Texas - Terrible abortion law doing what Republicans said it wouldn't do

[Clizby Wampuscat]

The right to bodily autonomy is a "state's rights issue" ... ????

Your insistence that abortion is only about bodily autonomy is misleading. Another human life is involved.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The right to bodily autonomy is a "state's rights issue" ... ????

I can hardly wait until some red states start branding babies at birth, "Property of the State of __________, not to be modified without express consent of the AG."

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Your dilemma is black/white thinking. When a fetus has defects and little chance for survival it isn't killing human life. Thyere is a broader context that you are ignoring, and doing so for political reasons, not the health of the patient. Thyis is why right wing motives are dangerous and immoral.

So you are not talking about my stance. The human life that will die in the Cox case is tragic but it is still human life. And I was for her being able to have the abortion in Texas. My comments were about most pregnancies not about special situations like this one.

And right wing politics has made the choice that it is their business when a couple gets pregnant and needs medical treatment. Right wing politics has decided the can make medical decisions for Texas women.

Take it up with them.

They should move out of red states if the want proper reproductive care, too.

This has nothing to do with my comment.

More black/white thinking. No one disputes abortion is a moral dilemma, but there are more issues than the idealistic approach the far right brings to these discussions. Right wingers claim to care about life, but the superficial ideals demonstrates they don't.

This is not a response to my comment either.

That is your opinion, and you are forcing it on others who have more nuanced and realitic thinking.

It is an objective fact that abortion kills human life. That is not an opinion. A fetus is life and it is human. If not, then what kind of life is it?

You now admit there are exceptions to killing babies. Why they sudden change of mind?

I have always had this stance. Read this entire thread.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Do you include pregnancy as result of rape and/or incest and/or when the heath of the mother is jeopardized as instances where abortion should be allowed?

Yes depending on the situation.

If so, what other conditions do you see as being required, beyond probable non-viability of the fetus, as rising to the status of permissible abortions?

If the mother could die is one case it should be left up to the mother. I don;t know all the circumstances but if you want to bring some to my attention we can talk about it.

Where non-viability is concerned, (as in this case) what percentage of certainty of survivability should be the threshold for qualification to allow abortion, and who should be allowed to determine the likelihood of that certainty?

Good question, this is an area that we could have a discussion to come to an agreement, but most pro-choice people don't want the discussion I have found because they see it as compromising on the absolute right of the mother to have an abortion.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Your insistence that abortion is only about bodily autonomy is misleading. Another human life is involved.

I think this thread perfectly illustrates how it boils down to an issue of bodily autonomy.

A fetus doesn't have the right to use my body without my permission. Especially if it's going to cause me serious health complications.
Just like a person who needs a kidney doesn't get to hook herself up to my kidney without my consent, in order that she may stay alive. And in that case, we're talking about an actual born fully developed autonomous human being, rather than an embryo or fetus.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

I think this thread perfectly illustrates how it boils down to an issue of bodily autonomy.

A fetus doesn't have the right to use my body without my permission. Especially if it's going to cause me serious health complications.
Just like a person who needs a kidney doesn't get to hook herself up to my kidney without my consent, in order that she may stay alive. And in that case, we're talking about an actual born fully developed autonomous human being, rather than an embryo or fetus.

No, it always comes down to what someone thinks of the fetus. If you think the human life has a right to life you will be against abortion, if you don't view it as having a right to life then you are prochoice. Bodily autonomy is an emotional issue that prochoice people use to try to persuade others. Prolife people like myself support bodily autonomy, just not to the point where another human life is killed.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, it always comes down to what someone thinks of the fetus. If you think the human life has a right to life you will be against abortion, if you don't view it as having a right to life then you are prochoice. Bodily autonomy is an emotional issue that prochoice people use to try to persuade others.

Notice how your response doesn't address what I said.
You're just trying to tell me what I think instead.

Prolife people like myself support bodily autonomy, just not to the point where another human life is killed.

It doesn't appear that you do. You ignored my points about it completely.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Notice how your response doesn't address what I said.
You're just trying to tell me what I think instead.

You were telling me how I think. Look, I am not prolife because I don't want women to have bodily autonomy. I am prolife because I think a human life has rights and should not be killed in most situations.

It doesn't appear that you do. You ignored my points about it completely.

What did I ignore?

 

[SkepticThinker]

You were telling me how I think.

Oh, I did? Where? Here's the post:

"I think this thread perfectly illustrates how it boils down to an issue of bodily autonomy.

A fetus doesn't have the right to use my body without my permission. Especially if it's going to cause me serious health complications.
Just like a person who needs a kidney doesn't get to hook herself up to my kidney without my consent, in order that she may stay alive. And in that case, we're talking about an actual born fully developed autonomous human being, rather than an embryo or fetus."

Look, I am not prolife because I don't want women to have bodily autonomy. I am prolife because I think a human life has rights and should not be killed in most situations.

What did I ignore?

See above.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Oh, I did? Where? Here's the post:

"I think this thread perfectly illustrates how it boils down to an issue of bodily autonomy.

A fetus doesn't have the right to use my body without my permission. Especially if it's going to cause me serious health complications.
Just like a person who needs a kidney doesn't get to hook herself up to my kidney without my consent, in order that she may stay alive. And in that case, we're talking about an actual born fully developed autonomous human being, rather than an embryo or fetus."


See above.

Ok, just say then that you don't believe me when I say it is not about bodily autonomy but about a right to life for human life.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Ok, just say then that you don't believe me when I say it is not about bodily autonomy but about a right to life for human life.

Where on earth did I say that? I actually made a point in response. And pointed out how this thread and its topic is an excellent example of how this does boil down to bodily autonomy.

I'm just asking you to address the points in my post.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Where on earth did I say that?

I'm just asking you to address the points in my post.

You said it comes down to bodily autonomy. I have said it has nothing to do with bodily autonomy for me. What do you want me to say?

 

[SkepticThinker]

You said it comes down to bodily autonomy. I have said it has nothing to do with bodily autonomy for me. What do you want me to say?

Good grief. I'm looking for a response to this:

"A fetus doesn't have the right to use my body without my permission. Especially if it's going to cause me serious health complications.
Just like a person who needs a kidney doesn't get to hook herself up to my kidney without my consent, in order that she may stay alive. And in that case, we're talking about an actual born fully developed autonomous human being, rather than an embryo or fetus."

What say you?

 

[Dao Hao Now]

but most pro-choice people don't want the discussion I have found because they see it as compromising on the absolute right of the mother to have an abortion.

Do you not realize that by allowing for exceptions in the case of rape/incest/less than certainty of non-viability/health of the mother are comprising on the absolute “killing innocent human life is wrong”?

The human life created did not consent to being created and cannot consent to being terminated.

The human life created in the above circumstances (rape/incest etc.) did not consent to being created and cannot consent to being terminated……and didn’t commit (and therefore cannot be responsible for) any of the circumstances of the mother becoming pregnant;
Why is it not wrong to “kill innocent life” in the circumstances that you find exceptions for?

 

[Twilight Hue]

"NMás journalist and CBS News contributor Enrique Acevedo asked Trump: "You say they've weaponized the Justice Department, they weaponized the FBI. Would you do the same if you're reelected?"

"Well, he's unleashed something that everybody, we've all known about this for a hundred years," Trump said, apparently in reference to President Biden and his administration. "We've watched other countries do it and, in some cases, effective and in other cases, the country's overthrown or it's been totally ineffective. But we've watched this for a long time, and it's not unique, but it's unique for the United States. Yeah. If they do this and they've already done it, but if they want to follow through on this, yeah, it could certainly happen in reverse. It could certainly happen in reverse. What they've done is they've released the genie out of the box."

The former president claimed prosecutors have "done indictments in order to win an election," and then suggested that if he is president, he could indict someone who is beating him "very badly."

Trump suggests he or another Republican president could use Justice Department to indict opponents

In an interview with Univision News, former President Donald Trump claimed his political opponents have "let the genie out of the box."

www.cbsnews.com

That sounds like a joke to you??

If say the laughter is a fair indication that it was just a joke.

What's less funny is both sides are weaponizing governmental power over personal vendettas while thinking it's the other one that is doing it and not themselves.

 

[SkepticThinker]

If say the laughter is a fair indication that it was just a joke.

The laughter from whom?

Sean Hannity took it seriously enough to ask Trump not once, but twice, seemingly offering Trump an out that he wasn't smart enough to take.

What's less funny is both sides are weaponizing governmental power over personal vendettas while thinking it's the other one that is doing it and not themselves.

Ah, the old "both sides" argument. Trump is the one saying out loud that he's going to do it.
Who's doing it on the "other side?"

 

[Twilight Hue]

.......

Ah, the old "both sides" argument. Trump is the one saying out loud that he's going to do it.
Who's doing it on the "other side?"

There's a long history with this kind of stuff so I'm not too concerned about it giving in the past these kind of antics have been going on since the dinosaurs.

The weaponization of the federal government has a long history

The House GOP is scrutinizing federal investigators for alleged abuses of power. But will they probe abuses that may have been committed by members of their own party?

theconversation.com

Jason Chaffetz: Democrats are working to weaponize government power against their adversaries – It must stop

The alarming revelation that Rep. Adam Schiff’s House Intelligence Committee obtained and released telephone records of a journalist, another House member and President Trump's lawyers is just the latest in an escalating pattern of abuse by Democrats.

www.foxnews.com

 

[fantome profane]

No, it always comes down to what someone thinks of the fetus. If you think the human life has a right to life you will be against abortion, if you don't view it as having a right to life then you are prochoice.

No, this is just not true. I am telling you this makes no difference at all, it doesn't matter if the fetus is just a collection of cells or a human life. No being has the right to use another human being as a life support system.

There is a famous thought experiment that illustrates this point.

Thought Experiment: The famous violinist – The Ethics Centre

The famous violinist is a thought experiment that aims to test the moral claims around abortion, by applying them in a different context.

ethics.org.au

Imagine you wake up one day in a strange room and you have no idea where you are, you discover you have tubes coming out of your body and attached to another person in the bed next to you. Some doctors come into the room and explain to you that they are part of a secret music lovers society and the person in the bed next to you is a virtuoso violinist. The violist has a horrible medical condition and will die unless you stay here attached to her. In all the world only you and your specific body can save her.

Are you morally obligated to stay there for nine months to save her life? Notice in this though experiment there is no doubt, no question that the violinist is a human life. We can add that the violinist is also innocent, she was taken by the secret music society just as you were and has been unconscious the whole time.

You can also consider if it makes any difference whether this procedure will harm you or risk your life, and you can consider the odds that this procedure has of working or failing. This are factors you can consider as to whether or not you decide to stay or detach yourself. As you consider your choice. But the real question is should you have a choice.

Do you have the right to decide for yourself if you want to stay hooked up to the violinist, or should that decision be forced on you by the government (or the secret society of music lovers.

 

[SkepticThinker]

There's a long history with this kind of stuff so I'm not too concerned about it giving in the past these kind of antics have been going on since the dinosaurs.

The weaponization of the federal government has a long history

The House GOP is scrutinizing federal investigators for alleged abuses of power. But will they probe abuses that may have been committed by members of their own party?

theconversation.com

Jason Chaffetz: Democrats are working to weaponize government power against their adversaries – It must stop

The alarming revelation that Rep. Adam Schiff’s House Intelligence Committee obtained and released telephone records of a journalist, another House member and President Trump's lawyers is just the latest in an escalating pattern of abuse by Democrats.

www.foxnews.com

How about we stick to the present day, with people who are actually alive?

I don't take Jason Chaffetz seriously at this point. Sorry. Trump and co. committed crimes right in front of all of our faces.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Good grief. I'm looking for a response to this:

"A fetus doesn't have the right to use my body without my permission. Especially if it's going to cause me serious health complications.
Just like a person who needs a kidney doesn't get to hook herself up to my kidney without my consent, in order that she may stay alive. And in that case, we're talking about an actual born fully developed autonomous human being, rather than an embryo or fetus."

What say you?

I swear I answered this but I cannot find it. Maybe I never pressed post. I may have been thinking of this:

I think that killing human life is wrong. In an abortion it is a fact that human life is killed. A woman has a right to bodily autonomy but she does not have a right to kill human life.

Most pregnancies are a result of a choice made by the father and mother. One result of sex is pregnancy, if you engage in sex then one of the potential outcomes is pregnancy. That is a choice made by both people.

Many people say that consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy but that is like saying consent to eating poison is not consent to dying. Pregnancy is potential consequence of their actions that most men and women know before having sex.

The human life created did not consent to being created and cannot consent to being terminated.

A person that needs a kidney from someone else has no right to that kidney because the person with the kidney is not responsible for the situation. Can the person who is asked to provide their kidney kill the human life that needs the kidney? Why not? That would be equivalent.