• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Here we go: "Texas woman charged with murder for ‘self-induced abortion’"

in Texas she'll be in prison for probably 40 years.

women. are you watching?
40 years is not enough time for murdering a baby. Should be life in prison---or the death penalty.
 
Sounds reasonable. I suspect that members of any given species that want to kill their offspring are probably not the fittest to adapt.

1 in 4 women.

I suggest those that vote against getting health care are far nuttier.
 
Good, I hope she is convicted. And doesn't Texas still do the death penalty for murder too?

Well, laws are there for a reason. If she willfully murdered her baby then she should suffer the full punishment.

Are you trying to make yourself look as much of a twat as possible?
 
As far as driving goes, yes.

But let's find out exactly where we disagree regarding doctors. Consider the following:

The reason doctors are licensed is to place them under state control, which means under the control of politicians. Hence politicians can prohibit doctors from performing abortions, and if a doctor refuses to obey the decrees of politicians, his license will be revoked, and he will be arrested if he continues to practice medicine.

Do you disagree with any of the above? If yes, quote the specific text you disagree with and explain why.

If you agree with it, then you should disagree with Whitmer when she said, "politicians shouldn't make that decision for her".

What if a doctor says a women needs an abortion to save her life, which is legal, and another doctor says she doesn't. Who decides? Politicians?
 
1 in 4 women.

I suggest those that vote against getting health care are far nuttier.

I vote for mental healthcare. That's really what this woman obviously needs.
 
As far as driving goes, yes.

One activity that you do is regulated. That doesn't mean you're 'controlled' in the sense that your liberties are being violated.

The reason doctors are licensed is to place them under state control, which means under the control of politicians.

Following on my remarks above, doctors are regulated - so that people who use the healthcare system can have confidence that they will receive care at or above a certain standard, and so that they won't get sick and die *because* they used the healthcare system. Most people with average intelligence/education and above understand and appreciate that and wouldn't confuse regulating medical practices with political control, unless of course that purpose has been made clear.

Hence politicians can prohibit doctors from performing abortions, and if a doctor refuses to obey the decrees of politicians, his license will be revoked, and he will be arrested if he continues to practice medicine.

Do you disagree with any of the above? If yes, quote the specific text you disagree with and explain why.

If you agree with it, then you should disagree with Whitmer when she said, "politicians shouldn't make that decision for her".

Her argument is that women should be able to have the freedom to seek an abortion and that doctors should have the freedom to provide one if that's their thing. Even people who advocate for legal abortions simultaneously want abortions regulated so that they are performed safely. That's the whole point of legalizing the practice of medically expert-provided abortions in the first place.
 
Natural selection is the idea that species that acquire adaptations favorable for their environment will pass those adaptations to their offspring. Eventually, only individuals with those favorable adaptations will survive, which is how the species changes over time or evolves through speciation.


In the 1800s, after Darwin first published his book "On the Origin of Species," British economist Herbert Spencer used the term "survival of the fittest" in relation to Darwin's idea of natural selection as he compared Darwin's theory to an economic principle in one of his books. This interpretation of natural selection caught on, and Darwin used the phrase in a later edition of "On the Origin of Species." Darwin used the term as it was meant regarding natural selection. Nowadays, however, the term is often misunderstood when used in place of natural selection.

I wouldn't mind getting deeper into this on a completely layman level. Your first sentence, which quoted Thoughtco, just doesn't convey the most important ideas about evolution correctly.

I was thinking about evolution after reading your reply but before looking at some of the links you provided. My conclusion was that all of it is random. It's all about luck. And it's very complicated because everything in the environment is constantly changing, although the overall theme is that there's enough stability.


Here's a quote of another Thoughtco shallow dive. One doesn't have to go deep, but they have to be correct when being shallow:

Quoting Thoughtco >>> Natural selection, the process by which species adapts to their environment through changes in genetics, is not random. Through years of evolution, natural selection boosts the biological traits that help animals and plants survive in their particular environment, and weeds out the traits that make survival more difficult.

However, the genetic changes (or mutations) that are filtered by natural selection do come about randomly. In this sense, natural selection contains both random and non-random components. <<< End Thoughtco quote.

I disagree with their first sentence. Why? Because I agree with their second sentence, their first sentence is wholly dependent on their second sentence, and the two sentences are contradictory. The mechanism for evolution is pretty much everything: Genetic mutations happen randomly, as far as we know. And everything in Nature happens randomly, as far as we know. So, the things and beings with the random traits needed for the constantly changing random conditions that happen in Nature ... survive. It's all about the luck to survive the conditions. If conditions are good, lots more things and beings survive. When conditions hit the fan, lots less things and beings survive. If conditions really hit the fan, hardly any things and beings will survive. And we (humanity) really seem to be pushing our luck!


My Thoughtco quote is the opening paragraph:

 
Last edited:
One activity that you do is regulated. That doesn't mean you're 'controlled' in the sense that your liberties are being violated.

Actually, it does.

Following on my remarks above, doctors are regulated - so that people who use the healthcare system can have confidence that they will receive care at or above a certain standard, and so that they won't get sick and die *because* they used the healthcare system. Most people with average intelligence/education and above understand and appreciate that and wouldn't confuse regulating medical practices with political control, unless of course that purpose has been made clear.

It is political control, as the abortion issue clearly demonstrates. The verb regulate means to control. If doctors weren't licensed, then the issue of abortion would be between a woman and her doctor.

Her argument is that women should be able to have the freedom to seek an abortion and that doctors should have the freedom to provide one if that's their thing.

She didn't make an argument, she made an assertion that women should be allowed to make their own medical decisions and that "politicians shouldn't make that decision for her". She doesn't really believe it, and neither do you, because the only way it could happen is by separating doctors from the regulatory state, and neither of you want that. Let me try again:

Licensing doctors puts them under state control, which means under the control of politicians. Hence politicians can prohibit doctors from performing abortions, and if a doctor refuses to obey the decrees of politicians, and continues to perform abortions, his license will be revoked. If the doctor continues to perform abortions without a state license, he will be arrested and imprisoned.

Do you disagree with any of that? If yes, quote the specific text you disagree with.
 
I think Texas should nut up and go all in. Make abortion equal to murder in all cases and punishable by death. Make homosexuality illegal and punishable by death. Outlaw transgenderism. Make homelessness illegal. Round up the homeless and put them in camps indefinitely. Then take the next big step. Secede. Build a wall around their nation. Establish Christianity as their national religion and truly become the Conservative nation that so many want.

Then I'd encourage all liberals to leave Texas and come to America where they will be welcome. And I'd encourage all staunch Conservatives to pack up and head to Texas. There's plenty of room there for them. I'd encourage the American government to remove any and all federal assets from Texas including all military assets. Good luck, Texas. You're on your own.

And Florida, you can go, too.
 
40 years is not enough time for murdering a baby. Should be life in prison---or the death penalty.
women. never forget these posts and what they want to do to you.
 
From that link:



Virtually every leftist on the planet supports having doctors and medical procedures controlled by politicians. The reason doctors are licensed is to place them under government control, which means under the control of politicians.

I think you're free to check out any unlicensed quack that wants to practice medicine. Let us know how that goes. I'm a dentist, just not licensed. Come and see me about a tooth you need removed.
 
Actually, it does.

Because one person feels that way? Nah, try harder.

It is political control, as the abortion issue clearly demonstrates. The verb regulate means to control. If doctors weren't licensed, then the issue of abortion would be between a woman and her doctor.

In the literal sense, yes, controlled, but in the broader sense, no. As I said, it's regulating a specific activity. Even abortion rights advocates want control. It's a debate about 'what' is being controlled and for what purposes.

She didn't make an argument, she made an assertion that women should be allowed to make their own medical decisions and that "politicians shouldn't make that decision for her".

Oh I get it, you're trying to make a 'clever' argument based on a quote you're taking a bit too literally. :rolleyes:
 
women. never forget these posts and what they want to do to you.

It's not just women who are in the crosshairs. It's becoming almost sport the way that individual conservative states are competing with each other to see which among them can pass the most restrictive laws. It's not just controlling women's access to abortion, either. I think a lot of people - lot of men but also a lot of women - are not as alarmed as they should be right now because they assume that since they won't get pregnant, it won't impact them. But it will.

These kinds of laws always embed deeper messages within them, and the message here is that, as far as the far right is concerned, women do not belong in politics. They do not belong in the office working along side men unless they're an attractive secretary that they can fondle. They belong in the kitchen and in the bedroom. In truth, the proponents of this law probably aren't so anti-abortion if it's their mistress that gets pregnant; they'll just have to get flown out of the country or get taken to some underground, unregulated clinic and hope for the best.
 
Yes, I'm watching. If you do something to harm your unborn human, why shouldn't you be charged with something?
Do you support comprehensive sexual education in schools and easy access to contraceptives? Legally mandated access to parental leave? Additional government support/welfare for parents? Access to adoption for gay couples?

It's difficult to take most conservatives seriously on this topic: When they seem to oppose all other measures to reduce unwanted pregnancies and mitigate their impacts when they come around, it's a pretty solid indication that their primary goal is just controlling women, without giving a crap about the wellbeing of either child or mother.
 
Do you support comprehensive sexual education in schools and easy access to contraceptives?

Yep.
Legally mandated access to parental leave?

Yep.
Additional government support/welfare for parents?

Yep.
Access to adoption for gay couples?

Yep.
It's difficult to take most conservatives seriously on this topic: When they seem to oppose all other measures to reduce unwanted pregnancies and mitigate their impacts when they come around, it's a pretty solid indication that their primary goal is just controlling women, without giving a crap about the wellbeing of either child or mother.

I'm not a conservative.
 
Women. Are you watching?



"Herrera remains in the custody of the Starr County Sheriff’s Office at this time on a $500,000 bond."




Typical, let's get all emotional before knowing the facts.

How far along was she?
Another source says "It was unclear whether Lizelle Herrera was accused of having an abortion or whether she helped someone else get an abortion."

Women:
I'm pro choice but not late term. My daughter was 1lb. 7oz, born when a few women can have decided to abort, we didn't.
Women have choices:
Get your abortion early. Early abortion versus unwanted abused child? Get your abortion early.
Go to another state if you are past the time to abort. A study released last month from the University of Texas at Austin found that 5,600 Texans traveled to abortion clinics in other states to get abortions between September and December 2021.
Stop late term abortions.
 
Typical, let's get all emotional before knowing the facts.

How far along was she?
Another source says "It was unclear whether Lizelle Herrera was accused of having an abortion or whether she helped someone else get an abortion."

Women:
I'm pro choice but not late term. My daughter was 1lb. 7oz, born when a few women can have decided to abort, we didn't.
Women have choices:
Get your abortion early. Early abortion versus unwanted abused child? Get your abortion early.
Go to another state if you are past the time to abort. A study released last month from the University of Texas at Austin found that 5,600 Texans traveled to abortion clinics in other states to get abortions between September and December 2021.
Stop late term abortions.
this is just the beginning and women will most definitely get emotional as they watch what you guys will do to them.
 
Oh I get it, you're trying to make a 'clever' argument based on a quote you're taking a bit too literally. :rolleyes:

Sorry, but words mean what they say they mean, and I don't have to convince you or her, because you both agree with me already.

Note that I posted this three times now and you have yet to disagree with any of it:

Licensing doctors puts them under state control, which means under the control of politicians. Hence politicians can prohibit doctors from performing abortions, and if a doctor refuses to obey the decrees of politicians, and continues to perform abortions, his license will be revoked. If the doctor continues to perform abortions without a state license, he will be arrested and imprisoned.

Both you and her agree that this is how things should be, so neither of you should be complaining.
 
Yep.

Yep.

Yep.

Yep.

I'm not a conservative.
Opposing abortion as a solution to unwanted pregnancies while supporting various other policies which reduce their frequency and impact is a consistent position that I can respect, if not quite agree with. It's easy to see how people might oppose abortion - "Ending a human life is wrong, an embryo is a human life, so abortion is wrong" - so I think it's important to try to be respectful of that, for people who are consistent on those other points. But if you'll indulge me a little, there seem to be three main problems with that line of thinking against abortion.

Firstly, as it stands it's a rules-based (deontological) approach to morality, which is a little questionable in contrast to other approaches such as consequentialism and virtue ethics. For example, drawing on the Christian tradition the 'Old Testament' had a rules-based system in which knowing what was right or wrong required simply looking at the list of rules; but in the 'New Testament' Jesus directly challenged that regarding even the most sacred rules such as the Sabbath, suggesting instead that rules' and actions' rightness and wrongness derived from their utility or consequences (such as picking grain or healing on the Sabbath) or from the intent and character of the actor (such as 'do to others as you'd want done to you' or 'love your neighbour as yourself'). Rules-based approaches can be simple - and are often simplistic - which is why they're taught to children and retained by many adults, but they're hardly the last or best word in moral theory.

Secondly, even granting a rules-based approach (and assuming that to be a valid rule), a more 'logical' conclusion from that assumed rule would be to outlaw sex first and foremost. Why? Because from 100 pregnancies there will be roughly 70 'natural abortions' (in the form of either failure to implant or later miscarriage), roughly 6 induced abortions in the USA and then the remaining 24 live births. If we decided that it was appropriate to restrict women's liberty based on our assumed deontological rule in order to prevent those six induced abortions, logically it would make far more sense to prevent the seventy natural abortions also by restricting everyone's liberty equally. Actively ending a 'life' is conceptually different from knowingly and actively creating the conditions in which a 'life' will be ended, but it's a pretty fine distinction and when it's a ten to one ratio it would obviously be absurd to say that the former must be outlawed and punished while the latter should be allowed and even encouraged. Needless to say, such an absurd conclusion following more or less inescapably from our assumed, simplistic rule suggests that the rule isn't a very good one!

And thirdly, the rule actually is not so simple; there are numerous widely-held exceptions to it, and it seems reasonable for abortion to be one of those exceptions. The actual 'rule' is something more like "Ending a human life is wrong except:
- when necessary for self-defense
- to save other lives (eg. trolley problem, baby Hitler, hostage situation)
- to prevent greater suffering (eg. euthanasia)
- passively removing life support in permanent vegetative state
- when they really want to die (suicide)
- when they've done something really bad (capital punishment)
- when authorized by a government under various circumstances, often variations on the above (eg. defensive war) . . . . "

Various people will tick different boxes there of course, but loosely speaking I've put them (besides perhaps the last) in the order I'd consider most justifiable - I lean pretty heavily against capital punishment and obviously not a huge fan of suicide! So with all those potential exceptions to the 'rule,' why not abortion too? In fact abortion is pretty much a variation on the second, third and fourth one of those: It slightly reduces risk to the mother's life (and greatly reduces the restriction of her liberty); an unwanted embryo likely won't have a great life and would suffer less, in fact not at all if simply ended; and abortion prior to about twenty-four weeks is simply removing life support from a mindless, vegetative parasite. So even for those who adopt a deontological approach to ethics and assume that this 'rule' is a valid and important one, obviously there are good reasons for abortion to be recognized as a standard exception alongside various others - as a government authorized exception at the very least, even for those who maintain that they personally would consider it wrong to have one.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom