Texas Finally Passes Abortion Bill!

[Vazdania]

To be honest, why should we care about people dumb enough to risk their life like that?

It's dumb to risk your life rather than spend the rest of it in poverty caring for an unwanted child?

giving it to the state.

[Furious Grandmothers]

1)Foetus isn't a human. I'll kindly direct you to the Definition of both a human and foetus.
2)Consent to sex=/=consent to pregnancy.

Consent to outright not wear or use protection = consent to pregnancy.

Just like consent to not wear seatbelts = consent to death by flying windshield, eh?

[New Libertarian States]

PEOPLE HAVE FUCKING NEEDS.
Most people have a fucking libido which makes them strongly desire to fuck. If they didn't, we'd all have just gone extinct because we would have had no children. To prevent unwanted pregnancies, people use birth control. Some of these methods prevent sperm from entering the uterus, some destroy them in the uterus. Some prevent them from escaping the testes. Some prevent the zygote from implanting. Some, usually as a last resort, destroy the unthinking clump of cells so that it does not ruin a real person's life.

yes people have needs. That's the problem!!!! "unwanted" I don't care if its "Unwanted" there is still cells in there which are going to turn into a human in about 9 months. Birth Control isn't always effective. YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE for the time it doesn't work. Abortion is a cop-out for those who don't want to take responsibility for their actions. You fucked up, you deal with it for 18 years.

So can other cells.
So,wait, women are responsible for a product that failed?
"It's your fault that our microwave gave you cancer"

[Hushabagain]

1)Foetus isn't a human. I'll kindly direct you to the Definition of both a human and foetus.
2)Consent to sex=/=consent to pregnancy.

Consent to outright not wear or use protection = consent to pregnancy.

so... consent not to wear a seat belt = consent to death?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Dude, I live in Texas.

Also, what the fuck is up with all this anti-abortion bullshit? I expect the US to be more liberal and I come across this pile of crap. Honestly, people in general can't redeem themselves, even if they tried.

people in the U.S are liberal until you deal with issues that don't affect them personally. Then they get conservative. I give you Iraq, ladies an gentlemen.

That is quite... Ugh!

I just hope this shit gets repealed. Seriously, as someone who has lived in a country who banned abortions, I don't want to even imagine what will happen here.

[Liriena]

1)Foetus isn't a human. I'll kindly direct you to the Definition of both a human and foetus.
2)Consent to sex=/=consent to pregnancy.

Consent to outright not wear or use protection = consent to pregnancy.

In what universe?

[Anachronous Rex]

The parts of the brain that are requisite for consciousness form between 24 and 28 weeks. I couldn't give less of a fuck about anything before that, including a zygote. But no, we still have to point out the obvious differences between a conscious human being that can love, reflect and think, do math and science, read, and live, and a fucking zygote.

And frankly they're not developed even then. I could see holding off on "personhood" well past that point, hell well past birth.

Saying "no abortion after the 24th week" is playing it far safer then it probably needs to be played, and the pro-choice crowd gets no appreciation for this concession.

[Orham]

The snobbery on this forum is honestly incredible.

While I understand that you're probably getting upset, this isn't productive for your case. Please calm down if you can.

As to late term abortions: an abortionist was recently found guilty of murder for aborting infants. With scissors. He could face the death penalty. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/05/13/jury-split-on-2-counts-in-trial-abortion-doctor-kermit-gosnell/. The scissors jokes are not funny.

No, the scissors jokes aren't funny. And Kermit Gosnell is a horrible, horrible person who violated every single element of the medical code of ethics. But most abortions in the US occur within the first trimester by a vast majority, and the rate of abortions after that point falls off dramatically. What Kermit Gosnell did is atypical, unrepresentative. And yes, abhorrent too.

A police officer accused of kicking a pregnant woman in the stomach is under investigation for threatening the life of a child by his actions http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/dekalb-officer-investigated-after-allegedly-kickin/nNzDS/

The police officer was not an employee of an abortion clinic. It is wrong to argue that such events are representative of abortion in the United States, they're very clearly not. These things do happen, and they are always terrible. But they're not nearly as common as abortions taking place in a safe, clinical setting administered according to the principles enshrined in medical ethics.

Size: Does the size of a fetus determine its humanity? By the same standard, are midgets less human than 'normal' people?

No, size is not an acceptable criterion by which to assign personhood.

Level of Development: In the womb, a fetus grows from a cluster of rapidly multiplying cells to a 'child' able to live outside of the womb. However, at any stage during this development, the child can be aborted.

This is true, and some argue that the standard for assigning personhood according to developmental progress ought to occur at the point where independent fetal viability becomes probable. At 20 weeks that probability is approximately 50%.

Some even argue that fully developed children should be aborted outside the womb:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html
"Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued."

The position that personhood ought to be assigned at some point after birth is untenable. No one takes it seriously, even if it is a position which has been argued. It's a political and social dead end, as it rightly ought to be.

How this is distinguishable from infanticide, I do not know. The issue is that any determination of when a fetus is 'human' or not is entirely arbitrary, unless one takes the stance that a fetus inherits all the necessary genetic potential to qualify as fully human the moment a sperm fertilizes an egg.

No, the position that probable independent fetal viability ought to constitute the point at which personhood is assigned has philosophical ground upon which to stand.

Environment: Until recently, a fetus could be aborted until the moment it was fully out of the womb. Again, this is an entirely arbitrary standard. The location of the child, whether in a woman's womb or in a cradle, should play no role in determining whether it is morally right to kill it.

Establishment of the line at which personhood is assigned as the point at which a child has been born is not arbitrary. That is the point at which the child ceases in occupying the woman's body, and thus the point at which any question of her bodily sovereignty becomes entirely irrelevant. Merely claiming that a stance is arbitrarily assumed doesn't make it so.

Dependency: Through most of a pregnancy, children are dependent on their mother for nearly everything. I fail to see how that makes them less human. The same line of reasoning renders the handicapped and people on respirators or life support unhuman.

The distinction lies in the matter of bodily sovereignty. The handicapped and people on life support machines are not occupying another person's body. A fetus invariably occupies someone else's body, and thus a dilemma emerges where it would not in the case of a handicapped person or a person on life support. The two situations are not directly comparable.

[Blasveck]

It's dumb to risk your life rather than spend the rest of it in poverty caring for an unwanted child?

giving it to the state.

"You can have sex anytime you want! Just give that kid up for adoption." (Joking)

[Zweite Alaje]

What hypocrisy?


Empathy for enemies isn't my forte.

Hypocrisy:

You, a moralist, naturally assume that your morals are correct. This by itself is not hypocrisy. However, your morals, as you have stated, include strong personal freedom. Like the freedom to abort a baby and to have morals of your own. However, you place your morals above those of others. Hypocrisy.

When have I ever said I value "freedom"? I'm an anti-individualist and an authoritarian, I despise the very term, the very concept of "freedom".

Oh you mean like how liberals flip-flop on what their purpose for abortion is? One minute it's for "life threatening pregnancies" and another for "bodily sovereignty" and at other times "for any reason cuz freedumb".

well... all three... see... things can have multiple reasons... in fact, in most cultures, arguments are considered better if they have more reasons behind them. And freedom needs no purpose.

Things that need no purpose have no purpose. Freedom is nothing, it means nothing.

[Furious Grandmothers]

It's dumb to risk your life rather than spend the rest of it in poverty caring for an unwanted child?

giving it to the state.

Adoption is not even close to an alternative to abortion. Mathematically, the difference is: Adoption - Abortion = The remaining months of pregnancy to go through, together with all the suffering and permanent physiological and hormonal and emotional changes, heightened risk of injury or future infertility or death, and the whole arduous process of giving birth itself.

[With Teeth]

It's dumb to risk your life rather than spend the rest of it in poverty caring for an unwanted child?

giving it to the state.

We all know how loving and caring the adoption system is. How many kids find a home?

Maybe it would be better if all gay couples could adopt, but that's something the conservatives are also against.

[Torcularis Septentrionalis]

1)Foetus isn't a human. I'll kindly direct you to the Definition of both a human and foetus.
2)Consent to sex=/=consent to pregnancy.

Consent to outright not wear or use protection = consent to pregnancy.

No it's not.
Contraceptives fail.
Here's a story: I use protection every time I have sex. Thursday night I was fucking my boyfriend like super hardcore right? Well he finished and pulled out and the condom had broke. I'm actually probably going to be pregnant, I've just got to wait another two weeks to find out, and if I am, I'm calling a clinic and scheduling an abortion. Whoops, don't care.

[Tlaceceyaya]

Again, as I mentioned in the post you refused to respond to, the people who say that others should just "take responsibility for their own actions" are usually the ones who don't need to. The ones who either won't go hungry or can't imagine being unable to make a lot of money.
What if you were in the position of a woman for whom caring for a child would not only drive you even deeper into poverty, but would jeopardize any chance you may have of getting out of it because you would be unable to attend school or have a job?

That is the point where you give it to the state.

And have to suffer the horrific pain of childbirth. Apparently it's comparable to kidney stones. My dad had kidney stones last fall. He described the pain as so horrible that he thought he was going to die, and he didn't form a maternal bond with the kidney stones after they came out.
A woman who is forced to carry a pregnancy to term may form a very strong bond with it because of her maternal instincts, and she can't help it. It's clearly not in her best interests, but she'll have trouble letting go. In addition to unbelievable physical pain, there may be horrible emotional pain afterwards. All because you are so opposed to her destroying the unthinking thing that was growing inside her.

[Vazdania]

giving it to the state.

We all know how loving and caring the adoption system is. How many kids find a home?

Maybe it would be better if all gay couples could adopt, but that's something the conservatives are also against.

Not I

[Hushabagain]

Hypocrisy:

You, a moralist, naturally assume that your morals are correct. This by itself is not hypocrisy. However, your morals, as you have stated, include strong personal freedom. Like the freedom to abort a baby and to have morals of your own. However, you place your morals above those of others. Hypocrisy.

When have I ever said I value "freedom"? I'm an anti-individualist and an authoritarian, I despise the very term, the very concept of "freedom".

well... all three... see... things can have multiple reasons... in fact, in most cultures, arguments are considered better if they have more reasons behind them. And freedom needs no purpose.

Things that need no purpose have no purpose. Freedom is nothing, it means nothing.

Well... see... we have this document... the Constitution... it provides for "liberty and justice for all"... so... you can... bite me...

[With Teeth]

We all know how loving and caring the adoption system is. How many kids find a home?

Maybe it would be better if all gay couples could adopt, but that's something the conservatives are also against.

Not I

Plural.

[Liriena]

Consent to outright not wear or use protection = consent to pregnancy.

No it's not.
Contraceptives fail.
Here's a story: I use protection every time I have sex. Thursday night I was fucking my boyfriend like super hardcore right? Well he finished and pulled out and the condom had broke. I'm actually probably going to be pregnant, I've just got to wait another two weeks to find out, and if I am, I'm calling a clinic and scheduling an abortion. Whoops, don't care.

You slut!

[Furious Grandmothers]

Hypocrisy:

You, a moralist, naturally assume that your morals are correct. This by itself is not hypocrisy. However, your morals, as you have stated, include strong personal freedom. Like the freedom to abort a baby and to have morals of your own. However, you place your morals above those of others. Hypocrisy.

When have I ever said I value "freedom"? I'm an anti-individualist and an authoritarian, I despise the very term, the very concept of "freedom".

well... all three... see... things can have multiple reasons... in fact, in most cultures, arguments are considered better if they have more reasons behind them. And freedom needs no purpose.

Things that need no purpose have no purpose. Freedom is nothing, it means nothing.

I can see you advocating state-run eugenics.

[Planeia]

To be honest, why should we care about people dumb enough to risk their life like that?

It's dumb to risk your life rather than spend the rest of it in poverty caring for an unwanted child?

Is it really worth it? You'd go so far as to even take your own life?

[The Black Forrest]

PEOPLE HAVE FUCKING NEEDS.
Most people have a fucking libido which makes them strongly desire to fuck. If they didn't, we'd all have just gone extinct because we would have had no children. To prevent unwanted pregnancies, people use birth control. Some of these methods prevent sperm from entering the uterus, some destroy them in the uterus. Some prevent them from escaping the testes. Some prevent the zygote from implanting. Some, usually as a last resort, destroy the unthinking clump of cells so that it does not ruin a real person's life.

yes people have needs. That's the problem!!!! "unwanted" I don't care if its "Unwanted" there is still cells in there which are going to turn into a human in about 9 months. Birth Control isn't always effective. YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE for the time it doesn't work. Abortion is a cop-out for those who don't want to take responsibility for their actions. You fucked up, you deal with it for 18 years.

They are being responsible for it. They made a choice. You seem to want to decide what women can and can't do.

[The lepearchauns]

Im saddened that people think they can control other peoples bodies.

Should these mothers be more educated, yes. Should they be made to think about it, yes. Should this be banned, no.Its a womans choice what happens with her body

[Planeia]

Consent to outright not wear or use protection = consent to pregnancy.

Just like consent to not wear seatbelts = consent to death by flying windshield, eh?

Yeah...

[Blasveck]

When have I ever said I value "freedom"? I'm an anti-individualist and an authoritarian, I despise the very term, the very concept of "freedom".



Things that need no purpose have no purpose. Freedom is nothing, it means nothing.

Well... see... we have this document... the Constitution... it provides for "liberty and justice for all"... so... you can... bite me...

Yeah, and the Constitution means nothing if nobody enforces it. But, thankfully, we do.

[Torcularis Septentrionalis]

No it's not.
Contraceptives fail.
Here's a story: I use protection every time I have sex. Thursday night I was fucking my boyfriend like super hardcore right? Well he finished and pulled out and the condom had broke. I'm actually probably going to be pregnant, I've just got to wait another two weeks to find out, and if I am, I'm calling a clinic and scheduling an abortion. Whoops, don't care.

You slut!

totally. the biggest slutty mcslutface that has ever slutted.