Trump Signs First Anti Abortion Legislation Today

[r9etb]

@Idaho_Cowboy   @Jazzhead

In jazzhead's defense,he did use the word "non-viable". It's still a fetus,not a baby. Anybody that doesn't understand the difference is operation off of emotion,not logic,and their opinions are worth as much as farts. Which is where the term "brain farts" comes from.

A 5 month old premie is a BABY,not a fetus. I may be wrong because I make zero attempt to keep up with this,but I THINK the current standard is anything newer than 90 days is a fetus,and anything 91 days or more is a baby. Seems reasonable to me.

Actually, "non-viable" is not a reasonable standard.  For one thing, there's no clear line between "viable" and "non-viable."  For another, the unborn child is perfectly viable where she is; it's if you take her out of the womb before she's sufficiently developed, that she becomes "non-viable" in an environment other than that in which she properly belongs.

Likewise, the difference between "fetus" and "baby" is one of semantics, not of actual science. 

Euphemisms are necessary to those who defend abortion; they offer a means of dehumanizing the child, so as to make us forget what it is we're actually talking about.  ("Product of conception" is another good one.) 

One simply cannot discuss abortion in the same way, if you use the more accurate terms -- unborn child, human being, and so on.

The point is amply demonstrated by Jazzhead's posts on this thread: he will not -- apparently cannot -- acknowledge the humanity of the unborn child. 

[sneakypete]

I can live with that.

@Idaho_Cowboy

If it makes you happy,I'm happy for you.

[truth_seeker]

The ironic thing about that...and I noted this earlier in the thread...is that the same Supreme Court Justice that made up the mythical "right" to abortion...also wrote the majority opinion striking down the death penalty in the 70's as cruel and unusual punishment.

Leaving us with a state "morality" of legally killing the good and innocent, simply for being too young; and sparing the worst of the worst since killing them would be "immoral."

[Idaho_Cowboy]

Actually, "non-viable" is not a reasonable standard.  For one thing, there's no clear line between "viable" and "non-viable."  For another, the unborn child is perfectly viable where she is; it's if you take her out of the womb before she's sufficiently developed, that she becomes "non-viable" in an environment other than that in which she properly belongs.

Likewise, the difference between "fetus" and "baby" is one of semantics, not of actual science. 

Euphemisms are necessary to those who defend abortion; they offer a means of dehumanizing the child, so as to make us forget what it is we're actually talking about.  ("Product of conception" is another good one.) 

One simply cannot discuss abortion in the same way, if you use the more accurate terms -- unborn child, human being, and so on.

The point is amply demonstrated by Jazzhead's posts on this thread: he will not -- apparently cannot -- acknowledge the humanity of the unborn child.

I'm still failing to see how a child that is born is automatically "viable" it still needs constant care and feeding. 

[EC]

I'm still failing to see how a child that is born is automatically "viable" it still needs constant care and feeding.

The environment doesn't kill it. Hence - viable.

With the best will and all the prayers in the world a 90 day fetus is not viable outside the womb. Lungs aren't developed enough to work.

[Bigun]

I'm still failing to see how a child that is born is automatically "viable" it still needs constant care and feeding.

Who gets to define what "viable" means and when viability occurs?

[EC]

Who gets to define what "viable" means and when viability occurs?

Since, despite the fevered wishes of the snowflakes, a child can't stay in the womb forever - the environment decides what is and isn't viable.

[Bigun]

The environment doesn't kill it. Hence - viable.

With the best will and all the prayers in the world a 90 day fetus is not viable outside the womb. Lungs aren't developed enough to work.

But is totally viable in the natural environment of a 90 day fetus! i.e. in its mother's womb.

[Oceander]

Who gets to define what "viable" means and when viability occurs?

The best medical science available, conducted on a nonpartisan basis.  Even St. Augustine had a measure for when viability was determined - quickening - which might not be the same basis now, but demonstrates that the task can be done tolerably well. 

[INVAR]

To expend that much energy to ensure the right to kill children is ... well, it's demonic.

And that right there Ladies and Gentlemen, is the crux and root of the entire argument: the justification of institutionalized death under the rubric of "liberty" and the Constitution.

It IS demonic and evil, right up there with the extermination of other peoples for the convenience of their societies, using the same methods of justification Jazzhead has demonstrated here.  Only the subjects of termination have changed.  The excuses are similar if not the same.

[Oceander]

But is totally viable in the natural environment of a 90 day fetus! i.e. in its mother's womb.

Until and unless somebody else can step in and take over that task, it doesn't count. 

[EC]

Can't stay there, my brother. 

Viable, in terms of babies, is if they can survive in the external world (with help if necessary - in most sane countries as support for premature births improves, the cut off for abortions shrinks, since viability is earlier and earlier.)

[Idaho_Cowboy]

Since, despite the fevered wishes of the snowflakes, a child can't stay in the womb forever - the environment decides what is and isn't viable.

Historically plenty of children weren't viable even after they were born.

[EC]

Historically plenty of children weren't viable even after they were born.

And they died. Just like a non viable fetus (different term than we've been discussing) in the womb dies.

[Bigun]

Can't stay there, my brother. 

Viable, in terms of babies, is if they can survive in the external world (with help if necessary - in most sane countries as support for premature births improves, the cut off for abortions shrinks, since viability is earlier and earlier.)

If left alone it can sure as hell stay there for the natural term of 9 months at which point it will, more than likely, be "viable" when it leaves of its own accord!!

[Jazzhead]

 
Yup,and if she lets it get far enough along the line to become viable,that was her choice also,and she needs to face up to HER obligations just like the man does. What could be fairer?

This I agree with.  Once the fetus is viable I have no objection whatsoever for the state to ban abortion.   There's plenty of time prior to viability for the woman to make up her mind and exercise her right to abortion.  If she fails to do so, then, yeah, she should be stuck with that decision.   In legal parlance, her failure to exercise her legal right within a reasonable period of time means she has assumed a duty of care over the now-viable fetus.

 

[driftdiver]

Until and unless somebody else can step in and take over that task, it doesn't count.

@Oceander
@Bigun

Doesn't count?   That makes no sense whatsoever,  please explain the logic.

[driftdiver]

This I agree with.  Once the fetus is viable I have no objection whatsoever for the state to ban abortion.   There's plenty of time prior to viability for the woman to make up her mind and exercise her right to abortion.  If she fails to do so, then, yeah, she should be stuck with that decision.   In legal parlance, her failure to exercise her legal right within a reasonable period of time means she has assumed a duty of care over the now-viable fetus.

 

@Jazzhead

The only real question is whether the fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus is a human.   Currently, if the mother wants it then its a baby.  If the mother doesn't then its a fetus and a mass of tissue.

An immoral position to say the least.  A persons humanity does not rely on the wishes of another person.

[Bigun]

@Oceander
@Bigun

Doesn't count?   That makes no sense whatsoever,  please explain the logic.

I don't know how to make it any more clear!   An embryo, once fertilized, most often stays in its mother's womb until it's ready to come out.  Usually at around nine months!

[EC]

If left alone it can sure as hell stay there for the natural term of 9 months at which point it will, more than likely, be "viable" when it leaves of its own accord!!

True. I was just answering your asking who decides what's viable.

Personally I think there should be no abortion. Morning after pill - fine. It works for up to a week afterwards. Contraceptives - should be free (and yes, I have ZERO problems with my tax money going to that - it's cheaper than supporting bastards).

[Idaho_Cowboy]

@Jazzhead

The only real question is whether the fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus is a human.   Currently, if the mother wants it then its a baby.  If the mother doesn't then its a fetus and a mass of tissue.

An immoral position to say the least.  A persons humanity does not rely on the wishes of another person.

Or the level of tech that makes them "viable" or not.

[Jazzhead]

@Jazzhead

The only real question is whether the fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus is a human.   Currently, if the mother wants it then its a baby.  If the mother doesn't then its a fetus and a mass of tissue.

An immoral position to say the least.  A persons humanity does not rely on the wishes of another person.

My disagreement with most on this thread has nothing to do with the morality of abortion, but the need for its legality.   The abortion right is essential to avoid the age-old subjugation of women - self-determination is the most basic human right there is.   But the right isn't unlimited, either - as SneakyP suggested above, once the fetus is viable I think it's reasonable to assume the woman has assumed a duty of care to do no harm.   

The "humanity" of a fetus is caught up in religious belief.  That's fine - to each his own when it comes to God and souls and so forth.   But religious belief cannot be the basis for denying a woman her liberty and freedom as a legal matter.   That's tyranny, not as Hoodat strangely defines it.   Religious tyranny is suffused throughout human history.   But the United States is different -  what is sacred is the individual.   

[Idaho_Cowboy]

what is sacred is the individual.   

Unless the State rules you aren't viable then so long sucker.

[Bigun]

Personally I think there should be no abortion. Morning after pill - fine. It works for up to a week afterwards. Contraceptives - should be free (and yes, I have ZERO problems with my tax money going to that - it's cheaper than supporting bastards).

Another subject entirely. 

[driftdiver]

I don't know how to make it any more clear!   An embryo, once fertilized, most often stays in its mother's womb until it's ready to come out.  Usually at around nine months!

@Bigun

What does that have to do with whether its ok to kill that "embryo" which is really a baby.

[Bigun]

@Bigun

What does that have to do with whether its ok to kill that "embryo" which is really a baby.

Nothing!  I think it makes the point that it shouldn't be ok to kill the baby.  Am I wrong?

[driftdiver]

My disagreement with most on this thread has nothing to do with the morality of abortion, but the need for its legality.   The abortion right is essential to avoid the age-old subjugation of women - self-determination is the most basic human right there is.  But the right isn't unlimited, either - as SneakyP suggested above, once the fetus is viable I think it's reasonable to assume the woman has assumed a duty of care to do no harm.   

The "humanity" of a fetus is caught up in religious belief.  That's fine - to each his own when it comes to God and souls and so forth.   But religious belief cannot be the basis for denying a woman her liberty and freedom as a legal matter.   That's tyranny, not as Hoodat strangely defines it.   Religious tyranny is suffused throughout human history.   But the United States is different -  what is sacred is the individual.   

@EC
So many things wrong with that post.  There is no right to abortion, only what was created by judges and political pressure.  Women have many ways of avoiding "subjugation" resulting from pregnancy that don't require the death of a baby.   The subjugation argument is a fallacy borne from days when birth control was not available and women were limited by social norms of the day.

I will agree that the individual is sacred (odd that you use that term after blasting religious tyranny) and the baby is an individual.

[INVAR]

My disagreement with most on this thread has nothing to do with the morality of abortion, but the need for its legality.   

And some people NEED killing.

So let us make murder and Euthanasia legal.

After all, we're not talking morality here anymore.

We need the legality to euthanize useless wastes of space and inconvenient humans that are not viable in our own estimations.



Yours is the thinking of genocidal madmen.

[driftdiver]

Nothing!  I think it makes the point that it shouldn't be ok to kill the baby.  Am I wrong?

@Bigun
Sorry I thought you were arguing that its ok to murder a defenseless baby.

All of these questions are much simpler if people acknowledge that the baby is a human following conception and successful implantation (embryo stage) in the uterus.   If the pregnancy is in jeopardy then the mother, father, and medical professionals should decide the best course of action.

Babies should not be killed because its inconvenient or an 'accident'.   Which of course is why pro-abortion people always try to dehumanize the baby by calling it an Zygote, embryo, fetus, or ugly lump of tissue.   

[r9etb]

The environment doesn't kill it. Hence - viable.

With the best will and all the prayers in the world a 90 day fetus is not viable outside the womb. Lungs aren't developed enough to work.

Sure.  But at that stage her natural habitat is inside the womb.  Why would you pull her out? 

In any case, it's an invalid standard for justifying abortion before a certain stage of development.  After all, the abortion procedure kills the child in utero.  "Viability" is not even an issue.

[Bigun]

@Bigun
Sorry I thought you were arguing that its ok to murder a defenseless baby.

All of these questions are much simpler if people acknowledge that the baby is a human following conception and successful implantation (embryo stage) in the uterus.   If the pregnancy is in jeopardy then the mother, father, and medical professionals should decide the best course of action.

Babies should not be killed because its inconvenient or an 'accident'.   Which of course is why pro-abortion people always try to dehumanize the baby by calling it an Zygote, embryo, fetus, or ugly lump of tissue.

Agreed! I think there is much more to the agenda than just "a woman's right to choose".  I personally think it is just another way to attack the family!

[EC]

As I said, my response was to the question "Who decides viability." Nothing more.

My own beliefs were mentioned in a subsequent post.

[Bigun]

As I said, my response was to the question "Who decides viability." Nothing more.

My own beliefs were mentioned in a subsequent post.

I understand.   Viability should be attached to natural environment is all I'm saying.

[r9etb]

As I said, my response was to the question "Who decides viability." Nothing more.

Let's be clear, though.  In discussing abortion, the "argument from viability" is used as a standard for whether or not the unborn child can legally be killed.  That is, whether or not the unborn child is human and, as such, has the same unalienable right to life as any human being outside the womb.

So, de facto, "viability" is a standard of humanity and human rights.  But that's a pretty big axe to be swinging.  After all, there are plenty of people outside the womb who are not "viable" by your standard -- they're on life support, or require insulin, or dialysis, etc., and will die without it.  They can't "survive the environment." 

Can we propose euthanasia for such people, using the same standard as is used for abortion?

In practice, "viability" as you're using the term, is not even in play, except as an excuse for an action committed inside the womb.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

@Bigun
Sorry I thought you were arguing that its ok to murder a defenseless baby.

All of these questions are much simpler if people acknowledge that the baby is a human following conception and successful implantation (embryo stage) in the uterus.   If the pregnancy is in jeopardy then the mother, father, and medical professionals should decide the best course of action.

Babies should not be killed because its inconvenient or an 'accident'.   Which of course is why pro-abortion people always try to dehumanize the baby by calling it an Zygote, embryo, fetus, or ugly lump of tissue.

The baby is the only innocent party in these situations. So sad they have to pay the price.

[Bigun]

The baby is the only innocent party in these situations. So sad they have to pay the price.

Amen! and especially so since they have done nothing at all to deserve it!

[Hoodat]

My disagreement with most on this thread has nothing to do with the morality of abortion, but the need for its legality.

Need?  No, you go beyond that.  You demand that it "MUST REMAIN" legal without any legal basis whatsoever.

The abortion right is essential to avoid the age-old subjugation of women

Don't confuse the moral argument with the legal one.  You still have no legal basis for that right.

self-determination is the most basic human right there is.

Except when it comes to society.  According to you, society has no such right to self-determination.

SneakyP suggested above, once the fetus is viable I think it's reasonable to assume the woman has assumed a duty of care to do no harm. 

And who exactly gets to determine the viability of this now-moving goal post?  You?

The "humanity" of a fetus is caught up in religious belief.

I don't care about that.  Yet again, I have asked you for legal basis.  And yet again, it is you that brings up morality.

Roe is a Constitutional question - not a moral one.  Yet here you are again arguing that you must be allowed to impose your morality upon the rest of us.

But religious belief cannot be the basis for denying a woman her liberty and freedom as a legal matter.   That's tyranny

It is also tyranny to deny an unborn baby his/her liberty and freedom without due process.  And it is tyranny to impose either upon a society while at the same time denying the members of that society to come together and decide collectively how they want to treat the issue.

Religious tyranny is suffused throughout human history.

As is the tyranny that you subscribe to.

But the United States is different -  what is sacred is the individual.   

Unless that individual happens to be in the womb, of course.  In that event, all your libertarian talk is just a bunch of lying bullshit.

[Jazzhead]

Yours is the thinking of genocidal madmen.

First I'm accused of liberalism, next of baby-killing, and now of thinking like a genocidal madman.   All because I advocate for persuasion rather than state coercion at the behest of religious zealots. 

And it's my posts that get censored.  Figures.   

[TomSea]

Back on topic,

Planned Parenthood i.e. topic here, has combated pregnancy crisis centers and has been shown to be against counseling for abortion.

So, the uninformed respectfully, seem to blow over this point, to once again, state generalizations about "persuasiveness" well, the very topic of planned parenthood fights against persuading women.  Though you would not know that per some people's words.

Persuade, persuade, etc. Laws can persuade as well.

Pope Benedict talked about the "tyranny of relativism", this seems to echo a bit what Hoodat was saying and I'd agree.

http://www.churchmilitant.com/video/episode/13-tyranny-of-relativism

Random link, there is a lot on this.

[TomSea]

We have a whole "life news" section too; I'd say,

So, not only are we on a discourse that is in generalities, the cover of the politics thread is used.

We might not see this same discussion over there though, that is really the area for "life news" vs. the political implications here.

The mod could make a decision to move such a conversation since now we are veering off-course again.

[TomSea]

Laws are meant to persuade, from dry counties to not being able to drink until one is 18 or 21; laws are out there.

But somehow, Laws now, should be left up to the individual;

The topic, Planned Parenthood, who would be defunded by this, are, thank goodness, fight against persuading against abortion,

So, "persuading" in this thread, has only been a flowery word.

Laws are law; different community values, in Texas or wherever to Massachusetts.

[Hoodat]

Laws are law; different community values, in Texas or wherever to Massachusetts.

Correctamundo!

[sneakypete]

I'm still trying to figure out the "logic" of how the woman is absolved of any responsibility for getting pregnant...yet given 100% of the responsibility for ending the baby's life.

@txradioguy

Boggles the imagination,doesn't it?

It's what passes for "logic" in Dim circles,just like only white males can commit so-called "hate crimes".

[txradioguy]

@txradioguy

Boggles the imagination,doesn't it?

Very much so.

It's what passes for "logic" in Dim circles,just like only white males can commit so-called "hate crimes".

Same kind of thinking that says only whites can be racist too.

[TomSea]

And Planned Parenthood is a racket, they can come up with their cooked books, have an autonomous abortion service raking in millions, then, get $500 million a year in Federal Grants, so I do see one who brings this argument to some generalities and obviously is not aware of quite a few things, as putting the conversation on a bit of a detour; but maybe it's fair in the end anyway because no one agrees with that position.

[Jazzhead]

Laws are law; different community values, in Texas or wherever to Massachusetts.

But only within the confines of the Constitution, which protects individual liberty and autonomy from the tyranny of the majority.     

[TomSea]

But only within the confines of the Constitution, which protects individual liberty and autonomy from the tyranny of the majority.   

Yes, but your understanding of what that individual liberty is does not mean everyone sees it that same way.

There are 'originalist' interpretations to the Constitution, even liberals say Roe v. Wade is not good law; so we are back to the slavery comparison.

I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers [410 U.S. 222] and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. . . . As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.[3]

Justice Byron White: http://endroe.org/dissentswhite.aspx

Dissenting view.

You are only going with the plurality of the court decision, tyranny of the majority, one that even the plaintiff Jane Roe has turned against. Lawyers did their doing.

[Silver Pines]

I can agree with that.  That's part of why I think abortion is wrong - it's a copout from responsibility.   

But as a legal matter,  it is unworkable to provide a right to the man to force an abortion, or force the woman to carry the fetus to term.  And it is un-Constitutional for the government to force a woman to reproduce.    The woman bears the burden, like it or not, that's just biology.   It is her choice, for better or worse. 

@Jazzhead

If the life or death of the child is to be decided by the woman alone, then the same must be true when it comes to raising the child. 

No input allowed from the man on whether his baby survives?  Then he must be free from financial obligation, as well.

[Jazzhead]

The baby is the only innocent party in these situations. So sad they have to pay the price.

But it's still the woman's right to decide what to do with her body.  Persuade her, give her a helping hand, so she can do the right thing. 

I'm amazed at all the "conservative" men on this forum that mock and disparage the burdens faced by women,  burdens they will never have to bear themselves.   

[Hoodat]

But only within the confines of the Constitution, which protects individual liberty and autonomy from the tyranny of the majority.   

Once again, show me the part of the Constitution that denies the right of the State of Georgia to regulate abortion, shoplifting, drinking age, etc.  It's time to put up or shut up.