Texas Senate Filibuster Regarding Abortion

[Reincarnate]

Re: Texas Senate Filibuster Regarding Abortion

for me the cutoff for potential would be a fertilized egg, because it will naturally develop and obtain sentience

But it isn't sentient until much later on in the process. What is the difference between "it will become sentient through time alone" and "it will become sentient if you have sex and let time run its course"? Why is fertilization the important cutoff point if no pre-existing utility is lost in either case?

i dont know how to articulate my reasoning against this without involving religious beliefs. i would tie it in with my belief in a soul's premortal and postmortal existence

How does the idea of a soul have any impact on the level of suffering a child endures? Either way, I would say that your (plural general "your") religious beliefs shouldn't be pushed onto others when their choices do not impinge on your life in this context.

If someone believes in a soul and wishes to carry a baby to term, that's their choice. But I don't think it's right to hold others to that same religious standard.

EDIT: I won't make fun of your stance -- I'm just asking for clarification so I can better understand.

[Arkuski]

Re: Texas Senate Filibuster Regarding Abortion

Before I devote myself to a rigorous justification, I pose this thought.

What's wrong with encouraging sexual responsibility? Why can't we expect people to engage in sexual intercourse only after marriage purely for the purpose of procreation?

By the most recent DragonIIDX Census, around 85% of you are virgins, so some of you must agree.

[Izzy]

Re: Texas Senate Filibuster Regarding Abortion

What's wrong with encouraging sexual responsibility?

Nothing.

Why can't we expect people to engage in sexual intercourse only after marriage purely for the purpose of procreation?

Whoa, totally different ballpark. Why should anyone be expected to be abstinent until marriage? It's their own body they can do with it as they please assuming it doesn't harm others.

[Reincarnate]

Re: Texas Senate Filibuster Regarding Abortion

Why can't we expect people to engage in sexual intercourse only after marriage purely for the purpose of procreation?

Because it shoehorns everyone into a particular lifestyle that isn't necessary in order to achieve the intended goal. People have sex for pleasure (and not necessarily procreation) -- and a vast majority of sexual activity falls into this category. Not everyone wishes to get married, nor does everyone follow the same religion (or are religious at all). Why is marriage even important here?

It also ignores the fact that some pregnancies happen even if someone lives with the intention of being fully abstinent (e.g. rape). Furthermore, someone getting an abortion doesn't impinge on your life in any direct, empirical way.

Sexual responsibility can be vastly improved upon by increasing access to contraception and education. It's a less-invasive way to prevent pregnancies (and abortions), as it doesn't require the need to force everyone into one particular lifestyle.

[Calcium Deposit]

Re: Texas Senate Filibuster Regarding Abortion

relevant:

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=regressive

[Aldentron]

Re: Texas Senate Filibuster Regarding Abortion

this bill is intended to close down women's health clinics.
as in places women go to get health care
i feel like it should go without saying that Planned Parenthood offers many more services than just abortions, but you MEN wouldn't know anything about that because you've never had a problem with your vagina before. you MEN probably don't even know where the nearest one is on a day when there's not protesters outside it. so shut the fuck up and take the back seat on this one.

and you should especially not go around flaunting who you rub elbows with because this is the internet and nobody gives an actual fuck and its not like that experience w diplomats and military officials gave you a degree in women's health either bro so chill out with that shit

[NeoMasterPie]

Re: Texas Senate Filibuster Regarding Abortion

Everyone's ideas of what justifies what are different. There's literally no end to the abortion debate other than majority rules and there will always be those unhappy about it. You can fight for change but squabbling on a forum ain't gonna do shit. Pce y'all.

[Frank Munoz]

Re: Texas Senate Filibuster Regarding Abortion

It's their own body they can do with it as they please assuming it doesn't harm others.

Basically.

[Choofers]

Re: Texas Senate Filibuster Regarding Abortion

this bill is intended to close down women's health clinics.
as in places women go to get health care
i feel like it should go without saying that Planned Parenthood offers many more services than just abortions, but you MEN wouldn't know anything about that because you've never had a problem with your vagina before. you MEN probably don't even know where the nearest one is on a day when there's not protesters outside it. so shut the fuck up and take the back seat on this one.

and you should especially not go around flaunting who you rub elbows with because this is the internet and nobody gives an actual fuck and its not like that experience w diplomats and military officials gave you a degree in women's health either bro so chill out with that shit

ironictron

[Choofers]

Re: Texas Senate Filibuster Regarding Abortion

quick someone start a death penalty thread that will be fun

I think crimes can be considered punishable by death, hate on me

[dore]

Re: Texas Senate Filibuster Regarding Abortion

Arguing for the sake of arguing:

But it isn't sentient until much later on in the process. What is the difference between "it will become sentient through time alone" and "it will become sentient if you have sex and let time run its course"? Why is fertilization the important cutoff point if no pre-existing utility is lost in either case?

The difference would be that fertilization requires actually performing the act which starts the whole process. If I never have sex, my sperm has no potential for becoming human life because it doesn't have the opportunity to combine with the other half of what's needed to make a human being. By exposing sperm to the egg, you actually create that potential for life, and that would be why one could make that distinction.

My opinion:

People are going to get rid of babies they don't want, whether it be by coat-hanger or crazy pills or throwing them in a dumpster. All of those are horrible things that cause suffering for the child or danger for the mother. I would rather a woman with an unwanted pregnancy to be able to get rid of the baby in the safest, cleanest way possible for the safety of everyone involved. Taking doctors out of the equation by taking away access or whatever other legislation you could use just makes it more dangerous for the people who are going to do it any way. To me, limiting abortion directly is treating the symptom and not the cause. If you want to lower the abortion rate, lower the rate of unwanted pregnancies. Making abortion illegal won't make it go away, and that's what some legislators ignore.

[Frank Munoz]

Re: Texas Senate Filibuster Regarding Abortion

Making abortion illegal won't make it go away, and that's what some legislators ignore.

Also, what punishment would "illegal aborting" hold? If abortion really is the same as killing a living human than should the aborting perpetrator be held for the same crime as killing a full grown woman?

[adlp]

Re: Texas Senate Filibuster Regarding Abortion

I think crimes can be considered punishable by death, hate on me

i agree with you and i think the system needs revamping so it doesnt cost so much on the taxpayers

[dore]

Re: Texas Senate Filibuster Regarding Abortion

Also, what punishment would "illegal aborting" hold? If abortion really is the same as killing a living human than should the aborting perpetrator be held for the same crime as killing a full grown woman?

"Personhood amendments" that have been proposed would make that indeed the case. Abortion would then equal murder under the law. I haven't read the Texas law so I don't know how that would work, although if there is no part of the law making a fertilized egg/fetus a person under the law then I would assume it could only be considered self-harm. Which seems like it would defeat the whole purpose

[Reincarnate]

Re: Texas Senate Filibuster Regarding Abortion

The difference would be that fertilization requires actually performing the act which starts the whole process. If I never have sex, my sperm has no potential for becoming human life because it doesn't have the opportunity to combine with the other half of what's needed to make a human being. By exposing sperm to the egg, you actually create that potential for life, and that would be why one could make that distinction.

This doesn't technically address the question that was put forth. Yes, the difference is that one started the process and one "could" start the process. By definition (and by the very question itself) we already know this is true. The question is why this distinction matters with respect to all utilitarian concerns, to which I say "it doesn't."

People are going to get rid of babies they don't want, whether it be by coat-hanger or crazy pills or throwing them in a dumpster. All of those are horrible things that cause suffering for the child or danger for the mother. I would rather a woman with an unwanted pregnancy to be able to get rid of the baby in the safest, cleanest way possible for the safety of everyone involved. Taking doctors out of the equation by taking away access or whatever other legislation you could use just makes it more dangerous for the people who are going to do it any way. To me, limiting abortion directly is treating the symptom and not the cause. If you want to lower the abortion rate, lower the rate of unwanted pregnancies. Making abortion illegal won't make it go away, and that's what some legislators ignore.

Yeppppp.