Republicans in Texas

[Phil1111 910]

On 3/10/2021 at 8:15 PM, ryoder said:

So what is next for TX GOP? Ban condoms? Ban seatbelts in motor vehicles?

Mandatory free conversion therapy. The ultimate red meat for evangelical, TX, GOP supporters.

[ryoder 1,384]

Texas gov knew of natural gas shortages days before blackout, blamed wind anyway

I'm shocked!

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

Well, Texas Governor Abbot banned mask madates. 

 

No public entity may enact a mask requirement.

 

Quote

"Texans, not government, should decide their best health practices, which is why masks will not be mandated by public school districts or government entities," Abbott said. "We can continue to mitigate COVID-19 while defending Texans' liberty...

NPR story:
https://www.npr.org/2021/05/18/997990835/no-masks-are-required-at-most-texas-state-facilities-anymore

 

The very next day, he signs a law that prohibits abortions as soon as a 'heartbeat'* can be detected. 
Funny how quickly the importance of Texans deciding their best health practices disappeared.

 

The 'heartbeat' is actually the electrical impulses in the cells that aren't yet formed into a heart. So there's no actual heart to beat.
This happens around 6 weeks. Most women don't even realize that they are pregnant that early.

 

Oops. Edit to ad link to NPR story on abortion bill:
https://www.npr.org/2021/05/19/998237349/the-governor-of-texas-has-signed-a-law-that-bans-abortion-as-early-as-6-weeks

Edited May 21, 2021 by wolfriverjoe

[BIGUN 1,053]

1 hour ago, wolfriverjoe said:

The 'heartbeat' is actually the electrical impulses in the cells that aren't yet formed into a heart. So there's no actual heart to beat.

This will always be a sliding scale of argumentation until the medical profession defines that point at which life begins. 

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

1 hour ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Well, Texas Governor Abbot banned mask madates. 

 

No public entity may enact a mask requirement.

 

NPR story:
https://www.npr.org/2021/05/18/997990835/no-masks-are-required-at-most-texas-state-facilities-anymore

 

The very next day, he signs a law that prohibits abortions as soon as a 'heartbeat'* can be detected. 
Funny how quickly the importance of Texans deciding their best health practices disappeared.

 

The 'heartbeat' is actually the electrical impulses in the cells that aren't yet formed into a heart. So there's no actual heart to beat.
This happens around 6 weeks. Most women don't even realize that they are pregnant that early.

 

Oops. Edit to ad link to NPR story on abortion bill:
https://www.npr.org/2021/05/19/998237349/the-governor-of-texas-has-signed-a-law-that-bans-abortion-as-early-as-6-weeks

Hi Joe,

Re:  Texans, not government, should decide

I guess he does not consider the office of governor a part of 'government.'  

Jerry Baumchen

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

8 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

This will always be a sliding scale of argumentation until the medical profession defines that point at which life begins. 

Hi Keith,

Since it is the 'medical profession' that produces birth certificates, it seems to me that it is at birth.

'At birth' is what I go by.  However, I am willing to listen to an argument as regards something around the 6th - 7th month.  I was born at 7 months.

I doubt if I could be more pro-choice.

Jerry Baumchen

[billvon 2,396]

50 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

This will always be a sliding scale of argumentation until the medical profession defines that point at which life begins. 

It's not a medical decision.

Babies are alive.  So are fetuses and embryos.  So are egg cells.  So is sperm.  So are your kidneys.  All alive.

When medical judgment enters into it is viability.  Is a 25 month old fetus viable outside the womb?  Usually.  Is a 22 month fetus viable outside the womb?  Usually not.  That has some relevance in that abortion is different than delivery only after viability.  That number will get slightly lower as we advance in medical technology.

The SOCIAL question is who decides when to abort a pregnancy - the woman or the government?

[olofscience 421]

7 hours ago, ryoder said:

Texas gov knew of natural gas shortages days before blackout, blamed wind anyway

I'm shocked!

I seem to remember someone here on SC blaming wind too. Any guesses to who?

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

5 hours ago, BIGUN said:

This will always be a sliding scale of argumentation until the medical profession defines that point at which life begins. 

Not really. 

The anti-abortion crowd will always claim that 'life begins at conception.'

If the 'medical profession' makes a declaration or definition of a later point, the anti-crowd will ignore it and continue on their crusade. 
They'll ignore the doctors and continue to pretend the Bible prohibits it. 

Also, as Bill pointed out, there are virtually no pro choice folks who pretend that a fetus or embryo isn't 'alive'. 
They just maintain that it should be the choice of the mother, not the government if she should carry that fetus to term.

I agree with the idea that the mother should have complete choice over a non-viable fetus. The 22-25 weeks that Bill mentioned (he said "months", I'm guessing he meant "weeks") is a good place to start.

The 'funny' part is that in historical times, the time when a fetus became a 'person' was the 'quickening', when movement began to be detectable. That was the point when a pregnant woman could no longer be executed, when another person harming the fetus became a crime, that sort of thing.
That 'quickening' is generally at...

22-25 weeks. When modern science has the ability to keep it alive outside the womb.

[BIGUN 1,053]

16 hours ago, billvon said:

It's not a medical decision.

 

"...until the medical profession defines that point at which life begins." That was your position a couple of years and I found it a good starting point at that time and have stuck with it.

 

16 hours ago, billvon said:

The SOCIAL question is who decides when to abort a pregnancy - the woman or the government?

And, in that same conversation, my position was and still is - unless the mother is a victim of crime or medical condition; then it should be the responsibility of both parents to make the decision.   But, we've been here before, I'm not going to change my mind, nor do I expect you to change yours.

[BIGUN 1,053]

11 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Not really. 
 

Yes. Really.

Quote

The anti-abortion crowd will always claim that 'life begins at conception.'

Not true. That is an extreme right. bible-thumping, holier than though, I'll be your spiritual leader, while I fuel up the Learjet to fly around on vacation to do the Lord's work, position. 

[gowlerk 1,911]

7 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

then it should be the responsibility of both parents to make the decision. 

Grow a pair.....of ovaries. And a uterus while you are at it.

[BIGUN 1,053]

Just now, gowlerk said:

Grow a pair.....of ovaries. And a uterus while you are at it.

That was helpful.  

[gowlerk 1,911]

26 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

That was helpful.  

I'll be more clear then. No one has a right to tell a woman she must have an abortion. And no one has the right to tell a woman she must carry a pregnancy to term. Not even the person who got her pregnant. Not even if they are married to each other. If you want to control a womb, grow one of your own.

[wmw999 2,121]

I’ll agree with the contention that it’s the responsibility of both parents and some sort of medical person to be involved in the decision. 
HOWEVER: only one of those parties has the opportunity to completely neglect their responsibility. And all too often does. And only one of those parties has the physical impact of pregnancy. So the votes should be prioritized accordingly. It’s really only a choice for the man. Tô a lesser degree it’s a choice for the medical personnel, but one can sometimes find new medical personnel. 

Wendy P.

[kallend 1,623]

Politicians and pastors should keep their noses out of womens' genitalia.

[Phil1111 910]

54 minutes ago, kallend said:

Politicians and pastors should keep their noses out of womens' genitalia.

and hands

[gowlerk 1,911]

Apparently only some freedoms are important.  Tools for killing are sacred, control over one's own body not so much.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

1 hour ago, kallend said:

Politicians and pastors should keep their noses out of womens' genitalia.

Which is why I'm never running for office or going to church.

[gowlerk 1,911]

26 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Which is why I'm never running for office or going to church.

He set you up for that one nicely, didn't he!

[billvon 2,396]

4 hours ago, BIGUN said:

And, in that same conversation, my position was and still is - unless the mother is a victim of crime or medical condition; then it should be the responsibility of both parents to make the decision.   But, we've been here before, I'm not going to change my mind, nor do I expect you to change yours.

I agree - the decision should come from both people.  But when they disagree, the person actually carrying the fetus gets final say.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

1 minute ago, billvon said:

I agree - the decision should come from both people.  But when they disagree, the person actually carrying the fetus gets final say.

Which is only to say it is the woman's decision, no period.

[gowlerk 1,911]

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

Which is only to say it is the woman's decision, no period.

I'm not sure what else it could mean. I guess he feels that before a woman can make her decision the sperm supplier deserves a chance to pressure her one way or the other. 'cause reasons....

[JoeWeber 2,299]

3 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

I'm not sure what else it could mean. I guess he feels that before a woman can make her decision the sperm supplier deserves a chance to pressure her one way or the other. 'cause reasons....

He's a man of honor who would carry the entire load if he could. As someone who would never turn his back on a solemn responsibility he, quite naturally, feels that he should have a legitimate right to a say. If the woman wanted the baby and he didn't I suspect strongly that he'd just man up and own the responsibility. The problem is that the sentiment just does not scale out very well. The reality is that the woman's and the baby's fate must never be left to the lowest common douchebag denominator. Hence, the only viability question must center on the one person who will be left holding the diaper bag. From a moral or policy perspective nothing else fits the truth of things.

[gowlerk 1,911]

2 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

He's a man of honor who would carry the entire load if he could.

Agreed. But as you said, even so it is not about him. When you strip the whole thing of all the complicated human emotions that are wrapped around it you are left with only two possible choices. Either the newly created potential human is sacred, or the woman's rights are above all. There really is no honest middle ground. Making exceptions for rape just proves that.