Texas Repubs pass abortion bill

[ponderingturtle]

Ahem.

The issue isn't nearly as black and white as most people pretend. But for a more light-hearted take on the whole issue than what I linked above, there's this.

As long as people consider it ethical to leave a patient to die because you refuse to perform the procedure they need because your ethics will not allow it.

Should I start listing women that have been killed by the pro life side?

Is it ethical for a catholic hospital to refuse to treat an ectopic pregnancy properly and instead do long term unnecessary damage to the woman's fertility because that is the ethical answer?

 

[respect]

And the women who suffer because of it really care that they are being made to suffer because their life and pain doesn't matter. If it mattered then hospitals wouldn't be able to say "we don't perform life saving abortions because they are unethical". Shows their respect for life right there.

A lot of the "pro-life" side does think that abortions should be allowed in cases of medical emergencies concerning the mother, also in cases of rape and/or incest. Believe it or not, there is disagreement within the movement about some of these issues. The more universal opposition in the movement is to abortion as a form of birth control and abortion as a form of social Darwinism (aborting fetuses because they have some identified defect). Aside from that, they should be identified as women-haters and the pro-choice side as child-killers so everyone can be equally happy and mad.

 

[Dorian Gray]

I don't see any contradiction between anti-choice and pro-death penalty (one is about the question of when is a human a human, while the other is a question of whether the state's monopoly on violence should extend to killing people as punishment for crimes)

HAHAHA! Nice term-switching, NWOS. Let's try that again:

I don't see any contradiction between pro-life and pro-death penalty (one is about the question of when is a human a human, while the other is a question of whether the state's monopoly on violence should extend to killing people as punishment for crimes)

Can you see the contradiction now?

Again, there's not much contradictions there. For one thing, The displaying of graphic pictures outside abortion clinics are seen as "political statements", while huckleberry finn was seen as art being racist (refer to controversy regarding Tintin in the Congo). The horror stories about abortions/stds are seen as a "scare 'em straight" deterrent wrt teenage pregnancy (like the Red Asphalt films which depict gruesome aftermaths of car crashes), so there isn't much contradiction there.

Wow... meanwhile over here in Normal City, it appears that these people somehow think that the n-word is somehow worse than a slew of vile pictures, even though someone has to voluntarily open the book and read for quite a while before encountering the word, while I see the pictures whilst driving down the street - and so do my kids.

Which also means that these people somehow think it is perfectly fine for small children to see these images they should not see yet which will almost certainly require explanations they should not have to receive yet, but not okay for teenagers to be taught about sex.

In other words, this whole thing is just BUSTING with contradictions It's a contradiction generating machine.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

HAHAHA! Nice term-switching, NWOS. Let's try that again:

Can you see the contradiction now?

I'm calling them for what they are. Anti-choice deals specifically with abortion, which is what is generally meant by "pro-life". Meanwhile the Death Penalty is a completely separate issue, and deals more with the extent of the state's monopoly on violence.

Wow... meanwhile over here in Normal City, it appears that these people somehow think that the n-word is somehow worse than a slew of vile pictures, even though someone has to voluntarily open the book and read for quite a while before encountering the word, while I see the pictures whilst driving down the street - and so do my kids.

I was explaining why it isn't contradictory from their perspective. From their perspective, it would be like censoring A Serbian Film (nasty piece of "art"), but not censor Spec Ops: The Line (which can be seen as a political statement about violence in media)

Which also means that these people somehow think it is perfectly fine for small children to see these images they should not see yet which will almost certainly require explanations they should not have to receive yet, but not okay for teenagers to be taught about sex.

There are nuances to this whole thing. They see "scare 'em straight" and "shame them out of immoral behaviours" as valid tactics in dealing with these matters, as when they discuss sex education, they do it in the most horrific manner.

 

[ponderingturtle]

A lot of the "pro-life" side does think that abortions should be allowed in cases of medical emergencies concerning the mother, also in cases of rape and/or incest. Believe it or not, there is disagreement within the movement about some of these issues. The more universal opposition in the movement is to abortion as a form of birth control and abortion as a form of social Darwinism (aborting fetuses because they have some identified defect). Aside from that, they should be identified as women-haters and the pro-choice side as child-killers so everyone can be equally happy and mad.

Not enough to resist laws that mean that doctors and hospitals have to obey the standard of care in these cases. They want to make sure no doctor is forced to perform an abortion even if it is to save a woman's life.

So they align with the catholic position that it is never right to perform an abortion even if it is to save a woman's life. And of course this organization is what runs so many american hospitals.

 

[Dorian Gray]

Not enough to resist laws that mean that doctors and hospitals have to obey the standard of care in these cases. They want to make sure no doctor is forced to perform an abortion even if it is to save a woman's life.

So they align with the catholic position that it is never right to perform an abortion even if it is to save a woman's life. And of course this organization is what runs so many american hospitals.

Doing nothing and letting God handle it seems more in line with Christian Scientists than Catholics.

 

[fuelair]

This guy.

So, based on birther ideals and what passes for ideas among such - he is obviously indoctrinated with madras teachings. I kind of figured he was a pile of excrement and it is clear it is. It is a shame his mother neglected a supply of those hangers. Though I understand the simple bent wire ones are the normal choice due to their flexibility.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Doing nothing and letting God handle it seems more in line with Christian Scientists than Catholics.

Well they will do something, like a full hysterectomy thats ok but not an abortion. So instead of aborting a ectopic pregnancy they take out the whole Fallopian tube. Because that is moral even if it isn't the best treatment.

 

[fuelair]

Ahem.

The issue isn't nearly as black and white as most people pretend. But for a more light-hearted take on the whole issue than what I linked above, there's this.

Actually it is. A woman should be free, of her own volition/will to make the decision on abortion at any point in/of the pregnancy. And physicians, hospitals and politicians who disagree should be free to devour feces and exspire.

 

[Ziggurat]

Actually it is. A woman should be free, of her own volition/will to make the decision on abortion at any point in/of the pregnancy. And physicians, hospitals and politicians who disagree should be free to devour feces and exspire.

So you're fine with 9th month abortions? That puts you in a rather small minority, and evidently basically every politician in both parties should, according to you, "devour feces and exspire." In a word, you're an extremist.

 

[SezMe]

What would help the pro-choice lobby is this:

1. Stop calling abortion "women's health", and just acknowledge it for what it is.

What would help would be if you did not attempt to equate abortion and women's health. Abortion IS part of women's health, but only a very small part. Look at the list of services that Planned Parenthood offers to see all the other aspects of women's health. And it is all these other services that are cut by legislation such as that passed in Texas, Wisconsin, North Dakota, Mississippi, etc.

 

[respect]

Not enough to resist laws that mean that doctors and hospitals have to obey the standard of care in these cases. They want to make sure no doctor is forced to perform an abortion even if it is to save a woman's life.

So they align with the catholic position that it is never right to perform an abortion even if it is to save a woman's life. And of course this organization is what runs so many american hospitals.

So they are too pro-choice?

 

[respect]

Actually it is. A woman should be free, of her own volition/will to make the decision on abortion at any point in/of the pregnancy. And physicians, hospitals and politicians who disagree should be free to devour feces and exspire.

Grow up.

 

[SezMe]

The GOP will be dead in a decade. Not sure which Know Nothings will arise to replace it, but they managed to wound themselves fatally this week.

I disagree. A decade is less than three election cycles. The GOP in 2023 will still be a powerful force in the South, in Mormonlandia, it rural states like Iowa, Montana, the Dakotas, etc.

Now, we might see some moderation movements but the core values aren't going to change. I think you could plunk down you money for the 2024 GOP convention and be assured of a seat.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

What would help would be if you did not attempt to equate abortion and women's health. Abortion IS part of women's health, but only a very small part. Look at the list of services that Planned Parenthood offers to see all the other aspects of women's health. And it is all these other services that are cut by legislation such as that passed in Texas, Wisconsin, North Dakota, Mississippi, etc.

The problem is that both the pro and anti-choice crowds frequently conflate the two, and if the pro-choicers talked specifically about abortion more often, it would force the anti-choicers into a corner. Because, saying "women's health" instead of "abortion" to most anti-choicers is reminiscent of replacing "death" with "the next dimension" in the DBZ dub.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

I can't speak for other people, but I consider myself pro-life, without being anti-choice. I have a lot of libertarian views, and think the government is very inconsistent when choosing whether to meddle in people's private lives.

 

[fuelair]

So you're fine with 9th month abortions? That puts you in a rather small minority, and evidently basically every politician in both parties should, according to you, "devour feces and exspire." In a word, you're an extremist.

And I have been one since I was in early high school ('58/'59) found out what abortion was and what it was like for most women who had them then and said with no help at all "The hell with that! Only the women should be involved and they should be able to get one in any hospital at any time they want it. " I have not changed in any way from my opinion then. And I got it from no one but me. Although I have not mentioned this priorly (in detail) once I knew about gay (though limited on details, I felt the same way - more in the sense of "and.......(shrug)?". Also - but earlier- I discovered coincident with learning about prostitutes (paperback: Call Girl, mid 50's - said "uh and they make trouble for these women because?" Note there is more to each of these (but not in the non negative perception of each) as I gained data.

 

[ponderingturtle]

So they are too pro-choice?

No they have their head so far up their ass that they think it is different if you perform additional unnecessary surgery it makes it not an abortion and so ok.

Abortion is wrong but a hysterectomy on a pregnant uterus can be ok. Nothing wrong with a little forced sterilization I guess.

 

[Ziggurat]

And I have been one since I was in early high school

Well, then, I really no longer care about your opinion on the topic. Your views are too extreme for us to have any common ground to debate over, and they are politically irrelevant since they will get no traction among any political party, in any state.

 

[xjx388]

I can accept abortion without reservations when 1)It might save the mother's life, 2)The pregnancy is the result of rape or 3)The baby will be born with a disabling anomaly. I find it harder to accept abortion when it's the result of simply having sex unprotected and now you don't want the obvious consequence of that behavior.

At the same time, I realize that my distinctions are not the same ones that others would draw. IOW, my moral stance is not universal. But most rational people agree we must draw a line somewhere: Extremeists would say no abortions/abortions anytime before birth. Most of us fall in the middle, say the second trimester. But the baby's (yes, I'm calling it a baby) development is rapid in the second trimester. By 20 weeks the baby is recognizable as human. By 24 weeks the baby has about a 50% chance of viability.

Given that, I fully support 20 weeks as the legal line of abortion. After that, it is increasingly likely that the baby is viable and makes it more an act of murder than "exercise of choice." After all, a baby who is born at 40 weeks would die if not taken care of and we prosecute people for "choosing" to dump their babies in a trash can.

As for the other provisions in this bill, I see no issue with requiring clinics that give abortions to adhere to the same standards of cleanliness and safety as that of surgical centers. Why would you want lower standards? Yes, I understand that abortions are relatively safe, especially under 20 weeks. However, with the advent of medical abortions (RU486 et. al.), which are safe and effective throughout the first trimester (it's even used in the 2nd trimester in Canada), there should be less of a need for surgical abortions and these surgical abortions would be used in higher risk cases.