Texas Repubs pass abortion bill

[xjx388]

That's right, xjx, make that 11 yr old rape victim have the rapists baby!

When I say, "they can decide not to have sex," I shouldn't have to specify that I'm not talking about rape victims.

But you keep having fun building straw men...

 

[xjx388]

You persist in ignoring the many social and cultural factors which mean:

1) Women often DON'T GET THE CHOICE TO SAY "yes" or "no" to sex. And, again, I'm not talking just about rape.

I don't know, that sounds pretty rapey to me . . .can you give me a scenario when a woman doesn't have a choice that is not rape?

2) Women are often prevented from using contraception, or simply do not know where and how to get it.

Who is preventing her? Why doesn't she just say no to them? And is she mentally handicapped? Because they sell them in stores across the country.

3) Women delay seeking abortions for any number of reasons: simple denial that they are pregnant; fear of what their parents will say; fear of exposing themselves as victims of incest or rape; fear of punishment by their significant others; lack of knowledge about how to initiate the process...the list goes on and on.

Regardless, after viability, the baby must be protected.

You seem determined to remain indifferent about any of these factors and the problems they cause.

No, I just don't think the solution is, "kill babies."

 

[xjx388]

Of course, because humans are inherently logical creatures. Emotions, including fear and horniness, just never occur to our species.

Yeah, I guess your right. I mean, when I see a woman dressed provocatively...it's not my fault if I jump her. I just got horny.

And this, mind you, from a guy who himself let emotions control his behavior to such an extent that it has affected the rest of his (and others) life.

And then I took responsibility.

 

[RandFan]

Yeah, I guess your right. I mean, when I see a woman dressed provocatively...it's not my fault if I jump her. I just got horny.

A.) It doesn't begin to compare. B.) SezMe isn't arguing against personal responsibility. He's arguing that to think that humans will suddenly stop having sex because of stigma or retributive policies is naive and/or ignorant of evolution.

By all means teach personal responsibility and abstinence. These are very important aspects of a comprehensive policy. But to think that people simply won't make a mistake in the heat of passion is just ignorant of empirical facts. We know that people who have every intent in the world of being abstinent and take purity pledges are just as likely to have sex as those who don't. We know that California had a 60% reduction in unwanted pregnancies due to comprehensive sex education. We know that states that teach abstinence only have the highest rates of unwanted pregnancies.

The argument is for us not to stick our heads in the sand and pretend that people won't have sex if we simply stress personal responsibility.

 

[RandFan]

I guess the bottom line for me is that the life that is conceived is valuable and it deserves protecting.

Is sperm and ovum sacred? If they have not ceased to function then they are living human cells. It looks very much that conception is an arbitrary line that has no basis in reality.

...its not a waste product or parasite that can be discarded.

But you discard sperm (assuming you are male). Why is it that sperm can be legally discarded?

One of these is a fertilized human egg. The other is a baby. A person. A human being. One can't think or suffer but the other can. What makes life sacred is that which makes us human, our thoughts and feelings.

Given human evolution and the instinct to protect babies, if I were a woman, I don't know if I could have an abortion. The attachment and love that a woman feels for her fetus is enough to make it immoral for others to terminate the pregnancy without consent of the mother. But in the end it's a health decision for the pregnant woman.

 

[RandFan]

Regardless, after viability, the baby must be protected.

It's not helpful to call the fetus a "baby" (see my last post). You are equivocating.

No, I just don't think the solution is, "kill babies."

A fetus isn't a baby. No one is advocating to simply "kill babies".

 

[A'isha]

There are no barriers to abortion that didn't exist before.

The window in which an abortion can be obtained is one full month less than it was before. That's a barrier that did not exist before.

Non-surgical medical abortions can now only be obtained at a clinic no more than 30 miles from a hospital and administered by a doctor with admitting privileges at that hospital, and it requires two separate visits to that clinic. That's a barrier that did not exist before.

Many rural communities have never had an abortion clinic.

And now even fewer rural communities will have an abortion clinic. That's also a barrier that did not exist before.

It's also economics. It makes no economic sense to put an abortion clinic anywhere near a town like Presidio or even a bigger city like Del Rio (150 miles from San Antonio).

So why do those rural clinics which do exist...well, exist?

"Need" is a word. It has an accepted definition. The definition is not dependent on the gender of the speaker. You need to drink water. You need to eat. One never needs to have sex and abortion is only necessary in extremely rare cases.

I'm running out ways to say "since you will never, ever have to deal with that situation, you don't get to determine what is a 'need' in that situation is and what isn't".

Uh, no. That was my baby she was cooking.

Yes, that she was cooking. Which is why it was her choice, not yours.

She respected me enough to make the decision together. I guess she could have done it on her own, but that would have hurt our relationship.

Yes. And that was all her choice.

Not yours.

"Literally no say?" Come on . . . She has all the say in the world.

No, she doesn't. You yourself put the fetus' existence over her ability to say.

She could simply choose to not use her body to have sex or she could give her body contraceptives; then her body doesn't have to be an incubator.

The first one is simply punishing women for having sex. The second one, well, you keep ignoring where people point out to you that contraceptives aren't infallible.

"Well, if women don't want to get pregnant, they can just keep their legs together" isn't a justification for these new abortion restrictions, it's the kind archaic ******** attitude that is the problem, the reason why the GOP's War on Women is a very real and disgusting thing.

You aren't getting it. thats 4000 who had a complication serious enough that a hospital was needed. Don't you think abortion clinics should be near hospitals give this fact?

Clinics that perform the more risky, later term abortions, perhaps. But certainly not every single clinic.

That's what makes the requirements of this bill onerous ******** intended to stop abortion entirely, instead of being about actual health and safety issues.

Ok. Where's the problem?

The "problem" would be where once again the Republicans behind this bill let the fig leaf slip, and admit that the bill has nothing whatsoever to do with health and safety issues, and instead are explicitly about stopping abortions because they're abortions.

 

[xjx388]

A.) It doesn't begin to compare. B.) SezMe isn't arguing against personal responsibility. He's arguing that to think that humans will suddenly stop having sex because of stigma or retributive policies is naive and/or ignorant of evolution.

"Horniness" is a drive that men are expected to quell or face the consequences. Putting aside the issue of rape (which isn't really about sex mostly), if I have sex with a woman and get her pregnant -even if she said she was on the pill or I used a condom- I am, at the very least, financially responsible if she decides to keep the baby. And that's fine, I get it. If I didn't want a kid I shouldn't have been so reckless. My fault. According to the logic I've seen here, I'm being punished for having sex.

What people are advocating for here is that a woman should be able to have all the sex she wants and not ever have to face the consequences if she doesn't want to. If men are routinely punished for sex, why not women? We are equal aren't we?

Alternatively, men could have a way to opt out just as easily as women do. If a woman wants to keep the baby, that's her prerogative, but the man should get to decide that too. If he can't financially support the kid then he can opt out. Then she has to decide if she can support it on her own. If not, abort.

By all means teach personal responsibility and abstinence. These are very important aspects of a comprehensive policy. But to think that people simply won't make a mistake in the heat of passion is just ignorant of empirical facts. We know that people who have every intent in the world of being abstinent and take purity pledges are just as likely to have sex as those who don't. We know that California had a 60% reduction in unwanted pregnancies due to comprehensive sex education. We know that states that teach abstinence only have the highest rates of unwanted pregnancies.

The argument is for us not to stick our heads in the sand and pretend that people won't have sex if we simply stress personal responsibility.

But personal responsibility is the mantra in every other aspect of life. People are "punished" every day because they are irresponsible. Why is sex somehow exempt from this need to be responsible?

 

[uke2se]

But personal responsibility is the mantra in every other aspect of life. People are "punished" every day because they are irresponsible. Why is sex somehow exempt from this need to be responsible?

For one, it only punishes women.

 

[RandFan]

"Horniness" is a drive that men are expected to quell or face the consequences. Putting aside the issue of rape (which isn't really about sex mostly), if I have sex with a woman and get her pregnant -even if she said she was on the pill or I used a condom- I am, at the very least, financially responsible if she decides to keep the baby. And that's fine, I get it. If I didn't want a kid I shouldn't have been so reckless. My fault. According to the logic I've seen here, I'm being punished for having sex.

I reject that. I just explained the nature of women, who are not monolithic in their views about an unborn fetus, due to evolutionary variability. Further, finance risks are a far cry from health risks. A woman forced to bear her pregnancy to term faces many social psychological and physical health risks. They are not comparable.

What people are advocating for here is that a woman should be able to have all the sex she wants and not ever have to face the consequences if she doesn't want to. If men are routinely punished for sex, why not women? We are equal aren't we?

I've already addressed this. The argument isn't retributive and I'm not everyone else. Let's avoid the straw men and focus instead on my arguments. Retributive policies have not been shown effective in reducing unwanted pregnancies and improving over all health of society.

But personal responsibility is the mantra in every other aspect of life. People are "punished" every day because they are irresponsible. Why is sex somehow exempt from this need to be responsible?

I don't accept your premise about the mantra. I'm not against stressing the importance of personal responsibility but forcing a woman to bear a child to punish her is, IMO, silly and absurd.

If the consequences were equal for men and women I would be a bit more receptive to your argument (one I used to make). But they aren't and asking men to be responsible for their actions isn't retributive. It's simply looking at the facts. Women must also be responsible for their actions. They need to either bear a child and deal with the consequences of having to give up the child and the risk of pregnancies (a nightmare for mothers) or face the same risks and risk being an unwed mother or have an abortion which carries risks also.

 

[A'isha]

I am, at the very least, financially responsible if she decides to keep the baby. And that's fine, I get it. If I didn't want a kid I shouldn't have been so reckless. My fault. According to the logic I've seen here, I'm being punished for having sex.

What people are advocating for here is that a woman should be able to have all the sex she wants and not ever have to face the consequences if she doesn't want to. If men are routinely punished for sex, why not women? We are equal aren't we?

Are you under the impression that women aren't also financially responsible for their children and don't suffer more financial hardships than men do because of pregnancy and childbirth and child rearing (meaning that woman are, indeed, punished more disproportionately than men are when abortions are restricted)? And this is just about money...it doesn't even address the physical and emotional and social issues that women have to deal with that men simply do not.

 

[xjx388]

Is sperm and ovum sacred? If they have not ceased to function then they are living human cells. It looks very much that conception is an arbitrary line that has no basis in reality.

This has nothing to do with God or sacred. Scientifically, conception is the point at which a human life is created. Legally, viability is the point at which the State has an interest in protecting the fetus that overtakes the mother's right to abort (right to privacy, technically for you sticklers).

But you discard sperm (assuming you are male). Why is it that sperm can be legally discarded?

Sperm is not a human life. Women shed eggs every month. These are not human lives. An embryo is, without question.

One of these is a fertilized human egg. The other is a baby. A person. A human being. One can't think or suffer but the other can. What makes life sacred is that which makes us human, our thoughts and feelings.

But at some point, the embryo becomes a fetus. And at some point, that fetus could be born and survive. That is the point at which it is every bit as human as a 40 week baby about to be born and the point at which it must be protected.

Given human evolution and the instinct to protect babies, if I were a woman, I don't know if I could have an abortion. The attachment and love that a woman feels for her fetus is enough to make it immoral for others to terminate the pregnancy without consent of the mother. But in the end it's a health decision for the pregnant woman.

And reducing motherhood to a health decision devalues it.

 

[Corsair 115]

If anyone wishes to assert that human life begins at conception and deserves protection from that point, then I have to ask when Texas will being stopping all those abortions routinely done at IVF clinics. That is, all those unwanted/excess fertilized embryos which are disposed of. Those are human beings by the standard of life begins at conception.

Curiously though, as far as I can tell, the abortion of those 'human beings' doesn't seem to get talked about much by those who ardently oppose abortion under any circumstances. One may well ask to what rights ought to be accorded to all those tiny little human beings who are (literally) frozen. Do they deserve to have a life and thus must be implanted in a womb? Or is it okay to just leave them in perpetual state of non-development?

 

[xjx388]

For one, it only punishes women.

No. If you abort a fetus I created, you are punishing me. If you make me pay for a kid I don't want, you are punishing me.

 

[A'isha]

No. If you abort a fetus I created, you are punishing me.

No, that does not punish you.

If you make me pay for a kid I don't want, you are punishing me.

It punishes you far less than forcing a woman to carry, give birth to, and deal with a kid she doesn't want punishes her.

 

[Polaris]

No. If you abort a fetus I created, you are punishing me. If you make me pay for a kid I don't want, you are punishing me.

You could always not have sex.

 

[xjx388]

No, that does not punish you.



It punishes you far less than forcing a woman to carry, give birth to, and deal with a kid she doesn't want punishes her.

You are not a man so you don't get to judge how much punishment you think it is to either have our babies killed or make us be parents when we don't want to be. It's pretty bad.

 

[RandFan]

This has nothing to do with God or sacred. Scientifically, conception is the point at which a human life is created.

A.) Your citations are missing. B.) Argument by assertion. C.) No it's not. Human sperm and ovum are living human cells. There is no point at which life "begins".

The fertilized egg is not a human life

Sperm is not a human life. Women shed eggs every month. These are not human lives. An embryo is, without question.

(emphasis mine) Argument by assertion (a fallacy).

But at some point, the embryo becomes a fetus. And at some point, that fetus could be born and survive.

At some point, a sperm becomes a fetus. And at some point, the fetus could be born and survive (but it must first fertilize an egg and then it must attach the uterine wall. You are special pleading and finding an arbitrary line.

And reducing motherhood to a health decision devalues it.

Again, argument by assertion. Please support your claims.

Burden of proof. You are making a claim. If it's just your opinion then say so. If not then you need to support that claim. I reject your claim. Do you have any evidence to support your claim?

 

[RandFan]

You are not a man so you don't get to judge how much punishment you think it is to either have our babies killed or make us be parents when we don't want to be. It's pretty bad.

A fetus, scientifically, isn't a baby. You are intentionally using the word "baby" in an attempt to manipulate emotions.

Zygote, blastocyst and fetuses are not babies.

The image on the left is a fertilized egg. The image on the right is a baby.

It's not reasonable to say that these two are the same anymore than it is to say that a sperm and ovum in a petri dish constitute a baby prior to fertilization. You are special pleading and equivocating in order to gain a rhetorical advantage. You refuse to provide scientific sources to justify your assertion.

Can we please have some science and evidence and not just assertion and special pleading? Which science text book (or any scientific source) that says that a zygote, blastocyst or fetus is a baby?

 

[uke2se]

No. If you abort a fetus I created, you are punishing me.

Nope.

If you make me pay for a kid I don't want, you are punishing me.

Equally much as the woman. Men aren't alone in their economic responsibility. In fact, women are more severely punished, because they are unable to work for periods of their pregnancy.

In short, you are welcome to join us in the 21st century when you are done with your 19th century ideas about women.