Abortion in Texas Fully Legal Again

[Vaquas]

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.

1. human life isnt valuable in the least. there are 7 billion of us, we dont need to add more. i assume you dont consume plants of animals since if you do then your a hypocrite. why is it that you value one species more then other species?

2. the mere fact that you allow exceptions to abortion being no good makes your stance weak and dismissable.

3.you say a woman's life wont be forfeit due to childbirth. the millions of women that die due to childbirth complications would disagree with you on that. it is a FACT that childbirth is very risky for women.

4. our constitution says that abortion is legal and women have rights to have one. now who's the one thats following the constitution eh? certainly not you or anyone else that refuses to allow women access to abortion

5. in regards to what your deity thinks, Nobody cares! your "god" gets absolutely no say in regards to our rights and laws. if you want to be in a country that follows your god's word move to rome.

6. fetuses aren't babies nor are they living beings. lets focus more help for the living instead of people that nonliving

7. the fetus has no rights since it's not a US citizen. our rights are provided to people born in the US and since fetuses haven't been born yet they have no rights as citizens

1. *Sigh*

2. Wrong.

3. Yeah, if you live in the Third World.

4. I don't recall the constitutional ammendment that said "Go ahead and terminate those fetuses." James Madison must've not made it clear enough.

5. *Louder Sigh*

6. "Not babies"..."People that Nonliving"... this was contradictory and incoherent.

7. This is deeply flawed.

[Galloism]

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?

The fetus is not being given more rights than a grown person.

Look, the only fucking way a fetus is not being given more rights than a grown person, when it literally has the right to use another person's body against their will, is if grown adults have the right to use another person's body against their will.

You can't beat this. It's definitional. If I have the right to speak freely on the internet, and you do not have the right to speak freely on the internet, we do not have the same rights, because I have a right you do not. It is flat out fucking definitional. X has rights A + B + C. Y has rights A + B + C +D. They do not have the same rights.

It's fucking definitional. Do you not understand that you are giving the fetus a right to use its mothers body against its will? Is that where the communication falls down?

Or do you not understand that not having the right to do something means you do not have the right to do something? Is that the problem?

Where's the communication breakdown? I'm sincerely lost. You said the fetus has the right to use another person's body against their will. You also said grown people do not have this right.

This means, and I'm going to say this obviously, they do not have the same rights. The fetus has one more right that grown people do not have.

[The Texan Union]

I meant help the "fucked up" people. That is, after all, why you were quoted. I didn't say all women who had abortions were sluts. Stop twisting my words.

You're the one saying abortions "induce" lust, and that "eliminating a child" automatically makes a person just think about the orgasm they had the night when that fetus was conceived.

Your failure to communicate doesn't automatically put you in a more defensible spot.

Haha! There you go again, twisting my damn words.

My failure to communicate? Everyone but you can quite clearly tell what they're reading.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I find myself wondering how people question an obvious point.
Is there a high school course I missed?

Being aware of it, you yet decide to tell people "oh people are not that bad, I don't know how you can be so cynical!". It's because people can be that bad that people are cynical.

I love your ideology of:
"The world is shitty filled with shitty people who do shitty things so there's no point in not having a shitty outlook and shitty attitude."
It really showcases how not to think if you actually want to change, impact, or accomplish something.

Thinking that people shit rainbows and sing jambalaya clearly is going to help you do that, then?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

You're the one saying abortions "induce" lust, and that "eliminating a child" automatically makes a person just think about the orgasm they had the night when that fetus was conceived.

Your failure to communicate doesn't automatically put you in a more defensible spot.

Haha! There you go again, twisting my damn words.

My failure to communicate? Everyone but you can quite clearly tell what they're reading.

Well then don't say what you don't mean.

And I think that I'm not the only one who can see that you're wrong.

[The Texan Union]

The fetus is not being given more rights than a grown person.

Look, the only fucking way a fetus is not being given more rights than a grown person, when it literally has the right to use another person's body against their will, is if grown adults have the right to use another person's body against their will.

You can't beat this. It's definitional. If I have the right to speak freely on the internet, and you do not have the right to speak freely on the internet, we do not have the same rights, because I have a right you do not. It is flat out fucking definitional. X has rights A + B + C. Y has rights A + B + C +D. They do not have the same rights.

It's fucking definitional. Do you not understand that you are giving the fetus a right to use its mothers body against its will? Is that where the communication falls down?

Or do you not understand that not having the right to do something means you do not have the right to do something? Is that the problem?

Where's the communication breakdown? I'm sincerely lost. You said the fetus has the right to use another person's body against their will. You also said grown people do not have this right.

This means, and I'm going to say this obviously, they do not have the same rights. The fetus has one more right that grown people do not have.

SHE GAVE IT THE RIGHT BY CREATING IT.

It's not some parasite that invaded her body!
(Unless it was rape, of course, in which case it sort of is.)

[The Texan Union]

Haha! There you go again, twisting my damn words.

My failure to communicate? Everyone but you can quite clearly tell what they're reading.

Well then don't say what you don't mean.

And I think that I'm not the only one who can see that you're wrong.

You are literally using indirect quotes pulled out of context in order to support an underlying argument that I'm some sort of sexist asshole! Honestly, you're just a troll, fuck off.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Look, the only fucking way a fetus is not being given more rights than a grown person, when it literally has the right to use another person's body against their will, is if grown adults have the right to use another person's body against their will.

You can't beat this. It's definitional. If I have the right to speak freely on the internet, and you do not have the right to speak freely on the internet, we do not have the same rights, because I have a right you do not. It is flat out fucking definitional. X has rights A + B + C. Y has rights A + B + C +D. They do not have the same rights.

It's fucking definitional. Do you not understand that you are giving the fetus a right to use its mothers body against its will? Is that where the communication falls down?

Or do you not understand that not having the right to do something means you do not have the right to do something? Is that the problem?

Where's the communication breakdown? I'm sincerely lost. You said the fetus has the right to use another person's body against their will. You also said grown people do not have this right.

This means, and I'm going to say this obviously, they do not have the same rights. The fetus has one more right that grown people do not have.

SHE GAVE IT THE RIGHT BY CREATING IT.

It's not some parasite that invaded her body!
(Unless it was rape, of course, in which case it sort of is.)

No she didn't.

You aren't automatically revoked of your right to privacy and to make your own medical decisions simply because I need your kidneys.

[Laurasia]

The fetus is not being given more rights than a grown person.

Look, the only fucking way a fetus is not being given more rights than a grown person, when it literally has the right to use another person's body against their will, is if grown adults have the right to use another person's body against their will.

You can't beat this. It's definitional. If I have the right to speak freely on the internet, and you do not have the right to speak freely on the internet, we do not have the same rights, because I have a right you do not. It is flat out fucking definitional. X has rights A + B + C. Y has rights A + B + C +D. They do not have the same rights.

It's fucking definitional. Do you not understand that you are giving the fetus a right to use its mothers body against its will? Is that where the communication falls down?

Or do you not understand that not having the right to do something means you do not have the right to do something? Is that the problem?

Where's the communication breakdown? I'm sincerely lost. You said the fetus has the right to use another person's body against their will. You also said grown people do not have this right.

This means, and I'm going to say this obviously, they do not have the same rights. The fetus has one more right that grown people do not have.

I would say that you are wrong. You don't understand the difference between someone who cannot consent (a baby) and someone who can consent (a living, breathing, viable human being). The unborn child needs to have the right to become a viable, living, independent human being. We all arise from the same source. You cannot destroy the lives of the helpless, of those unable to defend themselves. You cannot do it to living beings (through murder), and you cannot do it to unborn babies (through abortion). Once something has been created, it is a living organism. Science alone says that the unborn child is an individual, developing organism from their mother. Thus, that child should be constitutionally and legally protected from harm or intrusion by the mother. The mother has absolutely no right to determine who lives or who dies. Once you give that right to someone, to destroy the life of an innocent person, you destroy the basic essence of civilization and of human kind!

[The V O I D]

Abortion is an absolutist issue. There is black and white. It's one of those few issues with no grey area.

On one hand, you legalize it. Women get safe, professional abortions with minimal health risks routinely if they had an unwanted pregnancy. Everyone goes home happy and dandy.

On the other hand, you illegalize it. Women who do not consent to pregnancy, or have unwanted pregnancy, are now forced to do unsafe, non-professional back-alley abortions; or do it to themselves, do-it-yourself style. This can result in the death of both the fetus and the woman in question, and if you're from the pro-life side of things, that ends two lives... pointlessly. Death rate increases slightly, as does the crime rate severely...

I mean, for me, it's a no-brainer.

[Galloism]

Look, the only fucking way a fetus is not being given more rights than a grown person, when it literally has the right to use another person's body against their will, is if grown adults have the right to use another person's body against their will.

You can't beat this. It's definitional. If I have the right to speak freely on the internet, and you do not have the right to speak freely on the internet, we do not have the same rights, because I have a right you do not. It is flat out fucking definitional. X has rights A + B + C. Y has rights A + B + C +D. They do not have the same rights.

It's fucking definitional. Do you not understand that you are giving the fetus a right to use its mothers body against its will? Is that where the communication falls down?

Or do you not understand that not having the right to do something means you do not have the right to do something? Is that the problem?

Where's the communication breakdown? I'm sincerely lost. You said the fetus has the right to use another person's body against their will. You also said grown people do not have this right.

This means, and I'm going to say this obviously, they do not have the same rights. The fetus has one more right that grown people do not have.

SHE GAVE IT THE RIGHT BY CREATING IT.

By what logic or authority?

It's not some parasite that invaded her body!
(Unless it was rape, of course, in which case it sort of is.)

It kinda is whether or not she was raped if she did not consent to being pregnant.

Let's put it this way. If you left your door unlocked, and you woke up in the morning and Ted Cruz and Donald Trump had just had a 3-way with Sarah Palin and passed out on your couch, would they be trespassing?

[Laurasia]

Look, the only fucking way a fetus is not being given more rights than a grown person, when it literally has the right to use another person's body against their will, is if grown adults have the right to use another person's body against their will.

You can't beat this. It's definitional. If I have the right to speak freely on the internet, and you do not have the right to speak freely on the internet, we do not have the same rights, because I have a right you do not. It is flat out fucking definitional. X has rights A + B + C. Y has rights A + B + C +D. They do not have the same rights.

It's fucking definitional. Do you not understand that you are giving the fetus a right to use its mothers body against its will? Is that where the communication falls down?

Or do you not understand that not having the right to do something means you do not have the right to do something? Is that the problem?

Where's the communication breakdown? I'm sincerely lost. You said the fetus has the right to use another person's body against their will. You also said grown people do not have this right.

This means, and I'm going to say this obviously, they do not have the same rights. The fetus has one more right that grown people do not have.

SHE GAVE IT THE RIGHT BY CREATING IT.

It's not some parasite that invaded her body!
(Unless it was rape, of course, in which case it sort of is.)

Bravo! The woman's irresponsibility does not give her the ability to destroy the innocent unborn!

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Well then don't say what you don't mean.

And I think that I'm not the only one who can see that you're wrong.

You are literally using indirect quotes pulled out of context in order to support an underlying argument that I'm some sort of sexist asshole! Honestly, you're just a troll, fuck off.

You're the one that's making an argument that women who have abortions without the reasons YOU deem correct as "average sluts":

And why is this?

Oh, you know.

I'm one of those people who are only for abortion in the case of the mother being endangered, and in cases of rape. I don't think the average slut should be given the opportunity to throw away a life. It pisses me off. That's all.

And I'm the one painting you as sexist?

Might want to revise that.

[The V O I D]

SHE GAVE IT THE RIGHT BY CREATING IT.

It's not some parasite that invaded her body!
(Unless it was rape, of course, in which case it sort of is.)

Bravo! The woman's irresponsibility does not give her the ability to destroy the innocent unborn!

Of course recreational sex is irresponsible and all women intend to secretly get pregnant just to go ahead and get an abortion. Contraceptives are completely foolproof! No way they can fail or anything! And it's not like consent can be revoked, ha!
/sarcasm

[Galloism]

You cannot destroy the lives of the helpless, of those unable to defend themselves.

In which case the logical inference is the government has the right, and in fact the duty, to strap people down and take organs to save those who will die without them, because they are typically helpless in a hospital bed, if not completely helpless via unconsciousness.

Which brings us back to forced organ, blood, and tissue donations.

[Vaquas]

I love your ideology of:
"The world is shitty filled with shitty people who do shitty things so there's no point in not having a shitty outlook and shitty attitude."
It really showcases how not to think if you actually want to change, impact, or accomplish something.

Thinking that people shit rainbows and sing jambalaya clearly is going to help you do that, then?

Nope.
Recognizing the problem and doing more than sit around and bitch about it will though.
Also, if you're really a Marxist, the fact that you have such a "Realist" view on life is hilariously ironic.

[Laurasia]

Abortion is an absolutist issue. There is black and white. It's one of those few issues with no grey area.

On one hand, you legalize it. Women get safe, professional abortions with minimal health risks routinely if they had an unwanted pregnancy. Everyone goes home happy and dandy.

On the other hand, you illegalize it. Women who do not consent to pregnancy, or have unwanted pregnancy, are now forced to do unsafe, non-professional back-alley abortions; or do it to themselves, do-it-yourself style. This can result in the death of both the fetus and the woman in question, and if you're from the pro-life side of things, that ends two lives... pointlessly. Death rate increases slightly, as does the crime rate severely...

I mean, for me, it's a no-brainer.

It is not a no-brainer. We are talking about the unborn. About human lives. Lives yet to be born, and to be fully matured. Unless if you have absolute justification, you cannot destroy someone.

[Galloism]

Abortion is an absolutist issue. There is black and white. It's one of those few issues with no grey area.

On one hand, you legalize it. Women get safe, professional abortions with minimal health risks routinely if they had an unwanted pregnancy. Everyone goes home happy and dandy.

On the other hand, you illegalize it. Women who do not consent to pregnancy, or have unwanted pregnancy, are now forced to do unsafe, non-professional back-alley abortions; or do it to themselves, do-it-yourself style. This can result in the death of both the fetus and the woman in question, and if you're from the pro-life side of things, that ends two lives... pointlessly. Death rate increases slightly, as does the crime rate severely...

I mean, for me, it's a no-brainer.

It is not a no-brainer. We are talking about the unborn. About human lives. Lives yet to be born, and to be fully matured. Unless if you have absolute justification, you cannot destroy someone.

Which is why we practice forced organ, blood, and tissue donation.

Oh wait.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Thinking that people shit rainbows and sing jambalaya clearly is going to help you do that, then?

Nope.
Recognizing the problem and doing more than sit around and bitch about it will though.
Also, if you're really a Marxist, the fact that you have such a "Realist" view on life is hilariously ironic.

Did you even click on the link, or did you just read the very suited self-mockery?

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Let's put it this way. If you left your door unlocked, and you woke up in the morning and Ted Cruz and Donald Trump had just had a 3-way with Sarah Palin and passed out on your couch, would they be trespassing?

First, I'd have to burn the couch, and quite possibly anything else sullied in the event.

"Oh, I'm sorry. Still passed out /on/ the couch? How ... well, how inconvenient. Terribly sorry. Are you certain Hillary wasn't in there somewhere too, just to spice things up? No?"

"Pity."

>_>

[Laurasia]

You cannot destroy the lives of the helpless, of those unable to defend themselves.

In which case the logical inference is the government has the right, and in fact the duty, to strap people down and take organs to save those who will die without them, because they are typically helpless in a hospital bed, if not completely helpless via unconsciousness.

Which brings us back to forced organ, blood, and tissue donations.

Again, you misconstrue my points. You have throughout argued that the unborn should be at the complete mercy of the mother. What if that was your own child who was at such a limb? What if you didn't want for that child to be aborted? What if you were coerced into doing so? Would you not fight for your own flesh and blood? Why can we not fight for those unable to speak up for themselves?

[The V O I D]

Abortion is an absolutist issue. There is black and white. It's one of those few issues with no grey area.

On one hand, you legalize it. Women get safe, professional abortions with minimal health risks routinely if they had an unwanted pregnancy. Everyone goes home happy and dandy.

On the other hand, you illegalize it. Women who do not consent to pregnancy, or have unwanted pregnancy, are now forced to do unsafe, non-professional back-alley abortions; or do it to themselves, do-it-yourself style. This can result in the death of both the fetus and the woman in question, and if you're from the pro-life side of things, that ends two lives... pointlessly. Death rate increases slightly, as does the crime rate severely...

I mean, for me, it's a no-brainer.

It is not a no-brainer. We are talking about the unborn. About human lives. Lives yet to be born, and to be fully matured. Unless if you have absolute justification, you cannot destroy someone.

I think the justification is to prevent two deaths rather than just one. Or to prevent the crime and death rate from going up. Or to prevent an increase in need for hospitals. I could go on with the issues of illegalizing abortion.

[Galloism]

ou have throughout argued that the unborn should be at the complete mercy of the mother.

Actually, I have argued that the mother has the right to her own body - the same right we give to potential organ donors. You've failed to understand the basis for my argument.

What if that was your own child who was at such a limb? What if you didn't want for that child to be aborted?

Been there, done that, got the T-shirt and the hat. It was very upsetting and still is to this day, but it was still her right.

Just as if I had a child who was deathly ill that needed an organ, and my brother refused to give it because he was afraid and he was the only match. I would be very upset when my child died, but it is his legal right to refuse to give an organ.

What if you were coerced into doing so?

That's already illegal. Dodged a bullet there.

Would you not fight for your own flesh and blood? Why can we not fight for those unable to speak up for themselves?

Oh I would work to convince the shit out of my brother to change his mind (hypothetically) about donating an organ, but if he refused, that is still his right. I respect that legal right must exist, even if I am unhappy with the results in a particular case.

[Vaquas]

Nope.
Recognizing the problem and doing more than sit around and bitch about it will though.
Also, if you're really a Marxist, the fact that you have such a "Realist" view on life is hilariously ironic.

Did you even click on the link, or did you just read the very suited self-mockery?

You Slav-Hating Maoist Stalinite!
I'll have you beheaded by your own Comrades!
;D

[Sunken Island of Rhinomuraena]

SHE GAVE IT THE RIGHT BY CREATING IT.

It's not some parasite that invaded her body!
(Unless it was rape, of course, in which case it sort of is.)

Bravo! The woman's irresponsibility does not give her the ability to destroy the innocent unborn!

Let the pain-causing parasite be destroyed before it gains consciousness and harms the woman more. (how is the woman irresponsible? Birth control failure? Obviously, she has complete control of chance.)