Cont: Texas bans abortion. Part 2

Aridas said:
Stacys mentioned that Idaho's recently done a copycat. To poke at that further -

Idaho vigilante abortion ban raises the stakes to $20,000

It's not just Idaho that's earned recent news, of course.

'I don’t care how the conception occurred': Wisconsin lawmaker advocates for no abortion exceptions

And Tennessee's decided to go for an outright ban, by the look of it.
Click to expand...

We probably need at least one state with an outright ban. With the laws of states like Vermont, that is the only way to bring balance to the Force.
 
What is wrong with Vermont's laws? Be specific, and make sure you identify something that is actually bad. Not just something that offends you for some nebulous (that means religious but you won't say religious) reason you can't articulate.

And then explain how you determined that particular balance point. There are many Christians opposed to birth control. Shouldn't a few states ban that too for your concept of balance?
 
Last edited:
RecoveringYuppy said:
What is wrong with Vermont's laws? Be specific, and make sure you identify something that is actually bad. Not just something that offends you for some nebulous (that means religious but you won't say religious) reason you can't articulate.
Click to expand...

Vermont has no term limits on abortion. You don't even need to be a physician to perform first trimester abortions there. I'm sure plenty of people here are thrilled about such laws. To them, no abortion is a "bad" one, I guess.

As a matter of fact, there are seven states with no term limits on abortion. One state with an outright ban is probably not enough to balance this out.

Personally, I think a ban is pretty crazy...but so is no term limits. But we can't have all of the extremism on one side, you know.
 
You forgot to say why those things are bad. Try again.

And I added a question about contraception. Try that one too.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
You forgot to say why those things are bad. Try again.

And I added a question about contraception. Try that one too.
Click to expand...

Yeah, making it legal to abort a healthy fetus up until birth isn't bad, I guess. :rolleyes:

There is literally no justification for that. That you and others don't see a problem with it is mind-blowing. It is like you are asking me to explain why first degree murder is bad. Maybe we should remove restrictions on that, too.

Don't try to cloud the issue with a discussion of birth control or religion. I'm not religious.
 
Warp12 said:
It is like you are asking me to explain why first degree murder is bad.
Click to expand...
So? I can do that, don't need your explanation. You explain to me why the Vermont laws are bad (BTW you cited two things you don't like, explain them both) then I'll explain why first degree murder is bad.

Why can't you explain your opinions?
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
So? I can do that, don't need your explanation. You explain to me why the Vermont laws are bad (BTW you cited two things you don't like, explain them both) then I'll explain why first degree murder is bad.

Why can't you explain your opinions?
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:
 
You've now demonstrated you can't explain your opinions. And now you will continue to be surprised you can't convince anyone of your opinion. Or why they won't accept that you aren't religious.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
You've now demonstrated you can't explain your opinions. And now you will continue to be surprised you can't convince anyone of your opinion. Or why they won't accept that you aren't religious.
Click to expand...

If I need to convince you that legal abortion of a healthy fetus up until birth is bad...basically the murder of a fully developed baby...well, I am not wasting the digital ink. These sort of views make those who support outright bans on abortion seem healthy-minded, sadly.

Perhaps Texas hasn't done enough, looking at it from that perspective.
 
Last edited:
You have no idea what my opinions are, I haven't said them. All I have done is let you demonstrate you can't articulate a valid opinion.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
You have no idea what my opinions are, I haven't said them. All I have done is let you demonstrate you can't articulate a valid opinion.
Click to expand...

Basically you are confirming that I responded properly by not wasting my time with an explanation of the obvious. :thumbsup:
 
Warp12 said:
We probably need at least one state with an outright ban. With the laws of states like Vermont, that is the only way to bring balance to the Force.
Click to expand...

If you want "balance" to forced birther legislation, the opposite extremist side is forced abortion legislation, so Vermont really doesn't count. Such laws are not popular today, though, which is a good thing. It's just too bad that people keep trying to defend forced birther extremism with fallacy.
 
To presume a force needs balance requires that both sides have equal validity. You can argue that case for abortion, but that, in its turn, requires balance in both directions - an acknowledgement that neither side is absolute - an argument I have yet to see in those who would ban abortion anywhere.

Even if you can manage that, though, as a general concept the idea that a force should be balanced is nonsense. We do not need to balance integration with segregation, honesty with corruption, rights with repression, peace with war.
 
bruto said:
To presume a force needs balance requires that both sides have equal validity. You can argue that case for abortion, but that, in its turn, requires balance in both directions - an acknowledgement that neither side is absolute - an argument I have yet to see in those who would ban abortion anywhere.

Even if you can manage that, though, as a general concept the idea that a force should be balanced is nonsense. We do not need to balance integration with segregation, honesty with corruption, rights with repression, peace with war.
Click to expand...

Society was getting too democratic and responsible! We need to balance that with corrupt totalitarianism!
 
bruto said:
Even if you can manage that, though, as a general concept the idea that a force should be balanced is nonsense. We do not need to balance integration with segregation, honesty with corruption, rights with repression, peace with war.
Click to expand...

You are presenting this as balancing good and evil. In reality, it is balancing two sides of the same coin: extremism. As I have stated before, both are equally faulty. But for some reason, some people only see one side of this coin as bad.
 
Warp12 said:
You are presenting this as balancing good and evil. In reality, it is balancing two sides of the same coin: extremism. As I have stated before, both are equally faulty. But for some reason, some people only see one side of this coin as bad.
Click to expand...

You're just making my previous comment even more relevant, you know?

Society was getting too democratic and responsible! We need to balance that with corrupt totalitarianism!

This isn't two sides of the same coin and the "two sides" claimed are not even remotely equivalent, when looked at objectively.
 
Last edited:
Aridas said:
You're just making my previous comment even more relevant, you know?

Society was getting too democratic and responsible! We need to balance that with corrupt totalitarianism!

This isn't two sides of the same coin and the "two sides" claimed are not even remotely equivalent.
Click to expand...

A responsible and democratic leaning society is not an extremist condition; and, again, you are painting the scenario as what is commonly considered "good" against a scenario that is commonly considered "bad". That is just bias.

Outright banning of abortion, and legal abortion of healthy fetuses up until birth, clearly are polar opposites in ideology. Extremes. Same coin, different sides. Equally faulty ideal.
 
Last edited:
I know this will shock a lot of people, but it turns out a conservative is telling lies about abortion:

Would a proposed Vermont law allow abortions ‘right up to the moment of birth’?

Our ruling

Bishop Coyne’s statement is true in a strict legal sense, but only if the law existed in a practice and policy vacuum. Without context, it is seriously misleading in regards to what would be permissible practice in Vermont.

The proposed law would not change the legal reality in Vermont in any way. And all evidence indicates that the type of abortions that the bishop fears -- elective procedures in the final stages of pregnancy -- do not occur in Vermont, and would not occur if H.57 passes.

We rate this claim Mostly False.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom