Texas Law Banning Abortion After About Six Weeks Takes Effect

[Revoltingest]

I’ve already explained a couple times now. You don’t understand or choose not to...

Nothing good ever begins that way.

 

[Revoltingest]

That religious teaching or morality has no place on the Court was Scalia's point.

Oh, good....I agree with that.

 

[anna.]

In all fairness, there is a difference between a woman saying, "I'm pregnant" and "I'm going to have a baby."

Really? I see them as interchangeable.

 

[Watchmen]

Nothing good ever begins that way.

Enjoy the rest of the long weekend. I mean that sincerely.

 

[Revoltingest]

Enjoy the rest of the long weekend. I mean that sincerely.

Already am.

 

[Shakeel]

Really? I see them as interchangeable.

The person who posted the second one is going to be heart broken if they have a miscarriage. It's the attitude of "I know I'm having a baby and it will be a healthy baby."

 

[anna.]

I think we are having a reasonable discussion. I’m still in the air about this thread on that point lol. But that’s neither here nor there.

I'm glad we're having a reasonable discussion. It's not a surprise when it gets heated though, this being one of the most hot-button issues one can discuss. In general, I tend to avoid them, I surprised myself, joining this one.

I think it’s important to define parameters in language when discussing issues, particularly controversial ones. All too often one can get bogged down in semantics, which is distracting. Besides the English language isn’t the most consistent languages out there, just saying.

I understand your point, it's not lost on me. But I'm not telling you not to use the term fetus, you use the term you want to use. I just expect the same in return. I'll come back to this a little further down.*

Because colloquially it is used for well babies. People are naturally protective of their offspring. Instincts and all that. So people will hear the word “baby” and automatically think of a healthy cute newborn. That’s not always appropriate or even accurate when discussing pregnancy. At best it’s a potential future baby. I mean have you seen what a first term fetus actually looks like? Either way it’s misleading language at best and emotional manipulation at worst. We need to set aside emotions and figure out what is the outcome that causes the least amount of suffering. And I’m sorry but based on what stats I’ve seen over the years, banning abortion (particularly during early stages) just causes more unnecessary suffering for all involved.

It's not emotional manipulation if someone is using the language they're accustomed to using. Manipulation is intentional, and I really despise manipulation. I also have a problem with people telling me I can't use a term that comes naturally to me because it doesn't fit their parameters. I've said before that I understand why a pro-choice person would use it, it's a distancing mechanism. It's not that they're all sciencey, it's because it's less uncomfortable, psychologically. So by all means, use the term of your choice, but allow me mine without assuming an emotional manipulation that's just not there. (At the end of your post you do state this clearly, so thank you in advance.)

In a serious discussion on abortion, fetus. With my friends, baby. That’s the beauty of having an oddly intense language like English. There will always be weirdly specific nuance.

Okay, here's the *, and I think it's important to consider:

What about when you're having a serious discussion on abortion - with friends?

Well is that such a bad thing? Maybe their baby is the product of a rape. Or they are suddenly homeless. Or their boyfriend just died. Sometimes removing emotions is necessary for doing what you have to do to survive.
But every woman has a right to choose what is best for them and their specific circumstances, regardless of their word choice. No one chooses to abort lightly, unless they’re like a sociopath or something. So I don’t see the issue with trying to be detached. It might be better in some circumstances in the long run.
I mean would you like a child raised by someone who thinks nothing of having multiple abortions? Red flag much?
(See? I’m not adverse to using such language. Still the same outcome for me. Pro choice.)

Even Guttmacher shows the reasons (and there are frequently multiple reasons) are overwhelmingly ones of economics or lifestyle: "I can't afford a baby right now... we have enough children... I'm a single parent, I haven't finished school, I'm not ready to be a mother..." and so on. Rape is about .5%, IIRC, see the chart in the second Guttmacher link I posted upthread. And that's not in any way an attempt to diminish the magnitude of rape.

Some women have serial abortions, they use it as birth control. Some women are haunted. Some are relieved. A significant percentage of them are church-going, despite what some church-goers might assume. Regardless, I think most do not make the decision lightly, and when I say they might remove themselves mentally by using distancing terminology, I say it not as judgment, but simply a psychological understanding of coping mechanisms.

Fair enough. I would prefer we stick to scientific terminology as that is often the best objective language we have. But you can use whatever words you want. I’m not an English teacher. (Seriously, I once misused the word “literally” in front of my cousin who teaches English. I’m still traumatised lol.)

Thank you for that. And while I well know that "literally" is a trigger word for an English teacher since I was an English major before switching to psychology, I still happily use "literally" whenever I want. : )

Interesting
I think that just proves that in order to reduce late term abortions, more should be done to help women in earlier stages of pregnancy use abortion or family services, does it not? So basically pro choice options reduce abortions overall, right? Is that the takeaway? I think so, but I’m no scientist so.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[SomeRandom]

I'm glad we're having a reasonable discussion. It's not a surprise when it gets heated though, this being one of the most hot-button issues one can discuss. In general, I tend to avoid them, I surprised myself, joining this one.

Me too. I try to avoid this subject. I think this current news story got to me though.

I understand your point, it's not lost on me. But I'm not telling you not to use the term fetus, you use the term you want to use. I just expect the same in return. I'll come back to this a little further down.*

Fair enough

It's not emotional manipulation if someone is using the language they're accustomed to using. Manipulation is intentional, and I really despise manipulation. I also have a problem with people telling me I can't use a term that comes naturally to me because it doesn't fit their parameters. I've said before that I understand why a pro-choice person would use it, it's a distancing mechanism. It's not that they're all sciencey, it's because it's less uncomfortable, psychologically. So by all means, use the term of your choice, but allow me mine without assuming an emotional manipulation that's just not there. (At the end of your post you do state this clearly, so thank you in advance.)

Well I’m not accusing you specifically of such manipulation tactics. If that’s the language you wish to use, so be it. But can I just point out that a lot of pro life rhetoric does in fact intentionally use such language as a manipulation tactic? I’ve seen the videos of pro lifers and even videos training people who are pro life to argue the position. It’s blatant, if I’m completely honest with you. It’s a known tactic and has been for years.
Sorry but don’t shoot the messenger

Okay, here's the *, and I think it's important to consider:

What about when you're having a serious discussion on abortion - with friends?

I would revert to scientific language. There’s a time and place for everything. If I’m going to discuss a controversial subject properly (and not just over drinks) I want to ensure that I’m being as objective as possible. And that means using language that removes the emotional aspect of the subject. I would do the exact same thing when discussing things like the Holocaust for instance. You have to be objective when it comes to suffering, in my opinion. Otherwise you just give in to your emotions and argue all the wrong things. Even if it’s from a good place. I learnt that lesson the hard way, when I gave into my emotions and became a silly reactionary years ago. It was a toxic way of thinking, one that I’m consciously making an effort to breaking in me.

Even Guttmacher shows the reasons (and there are frequently multiple reasons) are overwhelmingly ones of economics or lifestyle: "I can't afford a baby right now... we have enough children... I'm a single parent, I haven't finished school, I'm not ready to be a mother..." and so on. Rape is about .5%, IIRC, see the chart in the second Guttmacher link I posted upthread. And that's not in any way an attempt to diminish the magnitude of rape.

Even if it’s 0.0001% that has to be taken into consideration. Fact is that we have to acknowledge that poverty is a factor in getting an abortion. Me personally would recommend social safety nets. Which, yes can be abused by folks, but it offers better outcomes and ultimately lowers abortion rates. I’m a pragmatist first and foremost so I can live with such a transaction.

Some women have serial abortions, they use it as birth control. Some women are haunted. Some are relieved. A significant percentage of them are church-going, despite what some church-goers might assume. Regardless, I think most do not make the decision lightly, and when I say they might remove themselves mentally by using distancing terminology, I say it not as judgment, but simply a psychological understanding of coping mechanisms.

Fair enough. Just know that such a judgment is often levied against anyone considering abortion, even if their life is threatened. But you seem more reasonable than most pro life folks that I’ve encountered in life. If that’s any consolation?

Thank you for that. And while I well know that "literally" is a trigger word for an English teacher since I was an English major before switching to psychology, I still happily use "literally" whenever I want. : )

I’m still terrified of the word lol

I couldn't agree more.

Finally. Someone who is pro life and realistic. In my dealings online and irl you have no idea how infrequent that is and it frustrates me. Because I actually sympathise with many pro life points, spiritually speaking. But we both have to deal with reality and I find that’s not always the case for fervent pro lifers. If you don’t mind me saying so?

 

[crossfire]

In all fairness, there is a difference between a woman saying, "I'm pregnant" and "I'm going to have a baby."

Really? I see them as interchangeable.

"I'm going to have a baby" is a positive statement about the mother's intention to carry through with the pregnancy.
"I'm pregnant" is a neutral statement about the woman's medical condition.

 

[anna.]

Me too. I try to avoid this subject. I think this current news story got to me though.

Same. The snitching and bounty alone are despicable enough, but using it as an end-run around established law shows a disregard for the rule of law and another authoritarian lurch.

Fair enough

Well I’m not accusing you specifically of such manipulation tactics. If that’s the language you wish to use, so be it. But can I just point out that a lot of pro life rhetoric does in fact intentionally use such language as a manipulation tactic? I’ve seen the videos of pro lifers and even videos training people who are pro life to argue the position. It’s blatant, if I’m completely honest with you. It’s a known tactic and has been for years.
Sorry but don’t shoot the messenger

Thanks, and no worries, I'm not shooting the messenger. Any political rhetoric is capable of using language as manipulation tactic, whatever the position being debated. I've seen pro-life posters elsewhere that are so ham-handedly vicious that they're unlikely to accomplish much of anything at all except getting the same vitriol in return that they dish out. I don't want to be that person, so I'll keep on trying to maintain an even keel, and if I can't, I'll let the conversation go.

I would revert to scientific language. There’s a time and place for everything. If I’m going to discuss a controversial subject properly (and not just over drinks) I want to ensure that I’m being as objective as possible. And that means using language that removes the emotional aspect of the subject. I would do the exact same thing when discussing things like the Holocaust for instance. You have to be objective when it comes to suffering, in my opinion. Otherwise you just give in to your emotions and argue all the wrong things. Even if it’s from a good place. I learnt that lesson the hard way, when I gave into my emotions and became a silly reactionary years ago. It was a toxic way of thinking, one that I’m consciously making an effort to breaking in me.

Fair enough in turn. But now you've got me curious: what terminology would you avoid and what would you use when discussing the Holocaust?

Even if it’s 0.0001% that has to be taken into consideration. Fact is that we have to acknowledge that poverty is a factor in getting an abortion. Me personally would recommend social safety nets. Which, yes can be abused by folks, but it offers better outcomes and ultimately lowers abortion rates. I’m a pragmatist first and foremost so I can live with such a transaction.

Social safety nets should be a right, not a privilege. I share the opinion that the GOP has for decades used the abortion issue as a tool for votes and money, and they care little about the welfare of the baby - or the parent(s) - once it's born.

Fair enough. Just know that such a judgment is often levied against anyone considering abortion, even if their life is threatened. But you seem more reasonable than most pro life folks that I’ve encountered in life. If that’s any consolation?

Finally. Someone who is pro life and realistic. In my dealings online and irl you have no idea how infrequent that is and it frustrates me. Because I actually sympathise with many pro life points, spiritually speaking. But we both have to deal with reality and I find that’s not always the case for fervent pro lifers. If you don’t mind me saying so?

Thank you, I appreciate meeting you somewhere out there between black and white to talk about a difficult subject. You're a breath of fresh air, I've been beaten over the head so many times by right-wingers and pro-choice advocates both that it's really unusual to meet someone who's actually willing to listen to the other person.

 

[SomeRandom]

Same. The snitching and bounty alone are despicable enough, but using it as an end-run around established law shows a disregard for the rule of law and another authoritarian lurch.

Yeah that greatly concerns me too. Involuntarily reminds me of a lynch mob.

Thanks, and no worries, I'm not shooting the messenger. Any political rhetoric is capable of using language as manipulation tactic, whatever the position being debated. I've seen pro-life posters elsewhere that are so ham-handedly vicious that they're unlikely to accomplish much of anything at all except getting the same vitriol in return that they dish out. I don't want to be that person, so I'll keep on trying to maintain an even keel, and if I can't, I'll let the conversation go.

That’s very level headed of you. I appreciate your commitment to having a reasonable discussion.

Fair enough in turn. But now you've got me curious: what terminology would you avoid and what would you use when discussing the Holocaust?

Well I don’t know really. I guess avoiding sensationalist terms. Not sure if there are any when dealing with the Holocaust in particular. It was just an extreme example that came to mind if I’m honest. For obvious reasons I hope. Maybe avoiding slurs, and terms that may elicit emotions rather than facts. (Please note that I am in no way shape or form a Holocaust denier. Just that it’s an easy go to example of an extremely disturbing discussion topic.)

Social safety nets should be a right, not a privilege. I share the opinion that the GOP has for decades used the abortion issue as a tool for votes and money, and they care little about the welfare of the baby - or the parent(s) - once it's born.

It’s certainly refreshing to find someone on the pro life side who actually agrees with measures which support pro life positions.
Supporting measures to decrease abortions is weirdly absent from my discussions with many pro life advocates. I mean it does make you side with the opposition if you are truly against abortion, in my opinion

Thank you, I appreciate meeting you somewhere out there between black and white to talk about a difficult subject. You're a breath of fresh air, I've been beaten over the head so many times by right-wingers and pro-choice advocates both that it's really unusual to meet someone who's actually willing to listen to the other person.

It’s always nice to find common ground. Lately black and white thinking has seemingly become the norm. I don’t think that’s particularly productive or meaningful going forward. Compromise and realising the grey helps our society grow and become better, in my opinion.

 

[ecco]

Obviously it applies to both genders. The man is the one who will earn the living for all his children and his wife.

Oh, right. In your religion, equal rights for women is frowned upon and denied.

It means just that. Women have less sexual needs and they are less urgent as well.

More misogyny. More ignorance. Perhaps women who have had their clitorises removed because of your barbaric religion don't want to engage in intercourse as much as other women. But that's because of what men have done to them, not because of any natural urges.

 

[ecco]

Much more useful is to come up with something that lessens the amount of abandoned children.

How about castration for men who approve of clitoridectomies.

 

[ecco]

Probability. You're male. Perhaps - absent being a nurse, MD or OB/GYN - you've had fewer opportunities to talk about being pregnant or be around pregnant women than I have. We talk to our babies, name them, talk about their perceived personalities ("he's an active one, keeps me up all night kicking, he's gonna be a handful, I know it already!")



I've actually softened my stance since I started participating in walks for life as a teen. I have believed before, during, and after my own motherhood that there are two lives involved, not one. But I allow more gray in my consideration now, I'm not as black and white as I was; I'm an exception to the presumption that people tend to get more conservative as they get older. I think there should be free and accessible birth control for all women (which flies in the face of my church teaching) as well as a free and accessible morning after pill. After that, it becomes more difficult. I don't have all the answers. I want women to have autonomy, and I want babies to have a chance at life. It's difficult.

I'm telling you now, if you don't respond to the above with more maturity than you've shown in other replies to me, don't bother to answer, because I'll ignore you.

There is nothing new to respond to. You still have not responded to my question: Why do you oppose abortions?

 

[ecco]

Fear not. I understand you better than you realize.



Stop building straw men.







Is it legal in certain states to abort a seven-pound baby?

A simple yes or no answer will suffice.

It wasn't a strawman.

I see you had no answer as to the difference between a fetus and a baby. I wouldn't suit your agenda to admit they are not the same.

It's not legal to abort any baby. Again, note that there is a difference between a baby and a fetus. Your constant misuse just adds continues to show your biased agenda.

Why are you against abortion?

 

[pearl]

It means just that. Women have less sexual needs and they are less urgent as well.

I don't think you know women at all.

 

[pearl]

Its interesting that the goal now is to criminalize all abortions by striking down Roe v Wade, when there was no abortion on demand under Roe, these were allowed under subsequent decisions. And does the Court now have definitive knowledge as to the question of when personhood is attained and therefore enjoys the protection of the Constitution? Or maybe the decision is already made and the hearing just a formality.

 

[Wildswanderer]

More cop-out excuses. If you really cared about abandoned children, you could have volunteered to assist with mentoring some of them. You could have made small anonymous contributions to families who did adopt them.

You could have indicated that you did some of these things, you didn't.

Well, here's your chance. What have you ever done to help a child who was carried to term and abandoned by a woman who did want the child?

What have you ever done to stop people from being murdered by terrorists? Don't you care about them?
And your last sentence doesn't make any sense.

 

[Kooky]

Better yet, don't want children, don't have sex.

So what punishment do you foresee for men who have sex but don't want (to take care of) children?

 

[ecco]

What have you ever done to stop people from being murdered by terrorists? Don't you care about them?

I'm not going on about people killed by terrorists. You are going on about aborted "babies". If you are concerned about them so much that you post about them, I can ask what you have ever done for them.

And your last sentence doesn't make any sense.

Typo- that should have been "did not want..."