no more abortions!

[Forever_frost]

Man, you and Jim should get together so you can pow-wow about your ability to not see the distinction between the circumstances. I bet it'll be an awesome meeting.

The only distinction is the woman deciding to kill the child versus someone else. Now if you're all for parents having authority when to kill their kids, we can discuss that as I'm sure there's quite a bit to cover

[racrguy]

Funny we already have laws on the books defining what a baby is.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.1.htm#1.07

If you shoot a pregnant woman and kill the baby, that's then murder or manslaughter.

A person trying to commit suicide is charged with a Class C misdemeanor or jail time.

BUT, aiding or giving permission to kill an unborn "individual", as defined by the state, is a OK.

Right...

Man, you and Jim should get together so you can pow-wow about your ability to not see the distinction between the circumstances. I bet it'll be an awesome meeting.

[Forever_frost]

Holy shit. There we go. Texas statute says an individual is a being who is alive including an unborn child at EVERY stage. Next?

[GhostTX]

Funny we already have laws on the books defining what a baby is.

(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#1.07

If you shoot a pregnant woman and kill the baby, that's then murder or manslaughter.

A person trying to commit suicide is charged with a Class C misdemeanor or jail time.

BUT, aiding or giving permission to kill an unborn "individual", as defined by the state, is a OK.

Right...

[Broncojohnny]

Detailing how that death(or one of the methods of abortion, as detailed above) would occur is nothing more than a ploy to evoke an emotional response with no rational value.

I agree. Next time you meet a woman who has had a miscarriage you should tell her to fucking get over it. Or is this just another liberal double standard to add to a long list of double standards?

[racrguy]

By 'allowing a woman to maintain bodily integrity', you're invading the bodily integrity of another in the most invasive way. A right extends only as far as it does not infringe on the right of another. So a fetus only becomes a baby at birth? Or is there a point between conception and birth?

Your analogy fails in that for it to be fair, for me to maintain control over my kidney I be allowed to drive a pike into the skull of the person on life support and not only kill them but desecrate their body afterwards or by injecting them with a toxic batch of chemicals that is intended to kill them.

If we're talking the life of the mother, I'm good with that discussion but having one just because it's inconvenient to have a baby even though the way to stop having kids unexpectedly is so simple? Fuck no. Every time I get laid, I don't have a right to wait for a bit before killing someone because their existence is an inconvenience.

Why is it a baby if I punch a woman in the gut and force her to miscarriage but a fetus if she wants to kill it? Why baby showers when in your own words, it's not a baby, it's a fetus? No, it's no ploy for an emotional response. For that I could provide pictures and descriptions. I'm using what is actually happening.

We've already been over all of your misconceptions and questions. Re-read the threads about abortion. I'm not going to repeat myself.

[Forever_frost]

By 'allowing a woman to maintain bodily integrity', you're invading the bodily integrity of another in the most invasive way. A right extends only as far as it does not infringe on the right of another. So a fetus only becomes a baby at birth? Or is there a point between conception and birth?

Your analogy fails in that for it to be fair, for me to maintain control over my kidney I be allowed to drive a pike into the skull of the person on life support and not only kill them but desecrate their body afterwards or by injecting them with a toxic batch of chemicals that is intended to kill them.

If we're talking the life of the mother, I'm good with that discussion but having one just because it's inconvenient to have a baby even though the way to stop having kids unexpectedly is so simple? Fuck no. Every time I get laid, I don't have a right to wait for a bit before killing someone because their existence is an inconvenience.

Why is it a baby if I punch a woman in the gut and force her to miscarriage but a fetus if she wants to kill it? Why baby showers when in your own words, it's not a baby, it's a fetus? No, it's no ploy for an emotional response. For that I could provide pictures and descriptions. I'm using what is actually happening.

[Maddhattter]

Who are they to decide that tax dollars get to go to killing a child?

1. An abortion is not the killing of a child. Children have already been born.
2. They are the people with the authority to decide where tax dollars go.

However, neither of the above statements have anything to do with my question which, to me, makes it look like you're avoiding it.

Interesting that you would say that. What would you call driving a drill into the skull of a child, vacuuming it's brains out, collapsing the skull, drag them out, cut the spinal cord and throwing the body in a trash can if not "subverting someone's bodily integrity?"

I would call that one of the methods used on a fetus to allow a woman to maintain bodily integrity, as is her right. As a fetus is not a person, and therefor has no rights, it does not have the right to bodily integrity. Also, even if it were a person and did have rights, there are currently no non-lethal methods of evicting it from the mother's uterus.

When there is a non-lethal method of allowing the mother to maintain bodily integrity without damaging the mother's body, I would wholly support abandoning the lethal abortion processes for the non-lethal.

Much like if there were someone needed one of your kidneys because without it they would die. You would be within your rights, as you have the right to your own bodily integrity, to have your kidney denied to that person knowing it would cause them a slow and agonizing death.

Detailing how that death(or one of the methods of abortion, as detailed above) would occur is nothing more than a ploy to evoke an emotional response with no rational value.

[Vertnut]

Okay, going by your theory, what was Gosnell convicted of if he's merely ridding the body of a parasite.

3 murder charges, along with 21 felony counts of "late term" abortions, and 211 counts of violating the "24 hour consent" law.

[racrguy]

Okay, going by your theory, what was Gosnell convicted of if he's merely ridding the body of a parasite.

He was found guilty of breaking the law. The only murder charges he was given were a result of him killing babies that were born live.

[Forever_frost]

I'd call it ridding the body of an unviable parasite.

Okay, going by your theory, what was Gosnell convicted of if he's merely ridding the body of a parasite.

[racrguy]

Interesting that you would say that. What would you call driving a drill into the skull of a child, vacuuming it's brains out, collapsing the skull, drag them out, cut the spinal cord and throwing the body in a trash can if not "subverting someone's bodily integrity?"

I'd call it ridding the body of an unviable parasite.

[Forever_frost]

I completely understand your position and agree with you. I'm not intending to imply that he doesn't have a right to an opinion or to vote. I'm just trying to get down to why he feels that he has the right to arbitrarily subvert someone's bodily integrity.

My value of his opinion, and therefore desire to continue this conversation, is going to be based on the justification behind his reasoning. If his justification is from an unreasonable position, then there is no point in continuing this conversation. If it's based on a reasonable position, then that's the topic that needs to be discussed because this position is wholly dependent on the justification.

Sorry if I misconstrued my intent.

Interesting that you would say that. What would you call driving a drill into the skull of a child, vacuuming it's brains out, collapsing the skull, drag them out, cut the spinal cord and throwing the body in a trash can if not "subverting someone's bodily integrity?"

[Forever_frost]

Why do you get to decide what biological services a woman is required to provide and what at what point in time, arbitrary as yours is, that she should be able to receive no assistance?

Honestly, as far as federal funding goes, I don't disagree with only providing federal assistance in cases of medical need and the allowances made by the Hyde clause. Beyond that (private funding of any kind), I no longer have any say how anyone else’s money is spent, nor do I have the right to remove a person’s bodily integrity. Does that have the unfortunate side effect of someone else loosing their life due to this choice? Sure. It can have that effect in any situation involving bodily integrity.

On a side note that’s more on topic: I’d imagine that if Abbott was so sure that this bill would survive the lawsuits being brought against it, he’d be more than happy to allow the statutes to be postponed a few months in order to validate his position rather than scramble to get an emergency session to get it pushed through.

Who are they to decide that tax dollars get to go to killing a child?

[Maddhattter]

This is one statement that is sort of annoying in regards to these debates. He does not get to decide, he gets to have an opinion and vote just like the rest of us.

I do wish *I* could decide all things, *I* would be very happy. (Until my bad decisions haunted me.)

I completely understand your position and agree with you. I'm not intending to imply that he doesn't have a right to an opinion or to vote. I'm just trying to get down to why he feels that he has the right to arbitrarily subvert someone's bodily integrity.

My value of his opinion, and therefore desire to continue this conversation, is going to be based on the justification behind his reasoning. If his justification is from an unreasonable position, then there is no point in continuing this conversation. If it's based on a reasonable position, then that's the topic that needs to be discussed because this position is wholly dependent on the justification.

Sorry if I misconstrued my intent.