Ask Experts Questions for FREE Help !
Ask
    Athos's Avatar
    Athos Posts: 908, Reputation: 55
    Senior Member
     
    #1

    Sep 16, 2021, 08:31 AM
    Texas Anti-Abortion Law & Pandemic Masking
    Guest editorial --

    A Common Sense Take on the Texas Anti-Abortion Law-


    Mandating masks to end a pandemic and regulating the ownership of deadly weapons are attacks on personal freedoms, yet forcing women to carry pregnancies, regardless of risks, abnormalities, and other factors, such as rape and incest, is not?

    I cannot even begin to comprehend how those thoughts can coexist in the same mind.

    I do not support completely unrestricted access to abortion, but the small government crowd definitely should not be the ones telling others what to do with the innermost parts of their bodies.

    It is wrong to force a lifesaving mask on your fellow citizens, yet, somehow, it is lawmakers’ job to stick their hands into women’s wombs?

    On what level does that even begin to make sense?
    talaniman's Avatar
    talaniman Posts: 54,323, Reputation: 10855
    Expert
     
    #2

    Sep 16, 2021, 09:37 AM
    Doesn't make much sense unless you consider re election antics and shenanigans by extreme loony right wing politicians.
    Athos's Avatar
    Athos Posts: 908, Reputation: 55
    Senior Member
     
    #3

    Sep 16, 2021, 07:44 PM
    jlisenbe's Avatar
    jlisenbe Posts: 4,122, Reputation: 155
    Ultra Member
     
    #4

    Sep 16, 2021, 08:32 PM
    yet forcing women to carry pregnancies, regardless of risks, abnormalities, and other factors, such as rape and incest, is not?
    So it's better to just kill the unborn child?

    I do not support completely unrestricted access to abortion, but the small government crowd definitely should not be the ones telling others what to do with the innermost parts of their bodies.
    So you do not support "completely unrestricted access to abortion", but you wouldn't want to tell others what to do with the "innermost parts of their bodies"? But wouldn't that be the result of placing restrictions on abortion? You would be telling some women they could not have an abortion and would thus be telling them what to do with the, "innermost parts of their bodies".

    You can't have it both ways. Either you completely support a woman's "right to choose" and exercise sovereignty over her body, or you support placing limits on that right and sovereignty.
    Athos's Avatar
    Athos Posts: 908, Reputation: 55
    Senior Member
     
    #5

    Sep 16, 2021, 09:30 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by jlisenbe View Post
    So it's better to just kill the unborn child?
    Missed the point - again! It's about choice.

    So you do not support "completely unrestricted access to abortion", but you wouldn't want to tell others what to do with the "innermost parts of their bodies"? But wouldn't that be the result of placing restrictions on abortion? You would be telling some women they could not have an abortion and would thus be telling them what to do with the, "innermost parts of their bodies".

    You can't have it both ways. Either you completely support a woman's "right to choose" and exercise sovereignty over her body, or you support placing limits on that right and sovereignty.
    Wrong, wrong, wrong. Let me put it this way - I agree with the author of the piece and totally support a woman's right to choose. AT THE SAME TIME, being against completely unrestricted access to abortion does not mean a woman's RIGHT TO CHOOSE should be legally infringed. One can have reservations about a law and still abide by it.

    Do you get it? Now? (Probably not.)
    jlisenbe's Avatar
    jlisenbe Posts: 4,122, Reputation: 155
    Ultra Member
     
    #6

    Sep 17, 2021, 04:36 AM
    Missed the point - again! It's about choice.
    Evaded the question...again. I'll repost it. "So it's better to just kill the unborn child?"

    As to your second point, you seem to be against "completely unrestricted access to abortion", and yet you would not legally restrict a woman's right to choose? So let's see. You are against "completely unrestricted access to abortion", but yet you would not restrict access to abortion. Uhm...that doesn't make sense.

    If you were the doctor and were going to kill this 19 week fetus, what procedure would you use? I ask because this is what liberals exercise their "choice" to ignore. In abortion, the baby has to die. Closing your eyes to that truth does not absolve you of responsibility.

    Athos's Avatar
    Athos Posts: 908, Reputation: 55
    Senior Member
     
    #7

    Sep 17, 2021, 02:45 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by jlisenbe View Post
    If you were the doctor and were going to kill this 19 week fetus, what procedure would you use?
    I don't do abortions.

    Would you have this fetus aborted if your wife's life depended on it?

    In abortion, the baby has to die. Closing your eyes to that truth does not absolve you of responsibility.
    The responsibility for the baby's death lies with those who perform the abortion. No one "closes their eyes to the truth" that a baby dies during an abortion.
    Wondergirl's Avatar
    Wondergirl Posts: 38,608, Reputation: 5430
    Jobs & Parenting Expert
     
    #8

    Sep 17, 2021, 02:55 PM
    The unborn fetus has yet to draw its first breath. It isn't viable, able to live and survive, until it has been born and breathed. The Lord God formed man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living creature (Genesis 2:7).
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 342
    Ultra Member
     
    #9

    Sep 17, 2021, 03:43 PM
    If someone is pronounced dead when the heart stops beating then why shouldn't someone be pronounced alive when there is a heart beat ?

    The Texas law is bad law for reasons I outlined here,
    The new Texas abortion law is unconstitutional (askmehelpdesk.com)

    About a dozen states have heart beat laws This is the 1st time courts have permitted enforcement at least until someone comes forward with proper standing . Then the law will be over turned .

    Texas this year added a $20 million increase in funding for pregnancy centers, adoption agencies and maternity homes that provide free services .In total, lawmakers voted to invest $100 million into the Texas Alternatives to Abortion program .So the state puts up funding to offer a choice .

    As for the 'my body my choice' rhetoric ;attempts to challenge the terminology of the Texas Heartbeat Act lay bare the truth of whose body is really being violated in an abortion. Everyone knows this .Everyone knows that the practice of murder for the right of convenience is grotesque. That is why the Orwellian use of terms like pro-choice; reproductive rights ,and reproductive freedom are used instead . It hides an ugly truth .
    Wondergirl's Avatar
    Wondergirl Posts: 38,608, Reputation: 5430
    Jobs & Parenting Expert
     
    #10

    Sep 17, 2021, 03:55 PM
    And, too often, what happens to that breathing newborn with a heartbeat? One was recently found alive, wrapped in rosary beads and with vomit in its mouth, in a discarded dresser drawer in a Chicago alley, hours before the piece of furniture and other trash would’ve been picked up by garbage trucks and taken to a landfill. And that's only one story.
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 342
    Ultra Member
     
    #11

    Sep 17, 2021, 04:12 PM
    The remedy to prevent an act of cruelty is murder ? 2020 54,741 abortions were executed in the state of Texas .Would all those babies alternatively been discarded in the trash ? Since abortion for the most part is readily available and probably free in Chicago then how is it that someone decided to toss that baby in the trash when a legal murder option was available ?
    Wondergirl's Avatar
    Wondergirl Posts: 38,608, Reputation: 5430
    Jobs & Parenting Expert
     
    #12

    Sep 17, 2021, 04:22 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    how is it that someone decided to toss that baby in the trash when a legal murder option was available ?
    Shame? Fear? Single mother with no resources/support for raising a child? Since the abandoned baby was wrapped with rosary beads, a certain Christian denomination comes to mind as to why the baby made it through delivery. Illinois has Safe Haven laws, which would have allowed a parent to drop the newborn child at a location like a police station or hospital so long as he or she is uninjured and not yet 30 days old.
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 342
    Ultra Member
     
    #13

    Sep 17, 2021, 04:42 PM
    Shame? Fear? Single mother with no resources/support for raising a child?Since the abandoned baby was wrapped with rosary beads, a certain Christian denomination comes to mind as to why the baby made it through delivery.
    a lot of speculation with the flimsiest of evidence supporting it . If I was to whack someone I could possibly come up with many reasons to rationalize the act .
    Illinois has Safe Haven laws, which would have allowed a parent to drop the newborn child at a location like a police station or hospital so long as he or she is uninjured and not yet 30 days old.
    Yes most states have alternative programs . Maybe the effort should be educating about the availability of the alternatives and assistance .
    Wondergirl's Avatar
    Wondergirl Posts: 38,608, Reputation: 5430
    Jobs & Parenting Expert
     
    #14

    Sep 17, 2021, 05:36 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    a lot of speculation with the flimsiest of evidence supporting it . If I was to whack someone I could possibly come up with many reasons to rationalize the act .
    And the baby was full term and had been delivered. We have yet to hear the full story
    Yes most states have alternative programs . Maybe the effort should be educating about the availability of the alternatives and assistance .
    Definitely! Now, how can that be accomplished?
    jlisenbe's Avatar
    jlisenbe Posts: 4,122, Reputation: 155
    Ultra Member
     
    #15

    Sep 17, 2021, 07:13 PM
    I don't do abortions.
    No. You just vote for and applaud those who continue to allow it.

    Would you have this fetus aborted if your wife's life depended on it?
    Perhaps. I imagine my wife and I would have agreed to pray and put it in God's hands, but I've never been in that situation. Now how about the other 99.99% of the cases?

    The responsibility for the baby's death lies with those who perform the abortion. No one "closes their eyes to the truth" that a baby dies during an abortion.
    Just a feeble attempt to avoid responsibility. You vote for and applaud those who enthusiastically support these laws. It's on you and all those who vote for those who continue it.

    The unborn fetus has yet to draw its first breath. It isn't viable, able to live and survive, until it has been born and breathed.
    So you are OK with an abortion taking place at the end of the ninth month? You are if you really believe in the standard you just posted.

    But even at that, how do you propose the doctor should kill that baby pictured above? That's the key question that neither one of you has the courage to answer. How do you take the little baby's life?

    The Lord God formed man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living creature (Genesis 2:7).
    Amazing how quickly you post and give a literal understanding to any scripture that you think supports your position. What a double standard. And were you there when that happened? (another standard of yours)

    The remedy to prevent an act of cruelty is murder ? 2020 54,741 abortions were executed in the state of Texas .Would all those babies alternatively been discarded in the trash ?
    Great reply for which, you will notice, there was no response.
    jlisenbe's Avatar
    jlisenbe Posts: 4,122, Reputation: 155
    Ultra Member
     
    #16

    Sep 18, 2021, 05:35 AM
    Since you two would not answer the question, I have answered it for you. Read this and see if you are comfortable with this being done to the baby in the picture above, speaking of the one with fingernails, lips, and a beautifully formed face.


    • 1. Grasp the cervix with an instrument to hold the uterus in place.
    • 2. Dilate the cervical canal with probes of increasing size. An abortion in the second 12 weeks will need the cervix to be dilated more than required for a vacuum aspiration.
    • 3. Pass a hollow tube (cannula) into the uterus. The cannula is attached by tubing to a bottle and a pump that provides a gentle vacuum to remove tissue in the uterus. Some cramping is felt during the rest of the procedure.
    • 4. Pass a grasping instrument (forceps) into the uterus to grasp larger pieces of tissue. This is more likely in pregnancies of 16 weeks or more and is done before the uterine lining is scraped with a curette.
    • 5. Use a curved instrument (curette) to gently scrape the lining of the uterus and remove tissue in the uterus.
    • 6. Use suction. This may be done as a final step to make sure the uterine contents are completely removed.


    Bear in mind that the forceps being used to "grasp larger pieces of tissue" is referring to the grasping and removing of legs, arms, and the torso. The head is generally removed last. They then "reassemble" the body on a tray and, as I understand it, photograph it as proof that they removed everything just in case the mother gets sick and wants to sue.

    OK with that? Are you really OK with that?

    Dilation and Evacuation (D&E) | Michigan Medicine (uofmhealth.org)

    You can watch this testimony before Congress. It's about five minutes long. There are no pictures, but simply a description of how those procedures are done.

    Testimony of Former Abortion Provider, Dr. Anthony Levatino - YouTube
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 342
    Ultra Member
     
    #17

    Sep 18, 2021, 05:45 AM
    But Planned Parenthood has to extract the baby out with great care if they are to harvest useful baby parts .
    Undercover video shows Planned Parenthood official discussing fetal organs used for research - The Washington Post
    jlisenbe's Avatar
    jlisenbe Posts: 4,122, Reputation: 155
    Ultra Member
     
    #18

    Sep 18, 2021, 07:38 AM
    But Planned Parenthood has to extract the baby out with great care if they are to harvest useful baby parts
    It never ceases to amaze me how seemingly rational people can look at that and say, "Oh well." PP basically says to women, "Bring us your unborn child and we'll turn it into a commercial product." It's just stunning, and I wonder how much longer it will be until we take the next step.
    Athos's Avatar
    Athos Posts: 908, Reputation: 55
    Senior Member
     
    #19

    Sep 18, 2021, 09:08 AM
    from Athos
    Would you have this fetus aborted if your wife's life depended on it?
    Quote Originally Posted by jlisenbe View Post
    Perhaps.
    Perhaps? PERHAPS? So your anti-abortion stance is conditional. WOW! What a revelation. When it's in your interest, killing unborn children is a definite possibility.

    This is not a good day for you, Jl. First you were caught evading the Bible question, now this.

    So you are OK with an abortion taking place at the end of the ninth month? You are if you really believe in the standard you just posted.
    So are you if it saves your wife's life. You just told us of this possibility.

    But even at that, how do you propose the doctor should kill that baby pictured above? That's the key question that neither one of you has the courage to answer.
    There's nothing "key" about that question. We are not doctors. But what about YOU? How would YOU kill the unborn baby if your wife's life depended on it? Is that still a "key" question when the ball is in your court? I'm sure you know all about the methods and that you can tell the rest of us.

    Amazing how quickly you post and give a literal understanding to any scripture that you think supports your position.
    That Bible quote was for YOU. You can't answer it, so another evasion. You're 0 for everything, Jl.
    jlisenbe's Avatar
    jlisenbe Posts: 4,122, Reputation: 155
    Ultra Member
     
    #20

    Sep 18, 2021, 09:19 AM
    Perhaps? PERHAPS? So your anti-abortion stance is conditional. WOW! What a revelation. When it's in your interest, killing unborn children is a definite possibility.

    This is not a good day for you, Jl. First you were caught evading the Bible question, now this.
    Oh stop with the fake theatrics. The principle of self defense is well established. My answer was an honest one. I've never faced that, but I would think we would not do it. My wife's input would be of enormous importance. Knowing her as I do, I think I know what she would say. But any semi-thoughtful person can see the difference between an abortion to protect the mother's life versus what nearly all abortions are about which is convenience.

    There's nothing "key" about that question. We are not doctors. But what about YOU? How would YOU kill the unborn baby if your wife's life depended on it? Is that still a "key" question when the ball is in your court? I'm sure you know all about the methods and that you can tell the rest of us.
    The usual non-answer. Typical. The question remains on the board. If you were the doctor, how would you go about taking the life of that 19 week fetus pictured above?

    Note to readers. Prepare for another plateful of evasion along with a side order of anger.

    That Bible quote was for YOU. You can't answer it, so another evasion. You're 0 for everything, Jl.
    There's nothing to answer since there was no question asked. The Genesis scripture was not in reference to abortion or a woman being pregnant or giving birth. You will not find a medical book anywhere which says that an unborn child is somehow not alive since it is not breathing. It is preposterous. It's about as dumb as saying that the child must eat to be considered alive. It's as absurd as destroying a nest full of eagle eggs and then pleading that, after all, Athos said it must be breathing to be alive, and the eagles in the eggs were not yet breathing. Try that and see how far you get with it.

Not your question? Ask your question View similar questions

 

Question Tools Search this Question
Search this Question:

Advanced Search

Add your answer here.


Check out some similar questions!

The new Texas abortion law is unconstitutional [ 1 Answers ]

No ;not because it violates the unconstitutional 'Roe v Wade ' decision It is unconstitutional because it creates what the libs call a vigilante system where someone not involved in the specific case can bring a civil case forward . SCOTUS did not hear the case over procedural issues. When...

What was the impact of delay in taking Anti D injection after medical abortion [ 0 Answers ]

My wife had a medical abortion 5years ago,her blood group is B- but we forgot to take ANTI D INJECTION and it was taken after 14 days later .is there is any problem in the time of next pregnancy

Computer viruses masking itself as an anti-virus program [ 2 Answers ]

Help! I purchases a laptop for my daughter in May. A Toshiba from Best Buy. Suddenly appearing on the computer is some type of security software from Best Buy that keeps popping up asking for $50. To activate. The pop-up keeps popping up all over the screen to the point that you cannot use the...

How come that swine flu is now able to cause a pandemic? [ 2 Answers ]

Even though both the classical swine flu and humans seasonal flu H1N1 originate from Spanish flu 1918.

Influenza pandemic [ 1 Answers ]

If the bird flu virus gained the ability to pass between humans. In what ways would it affect the UK? And what would be do to resolve them?


View more questions Search