• 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!

New Texas ‘fetal heartbeat’ bill would outlaw nearly all abortions

Sykes

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2013
Messages
1,296
Reaction score
1,066
Location
Mmm. Bacon.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
New Texas ‘fetal heartbeat’ bill would outlaw nearly all abortions | The Raw Story

Oh, heck. Just ban them all


Just hours after Texas Governor Rick Perry signed a controversial anti-abortion bill into law, Republicans in the state legislature introduced yet another bill intended to prevent a woman from obtaining an abortion.


The new legislation would ban most abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected, which can be as early as six weeks into pregnancy.


“A person may not knowingly perform or induce or attempt to perform or induce an abortion on a pregnant woman with the specific intent of causing or abetting the termination of the life of the unborn child if it has been determined, in accordance with Section 171.103, that the unborn child has a detectable heartbeat,” the bill states.


The bill was introduced to the Texas House by state Rep. Phil King (R-Weatherford). King was a co-author of the bill signed into law on Thursday, which could close down all but five abortion clinics in the state.

I'm serious. They want to outlaw it, why don't they just outlaw it.
 
Sadly most likely due to Roe V Wade. What they should do is regulate it to hell so that an abortion is so expensive that no one can afford one. Indirectly ban it until we can correct our ethical atrocities.
 
Roe v Wade should be revisited.
 
New Texas ‘fetal heartbeat’ bill would outlaw nearly all abortions | The Raw Story

Oh, heck. Just ban them all


Just hours after Texas Governor Rick Perry signed a controversial anti-abortion bill into law, Republicans in the state legislature introduced yet another bill intended to prevent a woman from obtaining an abortion.


The new legislation would ban most abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected, which can be as early as six weeks into pregnancy.


“A person may not knowingly perform or induce or attempt to perform or induce an abortion on a pregnant woman with the specific intent of causing or abetting the termination of the life of the unborn child if it has been determined, in accordance with Section 171.103, that the unborn child has a detectable heartbeat,” the bill states.


The bill was introduced to the Texas House by state Rep. Phil King (R-Weatherford). King was a co-author of the bill signed into law on Thursday, which could close down all but five abortion clinics in the state.

I'm serious. They want to outlaw it, why don't they just outlaw it.

They want to place personhood on something having a heartbeat?

That don't sound good to me
 
They want to place personhood on something having a heartbeat?

That don't sound good to me

Well, if life begins at conception, instead of you know, like the Bible says when Adam drew breath .... but no, it's just a bunch of meddling old men trying to control women's reproductive rights.
 
Well, if life begins at conception, instead of you know, like the Bible says when Adam drew breath .... but no, it's just a bunch of meddling old men trying to control women's reproductive rights.

If they want to based personhood based on a heartbeat then hey let's count cats, dogs and a **** ton of other animals as well since they have heartbeats as well.

In the future let's kill those that transferred there minds to a device of some sort to avoid Alzheimer and kill them to since they won't have heartbeats either
 
Well, if life begins at conception, instead of you know, like the Bible says when Adam drew breath .... but no, it's just a bunch of meddling old men trying to control women's reproductive rights.

So you really don't think that women are concerned about the lives of the unborn? You really don't?
 
If they want to based personhood based on a heartbeat then hey let's count cats, dogs and a **** ton of other animals as well since they have heartbeats as well.

Didn't you say something like that last week? Didn't I already tell personhood is only for humans, not cats and dogs and other species?
 
Didn't I already tell personhood is only for humans, not cats and dogs and other species?

Not exactly this is only your opinion

There is no reason to accept member to one particular species as criteria for personhood.

As most would tell you killing a non human entity with more mental capabilities then the average adult human person would be murder but on your species account of personhood it wouldn't thus it will be rejected by most
 
Well, if life begins at conception, instead of you know, like the Bible says when Adam drew breath .... but no, it's just a bunch of meddling old men trying to control women's reproductive rights.

The start of human life and the start of unique human life are different questions.
 
There is no reason to accept member to one particular species as criteria for personhood.

A person is a human by definition. It can't be a chicken, a dog, a cat, a deer, or any other animal.
 
Well, it's an improvement but that's still not where the law ought to be.
 
So you really don't think that women are concerned about the lives of the unborn? You really don't?

I really think it's a bunch of old men trying to run women's lives. Yes. I do.

And women who don't favor choice don't need to have choice. But the law says the women who have a decision to make are entitled to make it without interference.
 
Well, if life begins at conception, instead of you know, like the Bible says when Adam drew breath .... but no, it's just a bunch of meddling old men trying to control women's reproductive rights.

The Bible discusses the unborn having souls, God gave Adam breath as the first living human.

If your "right" involves killing another human then really you shouldn't have that as a right. The issue isn't about meddling old men trying to control women, it's about advancing human rights and protecting the lives of the unborn.
 
This fight will never be close to over without a Constitutional Amendment one way or the other, and even then it will be fought out in legislatures and not courts where it should be decided to begin with.
 
New Texas ‘fetal heartbeat’ bill would outlaw nearly all abortions | The Raw Story

Oh, heck. Just ban them all


Just hours after Texas Governor Rick Perry signed a controversial anti-abortion bill into law, Republicans in the state legislature introduced yet another bill intended to prevent a woman from obtaining an abortion.


The new legislation would ban most abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected, which can be as early as six weeks into pregnancy.


“A person may not knowingly perform or induce or attempt to perform or induce an abortion on a pregnant woman with the specific intent of causing or abetting the termination of the life of the unborn child if it has been determined, in accordance with Section 171.103, that the unborn child has a detectable heartbeat,” the bill states.


The bill was introduced to the Texas House by state Rep. Phil King (R-Weatherford). King was a co-author of the bill signed into law on Thursday, which could close down all but five abortion clinics in the state.

I'm serious. They want to outlaw it, why don't they just outlaw it.

That's 12 or 13 weeks according to the internet. Wonder if it'll stand SCOTUS muster. I could support it. Two months to find out for sure you're pregnant. One month to get your abortion. That would fit nicely into the limits I've set in my own mind...
 
The Bible discusses the unborn having souls, God gave Adam breath as the first living human.

If your "right" involves killing another human then really you shouldn't have that as a right. The issue isn't about meddling old men trying to control women, it's about advancing human rights and protecting the lives of the unborn.

This is not a Christian nation, and our laws should not be based on people believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
 
This is not a Christian nation, and our laws should not be based on people believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

We are not a theocracy, but Christians can vote and vote on issues in accordance with their religious beliefs just as someone can be pro-life without their stance stemming from religion.

I corrected you due to your Biblical inaccuracy regarding how fetuses are viewed, I'm not saying that you (or anyone else) is a Christian.
 
A person is a human by definition.

Not really

You know the definition of person is not universally agreed upon

Look at this as an example

1. a human being, whether man, woman, or child: The table seats four persons.


2. a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.


3. Sociology . an individual human being, especially with reference to his or her social relationships and behavioral patterns as conditioned by the culture.


4. Philosophy . a self-conscious or rational being.


5. the actual self or individual personality of a human being


Person | Define Person at Dictionary.com


A unborn human would be excluded from the definition of person from numbers: 2, 3, 4, not sure about 5 but would be included in the definition of person from number 1 if species membership is the only thing for personhood.


And yes a non human entity with mental capabilities greater then your average adult human person would also be considered a person but it won't be human at all so on your take of personhood killing it won't be murder since it wasn't human at all according to pro lifers.
 
Last edited:
Not really

You know the definition of person is not universally agreed upon

Look at this as an example

1. a human being, whether man, woman, or child: The table seats four persons.


2. a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.


3. Sociology . an individual human being, especially with reference to his or her social relationships and behavioral patterns as conditioned by the culture.


4. Philosophy . a self-conscious or rational being.


5. the actual self or individual personality of a human being


Person | Define Person at Dictionary.com


A unborn human would be excluded from the definition of person from numbers: 2, 3, 4, not sure about 5 but would be included in the definition of person from number 1 if species membership is the only thing for personhood

The only one it could possibly be excluded from is 4. The rest of them work just fine to describe the unborn and it in no way proves your point it can be something other than a human.
 
The only one it could possibly be excluded from is 4. The rest of them work just fine to describe the unborn and it in no way proves your point it can be something other than a human.

From number 2 look at how it says distinguished nothing distinguishing that separates a human from a ordinary animal until some years after birth. It becomes distinguished from a ordinary animal once it has capabilities above that of an animal obviously

It would be excluded from number 3 since humans don't have references to anything until they first know of their own existence which isn't until 3 or 4 years of age depending on their mental capabilities

And yes it would be excluded from number 4 since it lacks the mental capabilities to support self conscious until it's about 3 months of age and rationality isn't present in humans until some years after birth as well.

Number 5 not sure about

And I see you're cutting off that little part I put in you need to address that as well otherwise your take on personhood would be rejected like it already has in most of the developed nations that have abortion legal since your side avoids answering those in the first place.

When it comes to personhood you need to look at what a non human entity must have to qualify as a person and whatever it would be would exclude the unborn and you know this to which is why you keep cutting that part.

Pointing to dictionaries won't help you out either and I only listed that to tell you even the dictionary has not clear cut universal definition of person.

Look most Pro Lifers like yourself you want to keep things as simplistic as you can
 
Last edited:
I really think it's a bunch of old men trying to run women's lives. Yes. I do.

And women who don't favor choice don't need to have choice. But the law says the women who have a decision to make are entitled to make it without interference.

So you can sit there with a straight face and say that these politicians are all male, and their reason for doing it is none other than to run women's lives? You think they sit down and say "These bitches are getting out of line, what can we do to **** with them?"

You don't think that it might come from a good place (ie: they believe they're protecting life)?
 
So you can sit there with a straight face and say that these politicians are all male, and their reason for doing it is none other than to run women's lives? You think they sit down and say "These bitches are getting out of line, what can we do to **** with them?"

You don't think that it might come from a good place (ie: they believe they're protecting life)?

I don't give a **** why they are doing it. Women have always had abortions, and always will. Roe gave them clean and safe.

These asinine laws will not reduce abortion. They will make women desperate.

And desperate times call for desperate measures.
 
I don't give a **** why they are doing it. Women have always had abortions, and always will. Roe gave them clean and safe.

These asinine laws will not reduce abortion. They will make women desperate.

And desperate times call for desperate measures.

*shrugs* I also think they're drastically overstepping where they should be. However, I've seen too much hyperbole from the pro-choice crowd that's probably coming from a severe emotional reaction.

"Pro-life wants to make slaves out of women."
"They want to make women breeding objects."
"They want to own women's bodies."

or the one you used:
"I really think it's a bunch of old men trying to run women's lives."

When you say ridiculous things like that, it doesn't really help your case, it just makes you look emotional. Regardless of how you stand on the issue, nobody is trying to make slaves out of women or own their bodies.
 
Back
Top Bottom