Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Women by far bear the brunt of childcare in America, get paid less, have fewer job opportunities and suffer career/job setbacks when becoming parents. Forcing them to bear the 'consequence' of the actions of 2 people is both wrong and poor public policy especially when all other policies and structures in our society don't allow for universal Prek or childcare and health care access is shitty and expensive and I could go on.

So, yeah, millions of people 'think about abortion' or will be affected by the lack of the ability to get one. And they aren't affluent white males who unfortunately hold most of the power in America.

That said, I think we need stronger legislative protections on both the state and federal level and that will only happen when Roe is threatened or overturned. And Dems will being to take back these seats.

Edited by used2b
  • Like 2
Posted
  On 6/29/2018 at 6:57 PM, RandomIdoit said:

I can't and don't understand. I'll admit that. And I wouldn't judge someone that cannot come to a decision within 6 weeks. I wouldn't think they are a bad person. I am saying that after 6 weeks, I would oppose anyone having an abortion for any reasons other than the health of the mother is at risk or the baby has some condition that would cause it to live a horrible life. 

Expand  

Some women don't even know they are pregnant after six weeks.

Posted
  On 6/29/2018 at 6:58 PM, David Dennison said:

Some women don't even know they are pregnant after six weeks.

Expand  

I think if you were raped, you might have a good reason to get checked out within 6 weeks. I do agree with the posters that have said they might be too traumatized to deal with it and that could be a reason they don't get checked out. Or maybe they are too embarrassed to tell anyone. 

Posted
  On 6/29/2018 at 6:15 PM, Cheeseweasel said:

I could see the Alabama or Texas legislature passing a restrictive abortion law (for the sake of argument, let's say "no abortions after 8 weeks") and someone suing them who would have standing with the Court. The difficulty for the court would be 

a) they could rule that the State is within it's right to pass legislation

b) they could also rule that since it doesn't completely restrict abortion, Roe v. Wade isn't "harmed"

Or maybe I'm just tired and need a weekend off. 

Expand  

I suppose this could be a route to attack it but the planned parenthood case help curtail restrictions didn’t it? I guess at the end of the day, the SC is probably only going to step in if someone legislates impactful law against their ruling. That is such a loser that I don’t know that this will happen because it is a loser politically no matter who wants it (state or fed level). 

  On 6/29/2018 at 6:17 PM, relapse98 said:

To be fair, the state of Texas did take away rights from the LGBTQ community. 

Texas Supreme Court rules gay couples not guaranteed spousal benefits

 

So its not an entirely unfounded premise. Not to mention Texas Penal Code 21.06 is still on the books, in case that case ever gets overturned, because Texas.

Expand  

I did not know this. That is tragic. Hopefully this is changed. 

Posted
  On 6/29/2018 at 7:07 PM, Jhawk said:

I suppose this could be a route to attack it but the planned parenthood case help curtail restrictions didn’t it? I guess at the end of the day, the SC is probably only going to step in if someone legislates impactful law against their ruling. That is such a loser that I don’t know that this will happen because it is a loser politically no matter who wants it (state or fed level). 

Expand  

My gut tells me that Roberts won't let it happen. SCOTUS doesn't exist in a vacuum and they know the implications of overturning Roe both economically and politically. They'll likely either punt anything that comes their way or strike it down based on precedence set by Roe.

Posted
  On 6/29/2018 at 7:06 PM, RandomIdoit said:

I think if you were raped, you might have a good reason to get checked out within 6 weeks. I do agree with the posters that have said they might be too traumatized to deal with it and that could be a reason they don't get checked out. Or maybe they are too embarrassed to tell anyone. 

Expand  

What about the women who aren't raped? Do you still judge them after 6 weeks if they had no way of knowing they were pregnant?

Posted
  On 6/29/2018 at 7:11 PM, Cheeseweasel said:

My gut tells me that Roberts won't let it happen. SCOTUS doesn't exist in a vacuum and they know the implications of overturning Roe both economically and politically. They'll likely either punt anything that comes their way or strike it down based on precedence set by Roe.

Expand  

Agree. For the record, I am pro choice. 

Posted
  On 6/29/2018 at 7:09 PM, seven said:

But it's murder at that point, isn't it? 

Expand  

I think that it is wrong and I would not support it. But I would understand because I would not want to have to give birth to my rapist's child if I was a woman.

I don't know how many people in this thread that respond to my posts thinking I am always against abortion no matter what. People who say it's never okay to have an abortion are extremists. The people who think late term abortions are okay are extremists also.  I am neither.

Posted
  On 6/29/2018 at 7:11 PM, Cheeseweasel said:

My gut tells me that Roberts won't let it happen. SCOTUS doesn't exist in a vacuum and they know the implications of overturning Roe both economically and politically. They'll likely either punt anything that comes their way or strike it down based on precedence set by Roe.

Expand  

While I agree, Roberts can be unpredictable.  The Obamacare tax was unpredictable.

Posted
  On 6/29/2018 at 7:12 PM, David Dennison said:

What about the women who aren't raped? Do you still judge them after 6 weeks if they had no way of knowing they were pregnant?

Expand  

That is a different situation. They chose to risk getting pregnant. They chose to not educate themselves on contraceptives. They chose not to walk down to the HEB pharmacy and pay $20 for the Generic plan B pill. Any time you have sex, you take the risk of creating a baby, ask Steve Buechele.

Posted
  On 6/29/2018 at 7:18 PM, seven said:

Restricting abortion to only raped women and only within 6 weeks is fairly extremist 

Expand  

Raped women, women who will die if the pregnancy continues, pregnancies where they baby has a condition that would lead to a horrible life or suffering would be acceptable reasons to have an abortion. Not wanting to use contraceptives or being too lazy to get a Plan B pill from the pharmacy for $20 is not a good reason. That's the risk you take when you have sex. 

Posted
  On 6/29/2018 at 7:26 PM, kevwun said:

Do death panels get to judge if the condition warrants an abortion?

Expand  

More like life panels, AKA doctors. They should be able to determine if the mother's life is at risk. If they are shady and lie to skirt the rules, they will have consequences also.

Posted
  On 6/29/2018 at 6:47 PM, RandomIdoit said:

That's why I suggested that there should be more support and it should be made easier and less embarrassing for them to seek help to explain their options. 

Expand  

You make it sound so easy! I can't believe we hadn't figured this out before now!

Posted (edited)
  On 6/29/2018 at 6:57 PM, RandomIdoit said:

I can't and don't understand. I'll admit that. And I wouldn't judge someone that cannot come to a decision within 6 weeks. I wouldn't think they are a bad person. I am saying that after 6 weeks, I would oppose anyone having an abortion for any reasons other than the health of the mother is at risk or the baby has some condition that would cause it to live a horrible life. 

Expand  

You have picked an absolutely arbitrary number of times the earth spins about it's own axis and your time frame is ludicrously short.

If we were talking banning abortion after 6 months, except for those conditions, I would agree with you.

For me to agree to that though, it's also going to require a bunch of additional counseling, health care, welfare and education spending that I don't think the GOP is willing to back up. 

Edited by Pods
Posted

 

  On 6/29/2018 at 7:54 PM, Pods said:

You have picked an absolutely arbitrary number of times the earth spins about it's own axis and your time frame is ludicrously short.

If we were talking banning abortion after 6 months, except for those conditions, I would agree with you.

For me to agree to that though, it's also going to require a bunch of additional counseling, health care, welfare and education spending that I don't think the GOP is willing to back up.

Expand  

You must have just skipped over pages of posts yesterday when someone asked when a baby is a person. I said that when I saw my child's heartbeat I knew it was a person. Other's argue that it's not a person until it can survive outside the womb, which I don't agree with. If someone was a rape victim, they would have good cause to assume they could be pregnant. 

  On 6/29/2018 at 7:56 PM, Bama Chick said:

Your avatar certainly doesn’t make you seem like someone who objectifies women.

Expand  

I'm sorry, did I force this person to make a video and post it online for everyone to see? Nope, just searched google for Katee Life and this other girl came up. 

Posted

I don't think we will see a day of Row v Wade reversed, as there are so many that safely use the services provided at clinics opposed to the former back alley "shade tree doctors"...

(I am not saying that I condone the use of the system though), but I am only a man that is not carrying the responsibility of bearing a child, so I will leave that for women to decide...

Posted
  On 6/29/2018 at 8:19 PM, RandomIdoit said:

You must have just skipped over pages of posts yesterday when someone asked when a baby is a person. I said that when I saw my child's heartbeat I knew it was a person. Other's argue that it's not a person until it can survive outside the womb, which I don't agree with. If someone was a rape victim, they would have good cause to assume they could be pregnant. 

Expand  

You are making an arbitrary emotional decision that is not remotely based on biology. A heartbeat does not make something a person, all vertebrates have a heart. Sea slugs and all descendants of our common ancestor with them have a functional circulatory system. At six weeks, there is very little difference between a human fetus and any other vertebrate fetus. 

  • Like 1
Posted
  On 6/29/2018 at 8:45 PM, Pods said:

You are making an arbitrary emotional decision that is not remotely based on biology. A heartbeat does not make something a person, all vertebrates have a heart. Sea slugs and all descendants of our common ancestor with them have a functional circulatory system. At six weeks, there is very little difference between a human fetus and any other vertebrate fetus. 

Expand  

The question that was asked was when does it stop being a group of cells and start being a person? And TO ME when I saw my children's heartbeat, I believed they were a person and not a group of cells.

Posted

I understand that and it's fair for you to think that about your own child. It's an emotional decision and it's not based on biology, but it's also not a situation that calls for biological precision.

It's not fair for you to force that view onto other people. At that point, science and biology take precedence over personal preference. Until a fetus is viable, it relies on the mother to gestate it to term. Who are any of us to tell another human being what she has to carry inside of her, regardless of how it got there?

Posted
  On 6/29/2018 at 7:30 PM, RandomIdoit said:

More like life panels, AKA doctors. They should be able to determine if the mother's life is at risk. If they are shady and lie to skirt the rules, they will have consequences also.

Expand  

Or we can leave it up to the person who is pregnant.

#CommonSense

Posted
  On 6/29/2018 at 8:57 PM, Pods said:

I understand that and it's fair for you to think that about your own child. It's an emotional decision and it's not based on biology, but it's also not a situation that calls for biological precision.

It's not fair for you to force that view onto other people. At that point, science and biology take precedence over personal preference. Until a fetus is viable, it relies on the mother to gestate it to term. Who are any of us to tell another human being what she has to carry inside of her, regardless of how it got there?

Expand  

How would you form a biological foundation for personhood? I've always seen it as a metaphysical topic or at the very least psychological.

Posted
  On 6/29/2018 at 6:45 PM, Michael Knight said:

Spoken like a man

Expand  

I can guarantee this person has been mentally trained by a woman.

You've got to keep this bitch boy behavior under wraps please. All you do is make men, and women that like real men, cringe. And then we lose votes. How the fuck do you think Trump became President?? Because of embarrassments like you.

 

 

  • Fuck You 2
Posted
  On 6/29/2018 at 9:06 PM, JBJ said:

How would you form a biological foundation for personhood? I've always seen it as a metaphysical topic or at the very least psychological.

Expand  

I'm not the one arguing personhood as any sort of special thing. I was sticking up for rape victims and saying it's patently absurd to expect them to get an abortion in six weeks. 

To clarify though, my solution based on biology is very simple. If the fetus can survive outside the womb and doesn't have major birth defects, the birth should be induced and the fetus moved to an incubator. If not, the mom can do whatever she wants. Figure out where this is and set the law there with a buffer zone. It's probably somewhere around 6-7 months. 

You'd need to combine this with increased spending on counseling and healthcare to make sure all women have access to this decision well before 6-7 months have expired. We also need to increase spending on childcare and adoption programs to get any induced kids homes. 

All of that would have to be rolled into a Constitutional Amendment to protect it from being changed as part of a slippery slope argument later. 

Posted (edited)
  On 6/29/2018 at 9:29 PM, Pods said:

I'm not the one arguing personhood as any sort of special thing. I was sticking up for rape victims and saying it's patently absurd to expect them to get an abortion in six weeks. 

To clarify though, my solution based on biology is very simple. If the fetus can survive outside the womb and doesn't have major birth defects, the birth should be induced and the fetus moved to an incubator. If not, the mom can do whatever she wants. Figure out where this is and set the law there with a buffer zone. It's probably somewhere around 6-7 months. 

You'd need to combine this with increased spending on counseling and healthcare to make sure all women have access to this decision well before 6-7 months have expired. We also need to increase spending on childcare and adoption programs to get any induced kids homes. 

All of that would have to be rolled into a Constitutional Amendment to protect it from being changed as part of a slippery slope argument later. 

Expand  

Medically, it's in the range of 24 weeks, and viability is a sudden jump - not a gradual slope.  A 22-week preterm has almost no chance.

It's not bad as a biological indicator, I just think it is side-stepping the philosophical basis of human rights.  After all, we grant rights to persons - a philosophical concept.  The majority ruled the way they did in Roe partly because the "any person" in the equal protection clause they decided did not apply to the unborn.

Edited by JBJ
Posted

I don't see how it's side stepping the issue of human rights. I'm saying the mother has human rights. Until the fetus is viable outside the womb, her right to do whatever she wants with her body supersedes any other. 

Posted (edited)
  On 6/29/2018 at 10:09 PM, Pods said:

I don't see how it's side stepping the issue of human rights. I'm saying the mother has human rights. Until the fetus is viable outside the womb, her right to do whatever she wants with her body supersedes any other. 

Expand  

It's using a biological answer to a philosophical question.  That's not saying that the answer is invalidated, just incomplete.  The question is both how and why and your answer is how.

The equal-opposite would be saying blood moves through the body because a person is alive.  Maybe that answers why, it's just doesn't answer how until someone explains the heart.

Edited by JBJ
Posted
  On 6/29/2018 at 10:04 PM, Johnny Sack said:

I’d follow science.  Definition of life is a heartbeat and brain activity.  Only exception is life of the mother.  

Expand  

If you are going to say you "follow science", using accurate terminology is a major part of that. Here are the definitions for life. Not one of them are anything close to your definition. 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

The heart and brain evolved very early. The common ancestor of something called Craniata, which is hagfish, lampreys plus all vertebrates including humans had both a heart beat and a brain. All of their ancestors retain it.  

There's a biology maxim. Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. Loosely translated, the life history of an organism as it develops (ontogeny) shows the evolutionary history of the group (phylogeny). Just like with evolution, the heart starts beating VERY early in development. At this stage, a human embryo is virtually indistinguishable from any other vertebrate, especially mammalian, embryo. 

Posted

This is an obscenely horrible topic so why not take it to the nth degree.  

I'm generally pro-life.  Two kids I hope one day attend UT as I did.

Your wife is raped and becomes pregnant... 6-7 weeks later there is a heartbeat.... Is an abortion an option?

If it is an option at that point in the case of rape, are other instances precluded?

Posted
  On 6/29/2018 at 10:22 PM, JBJ said:

It's using a biological answer to a philosophical question.  That's not saying that the answer is invalidated, just incomplete.

The equal-opposite would be saying blood moves through the body because a person is alive.  Maybe that's true, it's just not complete until someone explains how the heart works.

Expand  

A heartbeat and brain function are necessary, but not sufficient for a fetus to be viable, so they are irrelevant to the discussion. 

Posted (edited)
  On 6/29/2018 at 10:37 PM, Pods said:

A heartbeat and brain function are necessary, but not sufficient for a fetus to be viable, so they are irrelevant to the discussion. 

Expand  

So if you were in a coma with a heart beat and brain function but on life support... Can we extinct you?

Edited by Poolflood
Pun intended
Posted
  On 6/29/2018 at 10:40 PM, Poolflood said:

So if you were in a coma with a heart beat and brain function but on life support... Can we extinct you?

Expand  

If I'm not coming out of it, yes. My family has been repeatedly instructed that they are to pull the plug. 

If i can be kept alive on a machine and get better, then do that. It's exactly the same position as putting a viable fetus into an incubator. 

Posted (edited)
  On 6/29/2018 at 10:37 PM, Pods said:

A heartbeat and brain function are necessary, but not sufficient for a fetus to be viable, so they are irrelevant to the discussion. 

Expand  

I think you meant to quote Johnny.  He is defining medical death and not medical life, and certainly not personhood.

I'm asking why viability makes a fetus a person, or even does it?

Edited by JBJ


×
×
  • Create New...