Texas Repubs pass abortion bill

[Lowpro]

I disagree. I consider the life of the baby after viability to be as valuable as the life of the victim. It's not the baby's fault they were conceived under tragic circumstances.

I don't believe people should be able to choose to murder an innocent no matter the situation.

I take it you do not view an unborn baby to be a valuable human life? What is the distinction between a valuable human life and something that can be scraped out of a womb?

You're valuing their innocence, not their life and you've forgotten other parties privy to the circumstances. If you want to choose life then you go put your money where your mouth is. You should get involved in maternal healthcare and promote the life and well being of both. These abortion laws? They're not what you think they are and they will not achieve what you think they will. Valuing life takes a lot of effort; a lifetime's worth in fact. If we ban abortion (or hell if we just stopped having them as a group decision, why not) then you're going to have to meet the needs of all unwanted pregnancies. You can either reduce that burden through family planning interventions. Other than that you'll then need to assist in promoting the general welfare of the new family in every way that meets your criteria for "valuing life". This abortion ban undermines those efforts without a single improvement in any other area other than tickling your moral scrotum.

It's not the end of the world, it's just a little more crummy. No matter the spectrum of complete crap some children are born into at least you can say "You were innocent!". With as much control as we have of reproduction unwanted pregnancies should be as preventable as polio, yet you would rather give them crutches in lieu of a vaccine...

 

[xjx388]

Not any more they don't. Not in Texas, at least.

This bill does not affect the availability of Plan B, which is OTC. It is considered an emergency contraceptive and not an abortifacient.

So if a rape or incest victim doesn't find out (which is absolutely possible) or doesn't manage to get away from the influence of the rapist in time, she's just SOL?

After the baby has a chance at viability, her right to not have a baby begins to give way to the baby's right to live. Or do you think a baby never has a right to live until it's born. What is your rational basis for drawing whatever line you draw?

Here:

In other words, all abortion facilities have to meet the standards of ambulatory surgical centers, and any physician performing an abortion has to to have admitting privileges at a hospital no further than 30 miles from where the abortion is performed. The use of drugs such as RU-486 intended to terminate a pregnancy is considered, under this bill, to be an "abortion". Therefore, the use of drugs such as RU-486 can only be done at a facility that meets the standard of an ambulatory surgical center, and can only be given by a physician with admitting privileges at a hospital that's no more than 30 miles away from the location facility where the drug is administered.

I didn't read it that way. I'll ask my health-care lawyer friend to see what she thinks...In any case, it's an area worth fighting if your interpretation is correct.

Tyranny of the majority

That's not the way our system works. The representatives in Congress represent the will of the people. if they get it wrong, they don't get re-elected. There are plenty of checks and balances against the "tyranny of the majority."

 

[Lowpro]

]After the baby has a chance at viability, her right to not have a baby begins to give way to the baby's right to live. Or do you think a baby never has a right to live until it's born. What is your rational basis for drawing whatever line you draw?

The fact that you can say that without vomiting in disgust is horrifying. Hell if I had that rationale I'd be banning cancer. Legislate a cure!

 

[lionking]

I disagree. I consider the life of the baby after viability to be as valuable as the life of the victim. It's not the baby's fault they were conceived under tragic circumstances.

I don't believe people should be able to choose to murder an innocent no matter the situation.

I take it you do not view an unborn baby to be a valuable human life? What is the distinction between a valuable human life and something that can be scraped out of a womb?

You use the language of pro-life extremists, so I will read your posts in this light.

 

[xjx388]

You're valuing their innocence, not their life and you've forgotten other parties privy to the circumstances.

I value the life of the unborn baby higher than I do the right of the mother to not have a baby.

If you want to choose life then you go put your money where your mouth is. You should get involved in maternal healthcare and promote the life and well being of both.

I absolutely support anything which will help the mother and baby be as healthy as possible. I want medicaid to pay for prenatal vitamins, adequate medical care and even parenting classes. I want poor mothers and children to have access to nutritious foods. I want poor kids to have access to healthcare.

These abortion laws? They're not what you think they are and they will not achieve what you think they will. Valuing life takes a lot of effort; a lifetime's worth in fact. If we ban abortion (or hell if we just stopped having them as a group decision, why not) then you're going to have to meet the needs of all unwanted pregnancies.

I would push for more coverage of birth control for the poor. And no one called for an outright ban on abortion.

You can either reduce that burden through family planning interventions. Other than that you'll then need to assist in promoting the general welfare of the new family in every way that meets your criteria for "valuing life".

OK. I have no problem with this.

This abortion ban undermines those efforts without a single improvement in any other area other than tickling your moral scrotum.

How does the new abortion law (which is not a ban, BTW) undermine maternal/child health efforts?

It's not the end of the world, it's just a little more crummy. No matter the spectrum of complete crap some children are born into at least you can say "You were innocent!".

I'd support sterilization of the people who create the "complete crap" conditions.

With as much control as we have of reproduction unwanted pregnancies should be as preventable as polio, yet you would rather give them crutches in lieu of a vaccine...

Huh? This is a non-sequitar to my support of this bill. I support BC availability. I support maternal/child health initiatives. I support the availability of PlanB and RU486.

 

[A'isha]

This bill does not affect the availability of Plan B, which is OTC. It is considered an emergency contraceptive and not an abortifacient.

You're right, I misread that part of your post. Nevetheless, if a victim of rape or incest misses the small window during which Plan B is effective, then why should she have these ******** obstacles placed in her way as she seeks an abortion? Why should any woman?

After the baby has a chance at viability, her right to not have a baby begins to give way to the baby's right to live.

No, it doesn't, but then again, we aren't talking about post-viability abortions.

Or do you think a baby never has a right to live until it's born. What is your rational basis for drawing whatever line you draw?

On the fact that actual people take priority over potential people. Especially when the actual person was given no choice in the matter after being subjected to sexual violence.

I didn't read it that way. I'll ask my health-care lawyer friend to see what she thinks...In any case, it's an area worth fighting if your interpretation is correct.

What makes you think non-surgical medical abortions are exempt, despite the explicit language of the bill?

That's not the way our system works. The representatives in Congress represent the will of the people. if they get it wrong, they don't get re-elected. There are plenty of checks and balances against the "tyranny of the majority."

Which the Republicans have done their level best to circumvent in their drive to impose this bill. And, unfortunately, it looks like their tactics were successful.

 

[xjx388]

The fact that you can say that without vomiting in disgust is horrifying. Hell if I had that rationale I'd be banning cancer. Legislate a cure!

Are you saying that the fact that I support the unborn kid's life more than the right of the mother to not have kids is disgusting? How so?

 

[xjx388]

You use the language of pro-life extremists, so I will read your posts in this light.

If I value a human life, how is that extreme? Are you saying that a baby at say, 24 weeks is not a human life? 26 weeks? What is your line as to when it's a life worth protection and what is your rationale for that line?

 

[Elizabeth I]

If I value a human life, how is that extreme? Are you saying that a baby at say, 24 weeks is not a human life? 26 weeks? What is your line as to when it's a life worth protection and what is your rationale for that line?

I think that most pro-choice people would say that those decisions are moral ones that everyone has to make for herself. I would not have an abortion at 24 weeks; I probably wouldn't have one at 20 weeks. That doesn't mean that my moral judgment trumps that of another woman who might need, for any of a number of reasons, to have a late-term abortion.

And in any case, if you will check the statistics, very few abortions are performed after the 20th week.

 

[Lowpro]

Are you saying that the fact that I support the unborn kid's life more than the right of the mother to not have kids is disgusting? How so?

Because there is no sovereignty to allow for declaring the "right" of a mother to not have kids, that's why!

You can have a moral attitude about that but making it a law, legislating biological conditions...that sends a different kind of anger up my spine. To actually presuppose a conditional right to give birth or not give birth as a form of law is a perversion of justice. Justice is supposed to promote the equal beneficence of law, that means to provide equality amongst biology, not segregate it. It is one thing to value the life of the unborn, hell I'm fine with that being a law "pursuit of life" and the advocacy for the unborn is a camp I actually sit in (I am pro-life by the way but I also have a respect for law and public health and well being) especially in the circumstances that most unwanted pregnancy mothers find themselves in. In fact I think you and I agree on most all birth control interventions regarding RU and oral contraceptives and general prenatal education. But I absolutely do NOT support any legal proclamation such as "right to not give birth" and the like. That is beyond the pale.

If people want to have an abortion then I'd rather that be a well informed decision and believe it or else the more informed someone is and the stronger the social structure is, the fewer abortions are performed (holy afterbirth batman!). I cannot in good conscience advocate against abortion as a means of family planning. I will advocate against it by working to prevent its necessity. But this entire distinction of "right not to give birth" is nothing but a clever red herring to mask the fact that the entire event is due to preventable circumstances that a lot of people pretend to ignore or pervert in an effort to maintain a status quo and moral high ground (re: "She made her choice, she had sex and now she wants out. Well let's screw her twice then!"). Abortion procedures are a tertiary care measure to a patient's health and well being and it does promote both even at the expense of an unborn child. At that impasse there is no sovereignty in law nor moral action that can, at the end can disenfranchise the event of an abortion and promote equal justice. There can be interventions to inhibit its necessity but this law in particular was a perversion of rhetoric by sadistic use of these healthcare regulation guidelines all to circumvent the legal protections that are meant to prevent government interference with your own biology.

 

[uke2se]

Pro-choice folks often use coat hangers in their signage and at protests against anti-abortion legislation. See all the images here.

So? It doesn't make what Erickson said less offensive.

 

[A'isha]

It's almost like there's a vastly different intention and context to the protester's use of coathanger imagery versus Erickson's use of them, isn't it?

 

[xjx388]

I think that most pro-choice people would say that those decisions are moral ones that everyone has to make for herself. I would not have an abortion at 24 weeks; I probably wouldn't have one at 20 weeks. That doesn't mean that my moral judgment trumps that of another woman who might need, for any of a number of reasons, to have a late-term abortion.

I don't think its strictly a moral argument. I think that, at some point in the gestation period, an abortion should be considered murder. Scientifically speaking, viability outside the womb is a pretty good marker. Around 24 weeks is when there is a 50% chance of viability so its a pretty good place to start talking about drawing the line. If Texas is more conservative and wants to draw the line a little earlier, then I see no issue with that. Other states may be more liberal and set the line at 24 weeks. Beyond that? How is an abortion at 30 weeks (95% viability) not murder? What makes it acceptable at 24 but not 25 weeks? Where do you draw the line?

 

[Brainster]

So? It doesn't make what Erickson said less offensive.

He's telling them where they can get the coat hangers for their protests, not for their abortions.

 

[Brainster]

And in any case, if you will check the statistics, very few abortions are performed after the 20th week.

So... what's the problem?

BTW, those ignorant hick Texans should learn from the more civilized French, who allow abortion up until the--wait a minute, this can't be right!--12th week.

 

[xjx388]

Because there is no sovereignty to allow for declaring the "right" of a mother to not have kids, that's why!

But that right is implied in the idea that women have a right to abort in the first place. All I'm saying is that at some point, the woman's right to control her own biology/have an abortion/what-have-you must give way to the baby's right to life.

You can have a moral attitude about that but making it a law, legislating biological conditions...that sends a different kind of anger up my spine. To actually presuppose a conditional right to give birth or not give birth as a form of law is a perversion of justice. Justice is supposed to promote the equal beneficence of law, that means to provide equality amongst biology, not segregate it. It is one thing to value the life of the unborn, hell I'm fine with that being a law "pursuit of life" and the advocacy for the unborn is a camp I actually sit in (I am pro-life by the way but I also have a respect for law and public health and well being) especially in the circumstances that most unwanted pregnancy mothers find themselves in. In fact I think you and I agree on most all birth control interventions regarding RU and oral contraceptives and general prenatal education. But I absolutely do NOT support any legal proclamation such as "right to not give birth" and the like. That is beyond the pale.

Forgive me for being dense, but I'm not following much of this. If women don't have a right to not have kids, then what gives them the right to have an abortion at all?

If people want to have an abortion then I'd rather that be a well informed decision and believe it or else the more informed someone is and the stronger the social structure is, the fewer abortions are performed (holy afterbirth batman!). I cannot in good conscience advocate against abortion as a means of family planning. I will advocate against it by working to prevent its necessity.

I think I get this. I would much rather advocate for increased use of birth control. But that doesn't mean that abortion should be considered an acceptable means of birth control, especially after 20-24 weeks.

But this entire distinction of "right not to give birth" is nothing but a clever red herring to mask the fact that the entire event is due to preventable circumstances that a lot of people pretend to ignore or pervert in an effort to maintain a status quo and moral high ground (re: "She made her choice, she had sex and now she wants out. Well let's screw her twice then!").

If a particular outcome is easily preventible and a person does not take the easy measures to prevent the outcome, shouldn't the person be held responsible for the outcome?

Abortion procedures are a tertiary care measure to a patient's health and well being and it does promote both even at the expense of an unborn child.

But at some point, the baby's life trumps the health and well being of the mother.

At that impasse there is no sovereignty in law nor moral action that can, at the end can disenfranchise the event of an abortion and promote equal justice. There can be interventions to inhibit its necessity but this law in particular was a perversion of rhetoric by sadistic use of these healthcare regulation guidelines all to circumvent the legal protections that are meant to prevent government interference with your own biology.

Did not follow this part.

 

[Dorian Gray]

No one really knows precisely when life is viable. Percentages and probabilities are guesses, not certain. Until they are certain, why should some totally unrelated politicians get to decide when Woman A has an abortion?

You can't just say "well I think they shouldn't happen after X weeks, therefore no one should get an abortion after X weeks." That's the beauty of choice. I personally am - like I believe the vast majority of the country to be - against abortions as a form of birth control, aside from cases of rape, incest and danger to the mother's health. Some would add birth defects to this list. I also think most people want abortions to be rare, legal and safe.

There is an artificial divide created by various groups on both extremes and perpetuated by the media of Black/White. This is just not the truth. There are actually a crapload of groups on this issue, and a Venn diagram of these groups would have tons of overlap. Some extremists think no abortions for any reason is the way to go. Some extremists think that as long as the baby is inside the woman, an abortion is still possible - even at 8 1/2 months. I think a) most people feel that abortions in the first trimester are totally okay, b) fewer and fewer people are okay with it the more weeks pass, and c) most people are not okay with it in the third trimester.

 

[Dorian Gray]

But that right is implied in the idea that women have a right to abort in the first place. All I'm saying is that at some point, the woman's right to control her own biology/have an abortion/what-have-you must give way to the baby's right to life.

Forgive me for being dense, but I'm not following much of this. If women don't have a right to not have kids, then what gives them the right to have an abortion at all?

I think I get this. I would much rather advocate for increased use of birth control. But that doesn't mean that abortion should be considered an acceptable means of birth control, especially after 20-24 weeks.

If a particular outcome is easily preventible and a person does not take the easy measures to prevent the outcome, shouldn't the person be held responsible for the outcome?

But at some point, the baby's life trumps the health and well being of the mother.


Did not follow this part.

Perhaps the baby's life trumps the woman's rights at some point, perhaps not - but each individual pregnant woman should decide that.

 

[Lowpro]

But that right is implied in the idea that women have a right to abort in the first place. All I'm saying is that at some point, the woman's right to control her own biology/have an abortion/what-have-you must give way to the baby's right to life.

Not on legal grounds either way. Even Roe v Wade recognized that it wasn't the "right to abortion" that effectively legalized abortion but that the government did not have the legal capacity to intervene on her healthcare as it is not lawful. The ability for any State to perform their duty rests on their sovereignty which is dictated by the Constitution and judicial branch of government all of which affirmed Roe v. Wade.

But Roe v. Wade only serves to reaffirm this right. It never made it a new right, it was always there and Roe v. Wade existed as a testament to that.

So you trying to finagle in a "right to abort" is nonsensical. It would do more to damage the fact by entertaining you on this.

At some point the woman's decision on when she can/should abort should be made by the only people who matter here: the woman and her physician.. It's not an easy decision but at least it's being made in the most compassionate and fertile field of reproductive health.

But then you get those Republican assclowns who just can't stand finding another hole to thrust into where they don't belong. Their voice is not the right voice for the matter of reproductive health and they've proven that time and time again.

If a particular outcome is easily preventible and a person does not take the easy measures to prevent the outcome, shouldn't the person be held responsible for the outcome?

That depends on the circumstances. I dare you to come over and visit with me one day to a teen pregnancy outreach program managed at UAB. The vast majority of reports feature young black women with no strong educational background whom have never had a single gynecology visit until their pregnancy (identified well after fertilization BTW) or primary physician care. Teenage pregnancy is EASILY preventable, hell HPV transmission (that's the research data I am more familiar with but this is all within one larger health behavior program) is possibly the most preventable carcinogenic virus infection. But there are areas and there are people who literally have health literacy so low it'll scare you. For MANY people unwanted pregnancy is a fact of life. They have it, their mothers had it, and their kids will have it. Abortions are utilized as a tertiary intervention because most all populations in lower socioeconomic strata utilize tertiary prevention healthcare disproportionately already. Abortions are symptomatic of healthcare failure which affects their exposure to pregnancy prevention strategies. Now you tell me, should they be responsible for that, and by the LAW rather than the actual participants!? The only lawful recourse is to provide for the promotion of these strategies; that's part of the duties of each state. But a state cannot mandate organ donations, it cannot enforce mandatory smoking cessation and it should not also be able to enforce limits to abortion. Abortion has been the one odd duck and for SO many wrong and vicious reasons all of which stem from sadistic discrimination of women, of the underserved, and promotion of a particular ideology. The law is crafted to limit governments from doing this and to promote efforts to improve the damage of that asshats do. The fact is, asshats got into the government. Texas demonstrates this and now it's an issue of damage control until efforts can be adjusted to compensate for ignorant lawmakers.

 

[Elizabeth I]

I don't think its strictly a moral argument. I think that, at some point in the gestation period, an abortion should be considered murder. Scientifically speaking, viability outside the womb is a pretty good marker. Around 24 weeks is when there is a 50% chance of viability so its a pretty good place to start talking about drawing the line. If Texas is more conservative and wants to draw the line a little earlier, then I see no issue with that. Other states may be more liberal and set the line at 24 weeks. Beyond that? How is an abortion at 30 weeks (95% viability) not murder? What makes it acceptable at 24 but not 25 weeks? Where do you draw the line?

Are you one of the people who would be prevented from having an abortion by this law? In other words, a woman? If not, of course you "see no issue with that." In the final analysis, pregnancy is not an "issue" for you at all. Sorry, you don't get to say.

If a particular outcome is easily preventible and a person does not take the easy measures to prevent the outcome, shouldn't the person be held responsible for the outcome?

I wish you could spend at least a year doing what I did for three years - being a problem pregnancy counselor. Women don't use contraception for a whole library of reasons.

One is that, in Texas, appropriations to support Planned Parenthood have been slashed past the bone. Planned Parenthood clinics were where many poor women went, not just for contraception, but for Pap smears and mammograms and all kinds of health information. Those locations that haven't had to close due to lack of funding have had to cut back clinic operations. Thanks to the Texas Republicans you seem to admire so much, now the last-ditch solution has also been taken from women. If you want to know why, please see this post.

Other reasons women don't get contraception include embarrassment, lack of information, and the fact that the men in their lives won't let them (yes, that happens, and then when the women get pregnant they are abused.) I counseled women who sneaked out of their homes to get abortions because of abusive relationships, ones that would not have been safe for their babies either. I counseled teenagers who got pregnant out of ignorance, or because they were "good girls," and "good girls" don't plan to have sex, so they don't - can't - use contraception. I counseled women who fed their families with money they might have used on contraception, but it was either buy food or pay for pills (and, no, not having sex was not an option for them.) I counseled migrant workers who had no hope of keeping up with a contraceptive regimen. I counseled drug-addicted women who probably spent money they might have used on contraception to buy their drugs, but who at least had the sense not to bring a drug-addicted child into the world. I counseled women whose husbands left them when they got pregnant. And, of course, even the best contraception fails every now and then.

It's very easy for you to sit wherever you are, not facing any of the myriad of problems that exist for women, especially poor women, and issue your moral judgments. You have no idea of the world that exists outside whatever sterile, privileged place you live in.

Go and get educated about the world of women who live in poverty or isolation or abuse, then come back and lecture us on being "held responsible for the outcome" of not taking those "easy steps" to prevent pregnancy.