Texas Abortion Law Update: Passed

[buck008]

Thing is, a kid wouldn't need to protect themselves in sex if they didn't do it. At the end of the day, if you DON'T want a baby (Hence abortions) then don't have sex, that's the only way not to get pregnant. I generally don't agree with Abortion, seriously, the idea that it's "my body" is so selfish it makes me want to hurl. What about the child who gets no voice?

Pro choice is funny, because I'm pretty sure people who make bombs in their house in America would be Arrested. Yet what for? The potential for death? So we arrest for potential for death but don't care about potential for life?

Ok, let's say you have a 16 year old kid. You can tell him:

A. Don't have sex.

B. There are consequences to making adult decisions like having sex and these are the methods you take to protect yourself.

Which is more effective?

Also, the fetus grows in a woman's body. It can not live for a certain amount of time outside of it. Until it has a brain, heart, stomach, etc... in what way exactly is it a human?

[Bridgetjones]

So, if the Republican model of abstinence, which is 100% effective, is taught but ignored, then it must be the Republicans fault that someone got preggers?

I think i'm starting to understand this thing called "liberal logic". Just remove all logic and blame the republicans!

No, if you insist on teaching something that does not work IN PRACTICE, then it doesn't matter how effective it is in theory. Abstinence-only does not take into account social and biological realities of teenagers' minds and bodies. Of course, rejection of science and reality is your party's strongest suit.

[HarleyM]

there's nothing more corrupt than a corporation. they are privately owned tyrannies that have control over the population.

You realize Curse, the owner of mmo-champion, is a corporation, right? Who you are supporting by using this forum?

[Masark]

The random people polled just happened to be more in favor of pro-life than those polled 2 years prior (not even the same people iirc, which is another huge point of failure: comparing apples / oranges). That is all this says.

What if they would have polled a different set of people and it showed that these people were more in favor of pro-choice/abortion? Or even better - what if *all* 1024 random people were in favor of one or the other? Then the poll would have "shown" that "America is more in favor of pro-choice", which is bullshit.

Only way to get an accurate assessment in anything like this is to poll the whole country (unrealistic, since we can't even get the whole adult population of legal residents to even fkn vote) or as close to the whole country as possible (which is also unrealistic, but only because it's financially moronic to do so). Using statistics in this manner is nothing but misleading bullshit and fodder for armchair political scientists like us (in general, not you and I per se) to incessantly debate something that doesn't even matter.

1. Doesn't need to be the same people, just representative of the population.

2. Highly unlikely for a properly collected random sample.

3. Yet Nate Silver correctly predicted the results of the presidential election using similar such polls and some analysis.

[theredviola]

Let's at least get one thing strait. There is no "Pro-Life." They're "Pro-Birth" and "Pro-shaming of women who engage in sexual activity prior to marriage."

[Agnar]

and humans are killed all the time when they can't get an abortion. i.e. pro-life conservatives (lol)

Yes, because they died while trying to bear a child translates to, they couldn't get an abortion so that is why they died not because they wanted to bear the child?

[ngc2440]

But what he said is very true. Pro-choicers like to disguise the act of what they're doing with terms that make it less significant when you kill an unborn child. The fact that all you can do is insult the person with no effective argument supports the accuracy of his statements.

It is called using correct terminology. He then went off his rocker about words and eventually started calling it hamburgers. You are really taking the stance that we are suppose to take him seriously when he cannot approach this as an adult? Sure you could call a fetus a baby but that is not what a 10 week old is. That right there is why I have a hard time taking those that wave the "pro-life" banner seriously. They refuse to use proper terminology, instead using terms that are not only incorrect but in an attempt to appeal to emotion.

[Maleficus]

It is a human clump of cells with no emotion or any sense of self or being. It is not a person. It has no concept of fear or love, it has no aspirations or even a personality to speak of.

How do you prove this?

If we start snuffing based on the bolded, i fear many human cell clumps may be in trouble - the out-of-the-womb variety.

[ngc2440]

No decrease = remain constant (or increase). I haven't lost you yet, have i?

My apologies. I am man enough to admit when I misread.

[Kraenen]

You realize Curse, the owner of mmo-champion, is a corporation, right? Who you are supporting by using this forum?

Name one way I'm supporting them

[Agnar]

It is called using correct terminology. He then went off his rocker about words and eventually started calling it hamburgers. You are really taking the stance that we are suppose to take him seriously when he cannot approach this as an adult? Sure you could call a fetus a baby but that is not what a 10 week old is. That right there is why I have a hard time taking those that wave the "pro-life" banner seriously. They refuse to use proper terminology, instead using terms that are not only incorrect but in an attempt to appeal to emotion.

So they have to use "your" terminology? Otherwise they are wrong, childish and should go sit in a corner because that is just insane? There's nothing wrong with trying to simplify a situation so people can understand what they are trying to convey more easily.

[buck008]

How do you prove this?

If we start snuffing based on the bolded, i fear many human cell clumps may be in trouble - the out-of-the-womb variety.

If it doesn't have a brain yet, then it can think and feel about as much as a houseplant can.


@Agnar: The difference is that fetus is a scientific term with a clear definition. "Life begins at conception" is an abstract principle based upon personal ideology or morality.

[HarleyM]

The only thing that makes the good of the government "better" than corporations is that a corporations' direct interest is in making profit, while a government's direct interest is perpetuity. Perpetuity is far more in line with aiding the people if you look at it in direct comparison.

I disagree. Set aside that the distinction of "for-profit" versus "not-for-profit" relates only to shareholders, and that board members working for NPOs can make more than those working for for-profit entities. Perpetuity, by definition, looks only to the self. Because often what is best for the people is not what is most popular, and popularity begets perpetuity. Corporations look to maximize long-term profits (though the time value of money more heavily weights present profits) - they look to doing what is best for the shareholders. A corporation's shareholders are its citizenry. The government, by contrast, is much more likely to do what is popular with its citizenry, its shareholders, than what is best for them, in order to win votes.

I am not commenting on this specific hospital, but on corporations as a whole. Similarly, I am commenting on governments as a whole, as I could provide much more egregious violations of specific governmental organizations than this hospital, but do not feel that doing so would be helpful for the overall discourse.

[ngc2440]

So they have to use "your" terminology? Otherwise they are wrong, childish and should go sit in a corner because that is just insane? There's nothing wrong with trying to simplify a situation so people can understand what they are trying to convey more easily.

My terminology? Has the concept of a dictionary been lost to people?

[Laize]

So you are perfectly ok with policies that direct, not indirectly but directly, bring harm to specific individuals in the name of profit... that's really all I needed to see.

Who is directly harmed by their policies?

[Maleficus]

No, if you insist on teaching something that does not work IN PRACTICE, then it doesn't matter how effective it is in theory.

If the test scores are bad, make the tests easier right? No wonder Americans are in the educational situation they are in.

[HarleyM]

Name one way I'm supporting them

You are posting on their forums, at the top of which ads are posted, and for each view they receive additional revenue. Even if you personally are running adblock, I am not, and your post is inciting a response, causing me to have an extra ad view, generating revenue for the corporation.

[Kraenen]

How do you prove this?

If we start snuffing based on the bolded, i fear many human cell clumps may be in trouble - the out-of-the-womb variety.

Indeed. This is the part where I depart from the pro-choice side. If the statement were to be taken as reason for killing, you could expand to any psychotic person, which, as a psychologist in training, worries me a great deal. Of course I know that's not what he actually wants, but it just shows how there was no real reason given. Such a valid reason would be, of course, likely damage or death of the mother, damage or death of the child (psychological or otherwise), or rape and incest.

[Maleficus]

If it doesn't have a brain yet, then it can think and feel about as much as a houseplant can.

If you would be so kind, remind me again when the brain forms.

[Laize]

Ok, let's say you have a 16 year old kid. You can tell him:

A. Don't have sex.

B. There are consequences to making adult decisions like having sex and these are the methods you take to protect yourself.

Which is more effective?

Also, the fetus grows in a woman's body. It can not live for a certain amount of time outside of it. Until it has a brain, heart, stomach, etc... in what way exactly is it a human?

I definite "human" as being of the species homo sapiens at the genetic level. Not sure of any other way TO define a human. A fetus is a human at a different life stage similar to how a maggot is still a fly, just at a different life stage.

That said, I have no problem killing humans if the situation warrants it such as if someone's rights are being violated.