TX abortion law

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
11,606
4,397
1,743
#81
You may not want to debate it, but these women exist and thus it's not a straw man to bring them up when you're the one that said no one.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
So do abortion bombers and doctor murderers. There are people out there that will murder another living person for simply doing a legal job. Pure evil and breaking a commandment.
Now who's pulling out a straw man. My comments were directed to his statement that "no one" wants abortions. I told him they do exist. Simple as that. I've never denied there were people doing bad things. So I don't need your usual fluff added to the conversation.
Have a great day tomorrow.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
31,582
32,641
1,743
oklahoma city
#82
Now who's pulling out a straw man. My comments were directed to his statement that "no one" wants abortions. I told him they do exist. Simple as that. I've never denied there were people doing bad things. So I don't need your usual fluff added to the conversation.
Have a great day tomorrow.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
The thing is, everyone* but you realizes when he used "no one" that is a figure of speech that means the vast majority. Because, with more than 7 billion people on earth, it is virtually impossible to find something that literally no one wants. For example, "No one wants their arm cut off" would be a rational and accepted statement. Yet, it is literally not true. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15997612/

So, yes, while being extremely pedantic and making a point that gains nothing, you are technically right. Making that "point" then complaining about fluff when I was showing you how silly your point is did make me laugh at the incredible irony. Thanks for the laugh.



*I don't actually mean every single person, i am using the term as a figure of speech.
 

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
11,606
4,397
1,743
#83
Now who's pulling out a straw man. My comments were directed to his statement that "no one" wants abortions. I told him they do exist. Simple as that. I've never denied there were people doing bad things. So I don't need your usual fluff added to the conversation.
Have a great day tomorrow.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
The thing is, everyone* but you realizes when he used "no one" that is a figure of speech that means the vast majority. Because, with more than 7 billion people on earth, it is virtually impossible to find something that literally no one wants. For example, "No one wants their arm cut off" would be a rational and accepted statement. Yet, it is literally not true. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15997612/

So, yes, while being extremely pedantic and making a point that gains nothing, you are technically right. Making that "point" then complaining about fluff when I was showing you how silly your point is did make me laugh at the incredible irony. Thanks for the laugh.



*I don't actually mean every single person, i am using the term as a figure of speech.
Then why did he act like I was bringing up an untruth when I mentioned these women exist?

My comment was originally an aside to note that his all encompassing language was incorrect. Maybe most agree, but not all. It's like reminding someone to never say "never".

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,905
20,678
1,743
#84
Then why did he act like I was bringing up an untruth when I mentioned these women exist?

My comment was originally an aside to note that his all encompassing language was incorrect. Maybe most agree, but not all. It's like reminding someone to never say "never".

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
Your comment was especially richly ironic in that it came from someone that routinely uses such all encompassing language. *shoulder shrug*
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
31,582
32,641
1,743
oklahoma city
#85
Then why did he act like I was bringing up an untruth when I mentioned these women exist?

My comment was originally an aside to note that his all encompassing language was incorrect. Maybe most agree, but not all. It's like reminding someone to never say "never".

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
If everyone thought like you, the words "everyone" and "no one" would become useless in the language because, as I said, there is always going to be technically someone out of billions. Those words are used as a figure of speech, meaning that virtually all. The very few exclusions are not worth considering.

It proves technically correct but you are incorrect on how the language is used. Like when someone says, "Hey, thanks, you're the best!" would you respond, "Actually, you are welcome, but I am not the best. There are people out there that are better than me. Just letting you know as an aside that you are incorrect." Again, your point is pedantic and pointless.
 

UrbanCowboy1

Some cowboys gots smarts real good like me.
Aug 8, 2006
3,829
1,936
1,743
Phoenix, AZ
#87
If everyone thought like you, the words "everyone" and "no one" would become useless in the language because, as I said, there is always going to be technically someone out of billions. Those words are used as a figure of speech, meaning that virtually all. The very few exclusions are not worth considering.

It proves technically correct but you are incorrect on how the language is used. Like when someone says, "Hey, thanks, you're the best!" would you respond, "Actually, you are welcome, but I am not the best. There are people out there that are better than me. Just letting you know as an aside that you are incorrect." Again, your point is pedantic and pointless.
I was trying to think of an example to give, but this is perfect.*

@wrenhal , I'll make sure to use an asterisk next time.


*It's not actually perfect, it's just really good. There are probably examples that are more perfect, but I wanted you to know that I was using perfect colloquially. Just in case there's any confusion.
 

O-St8

Orange is power.
A/V Subscriber
Jan 13, 2005
5,435
1,609
1,743
41
Sand Springs, OK
#88
Laws implemented to regulate:

Mens bodies: 0.

Womens: hundreds, with many hundreds attempted every year.

Who tries to implement such laws every year? Old white men aka Republicans.

Somehow I think that if the government tried regulating mens bodies, men would lose their collective spit and realize that that ain't gonna fly. And yet, here we were.. men attempting to justify the regulation of women bodies. Sad and pathetic.
I actually would be for (surgical and humane) castration for men who cannot keep themselves from rape or molestation. Not on the very first offense, but if they get out of prison and go directly back to that behavior.
You might struggle less if you thought about what is really going on with the vast majority of women who "just don't care."
When women are better educated, are financially secure, have access to birth control, and are empowered many, many more of them care and the rate of abortion goes down. When those things are less prominent, the rate of abortion goes up. The legality or illegality of the procedure does not correlate well with the rate at all. The current abortion rate in the US is lower than the estimated abortion rate before 1973 when it was illegal. The rate of septic abortion and maternal death is far, far lower.

I don't like abortion. I do like data. I have never seen any data showing that calling it illegal is a beneficial thing.
I do think that education, community/support, and making options for adoption extremely readily available are HUGE. I guess the issue at that point (if abortion is illegal) is not that they didn't have a legal option it's that they did it anyway. I know it's not this cut and dry, and in a way it is. Should we legalize murder because when they have to do shadey/back alley things to hire someone sometimes more people end up dead? It's illegal to protect someone's life.

I hate the stigma that comes with abortion though. Almost as much as I don't like abortion. For some reason right winged religious groups have made it the "unforgivable sin" it would seem. I think nothing happens in a vacuum and most of us have no idea what's going on in the life of the mother. Which brings me back to fully supporting the need for education, community, and options.
 

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
11,606
4,397
1,743
#89
Laws implemented to regulate:

Mens bodies: 0.

Womens: hundreds, with many hundreds attempted every year.

Who tries to implement such laws every year? Old white men aka Republicans.

Somehow I think that if the government tried regulating mens bodies, men would lose their collective spit and realize that that ain't gonna fly. And yet, here we were.. men attempting to justify the regulation of women bodies. Sad and pathetic.
I actually would be for (surgical and humane) castration for men who cannot keep themselves from rape or molestation. Not on the very first offense, but if they get out of prison and go directly back to that behavior.
You might struggle less if you thought about what is really going on with the vast majority of women who "just don't care."
When women are better educated, are financially secure, have access to birth control, and are empowered many, many more of them care and the rate of abortion goes down. When those things are less prominent, the rate of abortion goes up. The legality or illegality of the procedure does not correlate well with the rate at all. The current abortion rate in the US is lower than the estimated abortion rate before 1973 when it was illegal. The rate of septic abortion and maternal death is far, far lower.

I don't like abortion. I do like data. I have never seen any data showing that calling it illegal is a beneficial thing.
I do think that education, community/support, and making options for adoption extremely readily available are HUGE. I guess the issue at that point (if abortion is illegal) is not that they didn't have a legal option it's that they did it anyway. I know it's not this cut and dry, and in a way it is. Should we legalize murder because when they have to do shadey/back alley things to hire someone sometimes more people end up dead? It's illegal to protect someone's life.

I hate the stigma that comes with abortion though. Almost as much as I don't like abortion. For some reason right winged religious groups have made it the "unforgivable sin" it would seem. I think nothing happens in a vacuum and most of us have no idea what's going on in the life of the mother. Which brings me back to fully supporting the need for education, community, and options.
Just a quick question to you and others. Know why they were called back alley abortions?

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,905
20,678
1,743
#90
Just a quick question to you and others. Know why they were called back alley abortions?

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
Are you asking a question because you don't know the answer, or because you think you do and are making a point by asking?
 

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
11,606
4,397
1,743
#91
Just a quick question to you and others. Know why they were called back alley abortions?

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
Are you asking a question because you don't know the answer, or because you think you do and are making a point by asking?
I'm asking because I want to know how many truly know the answer, or they think they know.
You could say I'm making a point about propaganda.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,905
20,678
1,743
#92
I'm asking because I want to know how many truly know the answer, or they think they know.
You could say I'm making a point about propaganda.

D from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
You’re certainly doing that....just not the one you think you’re making.
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
31,582
32,641
1,743
oklahoma city
#93
I'm asking because I want to know how many truly know the answer, or they think they know.
You could say I'm making a point about propaganda.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
You keep thinking in terms of propaganda to support your position. I'll keep posting data to support my position. Just calling it illegal is a way to harm women. Policy matters. Propaganda doesn't. I'll say it again, if the money and resources that have been put into attempting to make it illegal had been placed into trying to limit abortions there would have been far fewer abortions. I cannot comprehend how someone can feel that abortion is murder yet support policy that causes more of them to occur than if they supported other policy that lowers the rate. Those are just simple facts. My side is for fewer abortions. Your side is for illegal abortion which causes more. The data shows that the real push of making it illegal is control of women, not reducing abortion.

Screen Shot 2021-09-12 at 9.04.07 AM.png


1631455962643.png

1631455634754.png
 
Dec 9, 2013
1,018
319
713
51
#95
The republican party’s embrace of pro life was a platform change that had little to do w actually being pro life. It was a strategic change to capture more of the catholic and emerging evangelical block. Maybe it’s not as simple as rich white men controlling women’s bodies but more with rich white men knowing how to stay in power.

Want holes in the pro life debate? Look at how republicans talk about restricting money to certain countries and couch it in the pro life debate (yes sometimes the $ is technically earmarked for reproductive services) yet the largest recipient of US foreign aid (almost 2x the 2nd highest country) is the darling of the evangelical community. They also basically have abortion on demand w a committee who decides if an abortion is legal. Being unmarried is a valid reason for allowing. Yet we never hear of withholding aid to Israel based on abortion laws. Interesting the abortion rate in Israel is nearly 40% lower (per population) than in the US. Why wouldn’t we look at what they do as well as other countries w lower rates but less restrictions?
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
31,582
32,641
1,743
oklahoma city
#96
The republican party’s embrace of pro life was a platform change that had little to do w actually being pro life. It was a strategic change to capture more of the catholic and emerging evangelical block. Maybe it’s not as simple as rich white men controlling women’s bodies but more with rich white men knowing how to stay in power.

Want holes in the pro life debate? Look at how republicans talk about restricting money to certain countries and couch it in the pro life debate (yes sometimes the $ is technically earmarked for reproductive services) yet the largest recipient of US foreign aid (almost 2x the 2nd highest country) is the darling of the evangelical community. They also basically have abortion on demand w a committee who decides if an abortion is legal. Being unmarried is a valid reason for allowing. Yet we never hear of withholding aid to Israel based on abortion laws. Interesting the abortion rate in Israel is nearly 40% lower (per population) than in the US. Why wouldn’t we look at what they do as well as other countries w lower rates but less restrictions?
Yea, that is really what I meant. I don't think anyone is like, "See that girl over there, Amy, I want to control her." But, by making the debate only about the legality and not about do you want abortion to happen frequently or not they divide us very well and that is the control.
If instead of the pro-life vs pro-choice division our politicians would say "do you want us to make abortion more common or more rare there would probably be a 98 to 2% split. Then it could become what are effective means to make that happen. Instead, by couching this as an issue of legality instead of an issue of health, we will remain divided and caught in a 50/50 neverending debate. Which is easier on the politician. It gives them a rallying cry for the base/donations. And since everyone knows it is very divided, nobody expects quick progress. But, if we had nearly everyone with expectations of progress to make it more limited, then we could say, "Hey, you guys got your mandate, why are we still worse than Denmark/Israel/UK/Australia/Norway?"
 

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
11,606
4,397
1,743
#97
I'm asking because I want to know how many truly know the answer, or they think they know.
You could say I'm making a point about propaganda.

D from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
You’re certainly doing that....just not the one you think you’re making.
Do you know why it was called that or not?

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

llcoolw

Territorial Marshal
Feb 7, 2005
7,648
3,547
1,743
Sammamish, Washington.Dallas, Texas.Maui, Hawaii
#99
The republican party’s embrace of pro life was a platform change that had little to do w actually being pro life. It was a strategic change to capture more of the catholic and emerging evangelical block. Maybe it’s not as simple as rich white men controlling women’s bodies but more with rich white men knowing how to stay in power.

Want holes in the pro life debate? Look at how republicans talk about restricting money to certain countries and couch it in the pro life debate (yes sometimes the $ is technically earmarked for reproductive services) yet the largest recipient of US foreign aid (almost 2x the 2nd highest country) is the darling of the evangelical community. They also basically have abortion on demand w a committee who decides if an abortion is legal. Being unmarried is a valid reason for allowing. Yet we never hear of withholding aid to Israel based on abortion laws. Interesting the abortion rate in Israel is nearly 40% lower (per population) than in the US. Why wouldn’t we look at what they do as well as other countries w lower rates but less restrictions?
Almost as if they really don’t care.
 

llcoolw

Territorial Marshal
Feb 7, 2005
7,648
3,547
1,743
Sammamish, Washington.Dallas, Texas.Maui, Hawaii
Well then. Kudos for being able to juggle little kids and college at the same time. I've got two under 6 and can't imagine having college on top of that... (Admittedly, that was rude on my part, so I apologize for that.)

You still haven't answered my question though. I don't recall the timeline with our first, but our 2nd child we didn't know until week 5 or 6. And that was even with us actively trying for nearly 2yrs, it wasn't like we just weren't paying attention.
If your question is if a pregnancy is detectable within 6 weeks the answer is obviously yes. You stated yourself that you knew at week 5 or 6. My wife seemed to know before I got my pants back on. Not sure why we're arguing this point. You knew at week 5 and in the state of Texas it will be perfectly legal to kill the child at that point.
These 2 points reminded me of trying to conceive number 2. I’ve said before, if I agreed to a second child, I’d get bowl games for life. (2002-03). Perfect timing in our history too. I just remember the occasion that was the winning occasion. I even said those magical words “if that doesn’t get you pregnant, nothing will”. And it was TRUE.