Texas Repubs pass abortion bill

[Dcdrac]

http://www.xojane.com/issues/billy-cain-tuesday-cain-jesus-isnt-a-dick-so-keep-him-out-of-my-vagina

 

[Aulus Agerius]

Rape?

The woman has to consent to the ultrasound. I guess women are getting raped in OB/GYN offices every day.

(emphasis added)

I think you need to read this again and then think about it.
Perhaps a simple analogy would help:

You want to cross a state line (something you are perfectly entitled to do). But turns out (to pick a state at random) Delaware reckons they have enough people already, thanks very much. Instead of just prohibiting people from entering Delaware they decide to discourage them: in order to enter Delaware you now have to consent to be penetrated by an official at the state border.

Do you see the problem now?

 

[SomedayGirl]

What you fail to recognize and admit is that these laws won't reduce the number of abortions, they will reduce only the number of LEGAL abortions. You're accomplishing nothing but increasing the risk for a lot of mostly poor women. So much for "protecting the safety and health of women." You don't care about that at all. You just want to feel smug because once abortion is forced back underground you can ignore all the illegal abortions and point to the fact that the number of legal ones is shrinking.

Indeed and to me more importantly, as has been pointed out, women like me and I suspect you as well will always be able to access safe, legal abortions. What these kinds of restrictions do is keep poor women poor or cause poor women to be maimed or killed.

I think the facility restrictions will be struck down by the courts. There's no justification that has been offered that stands up to even the most cursory scrutiny. Those aren't about safety, they are about restricting access and unless other types of minimally invasive surgical services are similarly regulated it's difficult to see the legal justification or societal interest that is served.

 

[Corsair 115]

Some food for thought: In Canada, there has been effectively no laws controlling abortions since a 1988 Supreme Court decision struck them down. But in spite of what amounts to a laissez-faire situation in regards to abortions, the rate of abortions in Canada is 20% lower than it is in the United States. Not only that, but 97% of those abortions are performed within the first 16 weeks of pregnancy. (Contraceptive use is also higher, with 80% of women using some form of birth control versus 63% in the U.S.)

 

[RandFan]

Some food for thought: In Canada, there has been effectively no laws controlling abortions since a 1988 Supreme Court decision struck them down. But in spite of what amounts to a laissez-faire situation in regards to abortions, the rate of abortions in Canada is 20% lower than it is in the United States. Not only that, but 97% of those abortions are performed within the first 16 weeks of pregnancy. (Contraceptive use is also higher, with 80% of women using some form of birth control versus 63% in the U.S.)

If the GOP wanted to reduce abortions they would concentrate on providing contraception and stop the idiotic abstinence only nonsense. It's not just Canada.

Teen Pregnancy Is Higher in Red States Than in Blue States

It's simple, these laws have nothing to do with women's health or saving the lives of fetuses. If they were then the GOP would concentrate on policies that have been shown to work. The laws are a misguided notion to punish poor women for having premarital sex and to control women's bodies. While the teen birth rate has fallen sharply for California it remains high for many blue states.

California Teen Birth Rates Drop 60 Percent Thanks To Sex Education

And it's not just Democrats that get it.

Republican legislator, a doctor, writes a remarkable letter about abortion and contraception

To quote Eric Idle (Monty Python), "it's depressing and it's senseless".

 

[RandFan]

Letter from Republican legislator and Physician.

Republican legislator, a doctor, writes a remarkable letter about abortion and contraception

As a practicing physician (who never has or will perform an abortion), I deal with the real world. In the real world, 15- and 16-year-olds get pregnant (sadly, 12-, 13- and 14-year-olds do also). In the real world, 62 percent of women ages 20 to 24 who give birth are unmarried. And in the world I work and live in, an unplanned pregnancy can throw up a real roadblock on a woman's path to escaping the shackles of poverty.

Yet I cannot convince my Republican colleagues that one of the best ways to eliminate abortions is to ensure access to contraception. A recent attempt by my fellow lawmakers to prevent Medicaid dollars from covering the “morning after” pill is a case in point. Denying access to this important contraceptive is a sure way to increase legal and back-alley abortions. Moreover, such a law would discriminate against low-income women who depend on Medicaid for their health care.

But wait, some lawmakers want to go even further and limit everyone's access to birth control by allowing pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions for contraception

 

[Minoosh]

RandFan is just being dishonest as usual and will accuse anyone who disagrees with his nonsense of special pleading ...

Are you one of those people so inured to Internet vitriol that you don't realize when you are attacking someone personally? Most of your posts are civil. Please live up to your user name?[/quote]

There is no magical point when day begins.

There's a precise point when an egg is fertilized, though. It's a discrete event. At that instant is formed a blueprint for a genetically complete, absolutely unique human being. I agree that a blueprint is not a building. But I also see ethical implications not present with sperm. For example, selectively aborting by gender, which is common in some countries, just doesn't sit right with me. That's all it is, a feeling.

Your body is the least important aspect of you. What makes you "a human" are your memories and your ability to think and feel.

This definition of "human" is problematic in its own way. May a different debate for a different day.

"Kill the life growing inside of you" is the typical emotional appeal that has no basis in reality.

You're killing a collection of cells that are markedly different than the 100,000,000 sperm cells that die with every ejaculation. A discrete event has disrupted the continuum. Then the continuum continues.

Conception is a key event IMO.

I think you're going to learn that the values of health and autonomy often run against each other in their absolutes and I find abortion to be one of those.

Well said. As long as people are debating in honestly and in good faith these conversations about conflicting values are useful to help understanding.

The GOP is pushing for state and national personhood laws. Such laws would proscribe any birth control after conception. Many Republicans are on record to push through such laws.

Better to me that they're on record. It won't happen. Do you think it could?

Instead I want to go to the other extreme, one you may like but is about as un-American and ethically wrong at the same time. Mandatory vasectomies for all males starting at age 10.

I kind of like that, and it won't happen. Make a deposit in the bank then get snipped. I would like to hear about your analysis of ethics involved.

How are the speculums, doctor's hands and surgical instruments in her vagina not rape and the ultrasound is?

Do women seeking abortion get pelvic exams as a matter of routine? If so I see your point. If RU-486 can be administered without an pelvic exam I don't see a need for an additional invasive procedure. But I'm not rabidly pro-life. If it were up to me I'd err on the side of assuming a 20-week fetus is not viable. Better to kill a fetus than to torture it. That said I don't think I'd ever get an abortion. It's moot now anyway.

 

[Minoosh]

But, as an American, I can live with the framework established in Roe and Webster and I think the new Texas ban after 20 weeks is perfectly acceptable.

And I think it's great that you are on point, not snarky, etc. This thread IMO is a healthy thing. Very informative.

 

[xjx388]

What's the point then? Are you acknowledging that the bill is a trap law?

There is no doubt that the intent is to reduce abortions. The question is whether or not that's a bad thing. I say it's not and the possibility that it might lead to illegal abortions is not compelling enough. The only way you will eliminate illegal abortion is to make it completely legal at any stage of pregnancy and that will never happen.

You say that as if that is a good thing. Don't get me wrong. If you can reduce abortions through comprehensive education and birth control then I'm for it. I'm not an abortion enthusiast. Id like very much to see abortions reduced. But not at the expense of harassing women.

I guess it depends on the controlling philosophy. If society at large believes that abortion after point X is wrong then it isn't "harassing women," it's enforcing the law.

 

[Corsair 115]

There is no doubt that the intent is to reduce abortions. The question is whether or not that's a bad thing. I say it's not and the possibility that it might lead to illegal abortions is not compelling enough.

So, the manner by which abortions are to be reduced is by ever-icreasing regulatory restrictions? The Canadian data suggests otherwise - an effectively laissez-faire environment yet which has a considerably lower rate of abortions. So maybe instead of making more regulation they ought to be reduced. Interestingly, conservative thinking on economic matters proposes exactly that - reduce regulatory restrictions so that all the economic players have the freedom to pursue their own best interests, and economic growth and prosperity will ensue. The lower rate of abortions in Canada would seem to support this 'free market' approach.

But instead of following the 'free market' approach they are pursuing a 'prohibition' approach. Which, if the actual Prohibition period is any example, will ultimately result in failure.

 

[RandFan]

There is no doubt that the intent is to reduce abortions. The question is whether or not that's a bad thing. I say it's not and the possibility that it might lead to illegal abortions is not compelling enough. The only way you will eliminate illegal abortion is to make it completely legal at any stage of pregnancy and that will never happen.

It's not my only premise. But you are far to quick to dismiss it. The abortion laws will harm women.

I guess it depends on the controlling philosophy. If society at large believes that abortion after point X is wrong then it isn't "harassing women," it's enforcing the law.

A.) There is no evidence that these laws will reduce abortions. You have not demonstrated that these laws work as promised. You have no evidence to counter the fact that rich women will simply fly to other states and poor women will turn to back alley abortions. Canada has much lower rates of abortion. They have abortion on demand.

B.) The majority cannot pass laws to take away constitutional rights (tyranny of the majority). You ignored my examples. If the majority thought we should ban all guns that would not make it okay. If the majority wanted to outlaw Mormonism that would not make it okay. If the majority voted to enslave black people that would not make it okay. SCOTUS would be constitutionally bound to overturn such laws. I've no idea why you think the constitution invalid. Could you address that? Why is it that you think the Constitution irrelevant?

 

[RandFan]

There's a precise point when an egg is fertilized, though. It's a discrete event.

Ejaculation is a precise point. There is a precise point when the egg attaches to the uterine wall (gastrulation). I fail to see the point of that. It looks like text book special pleading. Keep in mind it's not the only precise point. It's an arbitrary distinction. A fertilized egg has no thoughts and cannot suffer. It has no form or function of a human. If you want to think of it as human that's fine. I don't and I've yet to see a compelling argument to think otherwise. A pregnant woman can think and she can suffer.

At that instant is formed a blueprint for a genetically complete, absolutely unique human being. I agree that a blueprint is not a building. But I also see ethical implications not present with sperm. For example, selectively aborting by gender, which is common in some countries, just doesn't sit right with me. That's all it is, a feeling.

I respect your feelings. You are entitled to your feelings. My mom feels she talks to Jesus. I don't mean to insult. I can't think of a better example. On the other hand, I don't know your religious sentiments. Sorry if I'm being presumptuous.

You're killing a collection of cells that are markedly different than the 100,000,000 sperm cells that die with every ejaculation.

I killed a cockroach today. I killed a collection of cells that are markedly different than a fertilized egg.

Conception is a key event IMO.

You are entitled to your opinions but it does not seem to be informed by skepticism, critical thinking and science.

Better to me that they're on record. It won't happen. Do you think it could?

Absolutely it could. I suspect that your question is more about plausibility/probability (is it plausible/is it likely). It's plausible. I would give it less than a 50% chance at this moment but not by much.

 

[Lowpro]

I kind of like that, and it won't happen. Make a deposit in the bank then get snipped. I would like to hear about your analysis of ethics involved.

No state has the capacity to force a procedure on you at any age, much less for reasons such as reproductive control. Like it or else, the states do not have any power to force any procedure on you. They can't even make any woman have prenatal care or even give birth in a hospital setting (fun fact: my parents didn't because they couldn't afford it. They hired a midwife to deliver me and me and my mother almost died...); the SAME THING that xjx is trying to use as a proxy for "viability" which only demonstrates his ignorance. The closest a state may have come was in regards to vaccinations (Jacobson v. Massachussets) where the state basically said "get this vaccination or be fined". A preacher refused on religious grounds and lost. And even then the vaccination wasn't forced, he just had to pay up. After that, medical practitioners adopted their own vaccination protocol without the need for state coercion, because people don't often respond well to that. They've also been doing this for reproductive care...

xjx misunderstands what a state can do by law in regards to restrictions and what a state can do as an intervention. There are plenty of intervention programs that reduce abortions. Planned Parenthood corners the market on that, and yet look at how the states treat them -.-

So yea, it goes back to the issue of how any legislation can act on the individual's autonomy. In almost every case direct action has been illegal when it comes to forcing procedures, either blatantly or discreetly. Making an exception for abortion does not work. But you know what does? Reducing abortions without the power of law (more effective, longer lasting effects coming through intervention programs such as those of Planned Parenthood and UAB's "Deep South Network" for outreach). You're going to get better results with that than with handcuffs and a pocket empty of ***** to give to people who need it.

 

[xjx388]

I think the main problem we are finding in this thread is that we can't agree at what point a human becomes a human. We've had assertions that there is no such point, that its when its born, conception, viability, etc. Science cannot give us the answer. We are divided by philosophical lines. We can apply all the skepticism and critical thinking we like, but if we all start from different premises, our conclusions will be different.

I consider the product of conception to be a human being. I don't consider gametes, skin cells or blood cells to be human beings. I can accept abortion in the earliest stages, but at some point that human being deserves protection. I can appreciate certain circumstances where abortion is necessary or at least highly desirable -rape, medical necessity due to grave threat to the mother or severe defects in the fetus. But mostly, abortion is ending the life of a human being which is akin to murder. And when there are other alternatives (everything from contraception to adoption), elective abortion seems to me to be a barbaric practice.

You may agree or disagree with me but it really comes down to this: Society has to determine what it finds acceptable. At this moment in time, most of society feels that fetuses are deserving of protection and our laws reflect that -to different extremes, of course. When society changes its mind -and it may gradually over time as it has for so many other issues- then the laws will change.

 

[RandFan]

I think the main problem we are finding in this thread is that we can't agree at what point a human becomes a human. We've had assertions that there is no such point, that its when its born, conception, viability, etc. Science cannot give us the answer. We are divided by philosophical lines. We can apply all the skepticism and critical thinking we like, but if we all start from different premises, our conclusions will be different.

Like the premise that god lives. Some of us start with the premise that there is no evidence for god. Some of us start with the premise that there is evidence that a fertilized egg is a human being. It has no form or function of a human being. You cannot fee it, hold it in your arms or see it smile.

I consider the product of conception to be a human being.

Some people consider evolution to be false. If it is a human being then why do you support killing it?

I don't consider gametes, skin cells or blood cells to be human beings. I can accept abortion in the earliest stages, but at some point that human being deserves protection.

If you were correct then abortion at the earliest stages is murder. You are being morally inconsistent.

You may agree or disagree with me but it really comes down to this: Society has to determine what it finds acceptable.

It was intended by the founders that society could not simply vote away constitutional rights. That is a major purpose for legislative debates and a Republic. That is a major purpose of the judiciary. To protect the minority from tyranny of the majority.

If the majority wanted to ban all guns in the United States hopefully our legislators would have the conscience necessary to stop the infringement of rights. If not, hopefully the judiciary would overturn such an obvious infringement of our liberty.

Conservatives scream and yell "constitutionally" protected right when it comes to guns. A constitutionally protect right to privacy they don't give two cents for.

Here's the punch line. There is no evidence that such laws will protect women or fetuses. It's all about there "feelings".

 

[Dcdrac]

And who says the state has any right to tell women what they can and cannot do with their own lives and bodies?

 

[xjx388]

Like the premise that god lives. Some of us start with the premise that there is no evidence for god. Some of us start with the premise that there is evidence that a fertilized egg is a human being. It has no form or function of a human being. You cannot fee it, hold it in your arms or see it smile.

You can see it smile with a 3D ultrasound.

But sure, we all have different ideas about the issue.

Some people consider evolution to be false. If it is a human being then why do you support killing it?

Why is it tyranny of the majority in the case of abortion and not in the case of evolution? Don't minority positions deserve to be protected? Don't they have Constitutional rights?

I don't support abortion, personally. I would never allow my wife or my daughter to even consider it and if they did, it would drastically change my perception of who they are. Neither one of them find it morally acceptable. However, we recognize that our philosophy isn't universal. Therefore, we see room for compromise on the issue. Although, my daughter seems to be more anti-abortion than I am.

If you were correct then abortion at the earliest stages is murder. You are being morally inconsistent.

In the interests of the larger society, we have to compromise on these grey-area types of issues. There is a middle ground there between both extremes and that is where policy is currently set. In Texas, it's a pretty conservative line; other States are more liberal.

It was intended by the founders that society could not simply vote away constitutional rights. That is a major purpose for legislative debates and a Republic. That is a major purpose of the judiciary. To protect the minority from tyranny of the majority.

But there is no Constitutional right to murder. As long as Americans are uncomfortable with abortion in the later stages of pregnancy, abortion will continue to be heavily restricted. And each State should be able to draw it's own lines where it sees fit. Otherwise, what's the purpose of States?

Compare this to slavery. Even after the founding of the Constitution, SCOTUS upheld the Federal Fugitive Slave Act and slavery continued, mostly in the Southern States, for another 70+ years until the zeitgeist changed after the Civil War. So the interpretation of the Constitution and what constitutes any rights that are reserved to the people depends entirely on the social structure and environment in place at the time the interpretation is made.

If the majority wanted to ban all guns in the United States hopefully our legislators would have the conscience necessary to stop the infringement of rights. If not, hopefully the judiciary would overturn such an obvious infringement of our liberty.

Says you. But there are plenty of people even on this forum who argue strenuously for gun control. I think sweeping gun control could happen before abortion is liberalized.

Conservatives scream and yell "constitutionally" protected right when it comes to guns. A constitutionally protect right to privacy they don't give two cents for.

They would say that gun control advocates sure care a lot about controlling guns because they kill people but they don't care two cents for all the babies being slaughtered in the womb. It's all a matter of perspective.

Here's the punch line. There is no evidence that such laws will protect women or fetuses. It's all about there "feelings".

They certainly protect fetuses. You can't say that every woman who can't get a legal abortion will seek out an illegal abortion.

 

[xjx388]

And who says the state has any right to tell women what they can and cannot do with their own lives and bodies?

The State regulates what all of us can and can't do with our bodies. You can't use pot, cocaine and heroin, for example. What makes abortion different?

 

[Dcdrac]

An abortion is a clinical procedure and the state has no right whatsoever to say you and and cannot have one.

pot and heroin are provably dangerous substances if taken in large quantities just like alcohol as well, to compare using them with abortion is not comparing like for like and is a feeble aargument.

 

[Kestrel]

The State regulates what all of us can and can't do with our bodies. You can't use pot, cocaine and heroin, for example. What makes abortion different?

Pot, cocaine and heroin are all available in my state with the approval of a physician.