Texas Senate Filibuster Regarding Abortion

[Reincarnate]

Originally Posted by adlp

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?

Originally Posted by adlp

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Arkuski

What's wrong with encouraging sexual responsibility?

Nothing.

Originally Posted by Arkuski

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]

Originally Posted by Arkuski

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]

relevant:

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse....i?u=regressive

[Aldentron]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Izzy

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

Basically.

[Choofers]

Originally Posted by Aldentron

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]

Originally Posted by adlp

quick someone start a death penalty thread that will be fun

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

[dore]

Arguing for the sake of arguing:

Originally Posted by Reincarnate

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]

Originally Posted by dore

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]

Originally Posted by Choofers

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]

Originally Posted by Frank Munoz

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]

Originally Posted by dore

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."

Originally Posted by dore

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.

[Reincarnate]

Originally Posted by Choofers

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

Why?

1. It's crazy expensive and costs way more than just putting the bastard in jail for life.

2. It's final. If an innocent man is jailed, at least he can still be set free later. An innocent man who's put to death can't be resurrected. Enough people have been released from death row based on new evidence to suggest that the death penalty would result in a lot of mistakes.

3. It hasn't empirically been shown to be a deterrent, either (if anything, rates tend to be higher AFAIK).

4. What is the actual point of it? Punishment/revenge? I don't think this is particularly useful once you get right down into it. It also perpetuates this oversimplified idea of "eye for an eye" in society, especially where killing/violence is concerned.

5. For the same level of crime, after normalization, poor people suffer the brunt of death penalty laws. For something so serious, this is a big problem.

That all being said, I don't think it's necessarily a hard-set rule. I can come up with scenarios in which the death penalty is probably the way to go, but I have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to get there. Most of the time I see life-in-prison as the superior alternative.

[Mollocephalus]

Arf, is it too late to debate abortion?

Basically i agree with what has been said, if you care about not having abortions, instead of shutting down clinics you should invest on education. Let me tell you, only in bigot states inside USA there are arguments for abstinence until marriage. No other developed country in the world has it (altho a lot of UNDERDEVELOPED countries have it, which should give you a hint). That is for a good reason, considering sexuality is a fundamental part of people's life. Now, regardless of which is your threshold for human being vs not human being, think about the impact an abortion ban will rise.

1. I'm sure you must have studied it in american history, it is widely known that in the early decades of the XX century, when abortions were difficult and mostly illegal, there were a lot of orphans which turned out being a societal stigma. These orphans without education and/or any opportunity in life often turned out being gangsters. So, having someone keep their baby only to give it away for adoption is already a really bad idea, both for the costs of it to the society and for the potential social problems it may later cause. Criminals are usually former poor, uneducated and socially isolated guys. If you put a human being in such a situation that makes it likely for that person become a drag on society, it seems like you should rethink your options.

2. As it was said, if you ban abortions they will happen anyway. And without a real doctor in most circumstances, the result will be higher chances of the mother having permanent damage or even dying in the process. You'll be fueling a black market of amateur aborters which will for sure not pay taxes, unlike abortion clinics. And even if you put penalities for those who abort illegally, do you think it would change anything? You will never know (and neither will i) what it's like to have something in the womb you didn't want. It can drive you insane, and similarly to what has been said about death sentence not making crimes less likely, penalities on unauthorized abortions wouldn't stop a desperate woman.

3. I'm not sure if what aldentron says is correct but generally abortion clinics are also sexual health clinics. If you shut them down, where will people go if they have a sexual problem? You may not be aware, but due to the complexity of a woman's body, there so much more to keep an eye on. Does it sound right to you to take away even more health services from them?

You can argue all you want on the other aspects of abortions, but these are facts and if you really are thoughtfully anti-abortion you should logically be pro-sex education and pro-contraceptives AT LEAST. And be aware of the grave consequences a decision like that would bring. But if you want my blunt opinion, being anti-abortion just means being anti-women and ultimately does only damage to the society - just because you are so fixed on putting every conceived stub of a human body on the same level as a sentient person. I could tell you that a lot of fertilized eggs are aborted by the woman's body spontaneously. I'm sure you witty guys can come up with ingenious ways to stop self abortions so everyone will live!!

On death penality
A wrong execution can't be undone. Do we have to say more? Inmates are a huge cost for any country, which makes me think the only way you can do something about is forced labour for everyone who is in jail. Basically the idea is they should produce wealth for AT LEAST their sustainance cost. As stated earlier, death row is another ridiculous (and worthless) cost, on top of that it won't even stop a desperate person - a criminal is often a desperate person, when not mentally unstable or socially compromised by its background. You can't tame it with the promise of the utmost punishment. And when you execute someone who is innocent... well. You know what it means. Death sentence is just legalized murder, and nothing more.

[Cavernio]

I don't know why many pro-lifers pretend a fetus is less than it is.
I don't know why, under what many pro-lifers advocate, that if the father wanted to have a child but the mother didn't, that it's rightfully the mother's choice to abort it. (Given her health is safe and sex was consensual, etc.) A single father is just as capable of raising a kid as a single mother.
Abortion shouldn't be about the mother and her body and letting her do what she wants to it. It's about the fact that you're making a freaking person and it's growing inside a woman. It is not an unnecessary organ that's merely a bundle of cells, it's not like a tumor in a woman. Birth just happens to be a very easy, obvious landmark for when a person becomes an individual. Realistically, passing through a birth canal doesn't magically infuse sentience, life, a spirit, etc.
Abortion isn't something that people take lightly, and ideally any parent(s) who chooses to get an abortion should be well-informed about all their options and about the stages of the fetus' development. Closing abortion clinics would not help that goal. And as aldentron pointed out, abortion clinics double as women's sexual health clinics.

There are instances when I think it's cruel to not have an abortion, something like known, fatal diseases, where the baby will die, seemingly painfully, within a few months time. Some trisomies for instance.
Adoption for a kid from birth, in north American society at least, seems like it would always be an option, what with the number of couples who have problems conceiving. That's entirely speculation on my part though.
If adoption from birth isn't an option, and you know you're not going to be able to look after a child properly, that there's a good chance they'll end up in a bad foster system because you're, say, a drug addict, that's an instance where I'd seriously consider an abortion.
I mean, there are a number of other instances where I don't think abortion is the wrong choice, or where it could be the right choice.
But in general, I don't like the idea of abortion. It's highly selfish and borders on murder, but mainly I just dislike most pro-choicer's definitive stance that a fetus is 'merely a bundle of cells, therefore it's just a part of a woman and she has a right to remove it'. Realistically though, I'd guess most abortions are done on young women who are scared to let most people know they're pregnant, and who fear for their safety, livelihood and being an outcast.

[Reincarnate]

The "bundle of cells" argument is meant to illustrate that it's not yet "human" (with respect to utility constructs), even if it has all the necessary material genetically. It's a bad choice of words and I would encourage people to stop saying it, because even now, we're just bundles of cells and whatnot.

My general point is that until something becomes sentient, I don't think it's morally wrong to abort it. I've yet to see a single convincing argument to show otherwise. Every response I see is "Well, a fertilized egg will become a child eventually."

So what? Whether I abort it early or simply not have sex in the first place, either way I'm not taking sentience/utility away from something that has experienced it before, nor am I causing anyone pain.

[Cavernio]

We don't know when sentience happens. And I still wouldn't call a non-sentient fetus as a regular part of a woman's body therefore it's her choice to do what she wants to it. Besides which, such a way of thinking about a fetus gives men absolutely no control over their own reproduction. I'd say that's against human rights.

But using the sentience argument also means we shouldn't eat or kill animals. Ultimately it's not just that a fetus may have some basic form of sentience at some point (it kinda has to, if we believe a newborn is sentient), is that it's human sentience. Which implies that there's something special about humanity itself, sentient or not.

If you don't know if someone is alive or not, the most moral stance is to assume that they are, rather than take a chance and say they're not. Same goes for sentience.