Texas abortion law

[conception_native_0123]

how does everyone feel about this? a bold move? a hinderance for progressives?

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I find it insanely amusing that at the same time that Texas chose to crack down on abortions, Mexico decriminalized abortions. Do I sense a sudden interest in women crossing the border from Texas to get services out of the USA where the Texas law will have no effect (due to international sovreignty issues)?

The Supremes didn't cancel the Texas law but I read up a bit on that. They declined on the technical (legal) reason that until someone gets preggers, has an abortion, and gets turned in, they have no case to adjudicate. We have to remember that SCOTUS does not ALWAYS have the power of "original review" so until this law kicks in and someone gets 'bit" by it, they have nothing to decide.

 

[conception_native_0123]

Do I sense a sudden interest in women crossing the border from Texas to get services out of the USA where the Texas law will have no effect (due to international sovreignty issues)?

yes you probably do. I would assume.

 

[Isaac]

Saw an interesting graphic the other day. The graphic had to do with the impression that liberals have tried to give the American people - which is, that any abortion-limiting law here is outdated, old fashioned, etc. Actually, the majority of European countries--that's right, Europeans, the ones we think are so advanced on these issues--do, in fact, outlaw abortion after either 12 or 14 weeks. Which was something the libs were recently trying to say was old fashioned patriarchal nonsense, or some such thing.

I was curious, as I am any time someone sends me a factoid like that, and I randomly looked up 3 - but I included some typical Euro's - and indeed, they are quite right. The ones I looked up were France, Germany and Russia just for fun. My point isn't about those 3, you can criticize my choices, I just sayin the factoid they sent me seemed right.

I find it amusing the number of articles written that all use the same catchphrase: "....and before many women know they are pregnant".
Well, I may not be a young fellow any more, but last time I checked, people who were sleeping around outside of wedlock, they check pretty diligently, and they normally don't (or shouldn't, if they don't want to) let six weeks go by without checking.

Further to that, we have the best contraceptive options the world has ever known or dreamed of. Use them.

Further to that, our public schools have the most thoroughly grotesque and early-starting sex education ever. People aren't going around wondering what happens and how babies are made; they know, and it is quite possible and easy to keep an eye on things if one wanted to stay within that 6 weeks point and have options. That's only after marriage, and out-of-wedlock-behavior-with-contraceptives have all failed.

All things considered, it's really not the end of the world. And yes, @The_Doc_Man , I do foresee a lot of women adding 'abortion' to the list of things people remark during their barbeques "Hey, a friend of mine went to Mexico to have this procedure done cheaper..."

 

[NauticalGent]

Here ya go, Isaac!

 

[Isaac]

Here ya go, Isaac!

Yikes, a person could go read that thread for weeks!

Well, well, well. Now you've gone and tempted me to reveal my actual opinion on the subject at hand, rather than just Texas's law.

Trying to stay humble, I empathize with those in a difficult position - usually through a result of their own foolishness and irresponsibility, but a difficult position nonetheless, which still warrants empathy, since we've all done dumb things before and asked for help afterwards...me included, and not just inside an Access database.

Believe it or not, I'm a bit confused on this subject myself. Here are a few random bullet points, in no particular order whatsoever:

• If one believes an unborn baby is a person (gee, it sure looks similar, and they're building a nursery for it, I wonder what it could possibly be--a smartphone? A wheelbarrow?) - then obviously the whole "my body my rights" goes out the window. My first is attached to my body, too, but I still can't use it to hurt others, including my own children, carving out a narrow exception for a limited paddling, perhaps.
• It's hilarious to watch liberals claim "my body, my rights" for abortion, and then be in favor of vaccine mandates. What happened to 'your body' ? Then again, all they have to do is flip the script for the conservatives, and we're ALL revealed to hold some fairly contradictory seeming beliefs, aren't we
• Almost EVERYONE everywhere believes in making an exception for the life of the mother. Isn't that nice? We all agree on something!
• Again, if you believe abortion is killing a baby, then it makes no sense to have an exception for ra**, why would you? A child is a child
• As a conservative, do I REALLY believe that at 9:59:59 PM it was just some molecules and cells, and at 10:00:01 PM it was a constitutionally protected child?!? That does seem a bit silly - and I'll admit it. So where do you draw the line? I really don't know, and that's why I'd like to go back to pre-ROE. Let the states and localities decide, let them arrive at legislation which reflects the local values. I would be OK with that, I'd think it was a decent compromise. In some states you can marry at age 13, in some you can't. Obviously we already live in a world where we are OK with different localities expressing different values - we should have some of this, rather than trying to draw a perfectly homogeneous painting of our nation, which doesn't exist.
• Speaking of drawing the line, doesn't it seem like there's something wrong with this picture: A mother who wants her baby is talking enthusiastically about her 'child'. It is 100% a child to her, and the father, and the family, and everyone excitedly gathering to welcome it into the home. They are building a nursery and calling it a name. Their siblings are being told that brother or sister will be here soon. (Interestingly, in this scenario, I've never seen anyone swoop in and forcefully inform the mother: "Stop treating it like that! It's NOT a person!" - No, on the contrary, everyone encourages and supports it - playing along, if you will. Liberals included! Then, If the mother changed her mind, it suddenly wouldn't be a child, nor should we be allowed to treat it as such. In other words, the mother has become a god of sorts. This one is my child, this one isn't. There seems something very, very odd about that, to me anyway. Surely humanity can be framed in some more absolute way than the whim of a parent? Parents shouldn't be seen as creators - at least not to the vast majority of the world that believes in a creator. If you believe parents are creators, then why draw the line at birth? You really can't. The point is, you either believe in Human Life as being something able to be defined, supra-parental whim, or you do not. You cannot have it both ways, and still claim that Birth is a magic drawing line.

• Last point: Science cannot answer this question. Period. Science has nothing to do with deciding whether this is right or wrong - and this is why people who rely entirely on Science to answer non-scientific questions fall down. For the benefit of liberals, I'll provide an analogy you might actually like: Animal cruelty. Science cannot answer the question of whether we should have laws against tormenting, say, a pigeon. We know it's a living organism, we know it feels pain. We may be divided on whether it ought to have any human-like protection (such as we do have nowadays). Science cannot answer this question for us. Science can occasionally answer "what IS", science can never answer "what OUGHT".

 

[Pat Hartman]

I am not in favor of abortion as a method of birth control. There are far better options that will prevent you from being scared for life by having to make this horrendous decision. However, I also do not believe that abortion should be illegal. Roe v Wade is an absurd decision by the Supreme court but it settled on viability as the dividing line. Medical science has come a long way since then and the age at which a fetus becomes viable and not just a growth is getting earlier and earlier. This is one of those issues where people will fight to the death to defend their position. Viability seems to be a rational compromise. If you don't know you're pregnant by the time the fetus is viable, there are lots of childless couples who would dearly love to adopt an newborn AND pay for your confinement until that happens.

However, the liberal view that abortion should be allowed when the mother is in the delivery room and the baby is in the birth canal is insane. Compare that to their position that capital punishment is always wrong. How do you reconcile save all the people convicted of capital crimes no matter ho horrendous but allow the murder of an innocent child in the birth canal? And then add the vaccine mandates to the "my body, my choice" position and what would an outsider think? Those people are clinically insane. There is no rationality to their positions on death and personal autonomy.

The Texas law doesn't make any sense to me. Who is going to sue whom? Seems like that has to be a standing issue. The baby can't sue, he's dead. The mother doesn't have any reason to sue. She made the decision almost always with the urging or at least agreement of the father. So, that leaves the grandparents and the state???

A final comment on Planned Parenthood. One of the founders was Margaret Sanger who was well known for her progressive politics. It was the progressive movement that Hitler based his views of racial purity on and used to justify murdering undesirables such as the mentally or physically handicapped, the Jews, Gypsies, Communists, Homosexuals, all non-Caucasians, etc. I'm sure she's smiling down on her creation based on how successful they've been with convincing black mothers to get abortions. Part of this also goes to the war on poverty pushed by the Democrats which pretty much ensured that way too many black children would be born out of wedlock so that the mother could marry the welfare state rather than the father of her child. Abortions in the inner city black community represent about 30% or all abortions but since blacks represent only 12% of the population, that equates to a rate almost four times that of white women.

 

[Isaac]

The Texas law doesn't make any sense to me. Who is going to sue whom? Seems like that has to be a standing issue. The baby can't sue, he's dead. The mother doesn't have any reason to sue. She made the decision almost always with the urging or at least agreement of the father. So, that leaves the grandparents and the state???

I think this is one of those 'statutory causes of action', where a statute just flat-out creates a cause of action for anyone to sue anyone aiding and abetting an illegal abortion - or something more or less like that.

A final comment on Planned Parenthood.

I agree, most people don't know this. Planned Parenthood was began for the most horrendous reasons on planet earth, it's amazing they have fooled people into ignoring their legacy.

People say Russia has an 'abortion culture'. Wonder if the US is heading that direction?

 

[conception_native_0123]

which still warrants empathy

a little off subject here Isaac, but I read an article today that said that empathy is a skill that AI cannot do and will not take over. it also said that by 2033, 46% of work tasks currently done by humans will be done by AI.

 

[Isaac]

a little off subject here Isaac, but I read an article today that said that empathy is a skill that AI cannot do and will not take over. it also said that by 2033, 46% of work tasks currently done by humans will be done by AI.

Yeah - big question, what will the world look like for the next couple generations! I was in Walmart yesterday, as is my wont, pondering these things while I waited in the line for the self-checkouts. The only human employees as far as the eye could see were in wheelchairs alternating between what appeared to be restful sleep and tending to the occasional machine malfunction or scolding of a shopper.

I thought to myself man, nobody wants to work any more - except a small elite band of programmers who are making "everything".

No matter where you think you're at in the echelons of coding or technology development, it's a noble remnant to be a part of. The only people who will be 'working' in any traditional sense of the word 10-20 years from now!
I am not really sure what everyone else will be doing. Engaging in some sort of conflict, that's a given, probably...

 

[conception_native_0123]

Engaging in some sort of conflict, that's a given, probably

I would have no doubt that this will be true. politics will probably soar due to loss of work in other areas.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

OK, time for the stink bomb. Roe v Wade is wrong because the 2nd trimester is too soon to declare a stopper on abortion.

I don't think anyone can sanely argue that anti-abortion viewpoints don't originate from religious viewpoints. But here is the problem in the USA: Different religions have different viewpoints on when life starts. To pick an early start is to establish a religion - because Judaism clearly defines the start of life as the severing of the umbilicus to become an irrevocably separate person. There are other religions that take late start points. For instance, there are some groups that follow that Solomonic ruling that "The breath is the life" i.e. first breath.

The people who use the religious bully pulpit to prevent later abortions forget that their act implicitly disenfranchises those who are later on the "personhood timetable." As has been previously noted, science cannot tell us that answer. Well, actually, they can. Babies don't start becoming persons until about 3 months or so AFTER birth because the brain isn't fully formed yet. Higher functions are not immediately available. My argument is about the hard fact that anti-abortion rhetoric stems from religion and to accept that early cutoff date violates the Constitution by disenfranchisement of all non-aligned religions. True religious freedom says "let your conscience be your guide." If you disagree with me, ask yourself whether your disagreement is based on a religious viewpoint or a childhood teaching from a religious source - including your parents, if they raised you in a religious house. If so, you just disqualified yourself from disagreeing with women raised in a late-start-of-life religion.

@Isaac, your bullet-point list starts off with a non sequitur in that you talk about "my body, my right" but the context is someone who would not use that phrase. If they are building a nursery, your point is moot. If there is a late change of heart, the question would have to be "Why" because that kind of about-face doesn't happen overnight in a supportive environment.

 

[AccessBlaster]

For a lot of us, it comes down to morality, not religion or science. Is it moral to terminate life at a particular stage of development? Let's not kid ourselves we are talking about life.

 

[Isaac]

If "let your conscience be your guide" was acceptable to many people, we would not have many laws. Unfortunately everyone's conscience is different.

Totally disagree about religions and life starting. Judaism included. The Bible has enough references to life starting at conception for the Jews - old testament included. You're grasping at straws there. There really isn't very much disagreement.

I think my nursery point is my best point. If there is a late change of heart, the question is not "why" (unless you're trying to change the subject to something else, also worth talking about I'm sure, such as why someone suddenly doesn't want a baby - but that's a separate conversation).

The question as it pertains to this discussion remains as I framed it: Why should our society pretend that a mother grants personhood to their baby, by nodding our heads agreeably if she builds a nursery for it and gives it a name, but also nodding our heads agreeably if she does not - or if she switches. The possibility of a switch is just to make a point of how silly and illogical it is to have the mother deciding whether it's a person or not.

Doc, about your 3-mo. after birth argument (one few people hold, to be sure!), would you apply the same thing to a severely mentally disabled child? Why not kill them at any point until they achieve certain brain functions? In fact, why not apply that to IQ in general? I'm not saying that's your position - I'm asking you why couldn't your basis for things, totally excluding religion as you prefer, be used to set up other requirements for being allowed to live? Where would it end? Pretty much anywhere you decide to draw the line, you'll have a hard time inventing a basis for it out of thin air without using concepts of Right and Wrong, which as you know from your studies, also don't come out of thin air...

AB, I respect that viewpoint, although I view the distinction between 'religion' and 'morality' as artificial, and mostly something contrived to allow people to express that they eschew the term Religion, which is fine with me: It's all the same thing, in reality. You either believe there is a higher law - higher than your individual whims on a given day - call it God or call it morality; I simply view one as giving rise to the other, but it's not much different... But then again, I guess some do believe in relative morals. Which means only one thing: Everything that was considered 'moral' in 1830 was perfectly OK, because it was society's morals at the time............All of this leaves one's head spinning. Boy, is it a lot simpler & safer to believe in absolute truth!

 

[conception_native_0123]

Is it moral to terminate life at a particular stage of development? Let's not kid ourselves we are talking about life

this is why the catholic church is so much against it.

 

[AccessBlaster]

I believe the word fetus is used to dehumanize the emerging life otherwise, it's human.

 

[Isaac]

I believe the word fetus is used to dehumanize the emerging life otherwise, it's human.

That's what I find so laughably hollow in the following scenario:

If I decide to abort it, it's a Fetus. If I decide to birth it, it's Emma--the newest addition to our family and your little sister!

 

[conception_native_0123]

If I decide to abort it, it's a Fetus. If I decide to birth it, it's Emma--the newest addition to our family and your little sister!

i didn't laugh. :/

 

[RogerCooper]

The Texas Heartbeat Bill provides a method that if upheld allows a state government to negate any constitutional right, in effect repealing the 14th amendment. The whole "private action" workaround could be used to ban guns for example.

In addition, allowing lawsuits by anybody, for damages without any client or actual allegation of harm by the plaintiff is an inherent violation of due process. Private legal action is primarily about redressing personal harm, not about achieving public policy goals. Imagine the effects of allowing anyone to sue anyone over carbon dioxide emissions or publishing lies.

Any actual conservatives should be vehemently attacking the Texas Heartbeat Bill.

 

[NauticalGent]

I do not know the details of the bill and I am a staunch supporter of state's rights - as long as they do not negate constitutional rights. It's a shame most Americans do not know the difference and even worse, do not care.