Texas bans safest and most common abortion procedure after 13 weeks

[PsyOps]

I once read about an ultasound image being done during the process showed the fetus backing away from the 'vacuum' that was going in. I can't find the link to support that though �� it was back in the late 70's or early 80's.

A couple of things come to mind here:

1. Unless the video was done at about 28 weeks of gestation, the eyes wouldn't have been open.
2. The technology is available today to prove this, yet there is nothing out there to support it. Of course I don't know who would research such a thing.

We do know a baby in the womb can respond to certain stimuli: music, the mother's voice, etc... this makes it obvious they are aware of things. Does this equate to feeling pain when aborted? Should it really matter?

 

[black dog]

I have a .GIF file that demonstrates that a 12-week old fetus (which is moved outside the mother's uterus for surgery) reacts to touch by flinching and moving away. I could post it here but this forum won't allow a 2.5 megabyte animated .GIF. 12 weeks is first trimester of a normal pregnancy.

Yep,,,, reflexes are developing at 12 weeks...

 

[Toxick]

So is a miscarriage natures murder?

Yeah - just like lightning bolts.
Or tornados.
Or earthquakes.
Or hardening of the arteries.
Or a stroke.
Or maybe that was the stupidest comparison I've ever seen.


Well - not THE stupidest. But probably in the top 5.

 

[Sapidus]

You mean I should be using terms approved by you? Which "wrong terminology" did I use?

I have, over and over, rejected the beat up justification "a woman should be able to do with her body what she wants". It's not her body that is being torn to shreds. She may be the one hold that body, and it may be attached to her through an umbilical, it is NOT her body that is growing inside her. When that child is born, it is still attached to her, either through breast feeding, or any other form of dependency. The child still cannot survive on its own. Yet, somehow it miraculously becomes an actual human once it enters into the world; and killing it becomes illegal.

Once a baby is born any number of people can keep it alive using formula or another nursing mother.

The fetus can't live on its own without the mothers body supporting it in the womb. It is an extension of her body until it can live on its own.


The word you used is Pro-abortion which is not an actual stance.

 

[Toxick]

The word you used is Pro-abortion which is not an actual stance.

Neither is "anti-choice", yet pro-choicers use it all the time.

 

[Sapidus]

I once read about an ultasound image being done during the process showed the fetus backing away from the 'vacuum' that was going in. I can't find the link to support that though �� it was back in the late 70's or early 80's.

I highly doubt that.

That is on the level of the baby born three weeks ago with an IUD in it's hand that was making the rounds

 

[PsyOps]

The word you used is Pro-abortion which is not an actual stance.

So you're not pro-abortion?

 

[Sapidus]

So you're not pro-abortion?

No. I am pro choice.

Pro abortion would imply i support the act of abortion more than the choice the woman should have

 

[PsyOps]

No. I am pro choice.

Pro abortion would imply i support the act of abortion more than the choice the woman should have

You really like making crap up don't you?

Pro: an argument or evidence in affirmation
Abortion: the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy
Pro-Abortion: an argument or evidence in affirmation of the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy.

If you want to waggle on this, fine! I choose to say you are pro-abortion.

 

[Toxick]

Pro-Abortion: an argument or evidence in affirmation of the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy.

Hm - I have to side with Sapidus on this one. I am most certainly not pro-abortion. However, in an argument with L_G one day I was reluctantly confronted with a moment of truth and have since been intellectually obligated to call myself pro-choice. Although the act of abortion is still philosophically abhorrent to me, and anyone who engages in such a practice forfeits a portion of their own humanity in my eyes, I cannot see myself forcing a pregnancy on someone who doesn't want it.

I reject the label pro-abortion. I, unfortunately, empathize with both sides of this debate - and it causes me no small amount of irritation (and, I'm not gonna lie, amusement) that both sides so staunchly, blindly, rigidly and sometimes violently refuse to see the matter from any position other than their own.



That said, I unapologetically judge the practice, people who engage in it.

 

[SamSpade]

I am most certainly not pro-abortion. However, in an argument with L_G one day I was reluctantly confronted with a moment of truth and have since been intellectually obligated to call myself pro-choice.

And I keep trying to figure out the mental gymnastics not to see it as pro-abortion.
To me it sounds like being against torture, but supporting the choice to use it at Gitmo.
Or say, ditto capital punishment - against it, but support the right of the state to do it anyway.

Me? I'm pro-death penalty. I think it should be used sparingly and appropriately - but I am for it.
Maybe I wouldn't throw the switch myself, but I'm not against saying, I am for it.

 

[Toxick]

And I keep trying to figure out the mental gymnastics not to see it as pro-abortion.

There are no mental gymnastics involved. And I thought I spelled it out pretty clearly
Pro means you "support" something. I do not support abortion - I am, in fact, anti-abortion. I am vocally against the practice.


I am against the use of marijuana, meth, heroine and cocaine.

And abortion.



That doesn't mean I think any of those things should be illegal.





However, I reserve the right to think anyone who does these things is a waste of skin.


Just because you call me something, and refuse to acknowledge my logic, neither validates your moniker for me nor invalidates my logic.

 

[Restitution]

Your tells are beginning to show plant man!

 

[SamSpade]

There are no mental gymnastics involved. And I thought I spelled it out pretty clearly
Pro means you "support" something. I do not support abortion - I am, in fact, anti-abortion. I am vocally against the practice.

I'm not judging you or insulting you. I honestly don't see the difference. And I have heard the argument MANY times.
It just doesn't make sense to me. To me it's saying I don't support the killing of your toddler or pre-schooler,
but you should have the CHOICE to kill your toddler or pre-schooler.
And with that choice, no one should interfere. It would mean that guy who stopped that other man from drowning his babies
would have been wrong to do that. It ultimately ends up supporting the killing of children.

I suspect you may not be able to spell it out clearly, because it's just not how I think. I know people who are against the killing of animals
for food - usually, hunting or fishing - but are 100% with it being prepared FOR them via a butcher. So what they really appear to be saying is,
*I* personally wouldn't do it or participate in it, but I think it's ok for anyone ELSE to do it. And I have to answer what the whole argument
says to me - you're FOR the killing of animals - you just don't want to be the one to do it. Kind of like how my daughter likes to fish, but
doesn't want to bait the hook or pull the fish off.

The difference strikes me as only marginally different if at all.

 

[Toxick]

I'm not judging you or insulting you. I honestly don't see the difference. And I have heard the argument MANY times.

Well, there was a conversation with Larry_Gude and myself which culminated in my rethinking the entire issue from another point of view.

I just spent the better part of the last 20 minutes trying to locate this conversation to no avail. It was a rather interesting conversation - and probably the only known record of a person changing their stance on this particular topic. That said, I'm not going to try and convince anyone that my position is the correct one - because I'm not terribly convinced of it myself. I still have a gut-reaction against the practice and it's a negative one, and if Roe v. Wade was flipped over tomorrow, I wouldn't lose one Z of sleep because of it.

However on a philosophical level, pro-choice is the side that fits in with my larger world-view, repellent as it may be.

 

[hotbikermama40]

Somehow if there really was a video of that and it actually was real, one side of the fence would still be using it with there other nefarious advertising.

Edit... If there was a video it wouldn't have to be real for them to use it..
But I think I found it...
[video=youtube_share;ZNK1_Yop6oo]https://youtu.be/ZNK1_Yop6oo[/video]

For clarification, an ultrasound image does not mean a video, it's a term used in radiology. I'm guessing you know that; you've always seemed smart enough. And I never said I saw it, I said I'd heard about it.
By "one side of the fence would still be using it with their nefarious advertising" I'm going to assume you mean the side you think is vapidly ignorant? You know, it really is fine if you are pro-choice. It really, really is. So why be a total d1ck about which "side of the fence" you are on, or aren't? It's almost as if you have to 'protest too much' to make sure no one reading the forum gets confused.

 

[hotbikermama40]

A couple of things come to mind here:

1. Unless the video was done at about 28 weeks of gestation, the eyes wouldn't have been open. I never said 'video', I said I'd heard about an ultrasound image, meaning radiology image done. I heard only that the baby backed away from the vacuum once it breached the cervix and entered the uterus.
2. The technology is available today to prove this, yet there is nothing out there to support it. Of course I don't know who would research such a thing. I would surmise that the image, if captured, was not the result of research, but an accident. Ultrasounds may have been done in tandem with the actual procedure to avoid causing harm to the mother, for example. Though if it happened once, I agree that it likely should have happened a thousand more times and been the topic of magazine and TV interviews, as well as fodder for the pro-life supporters.

We do know a baby in the womb can respond to certain stimuli: music, the mother's voice, etc... this makes it obvious they are aware of things. Does this equate to feeling pain when aborted? Should it really matter? If it ever was, or could be proven, I say yes, it matters immensely.

Seriously, this was only a passing thought as I woke up over covfefe this morning - it was in NO way intended to be a statement of truth, fact or anything of the sort. It was just a 'Oh hey, and you know what I heard once...?". By some replies to it (*ahem* Sappy and BD), I gather this provided a moment of glee. At any rate, tbh, I can see the 'grown ups' of the time deciding to embellish if not outright fabricate something to make certain we followed a particular line of thinking.

 

[hotbikermama40]

I highly doubt that.

That is on the level of the baby born three weeks ago with an IUD in it's hand that was making the rounds

Yes I'm sure you highly doubt it. You also highly disfavor properly quoting in your replies which is frustrating. Whatever. It was something I had heard about, or read - since I was a kid, I can hardly remember which. I'd lay odds that if someone 'pro-choice' stated they'd heard, or read anything that supported that stance, you'd be on it like a fly on sh1t as gospel truth.
I'm sorry; but I just can't take you seriously at all. Maybe that will change over time.

 

[PsyOps]

Hm - I have to side with Sapidus on this one. I am most certainly not pro-abortion. However, in an argument with L_G one day I was reluctantly confronted with a moment of truth and have since been intellectually obligated to call myself pro-choice. Although the act of abortion is still philosophically abhorrent to me, and anyone who engages in such a practice forfeits a portion of their own humanity in my eyes, I cannot see myself forcing a pregnancy on someone who doesn't want it.

I reject the label pro-abortion. I, unfortunately, empathize with both sides of this debate - and it causes me no small amount of irritation (and, I'm not gonna lie, amusement) that both sides so staunchly, blindly, rigidly and sometimes violently refuse to see the matter from any position other than their own.



That said, I unapologetically judge the practice, people who engage in it.

When have you or Sap ever argued for life? Pro-choice people NEVER argue for life, they always defend abortion.

In the literal sense, if you support abortion, you are pro-abortion. Sure, you want to give the mother a choice, but you never advocate for life.

 

[Sapidus]

Yes I'm sure you highly doubt it. You also highly disfavor properly quoting in your replies which is frustrating. Whatever. It was something I had heard about, or read - since I was a kid, I can hardly remember which. I'd lay odds that if someone 'pro-choice' stated they'd heard, or read anything that supported that stance, you'd be on it like a fly on sh1t as gospel truth.
I'm sorry; but I just can't take you seriously at all. Maybe that will change over time.

So you can't take me seriously but you expect us to take you seriously when you say you think you remember seeing a sonogram of a baby backing away from and abortion device?

Great.

I remember hearing about a fetus that thanked it's crack addicted mom for aborting it once it was pulled from the womb