Post by Admin on Jul 24, 2021 16:42:01 GMT -6
Originally Posted on FaceBook May 19, 2021 - moved here July 24, 2021
My home state of Texas gets a good deal right from a laws and freedoms perspective, but sometimes, the hyper-conservatives raise their collective voices and pass some clearly unconstitutional laws that trample on rights and freedoms with impunity.
I understand that this topic is polarizing, but I believe in freedom of choice as I believe in freedom of just about everything. With so many people fighting hard for body autonomy and freedom of/from medical based choices, including lockdowns and mask/injection mandates, to suddenly come out on the other side of the same debate with such an aggregious law is a step too far.
This law, which drops the limit to 6 weeks, leaves no exceptions for rape or incest, and also allows for literally ANYONE to sue anyone even peripherally involved with an abortion is simply an order for women across the state to cross borders to get procedures done or, for those unable to make such a trek, take huge risks in their lives of one sort or another.
If conservatives are going to complain about being forced to swallow the federal edicts and mandates currently being pushed through those halls of government by the progressives in power, then they can't show that they are exactly the same when given the chance. This is no different than the state level version of the Green New Deal from the opposite side and just goes further to prove that virtually no one elected to power in this country has the capacity, maturity or wisdom to actually wield it.
------------
Commenter #1 - I respectfully disagree. Abortion is murder. It’s a moral imperative to protect those who cannot protect themselves. If a beating heart inside a womb is not life, what is?
Me - his goes to the heart of the intent for this law, pardon my pun, and is a point often made by those that are pro-life. I have a different perspective, please allow me to explain. Yes, the beating of a heart is often the signal of life or the lack thereof (where it existed before) a signal of death. We cannot live without the pumping of our blood, but, while a requirement for life, does it necessarily define living? Is not living defined better by the ability to experience the world in some meaningful way, even if rudimentary? I'm not discounting the existence of or the lives led even by those with serious impairments, but they are able to experience something, no matter how small, of the stimulus that life on Earth provides. That's why I have always been a proponent of the 20-week limit. Even though lawmakers likely had an arbitrary reason for using it, it always made sense to me both scientifically and cosmically. 20 weeks is about the earliest time when the 5 senses have fully developed and in some cases when there can be rudimentary learning taking place. And being able to experience life is the true definition of living. Coincidentally, it also gives the expectant mother time to learn they are actually pregnant more than having a heartbeat which occurs when the fetus is the size of a lentil. So yes, a heartbeat is a requirement for life, but does not, in my opinion, fully encapsulate what is required to be human and all the rights that go with it. One must have developed senses in order to interact with the world they exist in to be considered "alive". Which is why, though thoroughly pro-choice, I would limit that decision to 20 weeks or less at which time the case for viability outside the womb is unlikely, but the experience of life has begun. Those are my two cents, even though no one asked for them.
Commenter #1 - Everyone’s two cents are worth hearing. But murder of an unborn child is not a choice to be made by a majority. The determination of quality of life is a slippery slope for any human. The unwritten right to privacy invented by the Supreme Court to justify Roe v. Wade is the government’s rationale for using tax money for abortions. Declaring this invasive procedure “health care” stretches the Hippocratic Oath past the breaking point. Also, consider the socialists’ determination to permit abortions up to the moment of birth. I’d rather stand with the pro-life group and push back.
Me - Murder implies that right to life and other basic human rights have been conveyed. My position is that in order to be part of the human race, to be a human being and to have human rights that supercede those of the surrogate as a separate individual, you must be able to partake in the human experience. Rudimentary senses are a requirement of that. Thus, while human rights may be conveyed earlier than that by the human carrying the fetus, the rights of the human doing the carrying cannot be superceded by the fetus until it meets the minimum requirements of being human, which means being able to experience life as a human. Which happens as early as 20 weeks in gestation. At that point, in my opinion, the experience of life has begun and individual human rights are conveyed. I too disagree with radical leftists ideas of abortion right up until birth or even shortly thereafter. That is a violation of human rights. However, the extreme right is no better in conveying rights that supercede those of a fully existing human in favor of something that cannot even participate in the life experience. Protecting the innocent that cannot protect themselves is a good sentiment, but with the advances we have made technologically and scientifically we are going to have to start deciding where lines are drawn and taking into account what is best for EVERYONE'S rights to be protected and not trampled on. While a compromise, this standard fits all of the complex issues at play nicely and makes both extreme sides a bit uncomfortable, which is what a good compromise usually does. I understand that this point of view falls on deaf ears most of the time, but it is my point of view and I can back it up from several angles logically and legally which generally makes for a good law as well. That point aside, even if I was of the heartbeat = human opinion, the other aspects of this law are still aggressively over the top and will lead to more unintended consequences than viable solutions.
------------
Commenter #2 - I get it. I’m not entirely disagreeing with you either. The hypocrisy on both sides is ridiculous. My body my choice. I can wear a mask if I want too or not. The fight is so similar.
With that being said, I’m completely pro-life, with the exception of rape or incest. I think they should leave room for that and only that.
You always make great conversation!
------------
Commenter #3 - It is brave for you to say this on such a polarizing topic. I find myself torn on the issue as a man, as someone who is against abortion on a personal level, but also as someone who agrees with the reasoning in Roe v Wade (and progeny) and is tired of policing morality.
------------
Commenter #4 - I personally believe that there are two types of conservatives - fiscally conservative and religiously conservative. With abortion these tenets are at odds…. I would hope the fiscal conservatives would see the hypocrisy in forcing a child to be born and then not supporting raising that child. Disclaimer - I consider myself a centrist because I am fiscally conservative but at odds with the current Republican Party views.
------------
Commenter #5 - I am both fiscally and morally (or "religiously" from Hodge's examole) conservative. Babies shouldn't be murdered irrespective of whether they can be afforded or not. I have at least 4 neices and nephews whose parents cannot afford them... but they seemed to have figured it out.
------------
Commenter #6 - Let’s spin this medically and ethically, I’ll keep my opinions on the subject to myself. Let’s look at viability of the fetus and quality of life (parent and child).
97% of all hospital ER/OB departments will not see a patient before 20 weeks, why ? The fetus is not viable. Even then a fetus is only medically viable with great medial intervention and, majority of the time life long complications at 24 weeks. Where is the quality of life for both parent and child? Who is financially available to support said medically fragile baby/child? Even into adulthood? I can personally say I’ve seen more abused, neglected, depressed and, suicidal humans that were the result of unwanted pregnancy. Even a healthy to term child being born into the world be shunned and left cold and untouched seconds after birth. Where is the quality of life? Said child is then thrown into the system and abused/sex trafficked, generally not given an ounce of support to succeed. Long term view I understand, and yes there are incredible stories of people overcoming these obstacles. But why are they incredible? Because we all turn a blind eye to corruption of our “children are the future” facade the big wigs have fed us as way to win votes. How would you feel as either partner or birthing parent to have to carry/emotionally support a fetus/baby/child that while only in utero is alive? Knowing that the moment the fetus/baby is born(c-section/vaginal delivery) dies within seconds/moments. Is that quality of life for anyone? I say walk a mile in several different pairs of shoes before making a stance.
My home state of Texas gets a good deal right from a laws and freedoms perspective, but sometimes, the hyper-conservatives raise their collective voices and pass some clearly unconstitutional laws that trample on rights and freedoms with impunity.
I understand that this topic is polarizing, but I believe in freedom of choice as I believe in freedom of just about everything. With so many people fighting hard for body autonomy and freedom of/from medical based choices, including lockdowns and mask/injection mandates, to suddenly come out on the other side of the same debate with such an aggregious law is a step too far.
This law, which drops the limit to 6 weeks, leaves no exceptions for rape or incest, and also allows for literally ANYONE to sue anyone even peripherally involved with an abortion is simply an order for women across the state to cross borders to get procedures done or, for those unable to make such a trek, take huge risks in their lives of one sort or another.
If conservatives are going to complain about being forced to swallow the federal edicts and mandates currently being pushed through those halls of government by the progressives in power, then they can't show that they are exactly the same when given the chance. This is no different than the state level version of the Green New Deal from the opposite side and just goes further to prove that virtually no one elected to power in this country has the capacity, maturity or wisdom to actually wield it.
------------
Commenter #1 - I respectfully disagree. Abortion is murder. It’s a moral imperative to protect those who cannot protect themselves. If a beating heart inside a womb is not life, what is?
Me - his goes to the heart of the intent for this law, pardon my pun, and is a point often made by those that are pro-life. I have a different perspective, please allow me to explain. Yes, the beating of a heart is often the signal of life or the lack thereof (where it existed before) a signal of death. We cannot live without the pumping of our blood, but, while a requirement for life, does it necessarily define living? Is not living defined better by the ability to experience the world in some meaningful way, even if rudimentary? I'm not discounting the existence of or the lives led even by those with serious impairments, but they are able to experience something, no matter how small, of the stimulus that life on Earth provides. That's why I have always been a proponent of the 20-week limit. Even though lawmakers likely had an arbitrary reason for using it, it always made sense to me both scientifically and cosmically. 20 weeks is about the earliest time when the 5 senses have fully developed and in some cases when there can be rudimentary learning taking place. And being able to experience life is the true definition of living. Coincidentally, it also gives the expectant mother time to learn they are actually pregnant more than having a heartbeat which occurs when the fetus is the size of a lentil. So yes, a heartbeat is a requirement for life, but does not, in my opinion, fully encapsulate what is required to be human and all the rights that go with it. One must have developed senses in order to interact with the world they exist in to be considered "alive". Which is why, though thoroughly pro-choice, I would limit that decision to 20 weeks or less at which time the case for viability outside the womb is unlikely, but the experience of life has begun. Those are my two cents, even though no one asked for them.
Commenter #1 - Everyone’s two cents are worth hearing. But murder of an unborn child is not a choice to be made by a majority. The determination of quality of life is a slippery slope for any human. The unwritten right to privacy invented by the Supreme Court to justify Roe v. Wade is the government’s rationale for using tax money for abortions. Declaring this invasive procedure “health care” stretches the Hippocratic Oath past the breaking point. Also, consider the socialists’ determination to permit abortions up to the moment of birth. I’d rather stand with the pro-life group and push back.
Me - Murder implies that right to life and other basic human rights have been conveyed. My position is that in order to be part of the human race, to be a human being and to have human rights that supercede those of the surrogate as a separate individual, you must be able to partake in the human experience. Rudimentary senses are a requirement of that. Thus, while human rights may be conveyed earlier than that by the human carrying the fetus, the rights of the human doing the carrying cannot be superceded by the fetus until it meets the minimum requirements of being human, which means being able to experience life as a human. Which happens as early as 20 weeks in gestation. At that point, in my opinion, the experience of life has begun and individual human rights are conveyed. I too disagree with radical leftists ideas of abortion right up until birth or even shortly thereafter. That is a violation of human rights. However, the extreme right is no better in conveying rights that supercede those of a fully existing human in favor of something that cannot even participate in the life experience. Protecting the innocent that cannot protect themselves is a good sentiment, but with the advances we have made technologically and scientifically we are going to have to start deciding where lines are drawn and taking into account what is best for EVERYONE'S rights to be protected and not trampled on. While a compromise, this standard fits all of the complex issues at play nicely and makes both extreme sides a bit uncomfortable, which is what a good compromise usually does. I understand that this point of view falls on deaf ears most of the time, but it is my point of view and I can back it up from several angles logically and legally which generally makes for a good law as well. That point aside, even if I was of the heartbeat = human opinion, the other aspects of this law are still aggressively over the top and will lead to more unintended consequences than viable solutions.
------------
Commenter #2 - I get it. I’m not entirely disagreeing with you either. The hypocrisy on both sides is ridiculous. My body my choice. I can wear a mask if I want too or not. The fight is so similar.
With that being said, I’m completely pro-life, with the exception of rape or incest. I think they should leave room for that and only that.
You always make great conversation!
------------
Commenter #3 - It is brave for you to say this on such a polarizing topic. I find myself torn on the issue as a man, as someone who is against abortion on a personal level, but also as someone who agrees with the reasoning in Roe v Wade (and progeny) and is tired of policing morality.
------------
Commenter #4 - I personally believe that there are two types of conservatives - fiscally conservative and religiously conservative. With abortion these tenets are at odds…. I would hope the fiscal conservatives would see the hypocrisy in forcing a child to be born and then not supporting raising that child. Disclaimer - I consider myself a centrist because I am fiscally conservative but at odds with the current Republican Party views.
------------
Commenter #5 - I am both fiscally and morally (or "religiously" from Hodge's examole) conservative. Babies shouldn't be murdered irrespective of whether they can be afforded or not. I have at least 4 neices and nephews whose parents cannot afford them... but they seemed to have figured it out.
------------
Commenter #6 - Let’s spin this medically and ethically, I’ll keep my opinions on the subject to myself. Let’s look at viability of the fetus and quality of life (parent and child).
97% of all hospital ER/OB departments will not see a patient before 20 weeks, why ? The fetus is not viable. Even then a fetus is only medically viable with great medial intervention and, majority of the time life long complications at 24 weeks. Where is the quality of life for both parent and child? Who is financially available to support said medically fragile baby/child? Even into adulthood? I can personally say I’ve seen more abused, neglected, depressed and, suicidal humans that were the result of unwanted pregnancy. Even a healthy to term child being born into the world be shunned and left cold and untouched seconds after birth. Where is the quality of life? Said child is then thrown into the system and abused/sex trafficked, generally not given an ounce of support to succeed. Long term view I understand, and yes there are incredible stories of people overcoming these obstacles. But why are they incredible? Because we all turn a blind eye to corruption of our “children are the future” facade the big wigs have fed us as way to win votes. How would you feel as either partner or birthing parent to have to carry/emotionally support a fetus/baby/child that while only in utero is alive? Knowing that the moment the fetus/baby is born(c-section/vaginal delivery) dies within seconds/moments. Is that quality of life for anyone? I say walk a mile in several different pairs of shoes before making a stance.