no more abortions!

[racrguy]

I know this may not be a popular thing to say on this thread but things like abortions, gay marriage and a lot of these other things just seem fairly minor. At least compared to national debt issues, complete and total use of the constitution as toilet paper (and I know in some ways those others fit in too), illegal immigration, taxation, privacy....so on and so on.

I think some people pay attention to these issues, but (and I may be wrong) in comparison to the issues I listed and a 100 others - they are generally smoke and mirrors to distract from real issues that no one wants to touch.

It is absolutely a distraction. It's easier for the politicians to trod this out whenever they don't want to deal with other issues, and fuck them for kicking the can.

I know this may not be a popular thing to say on this thread but things like abortions, gay marriage and a lot of these other things just seem fairly minor. At least compared to national debt issues, complete and total use of the constitution as toilet paper (and I know in some ways those others fit in too), illegal immigration, taxation, privacy....so on and so on.

I think some people pay attention to these issues, but (and I may be wrong) in comparison to the issues I listed and a 100 others - they are generally smoke and mirrors to distract from real issues that no one wants to touch.

I don't disagree with that. Unfortunately people like Cruz who seem to be completely on the level with the stuff that is REALLY important go on these nut job religious sidebars about the minor things that get people really up in arms. It's fucking infuriating being a Libertarian right now. There doesn't seem to be any Center in this country any more. It's really pretty simple. Get spending under control and reduce the size of the government and let people decide what the fuck they want to do with their own bodies. Why would ANY of that even be an argument?

[bcoop]

I know this may not be a popular thing to say on this thread but things like abortions, gay marriage and a lot of these other things just seem fairly minor. At least compared to national debt issues, complete and total use of the constitution as toilet paper (and I know in some ways those others fit in too), illegal immigration, taxation, privacy....so on and so on.

I think some people pay attention to these issues, but (and I may be wrong) in comparison to the issues I listed and a 100 others - they are generally smoke and mirrors to distract from real issues that no one wants to touch.

I think the number is a lot higher than people think, especially in the South. I do agree that it's smoke and mirrors to detract from the more important issues. But politicians (Ted Cruz, Greg Abbot for example) spend far too much touting the nonsense rather than attacking the important shit.

[ceyko]

I know this may not be a popular thing to say on this thread but things like abortions, gay marriage and a lot of these other things just seem fairly minor. At least compared to national debt issues, complete and total use of the constitution as toilet paper (and I know in some ways those others fit in too), illegal immigration, taxation, privacy....so on and so on.

I think some people pay attention to these issues, but (and I may be wrong) in comparison to the issues I listed and a 100 others - they are generally smoke and mirrors to distract from real issues that no one wants to touch.

[Broncojohnny]

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.

I don't think this matters as much as some people think. Elections lately are decided by independents and have a margin of a few millions votes. If you get those people on your side you are going to win. I always laugh when the liberals talk about how their side won and that gives them the right to dictate to others. Fifty million people still voted for Romney.

[The King]

ere's some that do mad Googling to try to appear they know more of a subject than reality.

The clown with the s/n "racrguy" comes to mind here.

[GhostTX]

From a legal perspective, then, this is irrelevant and nothing more than a red herring in this conversation.

So are companies. If that's all your trying to claim, then fine. It just has no relevance on the current conversation.

Oh, I believe it does:

(49) "Death" includes, for an individual who is an unborn child, the failure to be born alive.

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

Sec. 19.02. MURDER. (a) In this section:
..
(b) A person commits an offense if he:
(1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual;
...
Sec. 19.04. MANSLAUGHTER. (a) A person commits an offense if he recklessly causes the death of an individual.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.19.htm

As I stated in another post in this thread, how does abortion fit in there?

You'd be wrong. My example of lost of people having children without any understanding of the process is, again, a perfect example of that.

Wrong? So you're saying a person that has never experienced an event has the same knowledge of a person that has gone through the event?

Yet, it's still a flawed analogy. As soon as a woman becomes pregnant, her body begins to change so that it can support both herself and the embryo/fetus. All of the body functions start to work much harder. The heart has to pump more blood around the body, in particular to the womb, placenta, and the fetus. The fetus is not growing independently of the mother in the way an egg grows independently of it's mother.

If you analogy supports anything, it supports the converse as the fetus consumes the yolk in order to survive.

So, even putting it simply, the mother is more than the egg and yolk. It's the host.

Right, the mother's body gears up to protect and provide nutrients to the developing baby. To infer the mom is a host is a parasitic is incorrect, because a host gains nothing from a parasite. There's medical gains from being pregnant. Though, I suppose we could argue whether actually having the baby is a gain or not, in this argument, since it seems you view a baby is not a benefit.

I've not deflected a thing. Your previous statements do not indicate that you do understand how the placenta works because the only evidence of your understanding presented here (your analogy) is inaccurate, even in simple terms.

If that's what you want to think, fine. The whole point was to simply the relationship of the mother and fetus, something apparently that you missed.

That was not my premise. I restated my premise above, since you seem to have not understood what I mean when I say something indicates something else.



So, when someone looks up a word that means they are trying to appear as if they know something?

That's odd. The act of looking up words that someone doesn't know is explicitly because they are trying to describe the point they are trying to get across in the most accurate manner. This means that, by definition, someone must know what they are trying to communicate before looking up the word, making the fact that they looked up a word meaningless to their knowledge. You're the only one whose equated big words with level of knowledge. I only equate them with accuracy in communication.

So, if I ever have to look up a word to be accurate, I've no problem with that.

That's fine. There's some that do mad Googling to try to appear they know more of a subject than reality. I got no problem for accuracy if your statement was to put in the appropriate terms.

[Maddhattter]

No, penal code cites that the fetus is an individual.

From a legal perspective, then, this is irrelevant and nothing more than a red herring in this conversation.

I'm merely pointing the law cites that the fetus is recognized as an entity that is protected by law.

So are companies. If that's all your trying to claim, then fine. It just has no relevance on the current conversation.

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.

You'd be wrong. My example of lost of people having children without any understanding of the process is, again, a perfect example of that.

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.

Yet, it's still a flawed analogy. As soon as a woman becomes pregnant, her body begins to change so that it can support both herself and the embryo/fetus. All of the body functions start to work much harder. The heart has to pump more blood around the body, in particular to the womb, placenta, and the fetus. The fetus is not growing independently of the mother in the way an egg grows independently of it's mother.

If you analogy supports anything, it supports the converse as the fetus consumes the yolk in order to survive.

So, even putting it simply, the mother is more than the egg and yolk. It's the host.

Nice try at deflection, but an a fore mentioned comment to racrguy already asks how the placenta works, which I do, thanks.

I've not deflected a thing. Your previous statements do not indicate that you do understand how the placenta works because the only evidence of your understanding presented here (your analogy) is inaccurate, even in simple terms.

Your premise I know nothing because I tried to illustrate to a basic example fails.

That was not my premise. I restated my premise above, since you seem to have not understood what I mean when I say something indicates something else.

I'm glad you had to look up those big words to appear like you know something, though. Getting educated is a good thing.

So, when someone looks up a word that means they are trying to appear as if they know something?

That's odd. The act of looking up words that someone doesn't know is explicitly because they are trying to describe the point they are trying to get across in the most accurate manner. This means that, by definition, someone must know what they are trying to communicate before looking up the word, making the fact that they looked up a word meaningless to their knowledge. You're the only one whose equated big words with level of knowledge. I only equate them with accuracy in communication.

So, if I ever have to look up a word to be accurate, I've no problem with that.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[CWO]

Yep, Googled it. I learned something today.

[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.