Texas passes law banning abortion after 6 weeks...

[pamak]

Yes yes, when you WANT to use it--its A-ok!

When you don't-- its a no no

Where exacty did you see gross generalization from my part? ON THE CONTRARY, I explained tha some times biology matters and other times it does not. You ahve to argue the point case by case and in THIS case the fact that biological differences lead to different level of risks during pregnacy is the reason why biology matters and those who assume the higher risk during pregnacy should aso be the ones who have the final say whether they want to carry on with pregnancy or not!

 

[pamak]

We already got past who the ultimate decision maker on abortion is.....It's the woman

No that we are past that, care to tackle the other questions in play?

No, we are not past that!

I need to see the person who tries to dispute it, admit it in public! Are you talking on his behalf?

 

[Cope]

Where exacty did you see gross generalization from my part? ON THE CONTRARY, I explained tha some times biology matters and other times it does not. You ahve to argue the point case by case and in THIS case the fact that biological differences lead to different level of risks during pregnacy is the reason why biology matters and those who assume the higher risk during pregnacy should aso be the ones who have the final say whether they want to carry on with pregnancy or not!

Again, we are past that.

 

[trouble13]

Nothing to discuss since it is not related to the issue I discuss which is about who is the final decision makers regarding abortion. If you want to change the subject simply because you are unable to refute the point I make on the subject of ABORTION then do not bother starting a different conversation.

Lol you are the one who insisted on expanding the subject to include biology. Now you are unable to refute my point you are trying to dodge it.

 

[pamak]

Again, we are past that.

Speak for yourself and let the other person admit it in public!

 

[Cope]

No, we are not past that!

I need to see the person who tries to dispute it, admit it in public! Are you talking on his behalf?

I don't really think he was disputing that statement.
His dispute was akin to mine, when men's rights get trampled in FAVOR of a woman's. He want's equality under the law.

 

[pamak]

Lol you are the one who insisted on expanding the subject to include biology. Now you are unable to refute my point you are trying to dodge it.

You have not made any point that refutes anything of what I said about abortions!

Now, do you admit that women should have the last word in abortion decisions, yes or no? If no you need to stay on the subject of this thread and refute my points.

 

[Bucky]

And there it is.

Napolean clearly wants to put all the blame for the abortion on the woman. These people never blame the men who knocked her up.

People like you always paint men as the aggressor and the woman as the victim.

You do realize women want sex just as much as the man, right?

Pregnancy affects men equally as much as it does a woman. Arguing otherwise is just pure gender bias.

 

[pamak]

I don't really think he was disputing that statement.
His dispute was akin to mine, when men's rights get trampled in FAVOR of a woman's. He want's equality under the law.

Let him speak then! I give him the choice to agree (if he really does) with you!

 

[trouble13]

You have not made any point that refutes anything of what I said about abortions!

Now, do you admit that women should have the last word in abortion decisions, yes or no? If no you need to stay on the subject of this thread and refute my points.

I think either men should be allowed to choose to not be responsible for unwanted children or abortions should be criminalized.

 

[SCrider]

People like you always paint men as the aggressor and the woman as the victim.

You do realize women want sex just as much as the man, right?

Pregnancy affects men equally as much as it does a woman. Arguing otherwise is just pure gender bias.

Really?

 

[SCrider]

I think either men should be allowed to choose not be responsible for unwanted children or abortions should be criminalized.

at what age do you think it is ok for the man to choose? Get divorced, abandon any responsibility for your kids, cool, right?

 

[pamak]

People like you always paint men as the aggressor and the woman as the victim.

You do realize women want sex just as much as the man, right?

Pregnancy affects men equally as much as it does a woman. Arguing otherwise is just pure gender bias.

Objectively wrong statement since the women are the ones who have surrgeries, hormone and body changes scars and even deaths as a result of pregnancy.

 

[jotathought]

You did not see there 8 1/2 month, so you make things up

My wife and I have had 2 children, and I saw the development, via ultrasounds, heart beat scannings and 4K views of the development of both children. Anyone who believes a 3 .. 6 .. 8.9 month old baby is a "clump of cells" is not using common sense, and the fact it's considered a fetus ("clump of cells") until the "clump of cells" has been delivered (Vaginally or c-section) and the umbilical chord cut goes against basic common sense.

If a female gives birth, and kills her child before the chord is cut .. is that still an abortion (I seem to remember reading a story on this story in the last 20 years)?

 

[choiceone]

Your ignorance of the facts is showing. First of all, if there is a legitimate medical reason then the law exempts that case from civil action. Your made up what if’s count for nothing. Second, nothing in the law prevents the woman from doing the termination anyway so your appeals to bodily autonomy are moot. Third, the government isn’t enforcing this law. This is between the citizens of Texas. The choice hasn’t been taken away - this law only ensures that accountability for that choice flows in both directions.

I think you misunderstood why you were repeatedly asked to address the issue of potential serious health risks and deaths in late pregnancy and childbirth.

Like most people, you assume that if you make an exception to a limit on abortion for a medical reason everything will be A-okay. However, every year, some women are seriously harmed or die in childbirth in cases where doctors have not been able medically to foresee the danger. Thus, the doctors cannot be sued for malpractice. Who is then responsible for causing the deaths?

If there are no abortion laws, we can speak of natural misfortune or "act of God," but the minute there are such laws, we can't. Suppose the woman would have had an abortion if they had been legal because she intuitively feared carrying the pregnancy to term. Then, the abortion law would be the cause of her death.

The only way around this is two-fold: you make an exception for medical reasons on one hand and you make elective abortion available long enough in pregnancy that the legislators can say they gave ample opportunity for a woman to avoid the risk of death.

Six weeks isn't ample opportunity. If even one woman died in childbirth under this law in Texas, and I were her husband or parent, I would certainly want to sue the legislators and governor for causing the death of my wife or daughter.

 

[SCrider]

My wife and I have had 2 children, and I saw the development, via ultrasounds, heart beat scannings and 4K views of the development of both children. Anyone who believes a 3 .. 6 .. 8.9 month old baby is a "clump of cells" is not using common sense, and the fact it's considered a fetus ("clump of cells") until the "clump of cells" has been delivered (Vaginally or c-section) and the umbilical chord cut goes against basic common sense.

If a female gives birth, and kills her child before the chord is cut .. is that still an abortion (I seem to remember reading a story on this story on this over the last 20 years)?

How many unwanted kids are you willing to take in?

 

[pamak]

I think either men should be allowed to choose to not be responsible for unwanted children or abortions should be criminalized.

This does nOT answer my question!

If the man WANTS to have the baby and the woman does NOT want to have the baby, who should prevail?

In this scenarion the man AGAIN wants to have the baby and you do not address it!

 

[Cope]

at what age do you think it is ok for the man to choose? Get divorced, abandon any responsibility for your kids, cool, right?

Nope. You decide during the pregnancy, prior to the abortion timeline.

 

[TurtleDude]

So Texas once again proves it hasn't progressed beyond the 19th century. No abortions after six weeks, even if the woman is a victim of rape or incest. How this can happen in a nation proudly preening itself as the most advanced on the planet is beyond me. Just goes to show how much influence the Talibornagain lunatics have.

Texas passes law banning abortion after six weeks

The law, one of the most restrictive in the US, passes as the Supreme Court fails to block it.

www.bbc.co.uk

I oppose this law. I support legal abortion for most reasons. However, one can make a good faith claim that as science PROGRESSES, limiting the time for an abortion is progress as well. Fetuses used to be doomed if the were"born" at too early a time. Science has allowed many preemies to survive now, when they surely weren't viable even as late as 5 years ago,

 

[trouble13]

at what age do you think it is ok for the man to choose? Get divorced, abandon any responsibility for your kids, cool, right?

No, let me clear about this. Same as a woman the mans window for that option should be the same as the woman's for an abortion. They should both get the same opportunity.

Both men and women should be allowed to decide what's in their best interest.

Once the baby is born if the man did not opt out he is half responsible for that child's basic necessities

 

[Lursa]

Please .. continue to justify the termination of 850K+ human lives (excuse me .. "non viable babies") because of poor processes in place (which suck .. it's not easy to adopt) .. it's sickening. Why are individuals suddenly concerned about poor government processes and spending when 850K+ "non viable babies" lives are being terminated?

So you dont have any counterargument, just your emotional diatribe? Why didnt you answer my questions, as people do in rational productive discussions. There arent any easy answers, no kidding. But hey...you made your declaration...support it.

 

[pamak]

My wife and I have had 2 children, and I saw the development, via ultrasounds, heart beat scannings and 4K views of the development of both children. Anyone who believes a 3 .. 6 .. 8.9 month old baby is a "clump of cells" is not using common sense, and the fact it's considered a fetus ("clump of cells") until the "clump of cells" has been delivered (Vaginally or c-section) and the umbilical chord cut goes against basic common sense.

If a female gives birth, and kills her child before the chord is cut .. is that still an abortion (I seem to remember reading a story on this story on this over the last 20 years)?

I have posted examples of what science says. The following is from a book which I recommend
So, again:

'The Ethical Brain' (Published 2005)

"[W]e all seem to be in agreement that there must be a point at which moral status should be conferred on an embryo or fetus. However, we seem to have a harder time defining that point . . ."

www.nytimes.com

As a father, I have a perceptual reaction to the Carnegie developmental stages of a fetus: the image of Stage 23, when the fetus is approximately eight weeks old, suggests a small human being. Until that stage, it is difficult to tell the difference between a pig embryo and a human embryo.

...

And yet, at the level of neuroscientific knowledge, it could easily be argued that my view is nonsensical. The brain at Carnegie Stage 23, which has slowly been developing from roughly the fifteenth day, is hardly a brain that could sustain any serious mental life. If a grown adult had suffered massive brain damage, reducing the brain to this level of development, the patient would be considered brain dead and a candidate for organ donation.

If you try to asnwer questions based on what appears true to your eyes, then you can as well be a flat-earther

 

[Lursa]

You evidently support their position and agree a baby in the womb, just seconds before delivery, is not a baby .. not a human .. it's just a clump of cells.

Right? Want to make sure I understand your position.

Again, you assume silly things and ignore facts...you are 'emoting' all over this thread and just pretending that your nonsense matters...OTOH, the rest of us use facts and the medical community's foundation for an actual discussion.

 

[trouble13]

This does nOT answer my question!

If the man WANTS to have the baby and the woman does NOT want to have the baby, who shoud prevail?

In this scenarion the man AGAIN wants to have the baby and you do not address it!

That happens and it is very sad but if I ran the world, in that scenario, the woman would decide and the man would be left heartbroken that she killed their child.

 

[tanj]

why would I tell my daughter to be ashamed? I was raised in the 70s and 80s...my daughter was born in 92

why would you repeat the concept over and over in public, along with many many others, creating an easily accessible public message that women who are raped are or should be ashamed? people absorb those public messages and ideas. so, you don't have to tell your own that there is shame, but in shouting aloud about the shame involved, you are telling others that there is shame. that is peer pressure on a grand scale and it is hideously effective. in using shame as an excuse to not report or to do anything, those repeating it indirectly enable the perpetrators as well as perpetuate the problem.