Texas Abortion Law

[BevoJoe]

But by your logic a new born should be able to be murdered.

That's ridiculous. Any baby that has been birthed by the mother and is then intentionally terminated has been murdered. It's the same as if a person shoots and kills another person with an intent to kill barring any self defense claim. The discussion so far has been focused on in vitro termination of a fetus at various stages of its development prior to birth.

 

[NJlonghorn]

There is plenty of room for disagreement on this topic, but let's at least get our facts right, @mchammer and @bystander.

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.

If a woman is tracking her cycle, and it's supposed to be every four weeks, then six weeks is two weeks after she should have menstruated. To say "right after" meant as soon as it could happen. But the count between periods starts regardless.

The start of pregnancy (called "gestation") is universally defined as the first day of a woman's last period. For example, this comes from the Cleveland Clinic:

When does a pregnancy start?
The start of pregnancy is actually the first day of your last menstrual period. This is called the gestational age, or menstrual age. It’s about two weeks ahead of when conception actually occurs. Though it may seem strange, the date of the first day of your last period will be an important date when determining your baby’s due date. Your healthcare provider will ask you about this date and will use it to figure out how far along you are in your pregnancy.

According to the same link, a heartbeat can normally be detected at around 6 weeks of pregnancy:

At about 6 weeks, your baby's heart beat can usually be detected.

Thus, the time between missing a period (4 weeks) and a detectable heartbeat (6 weeks) is 2 weeks -- just like AOC said. Many women have irregular cycles, so being 2 weeks late is a regular occurrence.

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.

I don't know why anyone bothers debating this topic beyond this point. You either believe a fetus at a particular age is a human life, or you don't. That factor completely drives the decision, and no amount of debate or discussion will ever change anyone's mind.

People talk about the abortion debate as if they have THE answer. But every conceivable (pun intended) definition of the start of life is inherently arbitrary. I think we can all agree that a widely diffused assortment of carbon, oxygen, etc. is not life. Over the course of years, those atoms will combine into chemicals, get ingested into a body, form an egg and a sperm that unite, and then grow as a zygote, then an embryo, then a fetus, which then passes out of the womb, begins to breath on its own, eat solid food, walk, etc. -- and eventually grow into an adult who can hold down a steady job (or so the parents hope). The assortment of atoms is clearly not a life, and the fully grown adult clearly is a life. Somewhere along this continuum, a transition occurs. Stating when that transition occurs is inherently arbitrary.

In fact, it is arbitrary to insist that there be a single point in time where the transition happens. It is only natural that people want to believe that one instant there is not a life, and then POOF, there is a life. That's what drives people to attach meaning to definable moments such as conception, viability, or birth. But I don't see any compelling reason that this has to be so.

I personally (and, admittedly, arbitrarily) believe that:

• until the point of conception, there is no life at all;
• at the moment of birth, there is complete life; and
• in between, there is growing quantity and quality of factors that are part of the overall picture of what life is.

Thus, in my not so humble opinion, abortion should be permitted more freely in the early phases, and less freely in later stages. The fact that this is entirely arbitrary doesn't bother me in the slightest.

 

[Mr. Deez]

As usual, when I saw the notification that you had quoted me my gut thought was, "****, what did I get wrong this time?" Lol.

People talk about the abortion debate as if they have THE answer. But every conceivable (pun intended) definition of the start of life is inherently arbitrary.

I can't take issue with this. It is true. One's definition of when life begins certainly has a degree of arbitrariness and subjectivity to it. One can draw the line at the heartbeat, but arguments can be made that life begins both sooner (at conception) or later (at viability). One could even go full Monty Python and take the "Every Sperm is Sacred" approach and argue that life begins even before conception. I think that's pretty absurd, but the argument can be made.

Having said that, I often hear the arbitrariness of drawing the line as a reason not to have a line, and that's absurd. (For Roe defenders, it's particularly silly, because the entire opinion is based on someone drawing arbitrary lines.) Legislating is all about drawing lines when there's a spectrum. If the speed limit is 70 mph, does that mean 69 is absolutely safe and that 71 is absolutely dangerous? No, it means the public authorities and representatives of the people have, after considering the merits, drawn the line at 70 mph. And of course, there are countless examples of this. A 21 year old can buy booze. Does that mean a 20 year old is totally immature and that a 22 year old is totally mature? No. It means our public officials have decided a line should be drawn somewhere and drew it. Well, there isn't a constitutional reason why that can't be done on abortion.

 

[Mr. Deez]

There is a post-conviction proceeding related to civil commitment of sexual predators. One of the primary questions posed to the jury is whether the individual is a threat to the community by virtue of the inability to control sexual urges.

Seems to me that some of the libtiles support sexually predatory behaviors. Humans are SUPPOSED to have an ability to curb the urge and not act upon it...

The "irresistible urge" justification or excuse for irresponsible sex could have a very major unintended consequence if we actually take it seriously. Specifically, it becomes very hard to justify prosecuting someone for rape if the urge is irresistible. You're prosecuting him for something he can't help. Frankly, the entire offense falls apart and becomes constitutionally difficult to sustain.

 

[mchammer]

The "irresistible urge" justification or excuse for irresponsible sex could have a very major unintended consequence if we actually take it seriously. Specifically, it becomes very hard to justify prosecuting someone for rape if the urge is irresistible. You're prosecuting him for something he can't help. Frankly, the entire offense falls apart and becomes constitutionally difficult to sustain.

I will get into trouble for this, but the difference between rape and consensual sex is how good or how convincing of a bullshitter is the man.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I will get into trouble for this, but the difference between rape and consensual sex is how good or how convincing of a bullshitter is the man.

Sometimes this is true, but plenty of ******* guys do rape people. However, if we consider people to not be responsible for controlling their sexual urges, I don't see how we can judge rapists.

 

[nashhorn]

I confess to my irresistible urge to blow away anyone that raped one of my girls.

 

[iatrogenic]

This thread is demonstrative of the absolute worst of West Mall. Throwing epithets like "killer", "murderer" for having a different perspective, one that is very commonly shared by >50% of the country is a bit much. Yes, I'm pointing the finger at you @Monahorns.

Some of y'all need to take a step back and learn how to have a respectful conversation with those you disagree. Yes, I'm guilty of throwing back **** when I receive it but the recent rancor seems to be hitting a fever pitch. A reader can FEEL the hate coming through in your posts.

That is silly. Your "different perspective" is one that supports killing/murdering unborn babies. You are not being called out for having a different perspective. You are being called out for supporting the murder/killing of unborn babies.

No matter what percentage of the country supports the position, it is still killing/murdering unborn babies. The facts aren't determined by polls. Own your positions. Don't try to hide them with terms like "pro choice", "white adjacent", "equity", and "justice involved individuals".

 

[horninchicago]

That is silly. Your "different perspective" is one that supports killing/murdering unborn babies. You are not being called out for having a different perspective. You are being called out for supporting the murder/killing of unborn babies.

No matter what percentage of the country supports the position, it is still killing/murdering unborn babies. The facts aren't determined by polls. Own your positions. Don't try to hide them with terms like "pro choice", "white adjacent", "equity", and "justice involved individuals".

Lefties love defending killing babies. Oops, many lefties.

 

[iatrogenic]

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.

Then what is fetal viability? If you don't kill it, it is viable.

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.

Is that an argument for or against abortion? Does that "innocence" bother you? Does it really make the womb as a vessel more important, or just point out the importance as opposed to saying something like "pro choice" to hide the truth of what is actually happening?

 

[horninchicago]

Free pass for women who get knocked up.

Jail and no hospital for the leper uncovidshotted.

 

[iatrogenic]

Free pass for women who get knocked up.

Jail and no hospital for the leper uncovidshotted.

Personal accountability good for thee, but not for me.

 

[iatrogenic]

I will get into trouble for this, but the difference between rape and consensual sex is how good or how convincing of a bullshitter is the man.

I must have dated some really aggressive women because some didn’t require any BS.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I must have dated some really aggressive women because some didn’t require any BS.

I think BS can take on different forms. Obviously, you can tell a woman overt lies, which can be effective, but of course, is risky. A woman who has her head screwed on straight doesn't have to be BS'd this way, and it's not likely to be effective on her anyway. This is something guys pull on stupid and/or immature chicks.

However, you can also BS by diversion. This is when a girl asks you a question and you know that telling the direct truth will shoot you down or at least put you in jeopardy because you don't know what she wants or expects to hear. Accordingly, you give an answer that is accurate (so you can't be called a liar if caught) but unresponsive to the question while seeming responsive enough to satisfy her agenda in asking it and get her to move onto something else.

Personally, I've never done the former. I have done the latter.

 

[iatrogenic]

I think BS can take on different forms. Obviously, you can tell a woman overt lies, which can be effective, but of course, is risky. A woman who has her head screwed on straight doesn't have to be BS'd this way, and it's not likely to be effective on her anyway. This is something guys pull on stupid and/or immature chicks.

However, you can also BS by diversion. This is when a girl asks you a question and you know that telling the direct truth will shoot you down or at least put you in jeopardy because you don't know what she wants or expects to hear. Accordingly, you give an answer that is accurate (so you can't be called a liar if caught) but unresponsive to the question while seeming responsive enough to satisfy her agenda in asking it and get her to move onto something else.

Personally, I've never done the former. I have done the latter.

I just think they were horny.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I just think they were horny.

Can't blame 'em for that. Lol

 

[Garmel]

I just think they were horny.

Especially if they've been drinking. 2 things I've learned about women when they're intoxicated:

1) Usually horny
2) Become bi-curious. The straightest women I've ever met become bi-curious when drunk.

 

[horninchicago]

Yeah, so, in other aspects of life, when someone does something in the heat of the moment...bad purchase, whatever, murder is not allowed to get one out of it. Wonder why murdering babies is okay to get one out of the fun night of drinking and boinking.

 

[Horns11]

Then what is fetal viability? If you don't kill it, it is viable.


Is that an argument for or against abortion? Does that "innocence" bother you? Does it really make the womb as a vessel more important, or just point out the importance as opposed to saying something like "pro choice" to hide the truth of what is actually happening?

I was referring more to the "arbitrary versus viability" argument. If putting a number of weeks or detecting a heartbeat or using advanced science to see an egg at the exact moment of conception are all at different points, and every other checkpoint in between, then everything is arbitrary and everything is viable. Every fetus is innocent because there isn't much of an opportunity to get away with wrongdoing in there.

I don't think (at least I don't hope) that there's anyone on this board would advocate forcing someone to "see how it goes" with an ectopic pregnancy rather than abort. But that's not the problem for pro-life individuals. So, in an attempt to avoid shame, pretty much any woman can lie and give a reason other than "birth control" for getting an abortion. I knew a couple that held off on aborting until the 17th week of an tube pregnancy because they thought God would take care of everything... until the mom was septic and in kidney failure.

Like I said in my other post, you can shame away all you want. Ring handbells, follow women around and call them sluts, tell them they're going to hell, etc. I'd never advocate anyone I got pregnant to have an abortion. It's the legality issues that I question.

 

[theiioftx]

Especially if they've been drinking. 2 things I've learned about women when they're intoxicated:

1) Usually horny
2) Become bi-curious. The straightest women I've ever met become bi-curious when drunk.

I need to hang out with Garmel.

 

[horninchicago]

I need to hang out with Garmel.

Go on...

 

[Garmel]

I need to hang out with Garmel.

When I owned my bar back in the 90s-00s you wouldn't believe the fun I used to have. lol

 

[theiioftx]

He seems to know people.

 

[iatrogenic]

I was referring more to the "arbitrary versus viability" argument. If putting a number of weeks or detecting a heartbeat or using advanced science to see an egg at the exact moment of conception are all at different points, and every other checkpoint in between, then everything is arbitrary and everything is viable. Every fetus is innocent because there isn't much of an opportunity to get away with wrongdoing in there.

I don't think (at least I don't hope) that there's anyone on this board would advocate forcing someone to "see how it goes" with an ectopic pregnancy rather than abort. But that's not the problem for pro-life individuals. So, in an attempt to avoid shame, pretty much any woman can lie and give a reason other than "birth control" for getting an abortion. I knew a couple that held off on aborting until the 17th week of an tube pregnancy because they thought God would take care of everything... until the mom was septic and in kidney failure.

Like I said in my other post, you can shame away all you want. Ring handbells, follow women around and call them sluts, tell them they're going to hell, etc. I'd never advocate anyone I got pregnant to have an abortion. It's the legality issues that I question.

I hear you. I also believe it to be a weak argument to use a small number of “dangerous” pregnancies to determine rules/laws governing abortions. It’s okay to state exceptions in the law.

 

[Horns11]

I hear you. I also believe it to be a weak argument to use a small number of “dangerous” pregnancies to determine rules/laws governing abortions. It’s okay to state exceptions in the law.

There are 10x as many ectopic pregnancies in a year as there are drunk driving deaths. But, my issue isn't the quantity, it's the enforcement of the exceptions rather than just allowing someone access to the abortion. I would have a big issue with a legal exception stating "a doctor must perform so-and-so procedure to determine..."

 

[Mr. Deez]

When I owned my bar back in the 90s-00s you wouldn't believe the fun I used to have. lol

Damn, my instincts are good. I knew there was a slimy pervert in you somewhere. Lol. I assume that during this period of debauchery, you at least adhered to and respected the 2 balls, 4 walls rule. Or are my instincts not quite that good?

 

[Garmel]

Damn, my instincts are good. I knew there was a slimy pervert in you somewhere. Lol. I assume that during this period of debauchery, you at least adhered to and respected the 2 balls, 4 walls rule. Or are my instincts not quite that good?

All I'm going to say is that the **** that went on there after closing would have made the Romans blush.

 

[Mr. Deez]

All I'm going to say is that the **** that went on there after closing would have made the Romans blush.

So why exactly would you get rid of this bar?

 

[Garmel]

So why exactly would you get rid of this bar?

Health issues. I couldn't run it anymore.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Health issues. I couldn't run it anymore.

That sucks.

And I thought I was living the dream . . .