Texas Passes Bill to Require Sonograms Before Abortions

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I didnt know that asking people to take responsibility for their actions was a extreme point of view.

Forcing people to adhere to an arbitrary and puritanical standard of sexual responsibility is absolutely an extremist point of view.

[Zero Sum 305]

Everything he's suggested is romanticised garbage. He assumes the social care system can handle a few millions extra cases a year without incurring significant cost. Likewise he assumes that there are a few million suitable parents able, willing and suitable to adopt millions of babies.

Let's not talk about the deficiencies of adoption system either. Once you've thrown out the gays, prospective parents whose race differs from the child and everything else the pro life church folk disapprove of, there'll probably be about a dozen people and half of them won't pass the background check, let alone the fees involved.

But at least in Simpsons cartoon world, the sun is always shining ;-)

Its as if the adoption system under its current structure- finances included, is A-OK. This is what you get in a black and white world of thought.

I didnt know that asking people to take responsibility for their actions was a extreme point of view.

The emotional damage. I have talked with people who have had abortions and they still cry about it.

Perhaps its valid empirical evidence. To the contrary, many other people have also spoken to women who've aborted and they don't cry about it. That's also valid empirical evidence.

[_Simpson_ 250]

Everything he's suggested is romanticised garbage. He assumes the social care system can handle a few millions extra cases a year without incurring significant cost. Likewise he assumes that there are a few million suitable parents able, willing and suitable to adopt millions of babies.

Let's not talk about the deficiencies of adoption system either. Once you've thrown out the gays, prospective parents whose race differs from the child and everything else the pro life church folk disapprove of, there'll probably be about a dozen people and half of them won't pass the background check, let alone the fees involved.

But at least in Simpsons cartoon world, the sun is always shining ;-)

And yet we some how survived before 1973.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Somehow I don't think you survived after 1973

[Zero Sum 305]

Forcing people to adhere to an arbitrary and puritanical standard of sexual responsibility is absolutely an extremist point of view.

But it was fine at some point in the past, therefore, it can be forced upon men and women in the 21st century.

[Danno 1,228]

Well, yes, it is. And that's what this is really all about. The non-viable fetus does not live if the woman decides not to host it. It's not an independent individual capable of living outside the host. You cannot legislate against nature. But that is exactly what you want to do. You want to pretend that there is an individual when there really isn't. Is there an organism that has the potential to become an individual? Absolutely. But prior to viability, from a pure biological prespective, that's all it is - the potential for an individual.

now lets be a bit more honest, the woman is already a host.... the decision to be a host is long past, the question is, will she remain a host.

And as you know, even in a legal sense, merely inhabiting a place gives you rights and protections. (ask any land lord).

YOu have these rights even if you are incapable of exercising them due to some handicap or other impairment.

It is this basic, legal/ moral concept which makes the matter a bit more complicated than you suggest here.

[eekee 182]

Do you think people didn't have abortions before 1973?

[Danno 1,228]

Forcing people to adhere to an arbitrary and puritanical standard of sexual responsibility is absolutely an extremist point of view.

And not doing so........ is a relatively new and untried point of view.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

And not doing so........ is a relatively new and untried point of view.

You want to fix a problem that can't be fixed. Certainly not legislatively.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Do you think people didn't have abortions before 1973?

I believe the coat hanger picture from earlier in the thread was deleted as a TOS violation.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

now lets be a bit more honest, the woman is already a host.... the decision to be a host is long past, the question is, will she remain a host.

And as you know, even in a legal sense, merely inhabiting a place gives you rights and protections. (ask any land lord).

YOu have these rights even if you are incapable of exercising them due to some handicap or other impairment.

It is this basic, legal/ moral concept which makes the matter a bit more complicated than you suggest here.

Actually, your comparison of a non-viable fetus with a renter - however impaired such renter might be - is a colossal fail.

[_Simpson_ 250]

Its as if the adoption system under its current structure- finances included, is A-OK. This is what you get in a black and white world of thought.

Are you under the assumption that I think everything will magically be OK once it is illegal? If not quit it with the above nonsense, its a waste of your time.

Perhaps its valid empirical evidence. To the contrary, many other people have also spoken to women who've aborted and they don't cry about it. That's also valid empirical evidence.

A study would probably show that they are the exception to the rule. Have you ever talked to anyone that has gone thru this?

Do you think people didn't have abortions before 1973?

Is this a segue to making a point about back alley abortions?

[Zero Sum 305]

No, Simpson, I am not assuming much, actually. That's why I ask things. See the difference? (You probably won't).

Are you under the assumption that I think everything will magically be OK once it is illegal? If not quit it with the above nonsense, its a waste of your time.

A study would probably show that they are the exception to the rule. Have you ever talked to anyone that has gone thru this?

Is this a segue to making a point about back alley abortions?

Yes, I have spoken to people that have undergone the procedure.

[_Simpson_ 250]

No, Simpson, I am not assuming much, actually. That's why I ask things. See the difference? (You probably won't).

And the games begin.

Yes, I have spoken to people that have undergone the procedure.

Did they get choked up? Most people do and if you think that planned parenthood is preparing them for this your only kidding yourself.

[Zero Sum 305]

And the games begin.

Did they get choked up? Most people do and if you think that planned parenthood is preparing them for this your only kidding yourself.

A better reply that timed out from before:

No, Simpson, I am not assuming much, actually. That's why I ask things. See the difference? (You probably won't).

Are you under the assumption that I think everything will magically be OK once it is illegal? If not quit it with the above nonsense, its a waste of your time.

Lets thing about this comment for a moment.

You: Is Zero Sum under the impression that Simpson thinks outlawing abortions will make everything good?

Me: Ummm... Zero Sum is not making any assumption to that tune. Simpson is going off on a weird tangent of thought here.

But to entertain the logic used:

A Yes answer means that I think you are a simpleton that hasn't really thought out the words he types before typing them. And would be nonsense, as interpreted by myself and others here.

A No answer means that I am not making interpretations about outcome based on legislation you favor. Indeed, you have stated a goal for this legislation, and have confused the personal responsibility of biological parents with the ongoing care required of parents when faced with the only option of relinquishing their offspring for adoption. And not to be too nitpicky here, but that- regardless of your countless flubs in being able to distinguish the various lines of thought being argued here... is more the topic at hand; and therefore logically can't be a waste of time for anyone discussing the topic.

You:

A study would probably show that they are the exception to the rule. Have you ever talked to anyone that has gone thru this?

Is this a segue to making a point about back alley abortions?

Yes, I have spoken to people that have undergone the procedure. That study you speculate on is based on what kind of data exactly? Is this more 'Simpson conducting spoken interviews with post-abortion women' or is it data that only you seem to believe from sources that you are privy to?

Questions... questions...

Most people do

Is this a semantic error (you make a lot of those unfortunately) or are you privy to information that needs to be specified?