Texas's one star is their rating.

Why wouldn't they get pregnant, then get an abortion and turn themselves in for the reward?

Sounds like a win-win.

Im honestly surprised women aren't getting impregnated and theng etting abortions within six weeks just to protest the stupid law.

Dude do you honestly think many women take pregnancy so lightly????? Geez...

I think that there are women who would take it to this extreme.

I hope and pray not.

I would if I were a woman, I think. But, I'm not a woman and I've never had an abortion.

Given your views I'm both unsurprised and exceedingly disappointed that you said that.

We've established our dissatisfaction with each others views.

I'm disappointed you defer to men who force a woman to get pregnant by sabotaging contraceptives.

I defer only to the vulnerable life of the newly-conceived, which right now has no say in whether it gets to live or not.

It has no say because it is incapable of having a say. There is nothing to represent anymore than the semen that countless males that ejaculate semen in masturbation. By your definition, semen is very much alive, and very much interested in its agenda.

Not once has my logic ever been capable of supporting the massive strawman you just laid down. Sperm is its own final shape, because it is merely HALF of the DNA needed to create a human being. An egg is the other half. Not until they are joined do you have anything that can possibly develop beyond its initial state.

Holy shit. This whole time I -ACTUALLY- thought I was talking to someone else. My brain saw your s/n as someone else for some reason xD

[Replying to your Red-bar response.]

All good. I've done it as well. I still think you're wrong, of course, but c'est la vie.

What's gotten you so worked up about this? Scared of a state finally moving in the direction of a society that respects all human beings because they all have intrinsic dignity?

Dignity: the state or quality of being worthy of honor or respect.

If a fetus/zygote cannot perceive these things, they're being wasted on what cannot be perceived. A zygote cannot have any more dignity than the eggs we scramble for breakfast, or the eggs we use to smother the mother chicken in to apply flour and seasoning only to fry it in hot oil for fried chicken. Or, the mother's milk from the cheese of a cow that we put upon the beef we eat in our hamburgers.

I disagree on the appeal to pathos.

So someone in a coma, being unable to perceive these things, has no rights or diminished rights?

The issue with your thinking is it's no different than that put down by anyone else who tries to justify their support for crimes against humanity. Aristotle justified slavery because he held that non-Greeks were barbarians who couldn't reason. The Spanish, or at least many of them, considered the Native Americans godless heathens who couldn't be reasoned with. All manner of slavery, genocide, etc has been condoned by brilliant men because they want an easy excuse to avoid the moral consequences of their actions as they abuse those they disavow.

Fortunately, every one of these flawed and awful lines of thinking have been exposed and broken. Sooner or later abortion will follow suit.

That's completely different. I question whether or not I should respond as to how. I'll be extremely succinct.

A person in a coma has had the ability to have such perceptions. They are capable of coming out of said coma.
A fetus/zygote is incapable of having such perceptions as they lack the ability to have them in any capacity before 3-4 months.

Comparing perceptions of indigenous people is a poor equivalency as the indigenous people had the capability to learn/adapt at the time in question. The window women seek for the period of abortion is a window of 1-2 months in which the fetus is incapable of perceiving any perceptions at all.

Quite a difference.

So because a person in a coma CAN come out of it you grant them their rights, but because a fertilized egg by nature WILL grow up and develop like the rest of us you won't?

How can you not see the irrationality of your views??

Inaccurate assessment. Coma patients already have their rights. They have social security numbers, they have family, friends, jobs, education; they're alive. If they wish to be terminated, they can sign a DNR code. Otherwise, it's up to the... wait for it.... the spouse.

A fertilized egg by nature CAN grow up. Many fertilized eggs don't even make it to the uterus and are expelled through menstruation. It isn't uncommon for miscarriages to occur either.

Now you're just crutching on exceptions. I don't think there are many natural processes in life with a 100% success rate.

At any rate, the bottom line is that human life begins at conception. That is when its natural rights should be recognized.

You're saying I am clutching to exceptions? Are you sure you aren't trying to use reductionism? I'm not the one mentioning people falling into comas for undetermined amounts of time. I'm not even clutching to exceptions.
"A recent re-analysis of hCG study data concluded that approximately 40-60% of embryos may be lost between fertilisation and birth, although this will vary substantially between individual women."
This study, of course, was referring to natural embryo/zygote/fetus termination.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5443340/

Human life actually began 2.5 million years ago...

You know what would happen if you gave a fertilized egg the ability to see, hear, touch, smell, taste, perceive emotions, and other perceptions? It wouldn't be called a fertilized egg. It'd be a fetus.

That said, arguing that a fertilized egg is the same as a patient in a coma is an argument of poetic language as you're saying they're both alive. Yet, you and I both know (at least I hope you know) that When someone is brain dead, doctors declare them dead. So what is a zygote that has no brain?

I brought up the coma as an example to illustrate. You have a tendency to use my examples as full-blooded comparisons.

Your petty comment about when humanity as a species showed up, though not false, was not necessary. Come on dude. You knew what I meant.

The summation of the matter is a human being, as a unique organism, begins when an egg is fertilized by a sperm. At that instant, a unique organism, not just the mother's egg or the father's sperm, is present. This organism is not wholly part of the mother, because the organism's genetics are not entirely the same as hers.

Every moment thereafter is just steps in a predetermined process of growth. The fertilized egg splits into two cells, then four, then eight, and so on. This process of replication occurs until natural death occurs, whenever that may be. The coding for every step of the way, every organ the body will every use, is there. The process of growing to fit that genetic blueprint is under way. There's no single point at which someone just 'fits' it. The process of human growth is lifelong and only has one tangible origin point, which is conception. Anything before and it's just a sperm or an egg. Anything after is just another step on the journey.

"Classifications are a thing. But we can refine our classifications so they take into account the nuances of a given situation. I highly doubt I could go crush Monarch butterfly larvae if hurting the final adult form of the butterfly was banned. I don't think we'd ask for Treesauce (trademarkable as that is) because we have a specific name for the seed-bearing fruit of an apple tree. We shouldn't put ourselves in a mental box just because the way we're classifying something *right now* isn't sufficient for our purposes. We're certainly smarter than that."

I hear you. I totally do, but there's a reason these classifications exist. Because they reference the differences in anatomy. With the human zygote, there is no brain, no central nervous system. I didn't put the box there, it's there naturally.

No one *likes* to get an abortion.

Knowing the women I've known who have got an abortion, the usual thought process is that they want to abort it before it can feel pain. If women miss the deadline, they typically don't try to push it further.

We can agree that the notion of Abortion really sucks. No one kicks their heels on the way to the clinic to get the procedure done. No one leaves that place with a big smile on their face waiting to celebrate.

Indeed, and nobody rational would think that anatomically a zygote is the same as you or me. I'm not a skilled enough thinker to properly express what others smarter than me have expressed on the matter, but the point is that there's more to being human than merely what our bodies are.

I agree; I find it unlikely that most people truly like or want to get an abortion. Yet in another post you yourself said you could see yourself getting one to protest this Texas law. That indicates to me that the level of concern people can ascribe to this whole affair is rather negligible.

And as I've said before, if I truly believed that it was just another part of the woman's body, or another soulless lump of flesh that hasn't yet developed the mental acuity which we (being rational beings) in fact used to reason that we have rights, then I would 100% support abortion. But I don't, and as I said above plenty of men and women far smarter than I am have laid out arguments opposing abortion with which I cannot disagree. Hence why I give no ground on the matter.

"I agree; I find it unlikely that most people truly like or want to get an abortion. Yet in another post you yourself said you could see yourself getting one to protest this Texas law. That indicates to me that the level of concern people can ascribe to this whole affair is rather negligible."

I also said there will always be extremists on any given issue. If my gender rights were taken away by people who are not my gender, I would be driven to extremism. Further, offering people to take vigilantism into their own hands, creating a bounty system? That invites harassment, stalking, lynch mobs (figuratively speaking) and so forth. This is not the way to approach the situation as Texas has. That's not a progressive Pro-life policy. That's a good way to increase civil disorder.

The bounty system was wrong. I would support a way to report doctors who did it. But there would have to be no-strings-attached conditions of anonymity for the woman involved. She shouldn't ever be punished in any way. There's already been enough sadness in the situation to just throw her under the bus for cash.

Alright, I mistook you for someone else. I'll ease up on those points as they're a given. I was actually paraphrasing George Carlin. It was he who said that in response to abortion "Human life began millions of years ago."

According to Britannica, a human being is "human being, a culture-bearing primate classified in the genus Homo, especially the species H. sapiens. Human beings are anatomically similar and related to the great apes but are distinguished by a more highly developed brain and a resultant capacity for articulate speech and abstract reasoning."

Under the part of the definition "are distinguished by a more highly developed brain ... " A zygote cannot satisfy this definition as it lacks a brain. Do you call caterpillars butterflies or caterpillars? Is an apple a tree? Do you ask for Treesauce? Or American Tree Pie? Do fathers give their daughters "Caterpillar kisses and bed time prayer?" (that's a song, but it's called butterfly kisses."

Classifications are a thing.

Classifications are a thing. But we can refine our classifications so they take into account the nuances of a given situation. I highly doubt I could go crush Monarch butterfly larvae if hurting the final adult form of the butterfly was banned. I don't think we'd ask for Treesauce (trademarkable as that is) because we have a specific name for the seed-bearing fruit of an apple tree. We shouldn't put ourselves in a mental box just because the way we're classifying something *right now* isn't sufficient for our purposes. We're certainly smarter than that.

Allowing the Fetus to use the mother as an incubator for 9 months without her consent would be giving it more than human rights.

OK bud, you keep repeating this phrase, 'without her consent'. Yet only 1.5% of abortions occur because of rape or incest. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/05/24/rape-and-incest-account-few-abortions-so-why-all-attention/1211175001/

So, that means a whopping 98.5% of abortions do NOT occur because of rape or incest. Of course, there may be some variance due to lack of reporting, etc, but nothing within the realm of reasonable deviation could possibly bring that figure down to a level where we'd say abortions are usually undertaken because of rape or incest.

Having established this, I want you to answer one question before we go any further; are you limiting your stance on abortion to cases of rape or incest? Unless you clearly state otherwise I'm going to assume you do, because you keep repeating this 'consent' business that I'll address in a moment. If you are indeed limiting yourself to this, then you're arguing for a circumstance that is, AT BEST, an exception to otherwise-normal conditions.

If you're not though, and you see the need for consent to be given for every pregnancy no matter what or else abortion has to be made available, then consider this; we've already established that only 1.5% (give or take) of abortions are obtained because of rape or incest. That means 98.5% (give or take) of abortions are executed on developing human beings who were brought into existence after CONSENSUAL sexual relations. When a couple has consensual sex, they HAVE to be open to the possibility that they could conceive a child. It is a beautiful act and a gift from God, but engaging in it can only be done with the assumption that they are open to having a child, or in other words, that they give consent to have a child.

To argue otherwise is just saying, "Hey, we wanted to have sex for our own benefit, but this kid that's gonna be the result? Yeah, we don't want to deal with him. Sorry kiddo, it's the vacuum for you."

I await your response.

According to the mass of the right wing, 1% is serious enough to not take a vaccine. 1% is a big number.

Compared to 98.5% I hardly find it grounds to base policy on the 1.5%. At best you could argue exceptions need to be made to a given policy in light of the fact there is a variable in play.

But overall, 1.5% of something is not a "big" portion of that something.

"In 2018, 619,591 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC from 49 reporting areas" - CDC
That's 9,293 reported cases...

"When the perpetrators are friends or acquaintances, the rapes go unreported 61 percent of the time. When the perpetrators are strangers, the rapes go unreported 54 percent of the time. (Ibid.)" - NCJRS.gov

So, just on friends or acquaintances... 14,870...
Then you add in the number of perps that are strangers...
Then add in the number of people who sabotage intercourse to "trap" their other.
Also consider the number of people who sabotage intercourse to simply have their own child and kick out the mother/father...

That number starts getting bigger rapidly. These are just percentages out of those who reported abortions....

Do you really turn a blind eye to all these people who aren't mentioned in this? Gotta open your eyes to the fact that this problem is bigger than you might want to admit...

It's not a matter of whether I want to admit anything or not. It's the reality that making claims based off conjecture is simply bad science. If there's better data out there then I'll adjust my numbers.

We just gave you data...
"In 2018, 619,591 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC from 49 reporting areas" - CDC
That's 9,293 reported cases...

"When the perpetrators are friends or acquaintances, the rapes go unreported 61 percent of the time. When the perpetrators are strangers, the rapes go unreported 54 percent of the time. (Ibid.)" - NCJRS.gov

80% of rapes go un-reported your 1% statistic is misleading.

If you get me better numbers then I'll adjust. But it's bad science to make assertions based off conjecture.

https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMRb47Tm8/

(I'm not the guy in the video)

Sorry for the delay. That link isn't taking me anywhere. I'm getting a browser error.

I'll try my best to recap it. Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy, simply because one cannot consent to outcomes. Additionally consent during sex or anything for that matter can be revoked at anytime in this case via an abortion. The rest is to complex for me to try and type.

Consent to sex HAS to be consent to the possibility of pregnancy, bud. If two adults make that choice and bring a new life into the equation, they HAVE to honor their decision.

Don't like it? Nobody is stopping you from practicing NFP. But you don't get to just kill your problem when you're done with it.

And there are 3 ways in which abortion is not murder before you go there.

Number 1. Murder is the unlawful killing, abortion is legal therefore it's not murder.

Number 2. While it is true the fetus is alive and a human that does not grant it personhood. Take 2 conjoined twins for example they share many organs including a heart. But what separates them making them two different people? Their brain, so how can we consider something that hasn't even developed a brain a person?

Number 3. It must be killing done with Malice. And do you think most women who get abortions think they're killing someone? Probably not.

Well done, but the end result is still the premeditated and forceful ending of human life without consent of the person about to be aborted. There is no escaping this reality. Abortion therefore is always wrong.

One cannot consent to outcomes. And you're forgetting that protection can brake, people are raped, and birth control has breakthrough cases. If someone is driving recklessly and crashes into someone requiring them to need a Kidney, and you wake up in a hospital with your kidney attached to them. The government can't force said person to remain connected to the person. Because nobody has a right to someone else's organs without their consent. Even a braindead person has to have given consent prior to their death before you can take their organs. When you consent to sex you accept that pregnancy is a possibility. But the theoretical fetus does not have consent to use the mother's body. And again consent is not permanent it can be revoked at any time, for example if you are signed up to be an organ donor and you are under the age of 18 (At least in my state) your legal guardian can revoke permission to take their organs.

Sorry bud, but you can't just revoke consent. This is established legal doctrine. Your parents can't just say, "Nah I'm done with you kid, out on the streets." and then kick you out of their home, for example. They have an obligation to raise you and anything less is child abuse.

Make a decision only when you've weighed the consequences. Be doubly sure when human life is on the line.

You're conflating bodily responsibilities with parental responsibilities.

No, I'm just pointing out that we have an obligation to protect vulnerable people from conception to natural death.

You can't revoke consent after birth because the child isn't using the mother's body to sustain their life.

Yeah buddy. Just cut a four year old kid loose on the streets and see how long they survive without their parents.

(Yes, I know an organization like CPS would step in, but we created such societal safety nets to prevent child abuse like this. Realistically speaking, kids are dependent on their parents until their mid-teens at the earliest. If you really want to walk your talk, you'd support parents being able to disown their kids at will at any point.)