• 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!

Texas' 6-Week Abortion Ban Takes Effect

Between 10 and 20 percent of pregnancies miscarry. To argue that is equivalent to parents losing a child is obscene. Yes it can be a tragedy for perspective parents, but it is in no way on the same level as losing a child.
Here you go:

2/3rds embryos of don’t survive

Two-thirds of all human embryos fail to develop successfully. Now, in a new study, researchers have shown that they can predict with 93 percent certainty which fertilized eggs will make it to a critical developmental milestone and which will stall and die.​

Why should women be forced by law to sacrifice their health, even their lives, and their opportunities in life and forgo upholding their responsibilities to their families and employers and communities based on such poor odds for that embryonic life?



MasksSMx2 - Copy.webp
 
That is simply a meaningless distinction, as the two terms are coterminous. Furthermore "human being" is used all the time in scientific literature. But fine, we'll use the term homo sapiens if you wish. What justifies the deliberate killing of an innocent homo sapiens?
Expedience. Economics. Readiness. Ability to rear a child and not create another burden on society. Cosmology.
 
The difference between what is legal and what is moral is the topic. Can you answer?
Morality is subjective and varies from.culture to culture.

In my cosmology, for which I have exactly as much proof as you do, no one really dies, we live many lives, all for the purpose of experience/learning.

Experiencing all possibilities. The murderer and the murdered. Rich and poor. You name it. Our bodies are only vessels we occupy temporarily.

Some variation of this concept is the foundation of the beleif systems of a majority of the species.

And under it, abortion is a lesson the mother learns, good or bad. Dying before birth was handled many lifetimes ago. There is no "harm".

Now I know the idea appalls you. But the genesis of the whole "every sperm is sacred" bit is really about making sure families had enough kids to produce wealth for their lords, die for their kings, and still keep the collection plates at the church filled. No different than only fish on Friday was really about the fishing industry profits/taxes.
 
The request was a source for your statement that: "Science has long held that the unborn are human beings."

You have presented two links.

View attachment 67351358

The first link never says the unborn is a human being. It calls the unborn a fetus throughout the entire article.

The second link has no source. Who said it? A scientist? An anti-abortion advocate? A friend? Who? Where did it come from? A scientific journal? A science text? A church flyer? This is not a source from science.

As far as I know the literature of science does not call fetus an human being.
 
Are you under the impression that abortion is outlawed in Texas?
I am under the impression that you are not arguing in good faith. If you ban abortions later than 6 weeks:

1. Most people don't even know they are pregnant by then.

2. They allow private citizens to bring lawsuits against providers to enforce the law. This will result in a flood of frivolous lawsuits that will make it impossible for any provider in Texas to obtain malpractice coverage, or any sort of liability coverage.

So yes, for all intents and purposes, Abortion is legally prevented in Texas. To argue otherwise is simply intellectually dishonest. This is what you want, so own it.
 
This isn’t just about the woman’s body. There’s another human involved.

No, there isn't. Before six weeks there isn't even a fetus. That's not a person. And if it was a person -- which it isn't -- that person would not have rights equal (much less superior) to the host mother because it is incapable of surviving outside the womb. When it can survive without the mother, that's a person.

There is no parallel analogy to men since only women are able to carry another human.

How convenient for the men who seek to control the women.
 
I am under the impression that you are not arguing in good faith. If you ban abortions later than 6 weeks:

1. Most people don't even know they are pregnant by then.

2. They allow private citizens to bring lawsuits against providers to enforce the law. This will result in a flood of frivolous lawsuits that will make it impossible for any provider in Texas to obtain malpractice coverage, or any sort of liability coverage.

So yes, for all intents and purposes, Abortion is legally prevented in Texas. To argue otherwise is simply intellectually dishonest. This is what you want, so own it.

Actually, I want an end to almost all elective abortions, not just those before 6 weeks. Medically necessary abortions are still legal in Texas (and should absolutely remain legal, of course) and abortions before 6 weeks gestation are also still legal. So, no, abortion isn't outlawed in Texas.
 
No, there isn't. Before six weeks there isn't even a fetus. That's not a person. And if it was a person -- which it isn't -- that person would not have rights equal (much less superior) to the host mother because it is incapable of surviving outside the womb. When it can survive without the mother, that's a person.



How convenient for the men who seek to control the women.

I didn't say person -- a human.
 
I didn't say person -- a human.

So what's your issue then? Why does a non-person have rights that should be anywhere NEAR equal to that of the mother? Or for that matter even be considered?
 
^^^^^
Follow my comments back and you should find where you are wrong.

"So? Both the born and unborn are humans, nonetheless. We don't live in a sci-fi novel."
LOL shoot. I really messed up that joke... 🤗
 
So what's your issue then? Why does a non-person have rights that should be anywhere NEAR equal to that of the mother? Or for that matter even be considered?

A better question -- why do we still consider some humans "non-persons"?
 
What other humans should be considered "non-persons"?

The non-people humans, especially those who cannot survive independent of the mother. This is to protect the rights of the mother, an actual person (no debate required), and to prevent a form of slavery and subjugation from taking place by the state.
 
Actually, I want an end to almost all elective abortions, not just those before 6 weeks. Medically necessary abortions are still legal in Texas (and should absolutely remain legal, of course) and abortions before 6 weeks gestation are also still legal. So, no, abortion isn't outlawed in Texas.
That’s a dodge.
 
A better question -- why do we still consider some humans "non-persons"?
We should obviously require a death certificate for every miscarriage then, and an autopsy for any miscarriage that occurs outside of a hospital.
 
Actually, I want an end to almost all elective abortions, not just those before 6 weeks.

Who the **** cares what you want? Someone who seeks to bend Big Government to interfere with the healthcare of others because they've made an arbitrary moral decision about how others should behave seems utterly contradictory to the libertarian ideology. Just FYI.

Wait, are you a fake libertarian??? *gasp*
 
How so? Abortion isn't outlawed in Texas. It's certainly harder to get one now, but it's not outlawed.
They have made it effectively impossible to get one. How can a provider operate in Texas if no one will insure them.
 
Who the **** cares what you want?

What I want was brought up in the quote I was replying to. Testy, much?

Someone who seeks to bend Big Government to interfere with the healthcare of others because they've made an arbitrary moral decision about how others should behave seems utterly contradictory to the libertarian ideology. Just FYI.

Wait, are you a fake libertarian??? *gasp*

The unnecessary killing of humans is the antithesis of individual freedom. Why would I be for that?

Wait, am I someone who isn't in lockstep with any group???? *gasp*
 
They have made it effectively impossible to get one. How can a provider operate in Texas if no one will insure them.

And yet, if a woman goes into the ER in Dallas, Texas with an ectopic pregnancy, she immediately gets a legal, necessary abortion. The insurance/lawsuit aspect is interesting. I'll be curious to see how that all pans out. I'm not crying about it.

FYI -- what I do disagree with in the TX law is there aren't exceptions for rape or incest.
 
No, that's when a human has a chance to live outside of the womb. A human isn't fully formed until around the age of 25. Words have meanings.
You are parsing something that doesn't matter.
Society ad a whole understands the difference between a fetus and actual child running around and whatever. This is a meaningless exercise and nothing more.
 
Back
Top Bottom