social stigma of active family planning makes it so much easier to determine what is actually best for the people affected.
But I agree that providing good information would be a step in the right direction; starting with banning all those fake "women's health centers" which are staffed by religious nuts lying to women about the risks of abortion and delaying any decision past the point where it is simple.
 
Lukraak_Sisser said:
Yet in the countries with 'relaxed' abortion laws the spectre of abortion-as-birth-control simply does not exist to the extent suggested by the posters here.
Click to expand...

The majority of unwanted pregnancies in the US are related to either non-use, or inconsistent use of birth control. So, what do you suspect that the majority of abortions might be functioning as? Reactive birth control, unfortunately. Imo, the focus needs to be on stopping the need for an abortion, not providing greater access to them. I am not referring to the TX law, as I have already said it is unreasonable.
 
Last edited:
Warp12 said:
More education, more access to free birth control, more community outreach? I mean, that is all I can think of, to start.

Of course I would also like to see a greater emphasis put on responsible behavior and personal accountability. But I don't know exactly how to make that happen. Sadly, that ship may have sailed.

Obviously nobody wants to have an abortion, at the end of the day. But, without a greater focus on the above mentioned, things are not likely to change much.
Click to expand...
So basically a greater prominence & promotion of organizations such as Planned Parenthood?

I honestly did not expect such an answer (specially since you have repeatedly admonished other forum members for not supporting something like this when most would probably think something roughly along those lines is a good idea).

Warp12 said:
Relaxing abortion law and focusing on freedoms is not going to help matters in the long run, imo.
Click to expand...

There we may differ. When there are a bunch of states where abortion access is difficult enough that your best bet may be going to another state or where you may have to travel hundreds of miles, etc., what we need is expanded access to these services (definitely not the status quo & definitely not reduced access).
 
Last edited:
Warp12 said:
Second, numerous people promoted the "parasite" idea over multiple pages. The mods can easily verify this.
Click to expand...

Weird! I searched the term & I may have been the first person to use the term parasite (the expression was "obligate parasite"). I did not know that.
 
Paul2 said:
While I think it is sometimes crucial to be clear about what words mean, I will do my best not to bash a dictionary, much less be angry while doing it. ; )
Click to expand...
We shall see.

Paul2 said:
I specifically brought up a separate personhood (or whatever you want to call it) from each other - that is, why aren't they considered to be the same person? My answer is that it's not really unique DNA, it's being literally separate physical entities.

I wasn't saying whether it was part of the mother, merely whether it was *separate* from the mother (separate, by the way, is the term you used originally).

Oooooh!!!! What happens with conjoined twins, then?!

There are difficulties **all around** so we might want to give up the notion that we can make clear, clean judgments. Reality doesn't seem to be cooperating.
Click to expand...
You can semanticize all the distinctions away until there is no difference between a human being and a rock. That doesn't change the fact that only a fertilized ovum will develop into a distinct human being (identical twins not withstanding).

It is perfectly valid to say that this does not give a zygote any rights whatsoever (including the right to life).

However, to say that this is an artificial or arbitrary distinction and the same arguments can equally be applied to sperm or cancer cells reeks of desperation.
 
psionl0 said:
We shall see.


You can semanticize all the distinctions away until there is no difference between a human being and a rock. That doesn't change the fact that only a fertilized ovum will develop into a distinct human being (identical twins not withstanding).

It is perfectly valid to say that this does not give a zygote any rights whatsoever (including the right to life).

However, to say that this is an artificial or arbitrary distinction and the same arguments can equally be applied to sperm or cancer cells reeks of desperation.
Click to expand...

This is not semantics. A sperm sometimes will develop into a "distinct human being". A zygote may develop into a "distinct human being". A zygote may develop into more than one distinct human beings. More than one zygote may develop into a single distinct human being. A zygote may develop into nothing at all (it happens very often). A zygote may develop into a cancerous growth that will kill the mother (if left unchecked).

These are not issues of word definitions. Pretending that words can mean anything is what you do.
 
cosmicaug said:
This is not semantics. A sperm sometimes will develop into a "distinct human being". A zygote may develop into a "distinct human being". A zygote may develop into more than one distinct human beings. More than one zygote may develop into a single distinct human being. A zygote may develop into nothing at all (it happens very often). A zygote may develop into a cancerous growth that will kill the mother (if left unchecked).

These are not issues of word definitions. Pretending that words can mean anything is what you do.
Click to expand...
Seriously? You expect me to list all of the caveats that might apply to the growth and development of a zygote then accuse me of pretending that words can mean anything?
 
Warp12 said:
How about we start here when it comes to abortion? Any idea of what we might do to fix this problem?

https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/contraception/unintendedpregnancy/index.htm

What do you figure the solution is? Relaxing abortion laws further? Maybe a Pro-Choice march? Where should the main focus really be? Certainly anywhere but responsible behavior, right?
Click to expand...

You could start by sticking with the provisions of Roe v Wade. They are an excellent framework that balances the rights of women to have autonomy over their bodies and the need to protect the viable unborn from unnecessary abortion.
 
cosmicaug said:
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).
Click to expand...
That is, as you say, rather problematic for the god-botherers. Typically monozygotic twins split into two (or more) after conception, so ensoulment at conception requires the soul to split or one twin to lack a soul. Given the lack of doctrinal support for 'soul splitting' this is rather awkward.
Catholicism tends to embrace Aquinas and rely on his "the human soul is brought into being through the creative action of God", so God fixes it.
There have been more modern attempts to address this, but they tend to basically fall back on God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom