Texas Abortion Ban Goes Into Effect With Help From SCOTUS

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Which would be relevant if killing the unborn had anything to do with healthcare.
Safely terminating a pregnancy is very relevant to the healthcare of the mother. There are many serious problems that can occur when an abortion is not performed correctly. And, there are follow- up healthcare checks required, to insure the continued good health of the mother. You also don't legally kill something that is NOT legally alive!

Toothless how?
Any law that is designed to do one thing, and can easily be circumvented, is a toothless law. Any law that tries to criminalize the smoking of marijuana is an example of a toothless law.

You seem to think that if elective abortion was banned, that women who would otherwise abort if it was legal, would in fact abort, either getting an illegally performed abortion, or unsafely performing it on herself.
Look this is NOT rocket science. The abortion laws may cause some women to choose to bear unwanted children into the world, just to appease religious nutters and moral fanatics. But there will be many more who don't want the 20 to life responsibility in raising a child that they don't want. Or, a child that they can't afford. These women WILL go to any lengths to get an abortion. Including performing their own abortions. These laws, like the old prohibition laws, will only drive abortions underground.

It amazes me that you can't see any further than "all unborn life is sacred, and should always be protected." And, that's as far as you can see. No other red flags or ramifications matter to you. This is very sad, and means that you will never be able to learn anything from history. And, are just doomed to keep repeating the same mistakes over and over again.

Do you believe in God?
Do you believe in ghosts, or the supernatural?

I'm struggling to see how that is consistent with this:
What part are you struggling with Chris? Generally, the baby is called an embryo from conception, or after the embryonic sac develops(10-12 days after conception). This called the embryonic stage. The developing embryo is called an embryo, up to and including the 10th week(LMP). On the 1st day of the 11th week it is called a fetus.

But neither the embryo or the fetus under 12 weeks are viable outside of the womb. Both belong entirely to the mother. NOT YOU! There should be laws allowing people like you to impose their moral and religious beliefs onto others who don't share the same beliefs. This is about choice, not beliefs.
 

chris155au

Active member
Safely terminating a pregnancy is very relevant to the healthcare of the mother. There are many serious problems that can occur when an abortion is not performed correctly. And, there are follow- up healthcare checks required, to insure the continued good health of the mother.
So then it's only relevant to the healthcare of the mother when compared to the alternative unsafe option outside of the health system.

You also don't legally kill something that is NOT legally alive!
When did I say anything about LEGALLY killing?

The abortion laws may cause some women to choose to bear unwanted children into the world
In fact it may cause MANY women to choose to bear children who they would come to WANT after a while during pregnany.

But there will be many more who don't want the 20 to life responsibility in raising a child that they don't want. Or, a child that they can't afford.
Adoption.

These women WILL go to any lengths to get an abortion. Including performing their own abortions.
Women have the right to their own body. They should be free to do this.

It amazes me that you can't see any further than "all unborn life is sacred, and should always be protected."
"All unborn life." Is SOME unborn life sacred?

Do you believe in ghosts, or the supernatural?
And you accuse me of answering questions with questions! Here, try again: Do you believe in God?
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
So then it's only relevant to the healthcare of the mother when compared to the alternative unsafe option outside of the health system.
The health and wellbeing of ALL women is relevant to our healthcare system. If you want your car fixed you'd go to a qualified and reputable mechanic, NOT a backyard mechanic. If you need a tooth removed you'd go to a qualified and reputable dentist, and NOT use the door and string method. If you want to terminate your own pregnancy, you would go to a qualified and reputable healthcare professional, NOT unqualified inexperienced backyard hack. Right? Again, it is about choice!

There is also a duty of care by the government, to provide this level of healthcare to all women seeking to terminate their pregnancy. It is also written in the Preamble to the Constitution.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.".

When did I say anything about LEGALLY killing?
Why do you just make shit up? No one has said that you did. These are MY words obviously, and not yours. My point was, that you seem to love using high-impact words like killing or murdering. I'm assuming that we are only talking about the "killing" of a human life(fetus or embryo). I'm saying that abortion is NOT legally defined as killing a human life. The fetus/embryo is no more a sentient organism, than your heart or lungs. Neither can exist outside of the body. So, calling the killing of a human organism, that is NOT legally defined as alive, is just misleading, inaccurate, and intellectually dishonest.

In fact it may cause MANY women to choose to bear children who they would come to WANT after a while during pregnany.
And so many women may NOT choose to bear the child. In either case, once the baby is born, the choice becomes academic right? THE CHOICE IS THEN MADE FOR WOMEN, RIGHT? She can't abort the child then, can she? It's the same silly logic as "Lets allow Intelligent Design to be taught in our science classes, until we can prove that it is wrong.". It is a logical fallacy(argument from ignorance)

Of course, even if the mother is stuck with a child that she hates, this will have no affect on you, right? You have saved 1 life, and destroyed at least 2 lives. You have given MAN choice, and have taken away WOMAN'S choice. You have also weakened a part of the healthcare mandates, and strengthened the group of religious loonies, who still believe that all the biblical fairytales from a foreign book are real.

Adoption.
So you really don't give a shit about the child's life do you? As long as it is alive, you don't care if it is hated, put up for adoption, ostracized from society, bounced from foster home to foster home, left at the front door of a hospital, or even found dead in a dumpster? You really can't see any further than your own one-dimensional bias, can you??

Women have the right to their own body. They should be free to do this.
But anyone who helps them you want to put in prison. This is so hypocritical. You don't care about the 30K women who die each year from bleeding to death, becoming septic, and all the other lethal complications from a botch abortion? Just expect that number to rise. I guess what you don't know, don't matter to you, right?

"All unborn life." Is SOME unborn life sacred?
More dumb questions, taken out of context! Please re-read the sentence again. But, IN CONTEXT this time!! And if we consider wars, criminal acts, infanticides, legal executions, genocides, and civil rebellions, I'd say that NO!! ALL life is definitely NOT sacred!!

And you accuse me of answering questions with questions! Here, try again: Do you believe in God?
My religious, or non-religious beliefs are none of your business. Whether I do believe or not is totally irrelevant to this topic. What if I asked you, "When did you stop beating your wife?". Is there any relevant point in my asking you this? Can you see my point? So unless you have already established some relevant religious foundation for this question, my flippant response is the best you'll get.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
..

Healthcare?? Really.....not healthy for every-body....


..
Do you think that that the unborn baby is actually asking that question? Do you think that Healthcare has anything to do with a woman's choice to terminate her own pregnancy? Abortion clinics, and all related support clinics, are all a part of the healthcare system.

Just more of the same fear and shame-mongering from the ignorant, to make women feel that their embryo is in fact, a living breathing miniature version of themselves. And, that they are about to kill this living entity. Shame on you people! If people like you don't want to have an abortion, then just don't have one. But please don't force everybody else into thinking just like you.
 

chris155au

Active member
The health and wellbeing of ALL women is relevant to our healthcare system. If you want your car fixed you'd go to a qualified and reputable mechanic, NOT a backyard mechanic. If you need a tooth removed you'd go to a qualified and reputable dentist, and NOT use the door and string method. If you want to terminate your own pregnancy, you would go to a qualified and reputable healthcare professional, NOT unqualified inexperienced backyard hack. Right? Again, it is about choice!
There is a mechanical problem with the car which necessitates the need for a mechanic. There is a dental problem which necessitates the need for a dentist. What is the health problem which necessitates a woman's need for an abortion?

I'm saying that abortion is NOT legally defined as killing a human life.
It's still killing a human life.

The fetus/embryo is no more a sentient organism, than your heart or lungs.
Comatose patients aren't sentient. Can I murder someone in a coma?

And so many women may NOT choose to bear the child. In either case, once the baby is born, the choice becomes academic right? THE CHOICE IS THEN MADE FOR WOMEN, RIGHT?
If the woman made the choice to risk getting pregnant, then she made that choice which has resulted in her getting pregnant. She also chose against an illegal abortion, even though she had the CHOICE to end her pregnancy that way.

Of course, even if the mother is stuck with a child that she hates, this will have no affect on you, right?
No, but why is that relevant exactly?

You have saved 1 life, and destroyed at least 2 lives.
How would 2 lives be destroyed because of one child? My goodness you do overstate things.
 

chris155au

Active member
You have given MAN choice, and have taken away WOMAN'S choice.
What the hell does it mean to give "MAN choice?"

You have also weakened a part of the healthcare mandates...
What healthcare mandates?

So you really don't give a shit about the child's life do you? As long as it is alive, you don't care if it is hated, put up for adoption, ostracized from society, bounced from foster home to foster home, left at the front door of a hospital, or even found dead in a dumpster?
I really don't think you know what you're saying. You seem to be arguing that it's better to be dead than to be alive in certain life circumstances! Someone could make this argument to argue for killing BORN kids in bad life circumstances! And I assume that you're against that not ONLY because it's illegal!

You don't care about the 30K women who die each year from bleeding to death, becoming septic, and all the other lethal complications from a botch abortion?
In what country is this happening?

Just expect that number to rise. I guess what you don't know, don't matter to you, right?
There is no evidence that illegal abortions would even be performed by people who don't know what they're doing. Why would those who were previously performing abortions legally, not simply continue to perform them illegally?

More dumb questions, taken out of context! Please re-read the sentence again. But, IN CONTEXT this time!! And if we consider wars, criminal acts, infanticides, legal executions, genocides, and civil rebellions, I'd say that NO!! ALL life is definitely NOT sacred!!
What does all of this have to do with UNBORN life? I asked if you
think that SOME unborn life sacred.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
There is no evidence that illegal abortions would even be performed by people who don't know what they're doing. Why would those who were previously performing abortions legally, not simply continue to perform them illegally?
I don't know. Maybe because they would now be risking losing their licenses, being arrested, or going to prison. Duh!!

What does all of this have to do with UNBORN life? I asked if you
think that SOME unborn life sacred.
If I say that ALL LIFE IS DEFINITELY NOT SACRED, then this would INCLUDE THE UNBORN LIFE AS WELL. It would also include that SOME UNBORN LIFE IS NOT SACRED! The answer is in my response. Just more semantic games.

I really don't think you know what you're saying. You seem to be arguing that it's better to be dead than to be alive in certain life circumstances! Someone could make this argument to argue for killing BORN kids in bad life circumstances! And I assume that you're against that not ONLY because it's illegal!
I doubt if anyone would make this argument, considering the fact that a newborn IS a viable human life. Once the child is born abortion is illegal. And no one would perform it. There is no question whether the newborn is a human life. Or, that this life should be afforded the protection written in the statutes for all human life?

I would prefer to be born to a mother who wants me. I would prefer to be born to a mother who wants to take care of me. I would prefer to born to a mother who is not going to put me up for adoption. I would prefer to born to a mother who won't kill me and leave me in a dumpster. I would prefer to be born to a mother who won't abandon me, because she can't afford to raise me. Since the embryo or fetus are not alive, death is only a relative term. For example, were you non-existent or dead during the Civil War? Or, would you rather be dead(and not know it), or be born to a starving mother in the streets of Calcutta?

In what country is this happening?
Does that matter? In the US every year! 8-11% of all maternal deaths are due to botched abortions. These deaths are occurring now. When Abortion is criminalized the abortion rates don't go down. But the maternal death rates will.


What healthcare mandates?
Their mandate to do no harm. And, that the health of the living must be preserved. Criminalizing healthcare professionals for doing their jobs, is criminal in itself. What right does anyone have to tell a doctor not to assist his patient who wants to terminate her pregnancy? A decision that the SCOTUS has already decided as being a woman's choice to make?

What the hell does it mean to give "MAN choice?"
It means that now MAN will have the choice(directly or indirectly) over a WOMAN'S choice to have an abortion. The Supreme Court has interpreted Roe vs Wade to mean, that as long as the baby is NOT viable, only the mother can choose to terminate her pregnancy. And, that the government can't restrict, hinder, obstruct her choice. Period!

How would 2 lives be destroyed because of one child? My goodness you do overstate things.
I said AT LEAST TWO LIVES!! The parents who must now look after a child that they don't want. And, the life of the unwanted child.

There is a mechanical problem with the car which necessitates the need for a mechanic. There is a dental problem which necessitates the need for a dentist. What is the health problem which necessitates a woman's need for an abortion?
It is NOT a health problem, or anything to do with a health issue. It is NOT a disease or an illness. It is an elective procedure for an unborn child you don't want. It is available to any woman who wants to terminate her pregnancy! Therefore, to have a safe abortion will necessitate the skills of a qualified healthcare professional.

No, but why is that relevant exactly?
Because, there are so many hypocrites out there who scream save the child at all cost. But would quickly make an exception if it were their pregnant daughter, who was carrying a physically and mentally handicapped child. As long as it is not them who must take all the risks, it is easy for them to take the moral highroad. Therefore relevant.

If the woman made the choice to risk getting pregnant, then she made that choice which has resulted in her getting pregnant. She also chose against an illegal abortion, even though she had the CHOICE to end her pregnancy that way.
The sex urge in humans is extremely powerful. Our need to procreate is hardwired by evolution. It is a biological necessity for the species to survive. Those hormones will not be denied when we are young, and our cognitive abilities are too underdeveloped to stop them. As we age these hormone levels will continue to decrease. So it is not just about simple choice. No woman should be forced to have a child that they don't want. The circumstances of her pregnancy are totally irrelevant. I don't care if she did the whole school, it is still her choice to have the child or not.

It's still killing a human life.
No it is not a human life. All human life is viable outside of the womb. All human life is sentient. All human life is protected by legal statutes. It is a nonviable organism growing in a mother's womb.

Comatose patients aren't sentient. Can I murder someone in a coma?
This is the first time you actually asked a good question. But then you spoiled it by saying "murder". I'm going to assume that you mean a "brain-dead comatose patient. If so, the patient is an unconscious sentient human life. A person never give up his right to life. Even in a comatose state, or is completely on life support. So NO, it is still illegal to kill a comatose human being. An embryo or fetus, is neither sentient or viable. They both have no legal right to life. But a newborn has the capacity to become sentient, and is already viable. It does have the right to life.

Okay, now I have answered all of your questions. I am tired of constantly answering questions that only twist my own comments back at me. In essence I am only arguing with myself. You contribute absolutely nothing to the debate, except for distractions, fallacies, questions, and misrepresentations. You make an unsupported claim, and never defend it. Instead you keep changing the goal post by asking endless questions. Until people get sick of it and end the conversation. Is this your strategy?

So, why not make it illegal for men to have sex without protection? If they don't, then they become legally/financially responsible for the unborn child's and mother's welfare?

Lets make laws that will only allow parenthood, for those who meet the strictest legal guidelines?

Lets make it legally mandatory, that after puberty both men and women start hormone therapy.

Why should women make all the sacrifices, and have all of the responsibilities?

So unless you plan of independently defending your own position, we're done here.
 

chris155au

Active member
I don't know. Maybe because they would now be risking losing their licenses, being arrested, or going to prison. Duh!!
Okay, so then who the hell would perform an illegal abortion, risking prison?

If I say that ALL LIFE IS DEFINITELY NOT SACRED, then this would INCLUDE THE UNBORN LIFE AS WELL. It would also include that SOME UNBORN LIFE IS NOT SACRED!
Okay, so then what is it for you that determines whether or not an unborn life is sacred? It would make sense if you said that ALL unborn lives are NOT sacred, or else ALL unborn lives ARE sacred. But it wouldn't make sense if you say that some are and some are not.

I doubt if anyone would make this argument, considering the fact that a newborn IS a viable human life.
So is unborn life at 24 weeks.

Once the child is born abortion is illegal.
That's a legal argument.

I would prefer to be born to a mother who wants me. I would prefer to be born to a mother who wants to take care of me. I would prefer to born to a mother who is not going to put me up for adoption. I would prefer to born to a mother who won't kill me and leave me in a dumpster. I would prefer to be born to a mother who won't abandon me, because she can't afford to raise me.
Everyone would PREFER that. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

Does that matter? In the US every year! 8-11% of all maternal deaths are due to botched abortions. These deaths are occurring now. When Abortion is criminalized the abortion rates don't go down. But the maternal death rates will.
There's no evidence that if abortion was illegal, abortion would continue as if nothing happened, just illegally. OBVIOUSLY people would opt NOT to get an illegal one and obviously abortion availability would be less.

What right does anyone have to tell a doctor not to assist his patient who wants to terminate her pregnancy?
Well the government is in ultimate control over the health system. They can tell doctors all sorts of things! If the government determined that the unborn has the right to life, then they can tell the doctor that they aren't allowed to kill the unborn life!

A decision that the SCOTUS has already decided as being a woman's choice to make?
A JOKE decision, which even honest pro-choice liberals admit.

It means that now MAN will have the choice(directly or indirectly) over a WOMAN'S choice to have an abortion.
What man? Which men?

I said AT LEAST TWO LIVES!! The parents who must now look after a child that they don't want.
How would their lives be destroyed? Do you mean their lives would be inconvenient? Sure!

And, the life of the unwanted child.
I don't see how the live of the child would be destroyed. Their life just wouldn't be quite as good as it would be if their parents wanted them. But plenty of adopted kids end up with GREAT lives! You don't seem to be aware of this!

It is NOT a health problem, or anything to do with a health issue. It is NOT a disease or an illness.
Exactly, so nothing to do with healthcare!

No woman should be forced to have a child that they don't want. The circumstances of her pregnancy are totally irrelevant. I don't care if she did the whole school, it is still her choice to have the child or not.
I agree! She can get an illegal abortion if she wants!

No it is not a human life. All human life is viable outside of the womb.
So you're talking about viability, which applies to a 24 week fetus!

This is the first time you actually asked a good question. But then you spoiled it by saying "murder". I'm going to assume that you mean a "brain-dead comatose patient. If so, the patient is an unconscious sentient human life.
There's no such thing. You just made up a term I think.

So, why not make it illegal for men to have sex without protection? If they don't, then they become legally/financially responsible for the unborn child's and mother's welfare?
They should be legally/financially responsible for the unborn child's and mother's welfare REGARDLESS of whether or not they have used protection! I don't CARE! They're half responsible for the situation!

Why should women make all the sacrifices, and have all of the responsibilities?
They absolutely SHOULD NOT!
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Okay, so then who the hell would perform an illegal abortion, risking prison?
People who are NOT like you. People who have a social consciousness. People who are not insecure religious moral hypocrites! People who would sacrifice everybody else's lives, for a belief that is relative and non-secular at best. People who are adults who believe that in the real world, people do have real personal issues, that are none of your business. And, make decisions that certainly don't require your approval. Mature and wise people who understand just how flawed the human condition really is.

Okay, so then what is it for you that determines whether or not an unborn life is sacred? It would make sense if you said that ALL unborn lives are NOT sacred, or else ALL unborn lives ARE sacred. But it wouldn't make sense if you say that some are and some are not.
NOTHING!! An unborn or born organism is NOT SACRED! It is just another biological organism capable of becoming sentient, viable, and autonomous. This organism is NOT religious, sacred, or have anything to do with God. Is the life of an unborn organism spiritual or inspire your reverence and devotion? NO!! What is the religiosity of embryonic life? Is an unborn organism connected to God, or have any religious purpose or significance? NO!! Life is simply biological and temporary. It is no more sacred than a freak'n rose bush.

That's a legal argument.
No, that is a fact. There is no argument here. Legal or otherwise. It is a fact, that it is illegal to abort a newborn baby. What would be the premises of that argument Chris?

There's no evidence that if abortion was illegal, abortion would continue as if nothing happened, just illegally. OBVIOUSLY people would opt NOT to get an illegal one and obviously abortion availability would be less.
I'm afraid that you are delusional. And providing you with more and more evidence is a waste of time. Even if you were buried under the evidence, you would still claim that no evidence exists. But, in reality, women will still continue to have abortions, whether it is illegal or not. You just don't get it, do you? Thousands of women simply choose NOT TO BECOME MOTHERS! And they will do anything to NOT TO BECOME MOTHERS! History has demonstrated this very clearly.

They should be legally/financially responsible for the unborn child's and mother's welfare REGARDLESS of whether or not they have used protection! I don't CARE! They're half responsible for the situation!
But in the real world MEN DON'T!! Men have no legal responsibility to either support the mother during her pregnancy, or to help her to raise the child(unless they are married). But if all men who have reached puberty, were forced to wear some protection, then there would be no need for women to have abortions right? There would be no unborn lives for you to save, right? So lets lobby for laws requiring that all men reaching puberty must wear protection. If they don't, then they become legally responsible for the consequences of their actions? Think that'll happen in any male-dominated society? Clearly, the double standard here should be crystal, even to you.

Exactly, so nothing to do with healthcare!
I said, "It is NOT a health problem, or anything to do with a health issue. Pregnancy is NOT a disease or an illness. But wanting to have an abortion, IS an elective procedure that DOES require the services of a healthcare professional. That was my point. So why did you substitute the word, "healthcare" in, as if that is what I said?

There's no such thing. You just made up a term I think.
No I didn't make the terms up. Are all conscious humans alive? Are all humans sentient? Is being sentient conceptual or perceptual? Are unconscious humans conceptual or perceptual? Therefore, a comatose patient is an unconscious sentient human life. Because if it were conscious, it would be a sentient human life, right? It's just common sense!!

I don't see how the live of the child would be destroyed. Their life just wouldn't be quite as good as it would be if their parents wanted them. But plenty of adopted kids end up with GREAT lives! You don't seem to be aware of this!
You have a right to your opinion. And, maybe some parents may grow to love their unwanted child. And, maybe some children may find great foster or adopted parents. But maybe many won't! How do you comfort the sufferings of those children? How do you address and comfort their emotional insecurities, from being unloved and unwanted?

But of course, after the child is born none of this really matters, right? It doesn't matter to you if the child is not wanted, not loved, put up for adoption, or even left for dead in a dumpster. It is all academic after the child is born, right? You won't be helping to raise her child. You won't be providing any emotional support for the mother. You will be the first person criticizing any government support programs, designed to help abandoned and single mothers. No, you will be the one rationalizing to yourself, that NO lives were being destroyed, by forcing women to bring their pregnancies to term.

So you're talking about viability, which applies to a 24 week fetus!
NO!! These "micro-preemies"(23-24 weeks) are still NOT viable outside of the womb. Even after 30 weeks, the "pre-term preemie" is still NOT viable outside of the womb. What you are confusing is that yes a neonate may be viable outside of the womb, BUT ONLY WHILE LIVING ON LIFE SUPPORT FOR MONTHS IN A NICU!! Until its organ systems are fully developed. It is only in the last week of pregnancy, that the pre-term's lungs are fully developed. That the pre-terms are able to maintain its own body temperature. And, that the pre-term's immune system is not compromised. If you took a 24 week pre-term fetus out of the womb, and gave it to its mother, it will just die in her arms. How many of these premature pre-term fetuses are YOU willing to sacrifice, before you will ever admit that you are just wrong?

This might help you understand why viability only applies to newborns outside of the womb, or outside of the NICU.

https://www.verywellfamily.com/premature-babies-week-by-week-2748606

What man? Which men?
There is no specific man or men. It was just a figure of speech, meaning all man in general? Do you normally take all sentences literally? Or, is this just part of the way you argue? Good to know for the future.

I agree! She can get an illegal abortion if she wants!
A woman can do anything illegal. Anyone can. The point of this entire argument, is that abortion SHOULD NOT BE MADE ILLEGAL!!! Then a woman would not need to get an illegal abortion if she wants to.

They absolutely SHOULD NOT!
But, they absolutely DO make all the sacrifices. And, DO have all the responsibilities.

A JOKE decision, which even honest pro-choice liberals admit.
If it is not a woman's choice, then who's choice is it? Man's? Have you ever been pregnant or given birth? And any rational secular humanist with a social consciousness, would agree with this decision. Because the opposite would be absurd, prejudicial, and discriminative.
 

chris155au

Active member
Okay, so then who the hell would perform an illegal abortion, risking prison?
People who are NOT like you. People who have a social consciousness.
So why wouldn't this include professionals who were previously performing abortions legally?

No, that is a fact. There is no argument here. Legal or otherwise. It is a fact, that it is illegal to abort a newborn baby.
Yes, it's a fact but 'it's the law' is a TERRIBLE argument! That's what I meant by "legal argument." It was once LEGAL to own slaves, but I assume that you don't defend slavery by saying that it was the law at the time!

But, in reality, women will still continue to have abortions, whether it is illegal or not.
Of course, but it obviously wouldn't be as common. Abortion would obviously not be as available.

But in the real world MEN DON'T!! Men have no legal responsibility to either support the mother during her pregnancy, or to help her to raise the child(unless they are married).
Which I thoroughly disagree with. Can we both agree that the law should be that men should have legal responsibility regardless of whether he is married to the woman?

But if all men who have reached puberty, were forced to wear some protection, then there would be no need for women to have abortions right?
I was under the impression that condoms were FAR from a guaranteed form of contraception.

There would be no unborn lives for you to save, right? So lets lobby for laws requiring that all men reaching puberty must wear protection. If they don't, then they become legally responsible for the consequences of their actions?
You should know from my previous post that whether or not men wear protection makes no difference for me. Considering that I clearly said: "They should be legally/financially responsible for the unborn child's and mother's welfare REGARDLESS of whether or not they have used protection!"

Exactly, so nothing to do with healthcare!
I said, "It is NOT a health problem, or anything to do with a health issue.
So "HEALTH problem/HEALTH issue." How the hell is that not the same as "HEALTHcare?" All I did was add the word "CARE!"

No I didn't make the terms up. Are all conscious humans alive? Are all humans sentient?
Yes to both questions but I'm not sure of the relevance of this.

Is being sentient conceptual or perceptual? Are unconscious humans conceptual or perceptual?
I have no idea what you're asking. You might be too philosophical for me!

Therefore, a comatose patient is an unconscious sentient human life. Because if it were conscious, it would be a sentient human life, right? It's just common sense!!
A comatose patient cannot feel pain can they?

You have a right to your opinion. And, maybe some parents may grow to love their unwanted child. And, maybe some children may find great foster or adopted parents. But maybe many won't! How do you comfort the sufferings of those children? How do you address and comfort their emotional insecurities, from being unloved and unwanted?
I certainly wouldn't tell them that it would have been better if they were never born and instead killed in the womb!

You will be the first person criticizing any government support programs, designed to help abandoned and single mothers.
No, I'm in favour of single parent government support programs.

No, you will be the one rationalizing to yourself, that NO lives were being destroyed, by forcing women to bring their pregnancies to term.
Nobody is forcing women to do anything.

This might help you understand why viability only applies to newborns outside of the womb, or outside of the NICU.

https://www.verywellfamily.com/premature-babies-week-by-week-2748606
I did not SAY that a 24 week baby is viable outside of the NICU. I simply said that a 24 week fetus is viable! Your source above goes as far as to say 23 weeks!

If it is not a woman's choice, then who's choice is it? Man's? Have you ever been pregnant or given birth? And any rational secular humanist with a social consciousness, would agree with this decision. Because the opposite would be absurd, prejudicial, and discriminative.
I'm talking about Roe v Wade which is the SCOTUS decision which you referred to. Again, even honest pro-choice liberals admit that it's a JOKE decision.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
So why wouldn't this include professionals who were previously performing abortions legally?
It would include anyone who is not like you. Anyone who still has a social consciousness, and understands the meaning of the word empathy. What healthcare professionals did while abortions were legal is irrelevant. It is what they will do when abortion is illegal. And, as long as they are not like you, and have a social consciousness, they will do the right thing to help women and society. A society that should always be protected from obsolete narrow-minded thinkers like yourself. Who only believe in "their way or the highway.".

Yes, it's a fact but 'it's the law' is a TERRIBLE argument! That's what I meant by "legal argument." It was once LEGAL to own slaves, but I assume that you don't defend slavery by saying that it was the law at the time!
You should have just stopped at "Yes it is a fact.". The rest of this gibberish is a really a poor attempt to use semantics to change the goalposts. This has absolutely nothing to do with slavery.

Of course, but it obviously wouldn't be as common. Abortion would obviously not be as available.
No it is NOT obvious, except in your mind. And NO, only illegal(and dangerous) abortions would become available to women. Thanks to people like you.

Which I thoroughly disagree with. Can we both agree that the law should be that men should have legal responsibility regardless of whether he is married to the woman?
We can agree that it is none of our business if a woman decides to terminate her own pregnancy. Custody and parental responsibilities only begin after the child is born.

I was under the impression that condoms were FAR from a guaranteed form of contraception.
Wrong they offer 98% protection. That's much better than even the best surgical masks for this virus. Remember nothing in nature is perfect. Therefore, nothing man can make will be perfect. But it's certainly close enough! Maybe you would prefer that all women have mandatory tubal ligations. And deprive them of having children at all?

You should know from my previous post that whether or not men wear protection makes no difference for me. Considering that I clearly said: "They should be legally/financially responsible for the unborn child's and mother's welfare REGARDLESS of whether or not they have used protection!"
And, as I have said before, legal, custody, and financial responsibility only begin AFTER the child is born. We are talking about abortions, right? Not the child's custody! Only nature looks after the unborn organism growing in the mother. Only the mother is responsible to her baby.

Of course if the father was wearing protection, then no child would be conceived, right? There would be no need for any parental responsibilities, or custodial rights after the child is born. So why would you say that men should be responsible whether they wear a condom or not? They aren't. And, wishing they were, has nothing to do with a woman's right to have a safe and legal abortion. Simply put wear a condom, take a pill, and end the abortion problem. Otherwise you will be responsible for your actions. Simple.

So "HEALTH problem/HEALTH issue." How the hell is that not the same as "HEALTHcare?" All I did was add the word "CARE!"
Wow! back to semantics again. I will ignore how silly the part I highlight is. Even you can see what happens when you change the word's prefix or suffix! First the context. If your car has a mechanical issue, you seek out a mechanic. If you want to get an abortion, then you seek out a healthcare professional. That was the context that you've tried to distort.

But to answer your question. If you have an health issue, you will seek out the services of a healthcare professional. Being pregnant is NOT a HEALTH problem requiring attention. It is NOT a HEALTH issue requiring attention. It is NOT a HEALTH illness that requires attention. But if you choose to terminate your pregnancy, it will then require the attention of healthcare professional. Does this help in understanding the difference between a person's health issues, and the healthcare that they might seek?

Yes to both questions but I'm not sure of the relevance of this.
A comatose patient cannot feel pain can they?
have no idea what you're asking. You might be too philosophical for me!
Never mind.

I certainly wouldn't tell them that it would have been better if they were never born and instead killed in the womb!
And, do you think any toddler that is old enough to understand you, would understand the concept of death in the womb?? Do you think that they might more likely understand the concept of being unloved and unwanted. Even newborn monkeys feel this, so any toddler would.

No, I'm in favour of single parent government support programs.
I stand corrected.

Nobody is forcing women to do anything.
Then what is NOT being able to have a legal abortion, FORCING WOMEN TO DO??

I did not SAY that a 24 week baby is viable outside of the NICU. I simply said that a 24 week fetus is viable! Your source above goes as far as to say 23 weeks!
Actually the youngest "preemie" was 21 weeks. But NO you just conveniently neglected to mention that any 24 week old preemies would spend weeks in an incubator or an Isolette, until its organs were fully developed and viable.

I'm talking about Roe v Wade which is the SCOTUS decision which you referred to. Again, even honest pro-choice liberals admit that it's a JOKE decision.
Again simply repeating something over again, is still not going to make it right. the The SCOTUS has ruled that the Constitution of the United States protects a pregnant woman's liberty to choose to have an abortion, without excessive government restrictions. I doubt if any pro-choice advocate would disagree with this ruling. But I seriously doubt that any pro-choice advocate would support the government restricting a woman's right to have an abortion, by jailing anyone who assists her? But this is just your opinion anyway, right?
 

chris155au

Active member
You should have just stopped at "Yes it is a fact.".
'It's the law, therefore it's justified' is a TERRIBLE argument!

No it is NOT obvious, except in your mind. And NO, only illegal(and dangerous) abortions would become available to women. Thanks to people like you.
Except you've already said that abortion professionals who were previously performing abortions legally would continue to perform them! You're being inconsistent!

Custody and parental responsibilities only begin after the child is born.
Sure, but I think that men should be responsible during pregnancy too. I also don't think that marriage should be a requirement for post-birth custody and parental responsibilities. Can we at least agree on that?

Wrong they offer 98% protection.
Yes, so not guaranteed.

And, as I have said before, legal, custody, and financial responsibility only begin AFTER the child is born. We are talking about abortions, right? Not the child's custody! Only nature looks after the unborn organism growing in the mother. Only the mother is responsible to her baby.
So you call it a "baby" during pregnancy?

Of course if the father was wearing protection, then no child would be conceived, right?
No. Again, they're not a guaranteed form of contraception. It's weird that you're treating them as if they are. But really it's not relevant to what we're talking about.

Simply put wear a condom, take a pill, and end the abortion problem. Otherwise you will be responsible for your actions. Simple.
I'm glad that you believe in personal responsibility. So many pro-choicers believe that if elective abortion became illegal, and a woman became pregnant and wants an abortion but isn't able to get one, then she wouldn't be responsible for the situation that she has gotten herself into.

But to answer your question. If you have an health issue, you will seek out the services of a healthcare professional. Being pregnant is NOT a HEALTH problem requiring attention. It is NOT a HEALTH issue requiring attention. It is NOT a HEALTH illness that requires attention. But if you choose to terminate your pregnancy, it will then require the attention of healthcare professional. Does this help in understanding the difference between a person's health issues, and the healthcare that they might seek?
Yeah I think that we both agree that abortion is not a health issue, but that technically, someone who provides an abortion is considered a "healthcare professional." So many pro-choices label abortion as "women's health."

Then what is NOT being able to have a legal abortion, FORCING WOMEN TO DO??
Nothing. It's simply removing an option.

Actually the youngest "preemie" was 21 weeks. But NO you just conveniently neglected to mention that any 24 week old preemies would spend weeks in an incubator or an Isolette, until its organs were fully developed and viable.
Yeah because it's not relevant. I was simply talking about the age of viability, which has nothing to do with NICU.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Nothing. It's simply removing an option.
Do you really want to go down this path towards absurdity? What exactly is the option being removed? You mean the option of having a legal abortion? Gee, I wonder what the removal of that option will force many woman to do? Probably NOT to have an abortion, and take their pregnancy to term? So stay in denial, and keep lying to yourself.

It's the law, therefore it's justified' is a TERRIBLE argument!
There are two arguments here that you're trying to load in one comment. Is aborting a newborn baby a legal argument. Or, is the law justified? No rational human being would question any law, that would prevent the abortion of a newborn baby! Let alone, question if it is justified! Do you think that the legal argument would be terrible, or the law itself? And, Why? This ought to be an interesting response.

Yes, so not guaranteed.
Now you're just grasping at straws. I'd say that 98% effective, is very very very close to guaranteed protection. If the only other option is abstinence, I know what choice you'd be making. Since nothing is absolute, your argument is just another fallacious cop-out. Allowing men to sow their seeds wherever and whenever they like. And, not taking any responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

Except you've already said that abortion professionals who were previously performing abortions legally would continue to perform them! You're being inconsistent!
Still distorting and misrepresenting my words again. Can't you find your own words to defend your position?

Sure, but I think that men should be responsible during pregnancy too. I also don't think that marriage should be a requirement for post-birth custody and parental responsibilities. Can we at least agree on that?
It doesn't matter what you think the world should be. It only matters the way the world is. I never said that marriage WAS a requirement for post-birth custody! Please stop misrepresenting my comments. If you are going to keep responding to comments I've never made, then we're done. I can't keep constantly defending against your infinite versions of everything I say.

No. Again, they're not a guaranteed form of contraception. It's weird that you're treating them as if they are. But really it's not relevant to what we're talking about.
THEY ARE TO 98 OUT OF A HUNDRED MEN!!! Are you seriously claiming that because condom(or the pill), are not 100% guaranteed, that they become irrelevant to stopping women from conceiving, and the abortion issue? As well as a woman's decision to abort a nonexistent conception? If so then I have no idea what you are talking about. Or, the logic you are using.

So you call it a "baby" during pregnancy?
Look, you're better than this need to nit-pick. A mother needs to look after her baby. Whether it is born, or still in the womb. It was a figure of speech, that you tried to take out of context. More silly semantics.

Yeah I think that we both agree that abortion is not a health issue, but that technically, someone who provides an abortion is considered a "healthcare professional." So many pro-choices label abortion as "women's health."
No we don't agree. Deciding to have an abortion IS a healthcare issue! Anything that requires the assistance of healthcare professionals IS a healthcare issue. Why is this so difficult to understand?

In the broadest sense, having an abortion is certainly a "woman's health" issue. It is certainly NOT a "man's health" issue, right?
 

chris155au

Active member
Do you really want to go down this path towards absurdity? What exactly is the option being removed? You mean the option of having a legal abortion? Gee, I wonder what the removal of that option will force many woman to do? Probably NOT to have an abortion, and take their pregnancy to term?
Except you've already said this:
But, in reality, women will still continue to have abortions, whether it is illegal or not. You just don't get it, do you? Thousands of women simply choose NOT TO BECOME MOTHERS! And they will do anything to NOT TO BECOME MOTHERS! History has demonstrated this very clearly.
That sure seems pretty damn clear to me!

There are two arguments here that you're trying to load in one comment. Is aborting a newborn baby a legal argument. Or, is the law justified? No rational human being would question any law, that would prevent the abortion of a newborn baby! Let alone, question if it is justified! Do you think that the legal argument would be terrible, or the law itself? And, Why? This ought to be an interesting response.
My point is that if elective abortion became illegal, you would not make the argument that: it's the law, therefore it's justified. Instead, you would make a MORAL argument, just like I'm doing arguing my pro-life position. If elective abortion became illegal, I COULD make a legal argument as the law would now be on my side, but I would NOT do so, due to its weakness and the fact that my moral argument for my pro-life position is more than sufficient.

Now you're just grasping at straws. I'd say that 98% effective, is very very very close to guaranteed protection. If the only other option is abstinence, I know what choice you'd be making. Since nothing is absolute, your argument is just another fallacious cop-out. Allowing men to sow their seeds wherever and whenever they like. And, not taking any responsibility for the consequences of their actions.
You don't actually think that I'm saying that men should not wear condoms, do you?

Except you've already said that abortion professionals who were previously performing abortions legally would continue to perform them! You're being inconsistent!
Still distorting and misrepresenting my words again.
I'm just going by what you said:
What healthcare professionals did while abortions were legal is irrelevant. It is what they will do when abortion is illegal. And, as long as they are not like you, and have a social consciousness, they will do the right thing to help women and society.

I never said that marriage WAS a requirement for post-birth custody! Please stop misrepresenting my comments. If you are going to keep responding to comments I've never made, then we're done.
Once again, I'm just going by what you said:
Men have no legal responsibility to either support the mother during her pregnancy, or to help her to raise the child(unless they are married).

No we don't agree. Deciding to have an abortion IS a healthcare issue! Anything that requires the assistance of healthcare professionals IS a healthcare issue. Why is this so difficult to understand?
Once again, I'm just going by what you said:
It is NOT a health problem, or anything to do with a health issue. It is NOT a disease or an illness. It is an elective procedure for an unborn child you don't want. It is available to any woman who wants to terminate her pregnancy!
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Except you've already said this:
That sure seems pretty damn clear to me!
Do you even know what this Texas republican abortion laws actually entails? As soon an a fetal heartbeat is detected, ABORTION BECOMES ILLEGAL! When the embryo reaches 6 weeks, ABORTION BECOMES ILLEGAL! Any citizen can sue anyone or any organization who performs an ILLEGAL ABORTION. Of course this will absolves the State of any legal responsibilities. This is what a 5-6 week old embryo looks like.
A 6 week embryo

Here is what some of the Justices have said about this clear and flagrant backdoor violation of the US Constitution.


My point is that if elective abortion became illegal, you would not make the argument that: it's the law, therefore it's justified. Instead, you would make a MORAL argument, just like I'm doing arguing my pro-life position. If elective abortion became illegal, I COULD make a legal argument as the law would now be on my side, but I would NOT do so, due to its weakness and the fact that my moral argument for my pro-life position is more than sufficient.
Look, this is just convoluted gibberish. The constitutional ruling by the Supreme Court, states that all women have the right to a safe abortion, without government interference. This IS the law, and this law IS justified. There is Zero legal arguments to be made about legal abortions. Women DO have the right to decide anything they want to do with their own reproductive system. This makes this illegal republican abortion law, only justified to the moral and religious hypocrites. Fortunately, it is NOT a federal law, and the courts have only ruled NOT to interfere with this state law FOR NOW! So this law will eventually be repealed, overturned, or ruled unconstitutional. Texas tried this before in 2014, but it was ruled by the courts as unconstitutional. This will happen again. What's next? Creationism as a science in Texas??

Are you really suggesting that we make abortion illegal, just so moral and religious fanatics, can have their own law to support their own moral psychoses? You can't just make up your own logic to justify your own conclusions. That is called a delusional and logical fallacy. What exact side are the murder statutes on? I'm sure that murderers and homicidal maniacs, would like the statutes to be on their side as well.

You don't actually think that I'm saying that men should not wear condoms, do you?
Since you are obviously defending why men should NOT wear a condom, by saying repeatedly that condoms are not a guarantee, or are nowhere near a guarantee, I think that you are clearly implying that it would be a waste of time if men wore them. I'd say that at 98% effective, that it WOULD be VERY effective in preventing 10's of thousands of unwanted pregnancies!! Clearly, you don't really care about stopping unnecessary abortions.

I'm just going by what you said:
Once again, I'm just going by what you said:
Once again, I'm just going by what you said:
More meaningless responses. So, it is now okay for you to distort and misrepresent my words? Just as long as you can say, "just going by what you said" as your excuse? There is no excuse for you doing this! You are just being intellectually dishonest, in defending a hopeless and selfish position.
 

chris155au

Active member
Do you even know what this Texas republican abortion laws actually entails? As soon an a fetal heartbeat is detected, ABORTION BECOMES ILLEGAL! When the embryo reaches 6 weeks, ABORTION BECOMES ILLEGAL! Any citizen can sue anyone or any organization who performs an ILLEGAL ABORTION.
I disagree with the Texas law on practicality grounds. I think
that it's clearly unworkable and confusing.

Of course this will absolves the State of any legal responsibilities. This is what a 5-6 week old embryo looks like.
And this is what it becomes after 12 weeks when many abortions are performed, but I assume that you would still be against a ban on elective abortion at 12 weeks:



Here is what some of the Justices have said about this clear and flagrant backdoor violation of the US Constitution.

Yeah, I think that there's an argument that such a law is unconstitutional. It seems that realistically, any attempt at a law which bans elective abortion in the first trimester will only be constitutional if Roe v Wade is overturned.

Look, this is just convoluted gibberish. The constitutional ruling by the Supreme Court, states that all women have the right to a safe abortion, without government interference.
And this can be overturned. Again, it was a JOKE decision, based on a right to privacy which doesn't exist and first had to be invented. Again, even honest pro-choice liberals acknowledge this, and say that either abortion should be left up to the States, or alternatively, a federal law which 'codifies' Roe v Wade should be passed through the legislature.

This IS the law, and this law IS justified.
It's justified in your opinion.

Women DO have the right to decide anything they want to do with their own reproductive system.
I agree.

Are you really suggesting that we make abortion illegal, just so moral and religious fanatics, can have their own law to support their own moral psychoses?
I am suggesting that we ban elective abortion procedures, but it has nothing to do with "moral and religious fanatics", whoever the hell they are.

You can't just make up your own logic to justify your own conclusions.
I'm not.

More meaningless responses. So, it is now okay for you to distort and misrepresent my words?
Misrepresenting your words? I literally just quoted what you have said! Your either think that men have "no legal responsibility unless they are married" or you do not. So which is it? You either think that "only illegal (and dangerous) abortions would become available to women" or you think that healthcare professionals "will do the right thing to help women and society." So which is it? And you either think that having an abortion is a "healthcare issue" or you think that it's "not a health problem." So which is it?
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
I disagree with the Texas law on practicality grounds. I think
that it's clearly unworkable and confusing.
I agree. This State Law is also unnecessary, intrusive, unconstitutional, and clearly discriminates against a woman's right to control her own reproductive system. But it is NOT confusing.


And this is what it becomes after 12 weeks when many abortions are performed, but I assume that you would still be against a ban on elective abortion at 12 weeks:
So what are you saying? Because the aborted fetus looks terrible, we should stop all women from having an abortion at 12 weeks? Is 6 weeks okay? Since I am not carrying the fetal organism, or will look after the fetal organism, or will give birth to the fetal organism, or will spend the next 20 years raising the fetal organism, then if and when a woman chooses to abort this organism, it is NONE OF MY BUSINESS!

This law bans ALL abortions once a fetal heartbeat is detected(6 weeks). It allows for ANY private Texas citizen to sue ANY abortion provider, who aids, abets, assists or performs an abortion. This would include anyone driving a pregnant mother to an abortion clinic. Or, anyone(including her parents) who puts up the money for the mother to have an abortion. This law makes NO exception for rape or incest.

Instead of requiring public officials to enforce the law, this law allows individuals to bring civil lawsuits against abortion providers or anyone else found to "aid or abet" illegal abortions. Which now makes private citizens responsible in enforcing this law. But here is the worse part.

"Anyone who successfully sues an abortion provider under this law could be awarded at least $10,000. And to prepare for that, Texas Right to Life has set up what it calls a "whistleblower" website where people can submit anonymous tips about anyone they believe to be violating the law.".

A woman's right to have an abortion is covered in the "due process" clause in the 14th amendment, under privacy. It is loosely protected under the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 9th Amendments.

"In the first trimester of pregnancy, the state may NOT regulate the abortion decision; only the pregnant woman and her attending physician can make that decision. In the second trimester, the state may impose regulations on abortion that are reasonably related to maternal health. In the third trimester, once the fetus reaches the point of “viability,” a state may regulate abortions or prohibit them entirely, so long as the laws contain exceptions for cases when abortion is necessary to save the life or health of the mother.".

And this can be overturned. Again, it was a JOKE decision, based on a right to privacy which doesn't exist and first had to be invented. Again, even honest pro-choice liberals acknowledge this, and say that either abortion should be left up to the States, or alternatively, a federal law which 'codifies' Roe v Wade should be passed through the legislature.
What is your rationale? You should really read about Norma McCorvey(Jane Roe). She had 3 pregnancies, which resulted in 3 children put up for adoption.


I am suggesting that we ban elective abortion procedures, but it has nothing to do with "moral and religious fanatics", whoever the hell they are.
ALL abortions that ALL women chose to have are ELECTIVE!! So you are just saying to ban ALL abortions that women ELECT to have. Just another silly tautology. Why do you think that the abortion issue is NOT a moral or religious issue? These are the people who think that conception is the beginning of human life. These are the people who believe that all HUMAN LIFE is protected by God. These are the people who think that terminating an unwanted pregnancy, is murder. These are the fanatics and nutcases, who don't give a shit about the the future of the child or the mother.

You're better than this Chris!
 
Top