Texas Passes Bill to Require Sonograms Before Abortions

[Zero Sum 305]

Of course "viability" is getting to be a shorter and shorter window of time as medical advancement leaps ahead.

SO yes.. the word "viability" is simple enough.... it;s the time frame that keeps changing.

Biology and medicine are different things. Nevertheless, even using that logic, there is a considerable amount of medical evidence that states that no matter how much medical assistance is rendered unto a fetus, a checkpoint in the development of the fetus needs to be crossed in order for the fetus to reach birth.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Your talking about somebody that can make there own choices and defend for themselves vs someone who cant, like I said "apples and oranges".

But you can't sit there and talk about life ebing precious and priceless and all while you really want to say that life is precious and priceless only until it is a viable organism. You can take that stance, for sure, but then say it clearly rather than hiding under this "pro-life" label which doesn't at all mean what it says.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

But at the end of the day, killing an unborn child over unperky boobs would have to be the most disgustingly selfish thing I've heard of.

I'd have to agree with that statement.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Eh, no sharp teeth in the ####### make it a much more pleasant environment.

[_Simpson_ 250]

Actually from what we have learned here

The biology learned is limited to saggy boobs.

But at the end of the day, killing an unborn child over unperky boobs would have to be the most disgustingly selfish thing I've heard of.

Well put, that is the point I was trying to make.

Oh man... Simpson is at it again with knee-jerked un-thoughts again.

FYI- I am a liberal on many things. I am conservative on other things. Keep thinking like a black and white knee-jerker if it makes things simpler for you. And then get over it.

Now I can certainly expound on what I mean by moral convenience.

Are you willing to pay for those un-aborted fetuses' pre-natal care (taxes), post-natal care (taxes), and adoption expenses (taxes) since you wish to change laws to abolish abortion or are you merely only willing to make it punitive on a vague basis of 'personal responsibility'?

You may answer yes, of course, thereby abolishing the hypocrite label you'd likely earn. If, of course, you just want to punish (women) for their choice of choosing to carry a fetus to term or not, then I certainly hope your moral scale will kick in when those un-wanted kids need and the social safety net is activated.

A little more complicated biology dictates what constitutes viability. And all that stuff. The word viability is simple enough though.

Knee-jerk? If you werent such a noob around here you would know that I have gone into great depth on this issue and that I have some give on this subject. Nothing I post on this issue is a knee-jerk reaction.

I'm willing to take on the expenses(taxes) as needed but first and foremost it would be on mom and dad. If we as a society encouraged adoption and abortion wasn't a option then we would have a lot more happy kids in the world.

What question am I avoiding, Simpson? When life begins? I wouldn't have an abortion after the first trimester unless my life was in danger. What else do you need to know?

The question was clear, would the thought of saggy boobs be enough to make you abort.

The principles of personal responsibility dictate that you're f*cked.

The principles of most liberals would dictate that the baby is f*cked.

Zero do you have any give on this topic or is all about a womans choice until birth?

Edited May 10, 2011 by _Simpson_

[eekee 182]

Not on their own.

As something on the pros and cons list of having a baby, I'd put it on the "con" list.

Edited May 10, 2011 by eekee

[_Simpson_ 250]

But you can't sit there and talk about life ebing precious and priceless and all while you really want to say that life is precious and priceless only until it is a viable organism. You can take that stance, for sure, but then say it clearly rather than hiding under this "pro-life" label which doesn't at all mean what it says.

Its not the same. People like you and me have options, for example a job with medical benefits. A unborn baby is at the mercy of the mother and her decisions.

Not on their own.

As something on the pros and cons list of having a baby, I'd put it on the "con" list.

Knowing that this would even be a factor in such a big decision like this is sicking.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Its not the same. People like you and me have options, for example a job with medical benefits. A unborn baby is at the mercy of the mother and her decisions.

... because the alternative is sexual slavery.

[eekee 182]

Well maybe your boobs are just less awesome and for that I am sorry.

I dunno, a lot of my friends feel that way but maybe we are all just terrible people and you should be glad none of us are procreating at the moment.

[_Simpson_ 250]

Contraception fails. Then what?

Well that covers 1%, now what about the other 99%.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Knowing that this would even be a factor in such a big decision like this is sicking.

Perhaps. But it isnt your decision to make. And it certainly isn't something that should be fixed by legislative means.

Why not put your energies into educating people about personal responsibility and persuade them to make better decisions. Forcing people with the law simply isnt appropriate

Well that covers 1%, now what about the other 99%.

Does it? Somehow I think your figures are a bit suspect, but that's not important.

Should women be allowed a termination in the event of contraceptive failure?

[Zero Sum 305]

Well put, that is the point I was trying to make.

Knee-jerk? If you werent such a noob around here you would know that I have gone into great depth on this issue and that I have some give on this subject. Nothing I post on this issue is a knee-jerk reaction.

I'm willing to take on the expenses(taxes) as needed but first and foremost it would be on mom and dad. If we as a society encouraged adoption and abortion wasn't a option then we would have a lot more happy kids in the world.

The question was clear, would the thought of saggy boobs be enough to make you abort.

The principles of most liberals would dictate that the baby is f*cked.

Zero do you have any give on this topic or is all about a womans choice until birth?

I stand corrected. You have previously shared an opinion on a topic. That would make you have some 'give' or are you probably trying to imply- expertise?

You knee-jerked something (not at all surprising):

I said:

I haven't read through this thread yet but I would bring the same point up. These Republicans want to legislate their morality unto all... they should pay for it too.

You replied:

Great another person that cant grasp the concept of personal responsibility.

So there... nothing new, though.

I applaud your willingness to help fund these hypothetical children in their moments of need. Do remember this- as budgetary cuts tend to target social welfare quite often. Furthermore, do understand that an unwanted child would therefore end up in the adoption world- meaning the monies that would pay for these children in need would extend until adoption, without biomom and biodad in the equation. In other words, what good is parental personal responsibility once a child is given away?

Or are you suggesting statutes should also be changed to obligate a financial penalty on parents that give their children up for adoption because they did not have an abortion available to them? Good luck with that one! Seems like you are not thinking things through all that much, to be honest.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

A unborn baby is at the mercy of the mother and her decisions.

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.

[Zero Sum 305]

Furthermore:

The principles of most liberals would dictate that the baby is f*cked.

Zero do you have any give on this topic or is all about a womans choice until birth?

Is indeed a clusterf*ck of logic to characterize 'liberals' in a way that would somehow be punitive to babies. In itself your statement doesn't make any sense at all; and trying to find meaning would mean we'd need a special dictionary just to figure it out.

The second statement is almost equally odd. What constitutes 'give' on my end of the logic train? Choice? Well, that's clearly defined. Biology? That's fairly well understood (independent of a lack of general knowledge about what constitutes biological viability). Not sure what you want answered.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

People like you and me have options, for example a job with medical benefits.

Not all people have these options. Certainly not those that are underage or disabled or otherwise not capable of gaining employment that carries health benefits. You say ** them. Their life isn't worth a dime. But unborn life is precious and priceless - even though you'd also rather deny the host that carries this unborn life access to health care that she cannot afford. You can't bridge that gap no matter how hard you try. As I said, either life is precious or it isn't. You can't have it both ways.