Abortion in Texas Fully Legal Again

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Here's a funny idea:

Maybe I love her, and enjoy her for the person she is.

LOVE IS PHYSICAL ATTRACTION! (and a social construct, but not going there)
Enjoying someone for the person they are is not love. That is friendship.

I mean, romantic feelings can develop between two friends who have known each other for years.

However, we have to realize that's not how 90% of dating works. Generally dating people is relegated to people OUTSIDE of your circle of friends, not INSIDE your circle of friends.

[Vaquas]

Again, I am taking a narrow definition of this. I am relating this definition to abortion specifically. A woman should not be permitted to terminate her pregnancy, unless if: 1) The child places her physical and mental health in extreme jeopardy, or is such that the woman will lose her life unless if she aborts 2) The child is so deformed that it would not be able to lead a fulfilling, productive life outside of the womb 3) If the child was conceived by rape, or otherwise against the mother's will through sexual assault (not through consensual intercourse) and 4) If the child was conceived by incest, or conceived when the mother is absolutely, and I mean absolutely, incapable herself of taking care of the child (because of her own physical or mental disabilities). Anything that does not fall under one of these definitions should not be permitted. With organ donations, no living person should be deprived of something which they would need for life unless if they give their express consent. One day, there will be technology that will allow for organ development and cures without the need for donations. Until then, all such cases must be handled that both the donor and the recipient receive full protection of their own lives, and their own persons, and are given the opportunity to be fully aware of what they are doing, and how.

So you want the child to expirience a slow, painful, torturing walk into oblivion.

Would you say a quick death or a slow, painful, death that may cause others to feel more pain is better?

How exquisitely cynical of you.
Gold star for a negative outlook on the human experience.

[Grave_n_idle]

Sexual intercourse traditionally has been for procreation, and the basic use of it has not altered, in spite of all the cultural and the social changes which we have undergone.

Nope. Simply not true. Sex is almost never used for procreation, and never has been.

[The Texan Union]

I didn't say that not wanting to have children did that, I said lust did. Pay attention, please. Also, contraceptives are a viable option.

Those lust-inducing contraceptives are viable?

Then why aren't lust-inducing abortions?

I never said that contraceptives aren't viable. While they do encourage lust, that doesn't make them inherently evil. A couple that is financially incapable of caring for children can still enjoy that level of intimacy without entirely risking pregnancy. My moral disagreement with lust is an entirely different topic.

Abortion is indeed lust-inducing, but that's not my primary argument against it, while it may be a factor in my opinion.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

How exquisitely cynical of you.
Gold star for a negative outlook on the human experience.

Well, we're not the ones looking at the world through rosy-tinted glasses.

People are fucked up, what's new about that?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Those lust-inducing contraceptives are viable?

Then why aren't lust-inducing abortions?

I never said that contraceptives aren't viable. While they do encourage lust, that doesn't make them inherently evil. A couple that is financially incapable of caring for children can still enjoy that level of intimacy without entirely risking pregnancy. My moral disagreement with lust is an entirely different topic.

Abortion is indeed lust-inducing, but that's not my primary argument against it, while it may be a factor in my opinion.

Why is abortion lust-inducing? The hell?!

Since when has the topic of abortion made people all hot and bothered? Do you think couples go into abortion clinics going "you know how kinky it would be to have sex after an abortion"?

[Galloism]

I never said that contraceptives aren't viable. While they do encourage lust, that doesn't make them inherently evil. A couple that is financially incapable of caring for children can still enjoy that level of intimacy without entirely risking pregnancy. My moral disagreement with lust is an entirely different topic.

Abortion is indeed lust-inducing, but that's not my primary argument against it, while it may be a factor in my opinion.

Why is abortion lust-inducing? The hell?!

Since when has the topic of abortion made people all hot and bothered? Do you think couples go into abortion clinics going "you know how kinky it would be to have sex after an abortion"?

Rule 34.

[Vaquas]

How exquisitely cynical of you.
Gold star for a negative outlook on the human experience.

Well, we're not the ones looking at the world through rosy-tinted glasses.

People are fucked up, what's new about that?

Wouldn't you like to change that on a minimal level by not being so fucked up about how fucked up people are?
Just a thought.
You don't have to entertain it.

[Laurasia]

Again, I am taking a narrow definition of this. I am relating this definition to abortion specifically. A woman should not be permitted to terminate her pregnancy, unless if: 1) The child places her physical and mental health in extreme jeopardy, or is such that the woman will lose her life unless if she aborts 2) The child is so deformed that it would not be able to lead a fulfilling, productive life outside of the womb 3) If the child was conceived by rape, or otherwise against the mother's will through sexual assault (not through consensual intercourse) and 4) If the child was conceived by incest, or conceived when the mother is absolutely, and I mean absolutely, incapable herself of taking care of the child (because of her own physical or mental disabilities). Anything that does not fall under one of these definitions should not be permitted. With organ donations, no living person should be deprived of something which they would need for life unless if they give their express consent. One day, there will be technology that will allow for organ development and cures without the need for donations. Until then, all such cases must be handled that both the donor and the recipient receive full protection of their own lives, and their own persons, and are given the opportunity to be fully aware of what they are doing, and how.

You are taking an absolutely hypocritical definition of this. It's not "narrow". It's hypocritical.

And you don't "need" both your kidneys to live. You don't "need" your entire liver to live (in fact, you only need about 30% of it, on average). Your statement that "no living person should be deprived of something which they would need for life" would allow forced organ donations, forced blood donations, and forced kidney donations. In fact, your notion that one person's life can trump another person's bodily autonomy demands it.

I am not taking a hypocritical definition. In my view, human life is valuable, and when one life, in any circumstance, is forfeit, then that chance should not be taken. A woman's life will not be forfeit simply because she gives birth to a child, gives it up for adoption, and moves on with her life. It would be folly to suggest otherwise. I would venture to say to you, and to others, that such selective abortions could maintain us better than abortions on demand. Our society would be better for it, morally and socially. It would also fit more in accord with the true objectives of our Constitution. As regards to organ donations, my definition would preserve the life of both the donor and the recipient. I am aware of the purpose for such donations, and that people can survive with just parts of their organs, or some of them. My definition is that it should not be taken to the extent that one person's life would be destroyed, without their lawful consent. Babies cannot legally consent; that is why theirs is such an important, unique case, besides the exceptions I provided. Living, breathing human beings consent; that is our right under God, and under our constitutional system. That right should be held for the unborn, for them to exercise when they become individual, viable human beings.

[The Texan Union]

LOVE IS PHYSICAL ATTRACTION! (and a social construct, but not going there)
Enjoying someone for the person they are is not love. That is friendship.

I mean, romantic feelings can develop between two friends who have known each other for years.

However, we have to realize that's not how 90% of dating works. Generally dating people is relegated to people OUTSIDE of your circle of friends, not INSIDE your circle of friends.

Perhaps your concept of love is flawed.

[Sunken Island of Rhinomuraena]

So you want the child to expirience a slow, painful, torturing walk into oblivion.

Would you say a quick death or a slow, painful, death that may cause others to feel more pain is better?

How exquisitely cynical of you.
Gold star for a negative outlook on the human experience.

not negative, just logical!

I got too much empathy.

[The Texan Union]

I never said that contraceptives aren't viable. While they do encourage lust, that doesn't make them inherently evil. A couple that is financially incapable of caring for children can still enjoy that level of intimacy without entirely risking pregnancy. My moral disagreement with lust is an entirely different topic.

Abortion is indeed lust-inducing, but that's not my primary argument against it, while it may be a factor in my opinion.

Why is abortion lust-inducing? The hell?!

Since when has the topic of abortion made people all hot and bothered? Do you think couples go into abortion clinics going "you know how kinky it would be to have sex after an abortion"?

I'm not going to repeat myself. Go back and read my previous posts if you insist on arguing.

[Galloism]

I am aware of the purpose for such donations, and that people can survive with just parts of their organs, or some of them. My definition is that it should not be taken to the extent that one person's life would be destroyed, without their lawful consent.

So, just to be clear, you're now reversing and stating we can take organs from people without their consent, provided we don't kill them in the process?

[Sunken Island of Rhinomuraena]

I mean, romantic feelings can develop between two friends who have known each other for years.

However, we have to realize that's not how 90% of dating works. Generally dating people is relegated to people OUTSIDE of your circle of friends, not INSIDE your circle of friends.

Perhaps your concept of love is flawed.

...
Perhaps you have a differing definition you would like to share?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I mean, romantic feelings can develop between two friends who have known each other for years.

However, we have to realize that's not how 90% of dating works. Generally dating people is relegated to people OUTSIDE of your circle of friends, not INSIDE your circle of friends.

Perhaps your concept of love is flawed.

Perhaps you shouldn't be throwing rocks while you're living in a glass house.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

I absolutely hate these discussions, for my own personal reasons. Quick info, I'm adopted due to young partners not having a clue what to do when they got knocked up, but wanting to make sure I went to a family because reasons. Yes, there were some religious bits in there, but hey. Also a mother of two, both of which I nearly lost at different times during pregnancy. Enough of all that, I got reasons. There ya go.

People say the woman has a choice. Well, there's all sorts of choices one can make, such as not having sex at all, making sure y'all are as properly protected as you can be, remove reproduction from the equation, on one side or the other (which I realize is problematic due to doctors and their own biases from what I've seen and heard). All those choices can be made prior. Once there is a pregnancy to deal with, there are choices there as well - adoption, which I'm keen on for by now obvious reasons, though some make it more difficult than it ought to be, there's the safe child option, where in some states you can drop off a baby with no questions asked at certain locations, there's keeping the child, which can be problematic for a plethora of reasons, and there's abortion - which, while it has its own risks, is the go-to solution for a number of folks due to the overall lack of complications that some of the other options have, the privacy in which it can be handled, and the permanency of the solution - once done, it's well and truly done, and unless some crazy protesters show up as you're exiting the building, you're probably good to go.

I get that there are some situations that are simply untenable. I get that there are times when all the proper precautions have been taken, and still, an unwanted pregnancy has happened. Even though I have a friend who was raped, and chose to go through with the pregnancy, I cannot in good faith sit back and tell another woman to do the same - hopefully for very obvious reasons to anyone reading. And of course, I can't tell another woman she has to see a pregnancy through regardless of the reasons she got pregnant - even if it was utter irresponsible screwing around. Even if it sickens me to think about the abortion alternative. It isn't my personal business, and I cannot force my personal morals on others.

That said, I think the men involved - yes, believe it or not, it generally takes two to make this happen - shock, awe - ought to have some sort of input, due to them being half of the equation that resulted in a pregnancy. Yes, I've heard all the arguments, even the ones that disgust me by how they're phrased, about how no woman ought to be 'used as an incubator for 9 months' and such, but come on. Anyone who does not realize that having sex /can/ result in a pregnancy, has no goddamn business having sex to begin with. It isn't as though it is a complete unknown, or a mystery as to how pregnancy can happen. This goes back to some of those initial choices - being informed kinda goes with that. I'm sure there's plenty of men who'd just as soon not be saddled with that choice any more than plenty of the women who end up having to deal with it. No, I don't want to see men forcing a woman to have an abortion against her will, either - there are, I hope, legal ways around that problem too. That said, I've seen plenty of stories of those who did care, and did want a say in what happened with their potential child. I've seen men who would happily raise the child and not ask the woman to be involved at all, if only she were willing to see the pregnancy through. We've got all sorts of people out there. And in a situation where it takes two genders to create a situation - I'd like to see both genders have a right in saying how it will be resolved.

I cannot state that I think abortion is a good thing. It simply isn't in me. Even leaving any and all religious arguments aside (which truthfully aren't the things that stand very high in my own reasoning), I can't do it. You will never see me state on here that I support abortion.

You also won't see me state that I think we ought to make it all illegal. I would like for everyone to be properly informed - not bullied, not ambushed with horrible pictures and videos, nor assaulted with mandatory cervical checks or ultrasounds, or any of that nonsense as some have implemented, disgustingly. Just fully informed, fully able to have reasonable access to contraceptives, for those in really tight circumstances to know where to get free or discounted services, and to be sure that every area actually /has/ those in some form or other. To be educated in all the angles of things, to have the laws straightened out so the various options are not so goram difficult, including the personal choice of medical sterilization as an adult. To have all states and areas support the safe child dropoff options, and to be sure it is well advertised, and visible to try and stop those horrible hidden pregnancies that end up with babies left in trashcans and other equally awful places. There's a lot better we could be doing in a number of areas that we aren't. And if a woman still chooses, after the man opts out and all the info and options are known and available, to have an abortion?

Well, that's going to be her choice to make. Her choice is not predicated on my approval - or anyone else's.

/long rambling grr argh

[Vaquas]

I mean, romantic feelings can develop between two friends who have known each other for years.

However, we have to realize that's not how 90% of dating works. Generally dating people is relegated to people OUTSIDE of your circle of friends, not INSIDE your circle of friends.

Perhaps your concept of love is flawed.

Perhaps love is something that everyone is entitled to their own opinion about?
The only thing that is constant about love is that it is, on some level, a biologically based thing before it is a social one.
I'm failing to see how love factors into if a woman should be allowed to abort her fetus.

[Laurasia]

I am aware of the purpose for such donations, and that people can survive with just parts of their organs, or some of them. My definition is that it should not be taken to the extent that one person's life would be destroyed, without their lawful consent.

So, just to be clear, you're now reversing and stating we can take organs from people without their consent, provided we don't kill them in the process?

No, I am saying that consenting human beings agree to donate their organs, and that it is wrong to take these organs from them in any circumstances unless if they give express consent. Again, you don't understand the whole definition I have given of this case, and of the exceptions I have provided for selective abortions. You cannot paint everything with one brush or warp and twist the statements of others on so relevant a issue.

[Sunken Island of Rhinomuraena]

You are taking an absolutely hypocritical definition of this. It's not "narrow". It's hypocritical.

And you don't "need" both your kidneys to live. You don't "need" your entire liver to live (in fact, you only need about 30% of it, on average). Your statement that "no living person should be deprived of something which they would need for life" would allow forced organ donations, forced blood donations, and forced kidney donations. In fact, your notion that one person's life can trump another person's bodily autonomy demands it.

I am not taking a hypocritical definition. In my view, human life is valuable, and when one life, in any circumstance, is forfeit, then that chance should not be taken. A woman's life will not be forfeit simply because she gives birth to a child, gives it up for adoption, and moves on with her life. It would be folly to suggest otherwise. I would venture to say to you, and to others, that such selective abortions could maintain us better than abortions on demand. Our society would be better for it, morally and socially. It would also fit more in accord with the true objectives of our Constitution. As regards to organ donations, my definition would preserve the life of both the donor and the recipient. I am aware of the purpose for such donations, and that people can survive with just parts of their organs, or some of them. My definition is that it should not be taken to the extent that one person's life would be destroyed, without their lawful consent. Babies cannot legally consent; that is why theirs is such an important, unique case, besides the exceptions I provided. Living, breathing human beings consent; that is our right under God, and under our constitutional system. That right should be held for the unborn, for them to exercise when they become individual, viable human beings.

Sooo, the unbreathing, unliving baby shouldn't get a voice.
That's what I heard.
I mean, I would want to be mercy-killed before consciousness if I got the choice, but then again I am an outlier... I have empathy and a messed up brain.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Well, we're not the ones looking at the world through rosy-tinted glasses.

People are fucked up, what's new about that?

Wouldn't you like to change that on a minimal level by not being so fucked up about how fucked up people are?
Just a thought.
You don't have to entertain it.

No, because it's the reality.

You might wish that people are not fucked up, you might think that people don't do fucked up things, you might think that people can all get together and that we can all live harmoniously. The reality is, people are fucked up. You can't really wish fucked up people to go away, you have to live with them anyways.

[The V O I D]

So, just to be clear, you're now reversing and stating we can take organs from people without their consent, provided we don't kill them in the process?

No, I am saying that consenting human beings agree to donate their organs, and that it is wrong to take these organs from them in any circumstances unless if they give express consent. Again, you don't understand the whole definition I have given of this case, and of the exceptions I have provided for selective abortions. You cannot paint everything with one brush or warp and twist the statements of others on so relevant a issue.

So, only men and women get bodily sovereignty if it's their organs, but heaven forbid women get bodily sovereignty about what occupies their uterus...

[Galloism]

So, just to be clear, you're now reversing and stating we can take organs from people without their consent, provided we don't kill them in the process?

No, I am saying that consenting human beings agree to donate their organs, and that it is wrong to take these organs from them in any circumstances unless if they give express consent.

Why do organ donors have to give consent, and it's ok for them to withhold consent even if innocent people die? Why do women not get the same consideration?

Put another way, why does the fetus have the inherent right to use another person's body against their will, but grown adults (or hell, children or teenagers for that matter) do not have the right to use another person's body against their will?

This is the key point. Why are you giving the fetus more rights than grown people? On what basis?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I absolutely hate these discussions, for my own personal reasons. Quick info, I'm adopted due to young partners not having a clue what to do when they got knocked up, but wanting to make sure I went to a family because reasons. Yes, there were some religious bits in there, but hey. Also a mother of two, both of which I nearly lost at different times during pregnancy. Enough of all that, I got reasons. There ya go.

People say the woman has a choice. Well, there's all sorts of choices one can make, such as not having sex at all, making sure y'all are as properly protected as you can be, remove reproduction from the equation, on one side or the other (which I realize is problematic due to doctors and their own biases from what I've seen and heard). All those choices can be made prior. Once there is a pregnancy to deal with, there are choices there as well - adoption, which I'm keen on for by now obvious reasons, though some make it more difficult than it ought to be, there's the safe child option, where in some states you can drop off a baby with no questions asked at certain locations, there's keeping the child, which can be problematic for a plethora of reasons, and there's abortion - which, while it has its own risks, is the go-to solution for a number of folks due to the overall lack of complications that some of the other options have, the privacy in which it can be handled, and the permanency of the solution - once done, it's well and truly done, and unless some crazy protesters show up as you're exiting the building, you're probably good to go.

I get that there are some situations that are simply untenable. I get that there are times when all the proper precautions have been taken, and still, an unwanted pregnancy has happened. Even though I have a friend who was raped, and chose to go through with the pregnancy, I cannot in good faith sit back and tell another woman to do the same - hopefully for very obvious reasons to anyone reading. And of course, I can't tell another woman she has to see a pregnancy through regardless of the reasons she got pregnant - even if it was utter irresponsible screwing around. Even if it sickens me to think about the abortion alternative. It isn't my personal business, and I cannot force my personal morals on others.

That said, I think the men involved - yes, believe it or not, it generally takes two to make this happen - shock, awe - ought to have some sort of input, due to them being half of the equation that resulted in a pregnancy. Yes, I've heard all the arguments, even the ones that disgust me by how they're phrased, about how no woman ought to be 'used as an incubator for 9 months' and such, but come on. Anyone who does not realize that having sex /can/ result in a pregnancy, has no goddamn business having sex to begin with. It isn't as though it is a complete unknown, or a mystery as to how pregnancy can happen. This goes back to some of those initial choices - being informed kinda goes with that. I'm sure there's plenty of men who'd just as soon not be saddled with that choice any more than plenty of the women who end up having to deal with it. No, I don't want to see men forcing a woman to have an abortion against her will, either - there are, I hope, legal ways around that problem too. That said, I've seen plenty of stories of those who did care, and did want a say in what happened with their potential child. I've seen men who would happily raise the child and not ask the woman to be involved at all, if only she were willing to see the pregnancy through. We've got all sorts of people out there. And in a situation where it takes two genders to create a situation - I'd like to see both genders have a right in saying how it will be resolved.

I cannot state that I think abortion is a good thing. It simply isn't in me. Even leaving any and all religious arguments aside (which truthfully aren't the things that stand very high in my own reasoning), I can't do it. You will never see me state on here that I support abortion.

You also won't see me state that I think we ought to make it all illegal. I would like for everyone to be properly informed - not bullied, not ambushed with horrible pictures and videos, nor assaulted with mandatory cervical checks or ultrasounds, or any of that nonsense as some have implemented, disgustingly. Just fully informed, fully able to have reasonable access to contraceptives, for those in really tight circumstances to know where to get free or discounted services, and to be sure that every area actually /has/ those in some form or other. To be educated in all the angles of things, to have the laws straightened out so the various options are not so goram difficult, including the personal choice of medical sterilization as an adult. To have all states and areas support the safe child dropoff options, and to be sure it is well advertised, and visible to try and stop those horrible hidden pregnancies that end up with babies left in trashcans and other equally awful places. There's a lot better we could be doing in a number of areas that we aren't. And if a woman still chooses, after the man opts out and all the info and options are known and available, to have an abortion?

Well, that's going to be her choice to make. Her choice is not predicated on my approval - or anyone else's.

/long rambling grr argh

I agree with that for the most part for a loving relationship where two people love each other, and dare I say, respect each other.

Where there is no love, or respect, and instead there is abuse though? There shouldn't be.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Why is abortion lust-inducing? The hell?!

Since when has the topic of abortion made people all hot and bothered? Do you think couples go into abortion clinics going "you know how kinky it would be to have sex after an abortion"?

I'm not going to repeat myself. Go back and read my previous posts if you insist on arguing.

I've read them, they don't address this.

Also, NSG is all about arguing. You seem to think you're here just stating your opinion without being challenged.

[The Texan Union]

Wouldn't you like to change that on a minimal level by not being so fucked up about how fucked up people are?
Just a thought.
You don't have to entertain it.

No, because it's the reality.

You might wish that people are not fucked up, you might think that people don't do fucked up things, you might think that people can all get together and that we can all live harmoniously. The reality is, people are fucked up. You can't really wish fucked up people to go away, you have to live with them anyways.

Or, perhaps, attempt to help them. You know, instead of whining about it.

But I'd say this thread is finished. Everyone's made their point, and no opinions appear to have changed. I will be leaving now. Farewell.

(If I missed a response, I'm sorry.)