• 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.
Warp12 said:
I'll put you down as another endorsing no restrictions on term of gestation. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

They way to try to obsessively pigeon-hole everyone you disagree with, is very revealing... most especially, it shows you have a fundamental inability to grasp that this is a really complex issue, one that doesn't easily lend itself to pigeon holing.
 
smartcooky said:
They way to try to obsessively pigeon-hole everyone you disagree with, is very revealing... most especially, it shows you have a fundamental inability to grasp that this is a really complex issue, one that doesn't easily lend itself to pigeon holing.
Click to expand...

If someone says they are part of the 19% that believe in no limits on late-term abortion, they have "pigeonholed" themselves. Your argument makes no sense, in this case.
 
Susheel said:
At the risk of being too "verbose" as you put it, "reductivism much"?
Click to expand...

"Reductivism" does not apply in this case. If a person literally says they are part of a group that supports no restrictions on late-term abortion, I am taking them at their word. :thumbsup:
 
Warp12 said:
"Reductivism" does not apply in this case. If a person literally says they are part of a group that supports no restrictions on late-term abortion, I am taking them at their word. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

It does...since there is a context for that statement, which you conveniently ignore.
 
Can someone point me to that thread about Texas banning early abortions? I seem have gotten into the one about Texas banning abortions at nine months by mistake. Very confusing!
 
Aridas said:
Just to offer up something additional on the topic of progressive bashing - at last check, JoeMorgue is one of the posters who has been more than happy to bash progressives unreasonably and favor moderates unreasonably. Thus, using him as a model for the sins of progressives is probably more than a little unreasonable. On the other hand, I do count myself as a progressive and I've just ended up rolling my eyes at the unreasonable rancor being tossed in my direction.

I am pro-choice, either way, given the rather pronounced benefits to society that pro-choice policy offers over anti-choice policy. I'm fine with Roe v Wade as a general compromise. As for third trimester abortions? As long as there's allowances for health concerns all around and general extenuating circumstances, I'm rather neutral on restrictions, much as having resources available for the state to care for any of the seemingly remarkably rare babies that they would demand be carried to term would be exercising basic responsibility. Truly, I must be deserving of all the progressive bashing.
Click to expand...


Don’t feel bad. It seems there’s enough bashing for members of every political stripe :)

I find myself in a bit of an odd position, usually being alternately accused of being progressive and right-wing. I say I’m moderate, but really I’m progressive on social issues (equality, education, health care), but more conservative (traditional, not current GOP) on financial issues, and support gun ownership (with restriction and regulation).

So I usually have some position to piss everyone off, as well as be called a member of everything. On this particular issue, your views and mine seem in alignment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Hellbound said:
Don’t feel bad. It seems there’s enough bashing for members of every political stripe :)

I find myself in a bit of an odd position, usually being alternately accused of being progressive and right-wing. I say I’m moderate, but really I’m progressive on social issues (equality, education, health care), but more conservative (traditional, not current GOP) on financial issues, and support gun ownership (with restriction and regulation).
So I usually have some position to piss everyone off, as well as be called a member of everything. On this particular issue, your views and mine seem in alignment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

That's known as liberalism in the rest of the angloworld.
 
psionl0 said:
You are just repeating what you posted earlier.
Click to expand...
That's only because you didn't address what I actually posted earlier.
psionl0 said:
You are suggesting the DNA argument should be thrown out of the window because of the existence of marginal cases. This would leave one less way of distinguishing a zygote from any other clump of cells in the mother - cancerous or otherwise.
Click to expand...
And that's because the attempt to draw those bright lines - a new human or not a new human, no in-between - doesn't work. A bright line has to be 100%. All I'm doing is showing that it's not 100%, and it's hard to draw a line that isn't fuzzy, either way.
psionl0 said:
The fact remains that a pregnant woman carries a life who's DNA is human and is not the same as its mother, father nor anybody else in the world.
Click to expand...
Except for twins.
psionl0 said:
The fact that this life form can replicate itself withing the mother's womb doesn't nullify the entire DNA argument.
Click to expand...
Huh? Do you mean make its twin? If so, the DNA argument rests on the DNA being unique, doesn't it? If the DNA is not unique, then how much of the DNA argument holds?
 
Hellbound said:
.....
I find myself in a bit of an odd position, usually being alternately accused of being progressive and right-wing. I say I’m moderate, but really I’m progressive on social issues (equality, education, health care), but more conservative (traditional, not current GOP) on financial issues, and support gun ownership (with restriction and regulation).
....
Click to expand...

I just note that very few people would ban private ownership of firearms, and even in the countries with the tightest restrictions, like the UK and Japan, there is some private ownership under some conditions. Most of us recognize that firearms fulfill legitimate purposes for hunting, target shooting and self-defense. What hangs us up in the U.S. is that "restriction and regulation" part. The idea that private citizens should be able to own almost any kinds of firearms in any number is a relatively recent development, spurred by the radical transformation of the NRA in the '70s supported by gun manufacturers. As late as the '60s, there was no question that the federal government and the states had the authority to regulate possession of firearms, particularly handguns. That was the moderate, mainstream majority opinion. Times have changed.
 
Last edited:
psionl0 said:
Is the DNA not human?
Click to expand...
The DNA is human DNA, yes.

psionl0 said:
Is the DNA the same as anybody else's?
Click to expand...
For twins, no. For everyone else, yes.

Actually, now that you bring it up, there's a whole 'nother aspect to this that one other poster mentioned but has gotten lost. Why is unique DNA such an important criterion? People generally have the vast majority of their DNA in common with everyone else (anyone got an actual number?). The other poster mentioned that we share 50% of our DNA with bananas.

Why is a unique DNA so important when the part that makes us different from another person is so small? Also, the other side of that coin is that there are many things that makes us similar, too.

Once again, we see a continuum of similarity/dissimilarity. The uniqueness criterion would make sense if you believed in a soul. But failing that, isn't uniqueness as the crucial criterion just a holdover from believing in a soul that doesn't make sense if you don't?

BTW, I'm being a bit of a devil's advocate here, but I'm talking myself into what I'm saying the more I go.
 
Silly Green Monkey said:
If those same late-term abortions already only happen in the cases that those advocating banning are willing to exclude from the ban, why bother making the ban at all?
Click to expand...
Because it's not really about late term abortions, it's about virtue signalling.
 
ahhell said:
Mostly people are saying they happen very rarely, I don't know the we actually have data on how often. I think it would be a good idea to have a legal regime that reflects both reality and what the majority of people want. That way when the 10% that think it should be totally legal have their protests, we can all just roll our eyes and move on instead of spending the last 40 years having the same argument every 4 years and when some Supreme dies.

Its essentially advocating for a legal regime for abortion that is basically the same as every other western nation.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:
 
cosmicaug said:
Can someone point me to that thread about Texas banning early abortions? I seem have gotten into the one about Texas banning abortions at nine months by mistake. Very confusing!
Click to expand...

It's on the other board where every thread about someone who declares themselves a Nazi doesn't turn into a hypothetical thread about calling someone who isn't a Nazi a Nazi happens.

I've said it before, I'll say it again, I'll stand by it. Demanding a discussion that is nowhere near "the line" to come to a screeching halt so "where the line is" can be defined is a troll tactic.
 
Bob001 said:
The idea that private citizens should be able to own almost any kinds of firearms in any number is a relatively recent development, spurred by the radical transformation of the NRA in the '70s supported by gun manufacturers.
Click to expand...

Supported by gun manufacturers, but actually done by politically motivated radical right-wingers who wanted to use the NRA as a tool to push a radical right-wing agenda instead of largely withdrawing from politics.

Bob001 said:
As late as the '60s, there was no question that the federal government and the states had the authority to regulate possession of firearms, particularly handguns. That was the moderate, mainstream majority opinion. Times have changed.
Click to expand...

Not just moderate, by a long shot. To borrow a quote -

“A fraud on the American public.” That’s how former Chief Justice Warren Burger described the idea that the Second Amendment gives an unfettered individual right to a gun. When he spoke these words to PBS in 1990, the rock-ribbed conservative appointed by Richard Nixon was expressing the longtime consensus of historians and judges across the political spectrum.
Click to expand...

Still, this is a bit OT other than that it's a related move by the radical right, so I'll stop there.
 
Last edited:
Paul2 said:
Huh? Do you mean make its twin? If so, the DNA argument rests on the DNA being unique, doesn't it? If the DNA is not unique, then how much of the DNA argument holds?
Click to expand...

The argument rests on the DNA of the fetus/zygote/embryo being unique from that of the mother.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom