By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - So an Abortion limiting bill passed in my state, Texas

Mr Khan on 08 August 2013
Kasz216 said:

I think one thing that gets overlooked is that the US actually has some of the most liberal abortion laws in the world.

Pretty much the USA and China are top of the list.

Europeon laws on average are FAR more restrictive, and the cut off date to get an abortion is far sooner.

A LOT of Western Europeon countries put the ban on abortions at 12 weeks.

 

Let alone the various hoops you have to do to get an abortion.   Needing specific reasons or they won't give it to you, talking to a psychologist, proving your poor etc.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/08/in-liberal-europe-abortion-laws-come-with-their-own-restrictions/278350/

 

Abortion activism is a lot like gun activism in the US.  Quite different due to american's greater value in individuality.

The key, again, isn't about the time restriction as it is about the shuttering of clinics, which are otherwise the prime source of women-focused healthcare for a lot of women across Texas.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Around the Network
Vetteman94 on 08 August 2013
Fayceless said:

The 20-week thing isn't the problem, but it's the biggest rallying point, so of course that's what conservatives are focusing on.

"The democrats hate this bill because they love killing babies!" they say.

Wrong. (note: I do not affiliate with any party) It's the REST of the bill that's the real problem here. The Republicans know this, so of course they focus on the 20-week limit, a small part of the law overall. They paint the picture that people oppose the new law because they oppose the 20-week limit. This is not correct.

So let's FORGET the 20-week part and focus on the REST of it, which is why I, a Texan, am opposed to the law and thoroughly ashamed of my government representatives. They hide behind the new limit, use it as a shield and a distraction. They claim they have the moral high ground while they aim to close clinics - which do more than just abortions - and makes the state a less safe, less healthy place.

They deceive the people by using controversial, emotional issues to mask their true intentions. They included the 20-week limit along with the rest of the bill so that they could vilify anyone who opposed the bill. IT WORKED. You can see it EVEN HERE, on this video game board, people debate ONLY the 20-week limit. Their brilliant distraction worked, and that's why I'm ashamed, not only of my representatives for using such under-handed tactics but of everyone in the state, even the country, who focus on the wrong issue and in doing so prevent the real problems from ever getting fixed.

Agree with everything here.  The real issue is the rest of the bill.  The illusion is that the issue is only the time limit.   

Although was anything put in the bill for abortions after week 20 where the health of the fetus or mother is at stake if the pregnancy were to continue?  That part I dont know,  I thought it as just a blanket ban after 20 weeks.  Considering most complications occur later in the pregnancy, this could be a huge health issue for the mother and fetus as well.  



thranx on 08 August 2013
Mr Khan said:
Kasz216 said:

I think one thing that gets overlooked is that the US actually has some of the most liberal abortion laws in the world.

Pretty much the USA and China are top of the list.

Europeon laws on average are FAR more restrictive, and the cut off date to get an abortion is far sooner.

A LOT of Western Europeon countries put the ban on abortions at 12 weeks.

 

Let alone the various hoops you have to do to get an abortion.   Needing specific reasons or they won't give it to you, talking to a psychologist, proving your poor etc.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/08/in-liberal-europe-abortion-laws-come-with-their-own-restrictions/278350/

 

Abortion activism is a lot like gun activism in the US.  Quite different due to american's greater value in individuality.

The key, again, isn't about the time restriction as it is about the shuttering of clinics, which are otherwise the prime source of women-focused healthcare for a lot of women across Texas.


You are for Obama Care right? the massive legislation that forces people and companies to support the health care system? Why aren't you for forcing clinics that already cut people open, to also help with the care of others in surgical need? If you are for one, shouldn't be for the other? I am confused by your stance here? Seems like it should be something you would support, making companies change what they do to help others that need the help. http://www.ascassociation.org/ASCA/AboutUs/WhatisanASC

requiring doctors to up to snuff and be allowed to perform within a hospital with in 30 miles also seems reasonable. Wouldn't there to be an accident at some clinic and not be able to get to a hospital in time, or have a docotr doing surgery that isn't capable.

 

the limiting the abortion pill/drug would be the only conern of mine in the law.



Mr Khan on 08 August 2013
thranx said:
Mr Khan said:

The key, again, isn't about the time restriction as it is about the shuttering of clinics, which are otherwise the prime source of women-focused healthcare for a lot of women across Texas.


You are for Obama Care right? the massive legislation that forces people and companies to support the health care system? Why aren't you for forcing clinics that already cut people open, to also help with the care of others in surgical need? If you are for one, shouldn't be for the other? I am confused by your stance here? Seems like it should be something you would support, making companies change what they do to help others that need the help. http://www.ascassociation.org/ASCA/AboutUs/WhatisanASC

requiring doctors to up to snuff and be allowed to perform within a hospital with in 30 miles also seems reasonable. Wouldn't there to be an accident at some clinic and not be able to get to a hospital in time, or have a docotr doing surgery that isn't capable.

 

the limiting the abortion pill/drug would be the only conern of mine in the law.

I am in support of the ACA in general, though i feel that many of its tenets could be better implemented. It's not a bad idea for these clinics to be more versatile, but in practice it just means that they will shut down, and that was nakedly the intent with this law. It's similar to Voter ID laws, which are a nice idea on paper, but are just implemented to disenfranchise the poor, elderly, and differently abled.

In both cases, they're creating something similar to the "unfunded mandate." "We require you to be an ambulatory surgical center, but we won't help you actually become one. Sorry, you'll just have to shut down I guess." "You need a Driver's License to vote, but we're not going to increase hours at the DMV or provide options for cheaper photo IDs, in fact we're actually shutting down some of the DMV's in your areas to save costs. Sorry about that!"

Laying down regulations without offering aid for people to meet those regulations is a weasel-y way of outlawing something, something that the Right Wing *hates* when the Left did it to gun rights (namely Illinois making it insanely difficult to get a conceal-carry license to the point where it was basically illegal), and the supreme court declared that unconstitutional. I see no reason why this is any different.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

killerzX on 08 August 2013
the2real4mafol said:
sc94597 said:
the2real4mafol said:
Why, just why? Why do these idiots want to stop abortions? Do they want to create more crime or something? Why can't a women choose to abort, it's her body. Better for the child to not exist, then be raised by unloving, abusive parents. Not like abortions would stop anyway.

Abortion should be legal till 6 months, when the baby has a chance of surviving being born that early. End of. I can't believe this discussion is still going on, it's like the debate who causes climate change? Time to move on.


Isn't this a very rare case? This women was extremely lucky to be born so early and survive. And i'm still pro-choice just because it's up to the women if she wants to keep her baby or not. I imagine most wouldn't abort but it should still be up to them. 

Finally, how can a state like Texas be against abortion but for the death penalty? How does that make any sense? 

because one is killing of an innocent and the other s punishing a convicted felon?

the better question is how liberals/statists/socialists/communists/facists/pregressives can be for abortion but against the death penalty.



Around the Network
Mr Khan on 08 August 2013
killerzX said:
the2real4mafol said:

Isn't this a very rare case? This women was extremely lucky to be born so early and survive. And i'm still pro-choice just because it's up to the women if she wants to keep her baby or not. I imagine most wouldn't abort but it should still be up to them. 

Finally, how can a state like Texas be against abortion but for the death penalty? How does that make any sense? 

because one is killing of an innocent and the other s punishing a convicted felon?

the better question is how liberals/statists/socialists/communists/facists/pregressives can be for abortion but against the death penalty.

Because there is a difference between "life" and "human life." Fetuses and persons in Persistent Vegatative States are both "alive" in the sense of animals, plants, or bacteria, but are they equally "alive" to others?

Sentience is what separates human life from other life, and we certainly have no qualms about disposing of other life when it is the more useful thing to do: annihilating whole bacterial species, slaughtering animals for food, mowing down trees for development. These things should all be done responsibly, but they are not, in themselves, morally abhorrent. So it is with euthanasia for the brain dead or abortion: these lack the key factor, sentience, that makes us special, which, as with destroying other types of life, should not be taken lightly or done casually, but ultimately it'll just make everything worse for everyone if we demand that all such life be protected (like radical environmentalists who would protect all species, endangered or not)



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

killerzX on 08 August 2013
Mr Khan said:
thranx said:
the2real4mafol said:

Isn't this a very rare case? This women was extremely lucky to be born so early and survive. And i'm still pro-choice just because it's up to the women if she wants to keep her baby or not. I imagine most wouldn't abort but it should still be up to them. 

Finally, how can a state like Texas be against abortion but for the death penalty? How does that make any sense? 


It makes perfect sense. The death penalty is used after someone has been convicted of a serious crime, and more than likely also taken someone elses life. So the person had a chance to live, and a chance to live by the law of the land. They had choices they could make that could lead to the death penalty, or choices they could make that would lead to them living a happy life. They bear the responsibilty for their actions.

On the other hand a child still in the womb of it mother has not had the chance to make the wrong choices that may lead to a bad life. Rather it has had it decisons made ofr it. So it doesn't bear responisibilty for what it has not done. Instead a mother, may at will cease its life for now reason at all.

Now what confuses me is how people can say that women should be able to kill their babies because it is their bodies, but than think that the baby has no say in its treatment of its body. Where is the logic in that? Shouldn't the baby also be able to decide what happens with its body, and if its not shouldn't those decisions be made by someone who has the babies best interest at heart? I always have trouble understanding that logic, and reasoning.

Largely because women of childbearing age are sentient. Babies are not sentient. Sentience trumps non-sentience.


so its okay to kill babies untill the child is cognisant of the decisions it makes the its alright to kill it? i would say you have at least until 3 years to have a post-birth abortion then. 



Mr Khan on 08 August 2013
killerzX said:
Mr Khan said:
thranx said:
the2real4mafol said:

Isn't this a very rare case? This women was extremely lucky to be born so early and survive. And i'm still pro-choice just because it's up to the women if she wants to keep her baby or not. I imagine most wouldn't abort but it should still be up to them. 

Finally, how can a state like Texas be against abortion but for the death penalty? How does that make any sense? 


It makes perfect sense. The death penalty is used after someone has been convicted of a serious crime, and more than likely also taken someone elses life. So the person had a chance to live, and a chance to live by the law of the land. They had choices they could make that could lead to the death penalty, or choices they could make that would lead to them living a happy life. They bear the responsibilty for their actions.

On the other hand a child still in the womb of it mother has not had the chance to make the wrong choices that may lead to a bad life. Rather it has had it decisons made ofr it. So it doesn't bear responisibilty for what it has not done. Instead a mother, may at will cease its life for now reason at all.

Now what confuses me is how people can say that women should be able to kill their babies because it is their bodies, but than think that the baby has no say in its treatment of its body. Where is the logic in that? Shouldn't the baby also be able to decide what happens with its body, and if its not shouldn't those decisions be made by someone who has the babies best interest at heart? I always have trouble understanding that logic, and reasoning.

Largely because women of childbearing age are sentient. Babies are not sentient. Sentience trumps non-sentience.


so its okay to kill babies untill the child is cognisant of the decisions it makes the its alright to kill it? i would say you have at least until 3 years to have a post-birth abortion then. 

Under that morality it would be a grey area (also, funnily enough, pigs are smart enough to have a degree of cognizance, so it would place pork in a tricky area too, in the opposite direction), although babies gain self-awareness usually by about the age of two. Fetuses, however, especially first trimester, are much, much further away from that degree of cognizance than actual infants are, and we have to consider when the good of society outweighs life, as opposed to life which is not at the nominal human level.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

killerzX on 08 August 2013
Mr Khan said:
killerzX said:
the2real4mafol said:
 

Isn't this a very rare case? This women was extremely lucky to be born so early and survive. And i'm still pro-choice just because it's up to the women if she wants to keep her baby or not. I imagine most wouldn't abort but it should still be up to them. 

Finally, how can a state like Texas be against abortion but for the death penalty? How does that make any sense? 

because one is killing of an innocent and the other s punishing a convicted felon?

the better question is how liberals/statists/socialists/communists/facists/pregressives can be for abortion but against the death penalty.

Because there is a difference between "life" and "human life." Fetuses and persons in Persistent Vegatative States are both "alive" in the sense of animals, plants, or bacteria, but are they equally "alive" to others?

Sentience is what separates human life from other life, and we certainly have no qualms about disposing of other life when it is the more useful thing to do: annihilating whole bacterial species, slaughtering animals for food, mowing down trees for development. These things should all be done responsibly, but they are not, in themselves, morally abhorrent. So it is with euthanasia for the brain dead or abortion: these lack the key factor, sentience, that makes us special, which, as with destroying other types of life, should not be taken lightly or done casually, but ultimately it'll just make everything worse for everyone if we demand that all such life be protected (like radical environmentalists who would protect all species, endangered or not)


so when does it become human? 1 day. 3 months. 6 months. when it borm, three years after it born. 5 months 12 days 3 hours and 32 seconds? when. when would you set this arbitrary cut off of when its no longer a clump of cells and instead a human.

as far as i know no human has given birth to anything other than a human. never a dolphin, a dog, and bear, nope.

humans get pregnant with humans and give birth to humans.



killerzX on 08 August 2013
Mr Khan said:
Screamapillar said:
Mr Khan said:
The 20 weeks thing is neither here nor there. What it affects is in these onerous requirements shutting down clinics that a lot of women use for a broad array of health services.

It so often seems like prenatal life is the only life the pro-lifers give a damn about, given their opposition to funding for any health services for the living.


Is it right for us to be taxed to pay for others' health services?  I would say it is not. 

I wouldn't even be opposed to states running these so-called health clinics.  Although we know that they are by and large abortion clinics.  I just don't think the federal government has any business getting involved and taking care of people in this way.

If we as a society decide that we want state-run health clinics, then so be it (even though I personally don't see why I should be taxed to pay for it if I or my family doesn't use it), but it should be done on a state level, not on a federal level.  Let the states deal with their health services as they choose, and let the pro-life states limit abortion services, and the free-wheeling liberal states have as many abortions as they want. 

Abortion is only a tiny part of what these health clinics offer. The Planned Parenthood organization, for instance, has only a miniscule fraction of their budget alloted to abortion services.

These are "women's health" clinics, first and foremost, which is why i have a hard time believing that Texas is doing anything but deliberately stomping further on women and the poor.

thats patently false. over 10% of the patients the have get abortions. thats not "miniscule" when  you make $100 million a year by killing babies thats not "miniscule".

that outragous and disgusting.

its unconsciencable.