no more abortions!

[Denny]

Oh, I understand it completely. You just haven't justified your ban on abortions. Until the point of viability, there's no life to protect.


And the legal one as well.

Weak as laws of man

[racrguy]

I'd say it's MORE important to protect an innocent, fragile human life.

I agree, now explain how something that cannot survive without hijacking every single bodily function from another being is life.

Wrong.


(26) "Individual" means a human being who is alive, including an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.u...E/htm/PE.1.htm

You're going to need to provide more context, as that is the penal code. I think where they're going with that is the angle of injuring a pregnant mother and killing the fetus being murder.

And yes, I'm baffled why this legal definition isn't used to defend a fetus in an abortion.

Because it's not a person.

Weak as laws of man

Your religious laws do not apply to me or anyone else unless they wish them to be.

[Denny]

It's not a religious issue.

[racrguy]

It's not a religious issue.

Then what exactly do you mean when you state "laws of man." Typically when people use phrases like that they're talking about religious laws.

[GhostTX]

I agree, now explain how something that cannot survive without hijacking every single bodily function from another being is life.

A fetus doesn't hijack every function, in fact, it grows independently of the mother. Mom, simplistically, is an eggshell and a yolk.

You're going to need to provide more context, as that is the penal code. I think where they're going with that is the angle of injuring a pregnant mother and killing the fetus being murder.

Per the penal code: intentional killing of a fetus is murder and unintentional killing of a fetus is manslaughter. Which one is abortion?

Because it's not a person.

You're right. It's an individual according to the law.

[Denny]

Then what exactly do you mean when you state "laws of man." Typically when people use phrases like that they're talking about religious laws.

If the courts ruled the fetus to be a person, would you still be for it?

Only religion I see here is man dictating a justifiable murder.

I know of several non-believers against abortion. Are you going to use your "It's just your stupid religion" bullshit with them as well?

[racrguy]

A fetus doesn't hijack every function, in fact, it grows independently of the mother. Mom, simplistically, is an eggshell and a yolk.

You don't know much about pregnancies, do you?

Per the penal code: intentional killing of a fetus is murder and unintentional killing of a fetus is manslaughter. Which one is abortion?

Neither, as it's a choice made to terminate a parasitic invasion. We do it countless times per day in issuing antibiotics and performing surgery to remove foreign objects.

You're right. It's an individual according to the law.

Only in the context I provided earlier.

[GhostTX]

You don't know much about pregnancies, do you?

I've got 3 kids. How many do you have? I'd wager you don't know how a baby get it's nutrient, nor the fact that the baby and mother's blood never touch nor how the placenta works.

Neither, as it's a choice made to terminate a parasitic invasion. We do it countless times per day in issuing antibiotics and performing surgery to remove foreign objects.

You are way off to classify a human life in the same category as a virus or amoeba. Neither one of those grow into something more than it's simplistic single cell. A fetus grows into something more. Heck, a fetus IS something more. The end goal of a parasite HAS to have the host to live. The end goal of a fetus is to become independent.

[racrguy]

If the courts ruled the fetus to be a person, would you still be for it?

I wouldn't agree with it, but at that point there would be no other avenue to challenge outside of getting it repealed.

Only religion I see here is man dictating a justifiable murder.

Something must be alive in order to murder it.

I know of several non-believers against abortion. Are you going to use your "It's just your stupid religion" bullshit with them as well?

No. I don't recall when I've ever used that one. I'd like to see their justifications before I can attack their position.

[CWO]

Yep, Googled it. I learned something today.

[GhostTX]

Yep, Googled it. I learned something today.

LOL...I was going to respond to your question, then when I did, your original was message was gone, so I deleted mine. I figured you done got learned and deleted the question.

[bcoop]

Brent is right. Until Republicans stop worrying so goddamn much about people with different religious beliefs doing whatever they please with their body they are going to continue to get pummeled. It makes them look like fucking nut jobs some of these stances they take. It isnt the 1950's any more.

Yep. I guess some of the holier than thous posting in here have the same line of thought as Todd Akin. And I'm pretty sure Jesus himself is sitting up in a cloud somewhere next to the spaghetti monster, laughing at general stupidity.

[Forever_frost]

I'd say it's MORE important to protect an innocent, fragile human life.


Wrong.


(26) "Individual" means a human being who is alive, including an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.1.htm

And yes, I'm baffled why this legal definition isn't used to defend a fetus in an abortion.

Racr keeps ignoring this little bit right here.

[Maddhattter]

(26) "Individual" means a human being who is alive, including an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.u...E/htm/PE.1.htm

You do realize that by this statement, "an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth" would not be considered a "human being who is alive" because it had to be explicitly included, right?

You see, this's how the english language works... If the fetus was to be included in the definition of a "human being who is alive", there would be no point in including it in the definition of individual, that is used in the penal code, after the fact.

I've got 3 kids. How many do you have?

Having children is irrelevant to having knowledge of how pregnancies work. People were having kids long before they understood the process and plenty of people are having kids in this day and age not understanding the process.

A fetus doesn't hijack every function, in fact, it grows independently of the mother. Mom, simplistically, is an eggshell and a yolk.

In fact, this statement indicates that you are one of those people who has children, but does not understand the biology of the matter. Viviparous birth (the type of live birth that humans have) has a significantly different process than oviparous(the type of egg birth that most reptiles/avians have).

If your analogy was accurate, there would be no biological reason for the placenta.

[GhostTX]

You do realize that by this statement, "an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth" would not be considered a "human being who is alive" because it had to be explicitly included, right?

You see, this's how the english language works... If the fetus was to be included in the definition of a "human being who is alive", there would be no point in including it in the definition of individual, that is used in the penal code, after the fact.

No, penal code cites that the fetus is an individual. I never said the fetus was a human, I'm merely pointing the law cites that the fetus is recognized as an entity that is protected by law.

Having children is irrelevant to having knowledge of how pregnancies work. People were having kids long before they understood the process and plenty of people are having kids in this day and age not understanding the process.

I'll give you that. But I would say that two people without doing research, the one that goes through a pregnancy is going to know more about pregnancy than the one that doesn't.

In fact, this statement indicates that you are one of those people who has children, but does not understand the biology of the matter. Viviparous birth (the type of live birth that humans have) has a significantly different process than oviparous(the type of egg birth that most reptiles/avians have).

If your analogy was accurate, there would be no biological reason for the placenta.

I never said it was the same. I said simplistically, ergo for comparison: the mom is an eggshell (providing protection) and the yolk (providing nutrients) to the baby.

Nice try at deflection, but an a fore mentioned comment to racrguy already asks how the placenta works, which I do, thanks. Your premise I know nothing because I tried to illustrate to a basic example fails. I'm glad you had to look up those big words to appear like you know something, though. Getting educated is a good thing.