At that point, they are not people.

Of course we are at an impasse. That's why the pearl clutching is so transparently cynical. They don't care about this woman or her baby. They don't care about the actual problems of this law - they don't want this law to be better written, they want it gone altogether.

Like I said, your arbitrary and personal category of what is and isn't a person is neither scientific nor philosophically defensible.

Macarthur said:

---

AGC said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

Zobel said:

---

What's primitive and incompatible with civilized society is supporting millions of abortions a year for matters of convenience -- which, to be clear, is your position.

I view this as a massive step forward. I'd much rather debate the way to address the 10% that might be an unavoidable necessity than persist in the previous state.

---

I disagree with your characterization and it's intentional on your part. Frankly, it's none of my business why a woman wants to not be pregnant and it's none of yours either.

I know it's been a meme but it's true, if men had to be pregnant and carry the burden of children like women did, the morning after pill would be available at every convenience store counter in the country.

This is a massive step backwards and only the far right in the US view it that way.

---

An abortion would indicate something is 'wrong' would it not? I say that assuming that we don't see healthy people kill their children regularly. I'll allow you room to disagree if you like but I'd be really curious as to your reasoning.

So why so much vitriol addressing the consequences instead of the actions? If rapes a really big issue we should want to know and fix that rather than murder babies right? The response you've given here, that we shouldn't concern ourselves at all with it, seems to indicate you don't actually care about the people getting abortions as individuals, just as category (you disenfranchise them in that way if you think about it). Why should we take your objections seriously then? It is a morally bankrupt position to not care about the root cause, unless of course you think abortions are healthy choice that people would make if everything in their life was perfect. It'd be odd but I suppose there may be some place in the multiverse where that's the case.

---

Stop using the term murdering babies. That's emotional nonsense used to serve a purpose. The vast majority of aborttions take place very early and are not 'babies'.

---

Sophistry. Baby refers to human children across a multitude of developmental phases. Thus babies is appropriate. A person's worth to society does not vary based on development stage and communal attachment outside of this debate and Germany in the 30s and 40s.

Zobel said:

---

Of course we are at an impasse. That's why the pearl clutching is so transparently cynical. They don't care about this woman or her baby. They don't care about the actual problems of this law - they don't want this law to be better written, they want it gone altogether.

---

BS. I absolutely care about this woman. I find it laughable that the side that gives her no option in this matter is the side accusing others of being cynical.

Macarthur said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Of course we are at an impasse. That's why the pearl clutching is so transparently cynical. They don't care about this woman or her baby. They don't care about the actual problems of this law - they don't want this law to be better written, they want it gone altogether.

---

BS. I absolutely care about this woman. I find it laughable that the side that gives her no option in this matter is the side accusing others of being cynical.

---

Still waiting for you to tell who these 'healthy' people are that have recreational abortions. Who are these people? When you find them let us know so we can stop caring about root causes.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

I know it's been a meme but it's true, if men had to be pregnant and carry the burden of children like women did, the morning after pill would be available at every convenience store counter in the country.

---

As a physician and a father, I find this horribly insulting. There were times in my kids' life when I took 99% of the responsibility of raising and caring for them, and it was more than 9 months. And I couldn't carry them around with me the whole time. I've had to rearrange my entire life to make sure they were good. So get out of here with that nonsense

---

You shouldn't take it personally. How you feel is how you feel. But you really can't deny that these mostly male lawmakers who pass these extreme abortion bans are pretty indifferent (or ignorant) to the reality of pregnancy and women's health. Or, they'll say "my wife gave birth to our kid just fine so why can't they?" It's not a burden they have to deal with, so it's not their problem. Any pregnancy complications a woman goes through, even by women who didn't expect them and dearly wanted a child, can easily be dismissed with "well she shoulda thought about that before she had sex."

There's a reason these anti-abortion laws are condemned as misogynistic. And it's because, in large part, they are. Texas's law is probably the most egregious example.

And yes, if men were the ones who gave birth, getting an abortion would be as easy as buying condoms.

Macarthur said:

---

AGC said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

Zobel said:

---

What's primitive and incompatible with civilized society is supporting millions of abortions a year for matters of convenience -- which, to be clear, is your position.

I view this as a massive step forward. I'd much rather debate the way to address the 10% that might be an unavoidable necessity than persist in the previous state.

---

I disagree with your characterization and it's intentional on your part. Frankly, it's none of my business why a woman wants to not be pregnant and it's none of yours either.

I know it's been a meme but it's true, if men had to be pregnant and carry the burden of children like women did, the morning after pill would be available at every convenience store counter in the country.

This is a massive step backwards and only the far right in the US view it that way.

---

An abortion would indicate something is 'wrong' would it not? I say that assuming that we don't see healthy people kill their children regularly. I'll allow you room to disagree if you like but I'd be really curious as to your reasoning.

So why so much vitriol addressing the consequences instead of the actions? If rapes a really big issue we should want to know and fix that rather than murder babies right? The response you've given here, that we shouldn't concern ourselves at all with it, seems to indicate you don't actually care about the people getting abortions as individuals, just as category (you disenfranchise them in that way if you think about it). Why should we take your objections seriously then? It is a morally bankrupt position to not care about the root cause, unless of course you think abortions are healthy choice that people would make if everything in their life was perfect. It'd be odd but I suppose there may be some place in the multiverse where that's the case.

---

Stop using the term murdering babies. That's emotional nonsense used to serve a purpose. The vast majority of aborttions take place very early and are not 'babies'.

---

I don't even really believe that the hardcore pro-lifers believe that it is a baby at all stages of development. The idea that there is another person in the room the moment conception occurs is quite ridiculous.

However, this language makes it very easy to appeal to emotion and condemn everyone who doesn't agree with you as a child murderer. Great way to manipulate people.

barbacoa taco said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

I know it's been a meme but it's true, if men had to be pregnant and carry the burden of children like women did, the morning after pill would be available at every convenience store counter in the country.

---

As a physician and a father, I find this horribly insulting. There were times in my kids' life when I took 99% of the responsibility of raising and caring for them, and it was more than 9 months. And I couldn't carry them around with me the whole time. I've had to rearrange my entire life to make sure they were good. So get out of here with that nonsense

---

You shouldn't take it personally. How you feel is how you feel. But you really can't deny that these mostly male lawmakers who pass these extreme abortion bans are pretty indifferent (or ignorant) to the reality of pregnancy and women's health. Or, they'll say "my wife gave birth to our kid just fine so why can't they?" It's not a burden they have to deal with, so it's not their problem. Any pregnancy complications a woman goes through, even by women who didn't expect them and dearly wanted a child, can easily be dismissed with "well she shoulda thought about that before she had sex."

There's a reason these anti-abortion laws are condemned as misogynistic. And it's because, in large part, they are. Texas's law is probably the most egregious example.

And yes, if men were the ones who gave birth, getting an abortion would be as easy as buying condoms.

---

This is just backward thinking. Like all men are selfish machismo pigs who let women do all child rearing and have no investment at all in our own children. It's just unprovable, insulting drivel. Might as well say that all women are emotional and simple minded and need to be protected from themselves. At least then we're both in the early 1900's mindset

Quote:

---

There's a reason these anti-abortion laws are condemned as misogynistic. And it's because, in large part, they are.

---

scintillating tautology

You're taking this way too personally. I love my kids and would give my life for theirs, but that doesn't change the fact that this is 100% true.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

I know it's been a meme but it's true, if men had to be pregnant and carry the burden of children like women did, the morning after pill would be available at every convenience store counter in the country.

---

As a physician and a father, I find this horribly insulting. There were times in my kids' life when I took 99% of the responsibility of raising and caring for them, and it was more than 9 months. And I couldn't carry them around with me the whole time. I've had to rearrange my entire life to make sure they were good. So get out of here with that nonsense

---

You shouldn't take it personally. How you feel is how you feel. But you really can't deny that these mostly male lawmakers who pass these extreme abortion bans are pretty indifferent (or ignorant) to the reality of pregnancy and women's health. Or, they'll say "my wife gave birth to our kid just fine so why can't they?" It's not a burden they have to deal with, so it's not their problem. Any pregnancy complications a woman goes through, even by women who didn't expect them and dearly wanted a child, can easily be dismissed with "well she shoulda thought about that before she had sex."

There's a reason these anti-abortion laws are condemned as misogynistic. And it's because, in large part, they are. Texas's law is probably the most egregious example.

And yes, if men were the ones who gave birth, getting an abortion would be as easy as buying condoms.

---

This is just backward thinking. Like all men are selfish machismo pigs who let women do all child rearing and have no investment at all in our own children. It's just unprovable, insulting drivel. Might as well say that all women are emotional and simple minded and need to be protected from themselves. At least then we're both in the early 1900's mindset

---

Bingo. This line perfectly describes Greg Abbott and most of the male lawmakers in the Texas Legislature. They think a woman's role is to be a brood mare, and any consequences she faces as a result of pregnancy are her fault, because she had sex. It's more like 1600/1700s thinking. 1900s are far too progressive for our leaders.

barbacoa taco said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

AGC said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

Zobel said:

---

What's primitive and incompatible with civilized society is supporting millions of abortions a year for matters of convenience -- which, to be clear, is your position.

I view this as a massive step forward. I'd much rather debate the way to address the 10% that might be an unavoidable necessity than persist in the previous state.

---

I disagree with your characterization and it's intentional on your part. Frankly, it's none of my business why a woman wants to not be pregnant and it's none of yours either.

I know it's been a meme but it's true, if men had to be pregnant and carry the burden of children like women did, the morning after pill would be available at every convenience store counter in the country.

This is a massive step backwards and only the far right in the US view it that way.

---

An abortion would indicate something is 'wrong' would it not? I say that assuming that we don't see healthy people kill their children regularly. I'll allow you room to disagree if you like but I'd be really curious as to your reasoning.

So why so much vitriol addressing the consequences instead of the actions? If rapes a really big issue we should want to know and fix that rather than murder babies right? The response you've given here, that we shouldn't concern ourselves at all with it, seems to indicate you don't actually care about the people getting abortions as individuals, just as category (you disenfranchise them in that way if you think about it). Why should we take your objections seriously then? It is a morally bankrupt position to not care about the root cause, unless of course you think abortions are healthy choice that people would make if everything in their life was perfect. It'd be odd but I suppose there may be some place in the multiverse where that's the case.

---

Stop using the term murdering babies. That's emotional nonsense used to serve a purpose. The vast majority of aborttions take place very early and are not 'babies'.

---

I don't even really believe that the hardcore pro-lifers believe that it is a baby at all stages of development. The idea that there is another person in the room the moment conception occurs is quite ridiculous.

However, this language makes it very easy to appeal to emotion and condemn everyone who doesn't agree with you as a child murderer. Great way to manipulate people.

---

Tell me you don't know anything about pregnancy without saying you don't know anything about pregnancy. Women know because their body changes. We share in that joy and anticipation with our wives and we mourn miscarriages even early on. We keep the sonogram photos from when they're smaller than the tip of our fingers. Our spouses change their diets, physical activity, and lifestyles for things smaller than you could imagine.

Macarthur said:

---

You're taking this way too personally. I love my kids and would give my life for theirs, but that doesn't change the fact that this is 100% true.

---

I like how yall both continue to spout this propagandic nonsense like it has any basis in fact. Care to provide any evidence of this whatsoever?

it's just projection.

the same people who can't imagine a doctor risking their career to do what they see as clearly and objectively true and right also can't imagine actually having concern for the human life they created. they then assume everyone operates under the same ethical vacuum they do.

just wait til they find out that some people don't even have sex *at all* until they get married.

AGC said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

AGC said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

Zobel said:

---

What's primitive and incompatible with civilized society is supporting millions of abortions a year for matters of convenience -- which, to be clear, is your position.

I view this as a massive step forward. I'd much rather debate the way to address the 10% that might be an unavoidable necessity than persist in the previous state.

---

I disagree with your characterization and it's intentional on your part. Frankly, it's none of my business why a woman wants to not be pregnant and it's none of yours either.

I know it's been a meme but it's true, if men had to be pregnant and carry the burden of children like women did, the morning after pill would be available at every convenience store counter in the country.

This is a massive step backwards and only the far right in the US view it that way.

---

An abortion would indicate something is 'wrong' would it not? I say that assuming that we don't see healthy people kill their children regularly. I'll allow you room to disagree if you like but I'd be really curious as to your reasoning.

So why so much vitriol addressing the consequences instead of the actions? If rapes a really big issue we should want to know and fix that rather than murder babies right? The response you've given here, that we shouldn't concern ourselves at all with it, seems to indicate you don't actually care about the people getting abortions as individuals, just as category (you disenfranchise them in that way if you think about it). Why should we take your objections seriously then? It is a morally bankrupt position to not care about the root cause, unless of course you think abortions are healthy choice that people would make if everything in their life was perfect. It'd be odd but I suppose there may be some place in the multiverse where that's the case.

---

Stop using the term murdering babies. That's emotional nonsense used to serve a purpose. The vast majority of aborttions take place very early and are not 'babies'.

---

I don't even really believe that the hardcore pro-lifers believe that it is a baby at all stages of development. The idea that there is another person in the room the moment conception occurs is quite ridiculous.

However, this language makes it very easy to appeal to emotion and condemn everyone who doesn't agree with you as a child murderer. Great way to manipulate people.

---

Tell me you don't know anything about pregnancy without saying you don't know anything about pregnancy. Women know because their body changes. We share in that joy and anticipation with our wives and we mourn miscarriages even early on. We keep the sonogram photos from when they're smaller than the tip of our fingers. Our spouses change their diets, physical activity, and lifestyles for things smaller than you could imagine.

---

I'm not saying there's no excitement or emotion in finding out you are pregnant. I'm pointing out that it's logically and scientifically ridiculous to act as if a fertilized egg is the same as a fully formed human, which is what the pro-life side attempts to do. Your appeal to emotion here does not change that. If a woman takes an abortion pill at home when she's 4 weeks pregnant, she is not a murderer.

honestly, i hope you never have to console a woman who has had a miscarriage even early on. if you do, take my advice and don't tell her it was just a fetus and not a baby.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

You're taking this way too personally. I love my kids and would give my life for theirs, but that doesn't change the fact that this is 100% true.

---

I like how yall both continue to spout this propagandic nonsense like it has any basis in fact. Care to provide any evidence of this whatsoever?

---

This had to be a riveting father child moment:

Child: Dad what do you think about abortion?
Macarthur: Totally fine, anywhere, anytime, any reason at all.
C: Would you have aborted me?
D: Sure, if I'd felt like it. I mean what's the big deal? You were just a fetus then.

Really brings people closer together to tell them they made it through a six month window without being inconvenient.

Zobel said:

---

it's just projection.

the same people who can't imagine a doctor risking their career to do what they see as clearly and objectively true and right also can't imagine actually having concern for the human life they created. they then assume everyone operates under the same ethical vacuum they do.

just wait til they find out that some people don't even have sex *at all* until they get married.

---

Why did you accuse me of feigning outrage and pearl clutching? That's what you've been doing this whole thread.

Why do you think any of us get angry at the idea of couples not having sex until marriage? How is that relevant to anything?

I think you are just venting about how much you don't like people who don't agree with you on this subject.

Zobel said:

---

honestly, i hope you never have to console a woman who has had a miscarriage even early on. if you do, take my advice and don't tell her it was just a fetus and not a baby.

---

More like, I hope state authorities don't hear about a woman having a miscarriage, because they might investigate her for something.

because feigning outrage and pearl clutching perfectly characterizes the tone and content of your posts on this subject. you've used words like horror stories, that you're yelling, that you're absolutely furious.

you also suffer from a lack of reading comprehension. i didn't say you'd be mad about it, i implied you would find it bewildering. you are so far apart on the ethical and moral landscape on this subject that you can't even see the ground the other side is standing on.

to be clear, though, i definitely don't like you. i find your stance on this subject morally reprehensible.

barbacoa taco said:

---

Zobel said:

---

it's just projection.

the same people who can't imagine a doctor risking their career to do what they see as clearly and objectively true and right also can't imagine actually having concern for the human life they created. they then assume everyone operates under the same ethical vacuum they do.

just wait til they find out that some people don't even have sex *at all* until they get married.

---

Why did you accuse me of feigning outrage and pearl clutching? That's what you've been doing this whole thread.

Why do you think any of us get angry at the idea of couples not having sex until marriage? How is that relevant to anything?

I think you are just venting about how much you don't like people who don't agree with you on this subject.

---

You literally said you didn't believe we thought our babies were always babies and I pointed out that yes we do (I still have sonogram pics) and then you dismiss it as appeal to emotion? It's direct evidence to refute your assertion man. Ask any of the pro-lifers on this thread about their life. You're all over the place throwing just mud at a wall to see what sticks. We see it. We know it.

He nailed it with projection though, your last line is chef's kiss.

And I'm the one that gets accused of being emotional and illogical.

sorry to hear. you have stars, you're free to block me.

yes, these laws make me mad. I won't apologize for that. these situations should not be happening in the 21st century in an advanced society. but they are, because we've passed extreme laws based on religious extremism. they're passed mostly by rich men who are incapable of understanding that not everyone has the experience they have in life. with a complete lack of empathy and cruel indifference to their situation. Of course that makes me angry.

Like i said, I see these laws as on the same level as stoning women for sexual promiscuity, not allowing women to vote, and arranging marriages. Archaic policies incompatible with a civilized society. I do not believe they are well-intentioned either. So, I feel the same way about your views on the subject.

Like Macarthur said, these laws are deeply unpopular and the only people who applaud them are the extreme right. Even in deep red states like Kentucky, where abortion is protected, voters voted down a ban. Abortion bans are deeply unpopular and for good reason. They are stiff, rigid, unreasonable, and cruel. Fortunately, younger generations are appalled by this extremism, so that gives me hope for the future.

Macarthur said:

---

And I'm the one that gets accused of being emotional and illogical.

---

let the record show that the only people who accused others of being emotional were ... *checks notes* macarthur and barbacoa

Macarthur said:

---

And I'm the one that gets accused of being emotional and illogical.

---

We were having a discussion about abortion at will. I asked why we wouldn't care or address the cause , assuming abortion indicates something is 'wrong'. Do you agree or no?

just so we're all clear, when you say "these laws" do you mean laws against abortion in general or the Texas law in particular?

AGC said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

And I'm the one that gets accused of being emotional and illogical.

---

We were having a discussion about abortion at will. I asked why we wouldn't care or address the cause , assuming abortion indicates something is 'wrong'. Do you agree or no?

---

What do you mean about something being 'wrong'?

saying "you're a baby murderer" for supporting laws that allow abortion is appealing to emotion, yes.

i know you think i'm being a soulless monster because you assume that I would look at your sonogram pictures and then tell you "that's not a baby" or something like that. When my point was really as simple as fertilized eggs aren't the same as people. And as cold as this may seem, the law does not recognize people as human beings, with full rights, until they are born.

I'm not saying we should allow abortion up until birth (a common strawman used against the pro-choice side), I'm really just falling back on the Roe standard that you have to balance the unborn child's interest in being born with the mother's right to bodily autonomy and her health, with a clear gestational limit. But I didn't come here to have that debate, because we've already reached an impasse and this thread was more so about the consequences of the Texas law.

the Texas abortion ban, and generally post-Roe abortion bans. they are too extreme and will continue to have some pretty dire consequences.

if it's your position that they should be updated to prevent situations like the OP, fine. but i'm not going to hold my breath for them to do that. because if any lawmaker dares to say we need a rape exception, his political career is over, because everyone will call him a ruthless baby killer.

Macarthur said:

---

AGC said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

And I'm the one that gets accused of being emotional and illogical.

---

We were having a discussion about abortion at will. I asked why we wouldn't care or address the cause , assuming abortion indicates something is 'wrong'. Do you agree or no?

---

What do you mean about something being 'wrong'?

---

That was my question to you, do you agree or not? If you disagree then I ask do perfectly healthy people (physically, financially, relationally, etc., people who want for nothing in any part of their life) walk in and sign up for abortions.

It is really funny watching this devolve. Pretty soon we'll be discussing what the definition of 'is' is.

AGC said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

AGC said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

And I'm the one that gets accused of being emotional and illogical.

---

We were having a discussion about abortion at will. I asked why we wouldn't care or address the cause , assuming abortion indicates something is 'wrong'. Do you agree or no?

---

What do you mean about something being 'wrong'?

---

That was my question to you, do you agree or not? If you disagree then I ask do perfectly healthy people (physically, financially, relationally, etc., people who want for nothing in any part of their life) walk in and sign up for abortions.

---

Sure, I think that happens.

Macarthur said:

---

AGC said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

AGC said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

And I'm the one that gets accused of being emotional and illogical.

---

We were having a discussion about abortion at will. I asked why we wouldn't care or address the cause , assuming abortion indicates something is 'wrong'. Do you agree or no?

---

What do you mean about something being 'wrong'?

---

That was my question to you, do you agree or not? If you disagree then I ask do perfectly healthy people (physically, financially, relationally, etc., people who want for nothing in any part of their life) walk in and sign up for abortions.

---

Sure, I think that happens.

---

Why?

Edit: I recognize that this is also the only place you can go to be logically consistent but it's shocking to see how committed to the cause you are.

Quote:

---

the law does not recognize people as human beings, with full rights, until they are born.

---

fact check: mostly false

a majority of states and the federal government confer legal recognition to some degree to children in utero. unborn children are held to be persons in criminal, tort, and property law and can, for example, be victims of crime and can inherit property before their birth.

I wouldn't presume to know everyone's reasons...