Pro-life Texas lawmaker introduces bill imposing death penalty for abortion

If so... that would be rather naive. And uncharacteristic

Other than medical fascilities and food processing... I've not seen or heard of it, and I live in a place with lots and lots of mandates, one of the first to lockdown and one of the last to "re-open."

Then again, I'm sure many would argue that the US is not a "civilized" nation.

Not New York, California, the nation of Australia, etc.

There are many places that have or did previously discouraged "going outside" for "non-essential activity", or in the case of Australia actively try to limit people on outdoor activity.

It most certainly should be encouraged, and in defense of California they at least recognized exercise as "essential" activity, along with getting drunk and smoking, but not worshipping God or the like.

That's good to know, it's also worth pointing out that US media has been focused far more on negative COVID news than other nation's media... while I try to diversify my information intake, being in the US still means that a larger portion of my information comes from here. I haven't heard much about encouraging people to go outside more than they perhaps would otherwise, even if they are on their own.

You guys keep arguing that taking a vaccine or wearing a mask "shouldn't" be controversial... that said... while not directly related to discussion about COVID or abortions, there is actually controversy about "eating healthy". Among other things, the usual arguments about what "eating healthy" actually means (how much meat is too much meat? for example), other than one should not rely on Fast Food places to provide a balanced diet.

But also "eating healthy" has become a fringe "trigger" for some members of the "woke crowd." Talking about how having "healthy meals" is a sign of oppression to those that don't etc. Just a "fun" aside. Almost anything can be made "controversial" if someone wants it to be.

That said, in this particular case, I doubt my arguments here, if I suddenly changed my mind and agreed with you lot, would alter the debates about Abortion, nor of what measures are appropriate to deal with COVID. The protests in many different nations, etc.

This is because the government has decided to focus on experimental or at least unproven methods to deal with the disease, rather than emphasize those which are both scientifically proven and known to be effective in a broad sense. And that was my point. You're free not to like it, but it's still true.

 

Back on topic...

If it's "non-existant" than it wouldn't need to be killed and removed.

That said, it seems Texas has gone a somewhat different rout to the proposal of treating all abortions as murder, and instead has implemented a "Heart-beat" rule... which means that zygotes (which don't have a heart) are still fair game.

 

Trump was clearly had a agenda to screw over people because of his stupid prejudices

That's not how it works especially if your the freaking president, he has no reason to ban them, reason why he did it is to appease his horribly unscrupulous base

 

Republicans shouldn't honestly exist. They are political party with literally no ideal they are just a hollow shell that exist for pleasure of doing whatever they want

 

I take it that you disagree with Sokolov on the issue of travel bans then? Do you likewise believe that Biden implemented his own travel bans on nations because he wants to "screw over people because of his stupid prejudices"?

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/25/bid...th-africa-extends-europe-uk-restrictions.html

Or are you allowing your own biases to color your judgement of individual actions?

Huh, I've never been a fan of political parties as institutions, and I would argue that between the GOP and the Democrats, Democrats probably have stronger cohesion (as a party) in terms of ideals and agenda... at least more often... but what I find fascinating is that this is how you chose to respond to what I said, which was talking about Texas' "heartbeat" ban on abortion.

So I'm really curious, do you think Texas legislators just have a big pregnancy fetish? That they are banning abortion because they lack any principle but their own pleasure to "do whatever they want"? Because it seems to me that restrictions like this go contrary to such, particularly since it (somewhat) makes people second-guess more about having sex since there is more risk involved if an unwished-for pregnancy is not detected soon enough.

Or perhaps you think they lack ideals for being okay with a Zygote being killed but not an Embryo with a heartbeat? Would you respect them more if they took up the stance that "life begins at conception"?

I'm honestly curious about your emotional thought process here.

 

https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/carrot-and-stick-motivation
Have you heard of the carrot and stick approach, I'm sure you have this exactly that but without the carrot
you literally telling women not to have sex or if you do you get the stick and have to go through a very painful process of pregnancy

Basically oppressing people is wrong, right? having women have no choices because they ****ed up is same as giving a person corporal punishment (caning) for petty crimes
How is this not the same as literally any other country like the way china is dealing with people from Hong Kong , Americans constantly berate China for how they are treated but don't really apply those principles to themselves.

 

Not applicable. There's no "carrot" for not committing infanticide as it is, yet the law to prevent precisely that is (at least so far) still strong.

I don't think that word "literally" means what you think it means. I've never argued against contraceptives... but killing a child is not a contraceptive; conception has already accured at this point. Once someone is pregnant (and that pregnancy is far along enough for the law in Texas to matter for example) you're going to have some degree of pain and/or discomfort regardless. The "Carrot" in this case would be being able to bear and give birth to a human life, with all the wonders that entails. That you see carrying a pregnancy to term as being "all stick" is in and of itself a problem of perspective.

Life is a joyous thing, to be treasured and, where possible, nurtured and protected.

Ending that life carries it's own burdens and pains; even if the Church of Satan seems to think that human sacrifice via abortion is a protected right under the first amendment. Then again, I do not turn to the Church of Satan for providing solid wisdom or moral advice.

Indeed, so is killing them before they are even born.

People suffering consequences for their mistakes (or even the mistakes of others) is hardly anything new. If a woman "firked up" while driving, and killed someone as a result, is it "unfair" to limit their options in terms of paying the penalty for this action? Perhaps if that woman has the ability to raise the dead, to restore life and fully heal people, then maybe they can be afforded more options... but even that would still not undo any trauma that the victim goes through to experience.

You say that having a woman have "no choices" if they make a "mistake" or what have you and get pregnant when they only wished for self/mutual sexual gratification is the same as giving "corporal punishment" for "petty crimes."

Yet I say if a mother kills her child (or a father kills their child, or anyone kills someone's child) that such is not in any way a "petty crime." Further more, you are giving, not "corporal punishment" to that child, but a full on death sentence... not only without giving them any "choices" on how to handle it, but despite the very real fact that that child has never done anything wrong. Not even a "petty crime" but no crime at all. And you would see them killed.

China oppresses it's people, including the innocent. They have even gone on to force abortions in some cities, to maintain their "1 child" policy in the past... I'm sure as their population declines, if that regime survives long enough, they will start forcing pregnancies.

It's by no means limited to Hong Kong, or Tibet, or "autonomous" provinces primarily populated by ethnic minorities. It's not limited to those that would dare worship anything but the Party... it is capricious and without any set principles other than "the Party is always right." Even if what the Party is saying at the moment is different from what it said five minutes ago.

Without doubt, there is much hypocrisy in the US government, and in local governments; I don't say that there isn't.

However, also without doubt, if China's primary crimes is it's oppression of the innocent and denial of human rights to a selective group. Than such is more in line with pro-Abortion stances, which kills the innocent and denies even their existence, let alone their right to Life (and Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, innate human rights which cannot be traded, sold, stolen, or made void by any government; even those which oppress people cannot truly destroy those rights or take them away, they still exist even as they are trampled on).

I have absolutely no desire to see a woman be forced to carry a pregnancy she did not want. But she has choices she can make both before, during and after, which do not require her to kill the precious life growing within her womb, in order to still live a life pursuing her happiness. This is far more than you currently afford to the unborn... or perhaps the partially born, if you support that aspect of the "pro-Abortion" movement. Or maybe even further, if you agree with an article put forward in the Journal of Medical Ethics a number of years ago arguing that a woman should have the right to "abort" after birth and up to 3 years of age, basing that ones so young don't count as "people." And that is far more like Maoism, Nazism, Stalinism, and every other socialist and fascist government you might otherwise wish to try and compare my stance (and many others') on this issue.

 

You are not against contraceptives, does this include the day after pill? curious as to where you draw the line

Carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term has nothing of joyous or miraculous, and I think that is clear that a lot of people are willing to undergo a procedure to avoid the privilege.

Why wouldn't you turn to the church of satan for wisdom or moral advice? I think that's a bit biased

 

Undecided on the Day After pill. In large part because I'm undecided if life begins immediately on conception or shortly after. At which point does God indwell a human soul into the flesh? However I do believe that at the very least, once autonomous internal systems (independent heart beat, brain function, etc.) are detectable that it's a life. For the "Day After" I'd need more information, (not just medical) to make a firm stance. That said, in a vacuum, I will default to being against it. Likewise, while I do support the new Texas laws, I'm not fully sure if Zygotes and the like should also be protected.

It's not the pregnancy itself that is joyous, it's the life growing and forming as part of that pregnancy. And at the point where abortion might be considered, it is, again, unavoidable to have the privilege.

It is clear that a lot of people are willing to undergo procedures that harm themselves to acquire a percieved benefit. For people that are afraid of the responsibility and/or pain and/or expenses associated with having a child, abortion is advertised as a means of "dealing with the 'problem'".

For someone that argues so strongly in favor of vaccine mandates, under the apparent assumption that people cannot be trusted to make wise medical decisions which impact not only themselves, but others... I find it sad that you are trying to justify killing unborn children by saying: "well, people WANT to do it so why shouldn't they?"

Yes, I'm biased against Satan. That said, why don't you turn to the Bible for wisdom or moral advice? I think that's a bit biased of you.

For example, do you know where "an eye for an eye" comes from? It's the punishment for someone gets for causing harm to the unborn according to the Law passed down by Moses. That, after the child is born, if there's any damage to them, the one that caused it intentionally should suffer the same. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth... In that sense, the original topic of discussion ("Death penalty for abortions") would therefore actually be more applicable.

 

Maybe I expressed myself wrong about people "wanting" to end pregnancies. What I meant, wrongly using sarcasm, is that women forced to carry on unwanted pregnancies undergo terrible psychological distress which compounded with the pregnancy hormonal effects sometimes end in profound disorders and/or the murder of the child once he's born. I think you'll agree that those are really worse than a safe abortion.
So in this case you are against people freely choosing which medical procedures they have to undergo, because your religious belief of when a soul is endowed into the body. I hope you see how this is wrong. It's not wrong that you believe it, it's wrong that you are in favor of legislation affecting everyone regardless of their beliefs. You see how this is a violation of the 1st amendment which I just read.
The church of satan doesn't seem to believe in the same satan you believe in, so that's what I mean with your (reasonable) bias against them. And you seem to assume that I don't turn to the bible for wisdom and moral, which is erroneous, I just consider it one of a lot of sources for them. You do as well it seems, because you cite "an eye for an eye" that is widely recognized as originating in ancient babylon in the code of Hammurabi, and if anything, the bible encourages forgiveness and compassion in all cases.

 

You say that as if there are no psychological after-affects of asking a doctor to kill your own child. Sure, a hypothetical scenario where a woman is driven by depression and unbalanced medical state to kill their own child after birth is to be discouraged, but a "safe abortion" is not the only way to deal with that potential problem. Killing something to avoid having it be killed is inherently counter-productive in the first place. And no psychological scars will be avoided from the that hypothetical scenario that would not still be present in the case of abortion.

Disorders can be treated and mended. Pain can be managed or dulled. Can you undo death?

A human life is a human life; and wantonly killing such a human life, even for the psychological health of that life's mother... is inherently wrong (indeed, laws against infanticide already exist). Your religious belief is that it isn't a "life" until after it is born. Surely you see how wrong it is to impose your values on others? How many lives might have continued and enriched this world and our lives if they had been properly classified instead of dismissed out of hand in the name of "privacy" of all things?

That said, my beliefs in the soul are besides the point in this case anyway. While not able to sustain themselves autonymously, we do have recorded evidence of at least embryos and later stages having some display of independent action and will. Many have been recorded trying to fight off or avoid the abortion tools used to kill them, which obviously would be independent of the will of the mother in most cases (forced abortions in China and elsewhere aside). Should that secular, scientifically grounded proof be so readily dismissed just because it doesn't fit your personal preferred world view?

Whether you believe that a soul comes in later, or doesn't at all... is immaterial to the fact that an embryo is demonstrably alive and it's own being (thus heartbeat detection used as the criteria for Texas, rather than trying to measure whether it has a soul yet or not). And undeniably human.

Besides, religious beliefs are the bedrock of most laws, including the first amendment, including laws against murder, etc. Or would you argue that if someone's religious beliefs condoned murder, that laws against homicide should be repealed under the first amendment?

As there is only one God, there is only one Satan (and no, God and Satan are not the same thing, despite what some Luciferians would argue). Regardless of what they claim on this or other issues; they still worship the fallen one, calling it an "archetype of independence and enlightenment." Yet they clearly condone and support human child sacrifice as a "right." That alone disqualifies them from any moral standing, and they have displayed no wisdom; only a base cleverness; which is exactly what Satan is. Cleverness wrapped in selfish arrogance, lacking wisdom and morality. And for all that cleverness, that lack of wisdom is it's undoing.

If it makes you feel better, I also tend to disregard or not turn to Hitler, Stalin, Mao, the Greek/Roman Pantheon, Baal, etc. (rather a long list) for moral advice or wisdom either. What little wisdom they might have possessed was drowned out by their desire to be clever and self-serving. And, from what I can see, are influenced by the same spirit(s) as the Satanists.

Note that I do not call for their "church" to be dismantled or banned, nor for them to be silenced or censored. I have no wish to try to force them to be undone... and quite frankly they seem to be doing a good enough job of destroying themselves without my efforts. Hopefully those that call themselves members will one day turn away from it, and some already have. At that time I'll welcome those individuals gladly... but I won't turn to that organization or it's teachings for either wisdom or moral guidance, and I actively discourage others from doing so.

Whether "eye for an eye" was written by Hammurabi before or after the Bible is moot, since it is still what is written in Exodus (chapter 21, specifically); and that is what I was referencing. (That said, I do look at a wide array of things, but in this case I am directly pointing to the Bible.)

The Bible does encourage forgiveness, but it does not forsake punishing the wicked that do not repent. It also says that obedience (to God's Laws) is better than sacrifices to atone. Further, the Bible shows that God abhors those that sacrifice children. It says of those that harm children that they would be better off tying a millstone to themselves and throwing themselves into the deepest sea.

Soo keep in mind the statement: "in all cases" is incorrect here. Forgiveness is not a license to therefore go out and cause as much harm to yourself and others as you may wish. What is required is to want to follow God. And no one that wants to follow God would condone killing children for percieved personal gain.

It is said in both the Old Testament and the New, that it is God's will that none should perish, but that the wicked should turn from their wicked ways and choose life.

God still leaves the choice to each of us, but the consequences for that choice are not something we can control as we wish. A woman who has killed her child can be forgiven, yes... but not if she chooses to continue it, to continue to support others to do it, etc. For then she is not following God, not believing in Him... but following her own selfish desires. A murderer and a rapist can find forgiveness in the eyes of God... but only if they choose it. If they reject God's forgiveness, than God will respect that choice and act accordingly.

For you see God is Good. This means He is merciful yes, but also just and righteous. He is loving and he is holy. As CS Lewis put it when describing Aslan (an anology for the Christ in the Chronicles of Narnia),

 

you are missing my point on the mothers murdering the baby after it's born. Murdering a baby with your own hands is the result of terrible emotional and psychological distress and that's what you are inflicting on persons being forced to carry out a unwanted pregnancy. Also the psychological support given by pro-life activist outside abortion clinics seems to be far from ideal I'd say.

Now, about religious beliefs being imposed, a baby is certainly a life before it's born, I believe that. Now, what it sure isn't, it's a person for the law, it's just a part of the mothers until it's born (legally) so you are not legislating on the rights of the unborn child but on the rights of the mother, always. Again your example on some people's beliefs condoning murder is not a right interpretation of the first amendment, in fact quite the opposite, if someone tried to pass a law validating murder based on some religious thing, the first amendment would block it.

Now you say the bible doesn't recommend compassion and forgiveness in all cases but it does, for humans that's it, what god does after with the sinners it's no business of yours.

Now for what I do think about abortion:
Abortion should be legal without special causes at least to the third month, for these reasons:
If someone is a **** victim, you don't force her to start the investigation on the **** when she's not ready yet
It's customary for women not to tell they are pregnant until after the third month, this is because spontaneous abortions happen in this period quite frequently. A lower limit on the law would prompt investigations and backlash on women that suffered spontaneous abortions which is quite stressful in itself.
the new texas law has some other problems aswell but this is my general opinion.

 

You do realise that contraceptives are only 99% effective thing about the number of people having sex a day in the whole US we talking about millions even at 0.01% accidental pregnancy are still going to happen in Texas alone that could still be 5 a day which is a lot. Not everyone are ready to be parents I think giving them a choice should still be a option regardless.

Also they set the time limit at 6 weeks which isn't insufficient time to know if you pregnant or not if this was untill the first trimester that be much more room

 

Won't children from **** according to the Bible considered as a B'astard child unworthy of being born

So that's ok now but when women want to abort thats not ok?


Don't tell me that any religious text are good place to find context because they are not

 

I'm vaguely certain that there are other options besides infanticide. Adoption agencies for example. While certainly not ideal, if a woman is so traumatized that they WILL kill their child even after it's born, adoption would be a preferable and reasonable alternative.

Further more, I am quite certain (and I believe you are as well) that the majority of abortions carried out in the United States (even in Texas) are not by women under such mental and emotional strain.

Finally, you are missing the point that killing one's own child, or ordering it done, will always leave a psychological trauma (though of course denial is a frequent if unhealthy way for people to deal with some traumas),.

I wouldn't know, as fortunately I've never been in a situation to require such. That said, sure, there's always going to be room for improvement in how things are handled. That doesn't make killing children a viable or preferable way to handle it.

If a person were to carry out an abortion on a woman against her will, or to cause her to be injured in such a way as to cause a miscarriage or otherwise kill the child in her, they would be charged with some degree of homicide in (almost?) all states. Even when the woman herself lived through the experience. If you can be charged for killing them in that instance, are they not a "person" with legal protections? Otherwise it would merely be some charge of battery/mulitation, not homicide.

Relatedly... a slave was considered to be a non-person as well, or even later, black people were considered less than a whole person. Indeed, laws like marriage liscenses were (at least initially) in large part a reaction to new freedoms for black people and the states wanting to regulate inter-racial unions.

Even if the laws don't currently recognize a given individual as a "person" it doesn't mean they aren't.

Finally, legal defitions (at least mortal laws) can always be changed.
In terms of changing law, it seems that Texas at least has recognized an embryo with a detectable heartbeat as a "person." Therefore the laws are not "merely" legislating the rights of the mother.

And yet that's precisely what you support by supporting abortion. You don't "beleive" that an embryo is a person... but this ignores both science and the beliefs of others. Just because YOU don't think they are people, doesn't mean they aren't. As such, arguing that banning abortion based on my belief they are a "person" is "imposing my religious beliefs on you" is in fact the opposite. You are imposing your belief in their lack of person-hood on me. You don't deny that an embryo or even a zygote is a human life. What you instead focus on is whether or not it is a "person." Yet killing a human life for one's own convenience is generally considered murder... even for, for example, coma patients whom some may argue are soulless husks supported only by machines (some religious views do in fact hold to this idea).

Finally... regardless of such, the first amendment is a limitation on what government can prohibit. It does not prohibit laws based on religious principle from being created. For a less extreme example, laws against polygamy are still ubiquitous, despite Mormans and other religions encouraging that practice. So saying that a law banning abortion because of a belief in the unborn's personhood or existing and manifest soul goes against the first amendment is fundamentally flawed, based on precident.

You're partly right. What sins are done against us ourselves often can and should be forgiven. Some sins (blasphemy against the Holy Spirit specifically) will not be forgiven, and God does not encourage forgiveness for such sins. Further more, compassion and forgiveness is encouraged to be offered, but compassion, among other things, also includes warning people if they are doing something that is sinful and wicked. If someone has murdered your child, we (as humans who are forgiven by God) can and should offer forgiveness... but we should not then say to that murderer: "so go ahead and do it more." Or to the unrepentant: "let him go free from prison without penalty."

Indeed, many are the prophets that God has tasked with warning people, of one in particular: Ezekiel, had written:

So therefore, if I do not speak out against abortion as a practice, or in favor of legislation to make it illegal, the pain and suffering that is carried out by those that follow such practice, and the pain and suffering that may be visited upon them if they repent of it not... would also be on me.

If someone is about to stick their arm in a blender, you do your best to discourage them from doing so... to do otherwise would be to lack compassion.

While I feel for such victims, when, and whether, a woman gets an abortion seems unrelated to when/if an investigation is started.

"Spontaneous abortions" are referred to as miscarriages. They are a seperate category, are they not?

Thank you for sharing, that said, I've asked about this many times but...
You have yet to explain to me why you think it is so important to allow a woman to kill her unborn child if she wants to, but not allow that same woman the freedom to choose whether or not to get a vaccine, or any other medical proceedures that get mandated by the state.

 

Contraceptives are not 100% effective (at least short of invasive proceedures and/or more permanent forms), but then again not ejaculating into a woman's ****** would be better. Or, (not through legislation of course) cultural shifts valuing marriage, chastity, etc. more would reduce (but of course not eliminate) some of the risk for those that are unready or unwilling to become parents.

Even then, again, adoption is still a valid option for avoiding being a parent. Not ideal in the slightest, but better than killing children. That leaves the ~9 months of pregnancy, which is no doubt uncomfortable and often painful, but such can be managed without killing a child in the process.

People make mistakes, get carried away by passion, or are simply idiots. Yet that does not mean that killing children is a good solution to the problems caused when such mistakes happen. And, if other laws are any indication, while not wholy preventing such, not having a fallback of "abortion" will undoubtedly make people more mindful, at least in the long term.

Why do you two settle for such an arbitrary timeline? Why not, like NYC, go till the full 9 months?

Why do you think an extra month and a half will be that much more "sufficient" time than 6 weeks? No doubt 6 weeks is meaningful... it's the difference between a heartbeat, between the primary scientific and medical verification of life in animals, existing or not existing.

I know it sounds harsh... yet when it comes to the matter of whether a child is allowed to live or forced to die without any choice of their own on the matter... I think biology is a much better determinant of "how long is enough" than an arbitrary declaration.

No?

Certainly I've never read any such thing in the Bible coming from God. I haven't read all the books of the prophets (I'm rather studious and thus read slowly and re-read when I find more interesting context for certain parts) but I've read at least the laws given by Moses, and the teachings of Jesus and I've never seen anything about such children being "unworthy of being born" or the like.

Not sure where you got that idea from.

Not only have I not seen that in the Bible... I don't think it's okay so... rather a moot point on your part. Be sure not to make assumptions about things you don't know. I know I try not to (though I certainly don't always succeed in avoiding such assumptions).

Well, you're wrong?

Not sure what to say here exactly other than... you obviously can choose what to believe in.


For some history of myself... I have believed in God well before I've believed in the Bible. Like many, I was an agnostic before I beleived in God.

However, for my part at least, I've always had vivid dreams, and fierce passion (which at times got me in trouble more often than not). At one point, I met a girl my age in High School, and I fell in love with her at first sight. She, however, did not apparently feel the same way, so broken hearted and morose, I continued to question why I was alive and what the point of anything ways. Eventually, I had a memorable nightmare, where I and some others, including my beloved, were running through a forest, trying to escape, we were crossing a bridge with a dry creek bed full of hard rocks beneath when she stopped in the middle of the bridge.

She had on her a look of profound sorrow, and though I encouraged her to keep moving, to come with me, I knew she wouldn't follow me in the dream any more than she would follow me in reality. And I saw her jump headfirst into the creekbed killing herself.

The dream was unsettling enough, but the next day as I wandered about the school during lunch time, I came upon her by chance running by, and she had that same look of profound sorrow on her. And I knew that as in the dream, it would not be me that could help her. So, I made a bet; there's no real harm in praying if God didn't exist, but if He did, maybe He could save her where I couldn't. So, I offered a deal, "save her, and make her happy, even without me, and I'll do what I can to help the rest of the world."

A few days later, I saw her again by chance at school, and she was beaming. Last I heard, she was happily married and content; we even became friends of a sort but that's not what was important to me. God answered my prayer... so I would believe in Him.

In time, I realized I was not in a sufficient state to "help with the rest of the world" and keep up my end of the bargain, so I accepted Jesus Christ (Yeshua in Hebrew, which means "Savior" or close to), after having a number of other events point to this as a solution.

Even then, I didn't take the Bible very seriously for many years. In time, when I found some proper teachers, I could begin to see more of it, because in part it's hidden. For example, something that is somewhat lost in translation is the importance of names:

What is even more impressive, is that there is a significant distance between when those books were written, let alone the simple fact that much of those names are historically varified by other records where available.

There is a great deal of hidden depth in the Bible, and it is much more consistent than I had first beleived. A lot of the terrible things I'd heard about it, were from false teachings, likely where and why you think the God written of in the Bible hates b astards or some such.

But to go further on this topic would require more time and screen space than I wish to put in this thread. Perhaps we can make another specifically on this topic, perhaps.

Ultimately, whether you accept the Bible or not, I do understand your skepticism. And I believe that you could find it worthwhile to study, if you open yourself to the possibilities.

 

Here you run into some practical problems that evade the whole philosophical problem of abortion. If a women is subjected to pregnancy due to non consensual sex, and she's allowed to have an abortion under such conditions, requiring her to denounce the fact to access that right leads to a whole host of problems. For one, she may not be ready to assume and make his suffering public, secondly, this open up a lot of opportunities for delays and resources that may aim to ultimately deny the right to the abortion (i.e. if I can litigate the alleged **** long enough an abortion won't be possible) and some other problems that shouldn't happen, but they do, and that's a reality.
About the miscarriages, imagine going through the distress of having a miscarriage of a wanted child and being inquired as to whether or not you did it on purpose, again, it's not something based on the law itself, but it causes undue stress on already vulnerable people, that's not even counting that under strict abortion laws, social backlash is harsher on alleged abortions. So who decides what was a miscarriage and what was an voluntary abortion? Should a women that suffered a miscarriage be subjected to blood tests, or inspections to check if the causes for the abortion were natural? I suppose that goes against your idea of body autonomy, and it's clear that a ban on abortions only encourages illegal abortions.
About the vaccine vs abortion the answer is simple, forcing a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term is plain torture, and if to avoid that torture a life form that would have become a human needs to be disposed of, that's something acceptable in my opinion. Now, forcing a vaccine amounts to a very minor discomfort, so I don't see how can they even be compared.

Of course, you can say that vaccines may have harmful side effects, but you seem to be very convinced that life is precious, so is that risk not worth it to save a life? also there are things that have far worse side effects than vaccines, pregnancies for example. So the question here is, why is the life or an unborn child so precious to you as to force 7.5 months of psychological and physical distress on a woman, expose her to a wide array of harmful side effects and potential risks and in top of that, subject her to a very painful procedure, as is giving birth to save it? why isn't the life of the people that might be saved by the vaccination process equally as precious? surely 1 day of mild cold symptoms is worth the price to potentially save a life.

Edit: Also I would like to add that I don't consider abortion at any time of the pregnancy, as you might think. I don't have a definite time in mind but when you are nearing the point of premature birthing (6-7 months) the situation is different (unless the mother's live is in danger ofc)

 

This may be unrelated to the Texas law at hand (I haven't read specifics on any potential exceptions to **** as I've not read the full bill itself).

However, there is still a time to obtain an abortion without making any "announcement" related to how or why she got pregnant. Are there other laws in Texas, or language within the recently passed laws wish deny this? I'm vaguely certain a "Day After" pill can be obtained without questions on how pregnancy might have been acquired.

If you're referring to after a heartbeat is detected... for example, if the victim in question is kidnapped or otherwise prevented from knowing about/doing anything about the pregnancy long enough pass the time limit...

That again would depend on specifics of the Texas bill which I don't have information on.

My opinion however may be somewhat contraversial on this topic. I don't think an innocent child should be killed as a "therapy" for a **** victim. Among other things, I think it adds to the problems generated for the woman. But mostly, I don't think that killing or harming an innocent third party is a proper way to settle a criminal act. I think any such rapist should be forced to pay (if possible) for the care and expenses associated with pregnancy, that they should lose all claim to parenthood if the victim wishes, etc. but I don't think a child should be killed.

We cannot legislate against people being complete ****bags. Besides, this already happens. A women that gets miscarriages (or even just one) can and sometimes is blamed for it.

A court, if necessary. This would be true even for late-term miscarriages, in states where late-term abortions are currently already illegal. Ideally, one would use common sense; or better yet, assume someone is innocent until they are actually proven guilty instead of the other way around. But we can't really legislate against people being ****bags (other than lawsuits for slander/libel etc. if someone is accused of carrying out illegal abortions when they aren't).

It IS a human already. Even you acceeded to that previously. You just went on to say how you didn't think it was a "person." Yet there is no agreed upon instance of when a concieved child becomes a "person."

You seem to think it happens at 6-7 months into a pregnancy. Texas when there is a detectable heartbeat. The Catholic Church (at least used to) say it is at conception. The authors of a paper in the Journal of Medical Ethics said it takes years and they aren't people even after birth for some of them.

What is your criteria based on? Texas is based on physical signs, the Catholics are/were based on when they think God imbues the soul to a human. What's so different at 6-7 months that you disagree, but not at 4-5 months? 3 months? 6 weeks?

You say that carrying a pregnancy to full term is "pure torture" yet I'm sure you'd agree it is the last months and the birth which are the most burdensome and painful in most cases. Why do you say that a woman (perhaps not of her own volition) should finish the term after 6 months even though the greatest part of the burden is ahead of her then?

It's because you know at some point (if not immediately) that "growth" inside a womans womb is a living human child. Not a tumor, not simply "part of the mother." Some part of you recognizes that killing a child is not worth the potential to alleviate the discomfort of the woman carrying it. Who are you to determine when a child is, or is not, a "person" or a human being? Why do you say that Texas has no "right" to make that determination if you can?


On the other side: Forcing anyone to undergo an unwanted medical proceedure, to force them to have something injected into their body against their will, is a "minor discomfort" to you? And damn the side effects which can result in permanent injury and/or death?

You talk often about the psychological stress of a pregnant woman carrying something they don't want in their body, it's been your main argument; but you don't recognize the psychological stress of having someone inject something in your body? And when long-term effects are unknown as well?

You say you don't see how the two can be compared, than how about this:

You justify the vaccine by saying it's a "minor discomfort."

You equate a full-term pregnancy to "full torture" and thus imply that the abortion proceedure itself is, at least relatively speaking a "minor discomfort."

So what would you say if the government decided it was necessary to force abortions for the public good? Say as a means of reducing CO2, to deal with some issue of famine, or other potential "emergency" disaster? China has already done similar things, and by your logic that "it's the State's job to determine medical treatments for public health issues" it's not that farfetched that it could happen in the US at the current rate things are going.


It's not about the "comfort." It's about human rights.

A baby, even an unborn one, has rights. Rights to not be killed despite their complete innocence for the convenience of their mother (or whomever pressures them into getting an abortion at the time, I know we haven't covered that problematic side of "pro-Choice" which ignores that women get pressured into something they don't want by family, the father of the child, etc. sometimes; just as there can be potential problems with people being ****bags about miscarriages...)

Likewise so do grown children and adults. Rights to not be forced to take medication they do not want or feel they need (with some provisions we've already discussed). Especially when they are already healthy. No one should be forced to have an abortion, nor to concieve a child. No one should be extorted to take a medication or wear a superfluous medical device in order to acquire an education, buy groceries, leave their homes, etc.

You know what "pure torture" is? Being confined in a given space because you refuse to let someone inject you with a substance you don't want. To be told you can't work to feed yourself and/or your family and keep a roof over your head because you "might" be a threat in the future despite there being no evidence you are or will be currently.

To be told you will be evicted if you don't provide proof of vaccination for you and every member of your family above a certain age (that's something that actually happened).

Do you have any idea how many people killed themselves over the past year and a half, not because of fear of the disease (though that surely didn't help) but because they lost their jobs and businesses after being told they weren't "essential"?

Yet you endorse these pains in the name of "saving lives." Despte, as I will go into soon, it being dubious how effective such proceedures actually are.

Pregnancies can result in deaths of mothers, that is true. So can botched abortion proceedures for that matter. So can vaccines. Though I don't know that "death" is strictly the worst outcome. There is also neurological degredation and other problems, which goes to the "slow and painful death over years", which to my knowledge of all three are mostly associated with vaccines (relatively speaking). On the other hand, a woman who dies in childbirth may still at times provide a viable offspring, and while I'm against killing children for convenience, I do actually support a mother's right to choose when it comes to triage, whether she ask the doctor to save herself or her child as the priority, in those relatively rare instances such a choice is feasible and necessary.

But to answer your question in the general... no. It's not worth it to force people to take a given vaccine in the name of "saving lives."

Abortion has a 100% (actually slightly less) result in a direct death of a human life.

Not taking a vaccine has no determimed direct impact on killing people. Particularly since this specific vaccine does NOT provide immunity, does NOT prevent transmission of the disease in question, and does NOT have any long-term usefulness... and the disease in question itself has well over 90% survival rate even for those that are most vulnerable; and other treatments are available which appear effective in saving lives for those that do get sick. This is not according to "me" or merely "my opinion." It's what both the data shows, and what the "authorities" making policy have themselves stated.

Importantly, these "vaccine mandates" completely ignore naturally gained immunity by thos that have recovered from COVID. There is no sound medical reason to force someone to take something to boost their immune system when their immune system is already boosted.


Forfeiting human rights to choose medication on the relatively slim POSSIBILITY to maybe save a human life indirectly is not worth it. Particularly since people can choose to take the vaccine or not still, I don't aim to forbid that from people. So the only "significant risk" supposedly would be to those that don't take it, a risk they invite on themselves or cannot avoid anyway (because of AIDS, etc.)

Making illegal a proceedure which, by definition, kills an innocent human child directly? Worth it.

 

On topic, but on a compltely different tone...

If anyone can invent a way to transfer a pregnancy safely out of the womb without killling the child in the process (in either short or long term) that would be totally awesome. It would help solve a lot of problems in terms of women's comfort. Though depending on where the child is transfered to there can be other problems (if going to an artificial womb, how much does the child lose by not being in contact with a human mother? if to a surrogate womb, what risk of "rejection" or other physical phenomenon might exist?)

It might not be an immediate solution, it might even never be viable... but if the last 100 years have show anything, it's that humans are capable of great strides in technological advancement in a relatively short time. It might seem an impossibility for now... but who is to say it will be in the future?

This topic is often contentious and by it's nature focused on dark subjects.

Yet despite this, I do remain optimistic, both for the near future and the distant.

The world is on the cusp of great changes, probably greater than many realize including myself. It's possible that these changes could have gone a dark direction, but they won't. It's not "logical" in terms of how this world looks at things, but I "know" that things will be getting much better, and much sooner than those looking at the world as it currently is may otherwise think.

Not just from my point of view, but from the perspective of all those that truly value life, freedom, societal progress, and so on, even those that might currently disagree on various subjects (even the one in this thread).

The world is changing, and there will be pains associated with that change, just as there is pains associated with birth. But it is changing for the better, like the joy a mother feels for their desired child finally seen face-to-face. Such is the joy I think we will share once the world's changes begin to show what the future holds. Amazing new technologies, new ways of looking at things. New joys in the things we already see and experience.

Just wanted to end on a positive note. The future is a wide open field. Let's make it a good one; working together one what we can agree to, as best we can.

 

Not everyone track their menstrual cycles if you miss a period you might forget or it could be because of stress or medications

2 month is enough time for a woman to figure out they pregnant or not

it's simple common sense apparently Texan lawmakers lacks


Also you do realise that there were rally by women in Texas against the law so you are really saying who cares what women are saying lawmakers know better.

Ps all the ******* who made this bill are male the fact they didn't even bother consulting a women before making the decision is a slap to the face of all women not in Texas but whole of US