Texas continues to pay for a proven "discredited" expert on anti-abortion law

[nehalem256]

I understand the notion that anti-abortionists have regarding their views but where I get fuzzy is when those same people also try to remove public funding/welfare for mothers who need help taking care of children they may not have wanted.

You want women to have the child they are creating explicitly yet it seems many of you are against helping women once they have had the child you have now forced on them.

Odd is it not?

Forced? Did she not get pregnant based on her own choices?

Also, refer back to my previous argument. Don't you think it is rather odd for the very people who claim that a fetus is equivalent to poop bacteria to advocate for welfare funding for these same fetuses?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Your analogy sucks.

For example. No one would call this a cake

And I assume everyone would agree this is a cake

But what would you call this:

That's a tray of cake batter, which from now on I'm going to refer to as "cake fetus" if only to annoy my wife. I think you'll find that basically all chefs agree that uncooked cake batter is not a cake; it is batter. That's why we have a separate word to describe it. Like "fetus" and "baby." Separate words to describe separate stages of the development process. Which is pretty much exactly the message you were trying to refute with these images, though I'm at a loss as for why exactly you thought this was the way to do it, as you just reinforced the other poster's argument.

 

[nehalem256]

That's a tray of cake batter, which from now on I'm going to refer to as "cake fetus" if only to annoy my wife. I think you'll find that basically all chefs agree that uncooked cake batter is not a cake; it is batter. That's why we have a separate word to describe it. Like "fetus" and "baby." Separate words to describe separate stages of the development process. Which is pretty much exactly the message you were trying to refute with these images, though I'm at a loss as for why exactly you thought this was the way to do it, as you just reinforced the other poster's argument.

I believe I covered that later:

You would probably look at someone funny who said their cake batter was baking

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Simply because society can not set a standard by which rights should be granted.

That's the sole function of society. Society as a concept only exists on the basis of people coming together and agreeing on a set of standards to govern behavior. If you truly believed that society couldn't set standards by which rights should be granted, then all those delicious animals you love to eat have the exact same rights as you, which would make you a genocidal lunatic. But that isn't the case, because we've determined that one of the standards for enjoying rights in our society is being human. We're debating where the concept of personhood actually begins so that we can figure out when rights apply; that doesn't mean that society can't set that standard. Who else is going to?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

If I have a pan filled with cake batter that I just stuck in the oven do I have a cake? Well maybe. And I bet most people refer to it as cake at that point. You would probably look at someone funny who said their cake batter was baking

But you don't have a cake until it finishes baking. And even if someone says "I made a cake" while it's still in the oven, it's only going to be 20 minutes until it's baked, so they're not exactly jumping the gun by proclaiming that. Compare that to a 9 month gestational period. No one in the history of time has said "we have a baby" and meant a 12 week old fetus in the womb. "We're having a baby" is a much more common expression, and it fits perfectly with the "we will have a cake once it's finished baking" analogy.

 

[VtPC83]

Forced? Did she not get pregnant based on her own choices?

Also, refer back to my previous argument. Don't you think it is rather odd for the very people who claim that a fetus is equivalent to poop bacteria to advocate for welfare funding for these same fetuses?

Typically yes she did, but not all do. I believe many (not sure if you do) anti-abortionists don't differentiate between an unwanted pregnancy and women who were raped. In addition, in general, where they are trying to outlaw abortion they don't teach proper sex ed so mostly kids are getting pregnancies through poor education (again controlled by the same people demanding no abortions)

I'm not advocating welfare for the fetus, I'm referring to AFTER the child is born. It seems many anti-abortionists draw the line there, they want no part in supporting a women who now has a child she didn't want but was forced to have.

 

[Texashiker]

That's the sole function of society. Society as a concept only exists on the basis of people coming together and agreeing on a set of standards to govern behavior.

I understand your point, and I partially agree with you.

However, rights are not based on your approval, or the approval of society. If rights were based upon approval, certain groups could be stripped of their rights.

I'm not advocating welfare for the fetus, I'm referring to AFTER the child is born. It seems many anti-abortionists draw the line there, they want no part in supporting a women who now has a child she didn't want but was forced to have.

You do know as soon as a woman has a positive pregnancy test she can sign up for the WIC program?

 

[hal2kilo]

Posting in yet another abortion thread derailed by nehalam.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Right To Life, Clean Air Act, Tough On Crime, Defense Of Marriage Act, Anti Big Government, all conservative HOT AIR. All as real as Iraqi soldiers pulling pre-me babies out of incubators in Kuwait.

 

[nehalem256]

Typically yes she did, but not all do. I believe many (not sure if you do) anti-abortionists don't differentiate between an unwanted pregnancy and women who were raped.

I don't think this is an accurate statement at all.

In addition, in general, where they are trying to outlaw abortion they don't teach proper sex ed so mostly kids are getting pregnancies through poor education (again controlled by the same people demanding no abortions)

If they don't have the very basics of sex ed at least how do they know where to put it

I'm not advocating welfare for the fetus, I'm referring to AFTER the child is born. It seems many anti-abortionists draw the line there, they want no part in supporting a women who now has a child she didn't want but was forced to have.

As a point of fact there are many government programs to support fetuses. As you also pointed out its pretty clear its not the anti-abortionists supporting these programs.

Anti-abortionists also don't want to support women who wanted to have a child she could not feed.

 

[nehalem256]

That's the sole function of society. Society as a concept only exists on the basis of people coming together and agreeing on a set of standards to govern behavior. If you truly believed that society couldn't set standards by which rights should be granted, then all those delicious animals you love to eat have the exact same rights as you, which would make you a genocidal lunatic. But that isn't the case, because we've determined that one of the standards for enjoying rights in our society is being human. We're debating where the concept of personhood actually begins so that we can figure out when rights apply; that doesn't mean that society can't set that standard. Who else is going to?

Apparently the SCOTUS :\

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Apparently the SCOTUS :\

That would be one of the bodies we established as a society to help define the standards by which our society functions. Just because we don't have an up-or-down vote from every single person on every single issue doesn't mean society isn't involved in the decision-making of what is deemed acceptable at any given time; we have representatives in government to do that for us. Although with the state of our current congress, it might actually be preferable to govern with a 100% direct democracy; we'd almost certainly be more efficient than the system we have now.

 

[surfsatwerk]

Posting in yet another abortion thread derailed by nehalam.

Which is every abortion thread.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Let me ask you something, when the allies liberated the jewish extermination camps, put the nazis on trial, and then hung the nazis from the end of a rope, were the allies "extremist?"

How does protecting human rights make one an extremist?

"Hey, let's put these Jews in camps to build V2 rockets to 'liberate' the British, because that's what I want!"

Subjugating women to get your preferred result (which is the further economic subjugation of women) makes you the Nazi. Keep lying to yourself and lying for Jesus to everyone else, because you sure seem to be fooling everyone!

However, rights are not based on your approval, or the approval of society. If rights were based upon approval, certain groups could be stripped of their rights.

Which is the foundation of conservatism: "Only those in the privileged group have real rights; the determination of the existence of anyone else's is a right of the privileged."
You only grant that women have the rights that YOU would bestow upon them. Unfortunately for you, women have the right to vote and thus aren't relegated to what you would mete out.

E: Since some of you seem to need it; here:
http://forums.anandtech.com/profile.php?do=ignorelist
nehalem256

 

[nehalem256]

"Hey, let's put these Jews in camps to build V2 rockets to 'liberate' the British, because that's what I want!"

Subjugating women to get your preferred result (which is the further economic subjugation of women) makes you the Nazi.

Ah, now the truth is coming out. So abortion is really about giving women economic freedom.

So how about giving men the same economic freedom and dropping forced child support for children men didn't want and didn't choose to have?

Or is economic subjugation of men okay in your book?

 

[DrPizza]

You are being obtuse.

You know good and well when life is created.

I'm curious. When does life get created?

 

[nehalem256]

Where does it stop? If I have sex, am I obligated to not pull out or use any form of birth control because the sperm and egg have a right to life? I feel the fetus has about as much right to life as the egg that won't get my sperm.

Are you committing a violent act against your sperm?

Lets put it this way. If a homeless man asks you for $5 for food are you obligated to give him the money so he won't starve to death? Of course not. Doesn't mean you can shoot him though.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Are you committing a violent act against your sperm?

Lets put it this way. If a homeless man asks you for $5 for food are you obligated to give him the money so he won't starve to death? Of course not. Doesn't mean you can shoot him though.

But a homeless person is a human being... which brings us back to square one. All the talk about religion, child support, cake, WIC, etc. that happens in these threads really doesn't mean anything to me because the bottom line, in my opinion, is that an early fetus is not a human being. Just as I had a benign cyst removed from my back a while back, I don't feel I am killing a person when those cells are taken out of my body and destroyed. I don't feel a fetus is a human being. Potentially a human, sure. But not a human being.

 

[smackababy]

I read this thread yesterday and was extremely confused, as I thought the OP was TH for some reason.

 

[nehalem256]

But a homeless person is a human being... which brings us back to square one. All the talk about religion, child support, cake, WIC, etc. that happens in these threads really doesn't mean anything to me because the bottom line, in my opinion, is that an early fetus is not a human being. Just as I had a benign cyst removed from my back a while back, I don't feel I am killing a person when those cells are taken out of my body and destroyed. I don't feel a fetus is a human being. Potentially a human, sure. But not a human being.

But you were arguing that theoretically a sperm/egg might be considered a person. And that therefore using birth control might be considered murder.

I was responding to your theoretical argument about how the situation was different.

Its like how some people like to bring up a woman might miscarry therefore actively killing a fetus is okay.

Which makes no sense because such an argument wouldn't work for any other case. You can't argue that well the guy I killed was old or had cancer therefore its okay for me to shoot them.

 

[ivwshane]

I read this thread yesterday and was extremely confused, as I thought the OP was TH for some reason.

They have similar views on women and their logic is warped, and they both have mental issues. Confusion warranted

 

[smackababy]

But you were arguing that theoretically a sperm/egg might be considered a person. And that therefore using birth control might be considered murder.

I was responding to your theoretical argument about how the situation was different.

Its like how some people like to bring up a woman might miscarry therefore actively killing a fetus is okay.

The problem is that we have to rigidly define when a person is considered a person. In no scenario is a homeless person going to be considered not a person (at worst, he would be a bad person who has committed a capital offense). However, when a fertilized egg becomes a person is hotly debated. Is it at the point of viability? It is at the point of fertilization?

Which makes no sense because such an argument wouldn't work for any other case. You can't argue that well the guy I killed was old or had cancer therefore its okay for me to shoot them.

That isn't entirely true. Euthanasia is still debated and legal in some places.

 

[nehalem256]

They have similar views on women and their logic is warped, and they both have mental issues. Confusion warranted

Opposing the economic subjugation of men is a mental issue? D:

Also a since I think you are a man too.

 

[nehalem256]

The problem is that we have to rigidly define when a person is considered a person. In no scenario is a homeless person going to be considered not a person (at worst, he would be a bad person who has committed a capital offense). However, when a fertilized egg becomes a person is hotly debated. Is it at the point of viability? It is at the point of fertilization?

And in no scenario is refusing to give $5 to a homeless person going to be considered murder.

So likewise. Even if one were to consider a sperm a person using birth control would not be considered murder.

That isn't entirely true. Euthanasia is still debated and legal in some places.

Pretty sure the fetus isn't consenting to getting euthanized

 

[SlowSpyder]

But you were arguing that theoretically a sperm/egg might be considered a person. And that therefore using birth control might be considered murder.

I was responding to your theoretical argument about how the situation was different.

Its like how some people like to bring up a woman might miscarry therefore actively killing a fetus is okay.

Which makes no sense because such an argument wouldn't work for any other case. You can't argue that well the guy I killed was old or had cancer therefore its okay for me to shoot them.

Not exactly, I was suggesting that a sperm/egg are no more a person than an early fetus.