• 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.
Aridas said:
Unfair accusation, incidentally. Unless I'm horribly mistaken, there are many individual pro-lifers that do care even after the child is born. That the anti-abortion politicians overwhelmingly show that they really don't and that the bulk of the anti-abortionists don't hold them accountable for that doesn't change that.
Click to expand...

I mean, they may care in some abstract way deep down in their hearts but their actions are contrary to that and that is really all we have to go by. The people enabling these politicians are not bystanders. They vote for them because of what they do, not in spite of it. It isn't like they have certain beliefs as to tax policy and are accepting it as part of a coalition or anything. At least then it's worth discussing.

At some point this deep down in their hearts kinda stuff can be used to justify any manner of atrocity as long as there is an argument the person is misguided or otherwise nice to people or whatever.
 
Talk about crazy logic: "You don't care about children, because you won't pay to raise them. We care a lot more, because we advocate killing the bastards-to-be before they are born."
 
Aridas said:
Unfair accusation, incidentally. Unless I'm horribly mistaken, there are many individual pro-lifers that do care even after the child is born.
Click to expand...
Just not enought of them. Meanwhile, millions willing to adopt are left waiting. Millions of children languish in state care. That does not matter to you because you claim to be only concerned with the rights of the unborn.

Aridas said:
That the anti-abortion politicians overwhelmingly show that they really don't and that the bulk of the anti-abortionists don't hold them accountable for that doesn't change that.
Click to expand...
Go ahead. Put children in poverty, depravation, starvation, education loss, sure. But that is OK once they are born. After that, you simply do not care.
 
abaddon said:
Just not enought of them. Meanwhile, millions willing to adopt are left waiting. Millions of children languish in state care. That does not matter to you because you claim to be only concerned with the rights of the unborn.

Go ahead. Put children in poverty, depravation, starvation, education loss, sure. But that is OK once they are born. After that, you simply do not care.
Click to expand...

It's worth being clear about something here. I'm not one of the pro-lifers, as should be quite visible from my body of work here. Reflexive, indiscriminate fire and false accusations are not positive things.
 
ahhell said:
...

And lots of anti-abortion folks to also support charities meant to help those unwanted children including adoptions.
Click to expand...

"Charities" are not the ones legislating against a woman's right to choose - the government is doing that, so the government ought to be paying to support every unwanted fetus they force to term, right up until the resulting child's 18th birthday.
 
psionl0 said:
Why? So you can say I used the wrong dictionary?

Some would say that as long as there is a motherly attachment/dependency the foetus is not a human being. Of course if I point out that this logically means that up until the time the umbilical cord is cut the foetus is not a human being I get accused of not being serious.
Click to expand...

Maybe so we can know wtf you mean when you say "being."
 
A federal judge in Texas issued an order Wednesday blocking the state's six-week abortion ban.

US District Judge Robert Pitman's order is a victory for abortion rights proponents, who had seen other attempts to block the law stymied by the ban's novel design. It may, however, be only a temporary victory.

At a hearing Friday, a lawyer from the Texas attorney general's office made clear that the state would appeal such an order to the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals if it were granted.

That appeals court -- perhaps the most conservative in the country -- previously rejected a request from clinics that it block the law, as did the US Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/06/politics/texas-abortion-ban-federal-judge-order-block/index.html
 
Last edited:
psionl0 said:
I have not used the word "being" in isolation. I have only used the term "human being" because according to some in this thread, the word "human" by itself means something completely different. :boggled:
Click to expand...

It does. For some reason you seem incapable of understanding... or simply refusing to acknowledge...the difference between something being "human" and a "human being".

A tumor is made from "human" cells, "It was human blood", the tissue was "human", the hair was "human" and not canine. The tumor, the blood, the tissue, the hair were not "human beings".

Stop :dig:
 
Stacyhs said:
A tumor is made from "human" cells, "It was human blood", the tissue was "human", the hair was "human" and not canine. The tumor, the blood, the tissue, the hair were not "human beings".
Click to expand...
This semantic word play is just a feeble attempt to deny one thing: a foetus is NOT a cancer.

Your insistence that DNA is irrelevant doesn't make it so.
 
psionl0 said:
I have not used the word "being" in isolation. I have only used the term "human being" because according to some in this thread, the word "human" by itself means something completely different. :boggled:
Click to expand...

Then please define human being.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Then please define human being.
Click to expand...
I can not give comprehensive and unambiguous definitions of "human being", "person" etc (everybody's understanding is different). This is mostly stuff indulged in by FOTLers to "prove" their conspiracy theories.

I have previously explained why a zygote/embryo/foetus (see what I have to go through to avoid a "gotcha"?) is different to a random collection of cells. I have also pointed out that it doesn't have any bearing on what rights it might or might not have.
 
psionl0 said:
This semantic word play is just a feeble attempt to deny one thing: a foetus is NOT a cancer.

Your insistence that DNA is irrelevant doesn't make it so.
Click to expand...

The whole DNA argument was not mine. That was Warbler's, IIRC.

I never said a fetus is cancer so stop with the hysterical displays of irrationality.

Since you refuse to understand a VERY SIMPLE distinction between something that is 'human' and a "human BEING" I can only conclude that you are just being intellectually dishonest.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom