Texas Abortion Law

[Monahorns]

You and I have different definitions of "baby". A zygote doesn't qualify in my book. In fact, until viability outside the womb I wouldn't bestow it the rights you would any other human.

Quit obfuscating. A baby of 10 wks isn't a zygote. After 20 weeks (just half way) it sure as hell isn't merely a zygote. You use words to hide your immorality.

But by your logic a new born should be able to be murdered. They aren't really viable anymore than a 24 week baby, in that they can't live without constant care.

 

[OUBubba]

Is birth control really that expensive?

To some it is. And, more importantly, it's not readily available as some people have decided that abstinence is the best method. How's that working?

 

[mchammer]

Life would be easier if I could pay someone to murder some posters here, plus have it subsidized by the government. Where do you draw the line on the utility of humanity?

 

[OUBubba]

Life would be easier if I could pay someone to murder some posters here, plus have it subsidized by the government. Where do you draw the line on the utility of humanity?

Well done good sir.

 

[Dionysus]

Y’all try to be kind to each other, k?

Please and thank you

 

[CTex]

The pro life people who don't want birth control readily available and dirt cheap hurt my brain.

As someone trying to do my best (but inevitably failing at times) to be true to my Catholic faith, I want to apologize for hurting your brain. Was not my intention to hurt anyone’s brain.

 

[Seattle Husker]

So people have no excuse to have unwanted children then.

An unwanted child should not be the punishment for a night of following biological urges or even worse someone else's inability to fcontrol their urges. That's no benefit to the parent or the child if the unwilling parent is forced to carry them to term.

 

[horninchicago]

Y’all try to be kind to each other, k?

Please and thank you

Oh, I think most of us are trying. Some make it difficult. Maybe I make it difficult for the ones who make it difficult for me, but I do try to be kind. I try to be agreeable in my disagreements.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Quit obfuscating. A baby of 10 wks isn't a zygote. After 20 weeks (just half way) it sure as hell isn't merely a zygote. You use words to hide your immorality.

We're talking 6 weeks with this law. If you want to jump to 20 weeks you are close to the medical communities viability of 22-24 weeks.

But by your logic a new born should be able to be murdered. They aren't really viable anymore than a 24 week baby, in that they can't live without constant care.

You've jumped to hyperbole. In no way did I infer, state or claim a baby that can live outside the womb should be at risk of abortion. In fact, i actually said the opposite of what you claim.

Viable is the ability to breathe, heart beat and all absent medical miracles. The chance a baby can survive birth prior to 22 weeks are very low.

All positions of where to snap the line are arbitrary. Mine is well reasoned. I trust yours is too, to you.

 

[bystander]

AOC explains trans men and nonbinary people can menstruate after referring to 'menstruating people'

"I'm sorry we have to break down Biology 101 on national television, but in case no one has informed him before in our life, in his life, six weeks pregnant means two weeks late for your period," she said. "Two weeks late on your period for any person, any person with a menstrual cycle can happen if you're stressed, if your diet changes, or for really no reason at all. So you don't have six weeks."

Meaning, if you get pregnant right after your last period then six weeks is two weeks after your next period assuming it's right on time. If not on time, then you have to scramble to get tested and get that abortion.

Of course, we could say that any woman who has unprotected sex should begin getting tested as soon as a test would show a positive result.

 

[mchammer]

AOC explains trans men and nonbinary people can menstruate after referring to 'menstruating people'

"I'm sorry we have to break down Biology 101 on national television, but in case no one has informed him before in our life, in his life, six weeks pregnant means two weeks late for your period," she said. "Two weeks late on your period for any person, any person with a menstrual cycle can happen if you're stressed, if your diet changes, or for really no reason at all. So you don't have six weeks."

Meaning, if you get pregnant right after your last period then six weeks is two weeks after your next period assuming it's right on time. If not on time, then you have to scramble to get tested and get that abortion.

Of course, we could say that any woman who has unprotected sex should begin getting tested as soon as a test would show a positive result.

I don’t think what she said is true (wouldn’t be the first time). Pregnancy is defined as 2 weeks after last period (14 days). Thus in the example she gave above the child would be 4 weeks old, not 6 weeks. What a maroon.

My wife normally ovulated about 21 days (7 days later than everyone else). So when we scheduled a c-section, it is normally done 1 week early. Unfortunately we learned for our first child that meant the child was actually 2 weeks early (a little premature). It happened again for our 2nd child who had premature lungs and had to spend a week in children icu. We learned after the 2nd child for children 3-4.

 

[Horn6721]

Does the language in the law say 6 weeks?

 

[Mr. Deez]

Does the language in the law say 6 weeks?

Not technically. It requires checking for a heartbeat before an abortion and prohibits the abortion if a heartbeat is detected.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Just FYI to everybody, my intent wasn't to start a **** storm about abortion. I just wanted to share some concerns I have about the specifics of the law

 

[horninchicago]

Just FYI to everybody, my intent wasn't to start a **** storm about abortion. I just wanted to share some concerns I have about the specifics of the law

You should have known better. C'mon, man!!

 

[OUBubba]

Just FYI to everybody, my intent wasn't to start a **** storm about abortion. I just wanted to share some concerns I have about the specifics of the law

I felt like a sniper in my nest waiting for what I knew was coming.

 

[Driver 8]

my intent wasn't to start a **** storm about abortion

It was certainly a surprising turn of events

 

[Mr. Deez]

The end run that this thing does on Row is confusing to me, a non lawyer. I've heard lawyers opine about how this is nutso. I guess my question is this: are we so pro-life that we don't want to do it the right way?

It's unusual, but I wouldn't call it nutso. It's similar to the so-called qui tam actions people can bring under the federal False Claims Act to combat fraud against federal agencies and that some states also enact. (Texas has one too combat Medicaid fraud.) As I state above, there are some oddities and some, frankly, poorly considered and poorly drafted provisions, but the private action isn't a crazy idea on its face. (I've advocated doing it to go after people and businesses that hire illegal immigrants.)

I challenge all of you pro-life folks to get on line and pick up a foster kid. If and until you've done that, to quote the great ii's then "stfu."

This line of logic doesn't carry any weight with pro-lifers because we'd never apply it to any other scenario in which we were making killing ok. For example, suppose someone suggested we summarily execute illegal immigrants and liberals challenged the morality of killing them. If those advocating the executions told you to STFU if you weren't willing to adopt an illegal alien and be responsible for him (rather than the taxpayer) would you find the argument persuasive? I doubt it, and I'm not suggesting that you should.

It's also a point raised in bad faith. Suppose pro-lifers promised to adopt every unwanted child if pro-abortion rights people changed their positions. Would they go along? Obviously not.

The bottom line is that you either think the fetus is a human life, or you don't. And if you do (as I do), then abortion is morally indefensible whether anyone is willing to adopt or not. If you don't, then it's not.

On a side note: How many liberals on the west coast are drafting up their own legislation to write up a mirrored law against hand gun ownership.

They may. The big difference is that the right to keep and bear arms is in the Constitution. Nobody has to lie to make that objection. They do with respect to abortion. It's not there, and nobody has the right to take the issue off the table for the state legislatures.

(Side note - I don't just reject Roe, I reject the entire substantive due process doctrine. It has nothing to do with me being pro-life. It has to do with me believing in the rule of law. Accordingly, even though I'd oppose a state passing a similar law on gun control on the merits, I wouldn't deny a state the right to do it.)

 

[Mr. Deez]

It's unfathomable that we can't resolve the abstinence vs. contraception issue.

To me, this is a little like arguing over whether we should drill for oil or look for alternative fuel sources. It doesn't have to be either/or. One can rationally make the argument that having sex when you're not an adult and not financially prepared is a bad idea for some pretty obvious reasons. At the same time, one can rationally make the argument that if you're going to take your chances anyway, you can and should take some basic precautions to reduce (though not eliminate) the risk of some of the worst consequences (unwanted pregnancy, disease, etc.).

 

[OUBubba]

It's unusual, but I wouldn't call it nutso. It's similar to the so-called qui tam actions people can bring under the federal False Claims Act to combat fraud against federal agencies and that some states also enact. (Texas has one too combat Medicaid fraud.) As I state above, there are some oddities and some, frankly, poorly considered and poorly drafted provisions, but the private action isn't a crazy idea on its face. (I've advocated doing it to go after people and businesses that hire illegal immigrants.)



This line of logic doesn't carry any weight with pro-lifers because we'd never apply it to any other scenario in which we were making killing ok. For example, suppose someone suggested we summarily execute illegal immigrants and liberals challenged the morality of killing them. If those advocating the executions told you to STFU if you weren't willing to adopt an illegal alien and be responsible for him (rather than the taxpayer) would you find the argument persuasive? I doubt it, and I'm not suggesting that you should.

It's also a point raised in bad faith. Suppose pro-lifers promised to adopt every unwanted child if pro-abortion rights people changed their positions. Would they go along? Obviously not.

The bottom line is that you either think the fetus is a human life, or you don't. And if you do (as I do), then abortion is morally indefensible whether anyone is willing to adopt or not. If you don't, then it's not.



They may. The big difference is that the right to keep and bear arms is in the Constitution. Nobody has to lie to make that objection. They do with respect to abortion. It's not there, and nobody has the right to take the issue off the table for the state legislatures.

(Side note - I don't just reject Roe, I reject the entire substantive due process doctrine. It has nothing to do with me being pro-life. It has to do with me believing in the rule of law. Accordingly, even though I'd oppose a state passing a similar law on gun control on the merits, I wouldn't deny a state the right to do it.)

I have problems with those who are in the "all life is sacred" camp yet who are not equally as committed to being supportive of preventing unwanted pregnancies via ubiquitous birth control, social programs aimed at preventing unplanned pregnancies, and programs facilitating adoption and foster care in lieu of things like in vitro fertilization. My dear friend who's pro-life to the point that she violated her personal vitriol against DJT to vote for him on this issue is a hypocrite because she's not taking any other actions to support the life that emanates from her pro-life ideology.

 

[n64ra]

We're talking 6 weeks with this law. If you want to jump to 20 weeks you are close to the medical communities viability of 22-24 weeks.

I know many people like this categorization, presumably because it offers wiggle room on both sides. However, it doesn't seem logical to me since science and medicine will always improve and lower the timeline. Examples:

• A pregnant woman in 1777 never has a person in her uterus.
• A pregnant woman in 2021 has a person in her uterus after 22-24 weeks.
• A pregnant woman in 2100 has a person in her uterus after 1-2 days.
  
• A pregnant woman in 2200 has a person in her uterus after 1-2 minutes.

The offspring in 2200 is following the same biological patterns as the offspring in 1777 so they both should become persons at the same point in the process.

 

[OUBubba]

I know many people like this categorization, presumably because it offers wiggle room on both sides. However, it doesn't seem logical to me since science and medicine will always improve and lower the timeline. Examples:

• A pregnant woman in 1777 never has a person in her uterus.
• A pregnant woman in 2021 has a person in her uterus after 22-24 weeks.
• A pregnant woman in 2100 has a person in her uterus after 1-2 days.
  
• A pregnant woman in 2200 has a person in her uterus after 1-2 minutes.

The offspring in 2200 is following the same biological patterns as the offspring in 1777 so they both should become persons at the same point in the process.

Then you should get an additional tax write off for your offspring with a validated pregnancy test.

 

[n64ra]

AOC explains trans men and nonbinary people can menstruate after referring to 'menstruating people'

At least AOC is shooting down the liberal argument that men deserve no say in abortion because it doesn't affect them. Now that we know men can get pregnant, men deserve equal say in abortion legislation!

 

[Horn6721]

No one wants to stop Planned Parenthood or any similar group from dispensing birth control. That is bs

 

[Mr. Deez]

I have problems with those who are in the "all life is sacred" camp yet who are not equally as committed to being supportive of preventing unwanted pregnancies via ubiquitous birth control, social programs aimed at preventing unplanned pregnancies, and programs facilitating adoption and foster care in lieu of things like in vitro fertilization. My dear friend who's pro-life to the point that she violated her personal vitriol against DJT to vote for him on this issue is a hypocrite because she's not taking any other actions to support the life that emanates from her pro-life ideology.

No, she isn't a hypocrite for the same reason you're not a hypocrite for not adopting an illegal alien but don't think it's ok to kill them. Someone's opposition to welfare, birth control, free prenatal care doesn't give anyone the right to kill another human being. I'm not saying I agree with those positions, but they have absolutely no bearing on anyone's right to kill.

 

[n64ra]

Then you should get an additional tax write off for your offspring with a validated pregnancy test.

The tax write off is well defined at point of birth not point of becoming a person, which is to say it has nothing to do with my comment.

 

[Monahorns]

An unwanted child should not be the punishment for a night of following biological urges or even worse someone else's inability to fcontrol their urges. That's no benefit to the parent or the child if the unwilling parent is forced to carry them to term.

My response to your first question is, "yeah just KILL the baby that's an acceptable answer." Your logic justifies murdering a 3 month old too. [name calling removed]

My response to your second question is, "Are you f-cking kidding me? There is no benefit to the child? I think living is the benefit." Your logic hear justifies murdering all the children in the 3rd world and most through out history. [name calling removed]

 

[Monahorns]

You've jumped to hyperbole. In no way did I infer, state or claim a baby that can live outside the womb should be at risk of abortion. In fact, i actually said the opposite of what you claim.

Viable is the ability to breathe, heart beat and all absent medical miracles. The chance a baby can survive birth prior to 22 weeks are very low.

All positions of where to snap the line are arbitrary. Mine is well reasoned. I trust yours is too, to you.

[name calling removed] You can't just make up your own definition for "viable". A 6 month old isn't viable without its parents taking care of it. It will breathe for about a day and die.

You are arbitrarily defining words to justify outcomes. There isn't anything rational about it. I draw the line at heartbeat. That's scientific.

 

[Horns11]

[name calling removed] You can't just make up your own definition for "viable". A 6 month old isn't viable without its parents taking care of it. It will breathe for about a day and die.

You are arbitrarily defining words to justify outcomes. There isn't anything rational about it. I draw the line at heartbeat. That's scientific.

He's obviously referring to fetal viability, not how well anyone can function on his/her own outside the womb. There are plenty of people/adults with special needs who can't function properly without care. No one is advocating killing them.

But to draw a pattern from n64's post, why is the heartbeat rational and not arbitrary? Why not go all the way to the 1-2 days after conception, when a positive pregnancy test wouldn't even register yet? It's because pro-lifers want that "evidence" of innocence to attach to calling it a summary execution; it makes preserving the womb as a vessel that much more important.

Deez has obviously laid out the moral framework for why we operate this way, and that's perfectly valid. But I'm struggling to find similar situations in a legal sense where it's defensible to force an extrajudicial sentence upon a person because of a personal choice (which... let's be honest... is also not typically because women demand that men ejaculate inside of them). We can shame all we want, but legislating it this way is an overreach.

 

[horninchicago]

It's always amazing watching people passionately defend ripping an unborn child out of a woman, or girl, whatever the case may be.

Keep justifying it, it just reveals how depraved some of you are.

Go ahead, fire away. I don't care.