By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - So an Abortion limiting bill passed in my state, Texas

Calmador on 03 August 2013
Mr Khan said:
Calmador said:

I consider abortion murder.

I can't believe people don't see it... it puts me in awe that some how... tearing a child into pieces is so different from tearing a child into pieces when the child is the whom.

We live in a monstrous time.

So, I'm glad about this but this isn't enough.

The rationale for defining human life as "sacred and inviolable" should be Decartesian: Sentient thought or the capacity to do so is what separates us from the animals, humans incapable of doing so (note, the bar for sentience is decently low, so the mentally handicapped and toddlers still qualify) do not qualify for the same degree of consideration (note that this does not mean a total lack of consideration. All life deserves some respect, but all non-sentient life should ultimately be disposable if doing so is for the best)

No, its defined by God who gaves us souls (the breath of life) and a spirit to live. The baby is alive.

Also, nobody but God has the right to take away life so liberally. We have a right to take away life as a means of self-defence against evil actions against us. The baby is just there and no doubt.. has no evil intentions.

If the baby is dead. Only then its okay to remove the corspe.



All gaming systems, consoles/PC, have thier perks... why fight over preferences? I like Coke and you like Pepsi, that's it, let's not fight over which toy we like best cause that's what they are. Is someone's preference in a toy important or is the relationship between you and your neighbor more important? Answer is obvious, but THE most important thing is your relationship with God almighty. God Bless you in Jesus's name.

I can communicate without talking... I can send a loved one money without actually sending money... and I can commit theft without the product disappearing, the point of theft is the point of theft not one of it's possible symptoms which is the product dissappearing. The thief wants to gain something without paying for it, that's the point of theft, the thief doesn't have to care or anybody else has to care if the product dissappears. The product dissappearing is just a possible symptom of theft. Gifts are sacrfices, in order to give a gift, it has to be a genuine sacrfice/gift, meaning a copy of the game isn't still in your PC. Piracy is theft and/or being a culprit of theft.

Around the Network
Runa216 on 05 August 2013
Calmador said:
Mr Khan said:
Calmador said:

I consider abortion murder.

I can't believe people don't see it... it puts me in awe that some how... tearing a child into pieces is so different from tearing a child into pieces when the child is the whom.

We live in a monstrous time.

So, I'm glad about this but this isn't enough.

The rationale for defining human life as "sacred and inviolable" should be Decartesian: Sentient thought or the capacity to do so is what separates us from the animals, humans incapable of doing so (note, the bar for sentience is decently low, so the mentally handicapped and toddlers still qualify) do not qualify for the same degree of consideration (note that this does not mean a total lack of consideration. All life deserves some respect, but all non-sentient life should ultimately be disposable if doing so is for the best)

No, its defined by God who gaves us souls (the breath of life) and a spirit to live. The baby is alive.

Also, nobody but God has the right to take away life so liberally. We have a right to take away life as a means of self-defence against evil actions against us. The baby is just there and no doubt.. has no evil intentions.

If the baby is dead. Only then its okay to remove the corspe.

Can you prove any of that?  We live in the real world, where there's no proof of a god, or souls, or divine intervention.  Until these things can be proven, can you keep them out of the argument? 



My Console Library:

PS5, Switch, XSX

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android

ninetailschris on 05 August 2013
Runa216 said:
Calmador said:
Mr Khan said:
Calmador said:

I consider abortion murder.

I can't believe people don't see it... it puts me in awe that some how... tearing a child into pieces is so different from tearing a child into pieces when the child is the whom.

We live in a monstrous time.

So, I'm glad about this but this isn't enough.

The rationale for defining human life as "sacred and inviolable" should be Decartesian: Sentient thought or the capacity to do so is what separates us from the animals, humans incapable of doing so (note, the bar for sentience is decently low, so the mentally handicapped and toddlers still qualify) do not qualify for the same degree of consideration (note that this does not mean a total lack of consideration. All life deserves some respect, but all non-sentient life should ultimately be disposable if doing so is for the best)

No, its defined by God who gaves us souls (the breath of life) and a spirit to live. The baby is alive.

Also, nobody but God has the right to take away life so liberally. We have a right to take away life as a means of self-defence against evil actions against us. The baby is just there and no doubt.. has no evil intentions.

If the baby is dead. Only then its okay to remove the corspe.

Can you prove any of that?  We live in the real world, where there's no proof of a god, or souls, or divine intervention.  Until these things can be proven, can you keep them out of the argument? 


You live in a world were more people believe in a God than don't. Can you prove otherwise? (Horrible argument by the way because it assumes conclusion without actually knowing the argument or addressing.Refering to "real world" argument.)

But on a point you made. Have you don't any research on arguments made by actual philosophiers or scientist. Because this response becomes nothing more than an argument from ignorance than cleaver remark.

On-topic: The bill seems decent. Will read more later.



"Excuse me sir, I see you have a weapon. Why don't you put it down and let's settle this like gentlemen"  ~ max

scat398 on 05 August 2013

I fully support the 20 week limit on abortions. We abort over 1,000,000 babies a year in the us , i dont think that is what the supreme court had in mind with roe v wade, clearly we need to take a step back and find better solutions for unwanted pregnancies. If the US can get that number cut in half the economic benefit alone would be worth it.



Fusioncode on 05 August 2013

20 weeks is more than enough time to decide whether or not you want to be a parent. 



Sigs are dumb. And so are you!

Around the Network
the2real4mafol on 06 August 2013
sc94597 said:
the2real4mafol said:
Why, just why? Why do these idiots want to stop abortions? Do they want to create more crime or something? Why can't a women choose to abort, it's her body. Better for the child to not exist, then be raised by unloving, abusive parents. Not like abortions would stop anyway.

Abortion should be legal till 6 months, when the baby has a chance of surviving being born that early. End of. I can't believe this discussion is still going on, it's like the debate who causes climate change? Time to move on.


Isn't this a very rare case? This women was extremely lucky to be born so early and survive. And i'm still pro-choice just because it's up to the women if she wants to keep her baby or not. I imagine most wouldn't abort but it should still be up to them. 

Finally, how can a state like Texas be against abortion but for the death penalty? How does that make any sense? 



Xbox Series, PS5 and Switch (+ Many Retro Consoles)

'When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called the people's stick'- Mikhail Bakunin

Prediction: Switch 2 will outsell the PS5 by 2030

marley on 06 August 2013
scat398 said:
I fully support the 20 week limit on abortions. We abort over 1,000,000 babies a year in the us , i dont think that is what the supreme court had in mind with roe v wade, clearly we need to take a step back and find better solutions for unwanted pregnancies. If the US can get that number cut in half the economic benefit alone would be worth it.


So.... 1,000,000 orphans?  That would be great for society!

 

There are two distinct uses for the word life being used in these posts.  There are people who use life as a catch-all, as in 'bacteria is alive', and people who use life to mean distinctly 'human life'.  A fetus is life, that is not arguable.  But at what point does it become human life? 

5 months is plenty of time to decide if you're going to have an abortion.  Condoms are not 100%.  Pregnancies from rape do happen.  Even if it were illegal, women would still have abortions.  The ones who don't will just have a baby they do not want.  Children with improper parental support will become criminals or pariahs/leeches on society.  

Most people won't have a problem with a 5 month limit, but rather in the attempt of some to stop abortions all together.  These limits are viewed as a slippery slope.  Women should most certainly be allowed to have abortions. 



-CraZed- on 06 August 2013
Ssliasil said:
Fuckin Texas, always ass backwards.

So it's ass backwards to want to protect the life of an unborn baby is it? It's ass backwards to require that providers who perform these procedures should have some sort of back up plan by having admitting privilidges at a medical center within a close proximity should an abortion procedure have complications?

Yeah so ass backwards... It's why even during the most turbulent of economical times Texas has continued to grow and thrive as a state cause they are so ass backwards there... Not saying the state or Texans are perfect but ass backwards?

I think not.



sc94597 on 06 August 2013
the2real4mafol said:
sc94597 said:
the2real4mafol said:
Why, just why? Why do these idiots want to stop abortions? Do they want to create more crime or something? Why can't a women choose to abort, it's her body. Better for the child to not exist, then be raised by unloving, abusive parents. Not like abortions would stop anyway.

Abortion should be legal till 6 months, when the baby has a chance of surviving being born that early. End of. I can't believe this discussion is still going on, it's like the debate who causes climate change? Time to move on.


Isn't this a very rare case? This women was extremely lucky to be born so early and survive. And i'm still pro-choice just because it's up to the women if she wants to keep her baby or not. I imagine most wouldn't abort but it should still be up to them. 

Finally, how can a state like Texas be against abortion but for the death penalty? How does that make any sense? 

Unfortunately, it's not rare enough. There are many other examples of failed abortions affecting the lifes of the children who were almost aborted. 

@ Second part, I agree, but it reflects more on the death penalty than the abortion case in my opinion. A consistent pro-life perspective would be to not allow any pre-meditated removals of one's right to life take place unless there is a danger in another's right to life as aggressed by the person who is argued to justifiably be murdered. That's why I support abortions if the mother's health is in danger, and that's why I support the murder of a criminal who is an iminent threat to another's life, liberty, or property. Other than that, there is no justification for murder if there is no threat. 



Mr Khan on 06 August 2013
-CraZed- said:
Ssliasil said:
Fuckin Texas, always ass backwards.

So it's ass backwards to want to protect the life of an unborn baby is it? It's ass backwards to require that providers who perform these procedures should have some sort of back up plan by having admitting privilidges at a medical center within a close proximity should an abortion procedure have complications?

Yeah so ass backwards... It's why even during the most turbulent of economical times Texas has continued to grow and thrive as a state cause they are so ass backwards there... Not saying the state or Texans are perfect but ass backwards?

I think not.

It is, because the intent is simply to oppress women. If they gave a lick of care about either of them, then Texas would have accepted the Medicaid expansion, and wouldn't have the worst health care record in all of the fifty states.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.