Texas Repubs pass abortion bill

[Polaris]

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.

Nitpick: pot isn't dangerous in practice. The "large quantities" are comparable to the quantities of oysters or turkey one would need to eat before noticing sexual or sleep-related effects.

And anyway, drugs should be legalized with a medical, not criminal, solution to the problems related to them. But that's another thread.

 

[xjx388]

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 to compare using them with abortion is not comparing like for like and is a feeble aargument.

The point is that there are plenty of ways in which the State regulates what you can and can't do. Medical practice is a huge area where this is also true. You can't practice medicine without a license, you can't help someone commit suicide in most States, you can't buy and sell organs, you can't simply purchase whatever drugs you might need. So why is abortion so special that you can't regulate it also?

 

[xjx388]

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

I can believe pot. And methadone is used in recovery programs. Cocaine can be used in certain surgical settings. But medical use is not the same as recreational use. You can't get a script for coke and heroin simply because you want to get high.

 

[Dcdrac]

The point is abortion is not in the same league as prohibited drugs and to link it to them, and try to make them comperable, is a false argument

the state has and should have no right at all to tell a priavate individaul what accepted medical procedure she can and cannot have access to or have a choice over.

 

[xjx388]

The point is abortion is not in the same league as prohibited drugs and to link it to them, and try to make them comperable, is a false argument

I am not equating drugs and abortion. I am saying that the State regulates private behavior.

the state has and should have no right at all to tell a priavate individaul what accepted medical procedure she can and cannot have access to or have a choice over.

So you say. But since the State regulates private individual behavior all the time, why should abortion be different?

 

[Shalamar]

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.

This stands out for me. I also see it as the greater problem. People want to control what others do with their own bodies. Take choice away from them. Limit their options in a great number of ways. If my wife were pregnant, ad decided to have an abortion, I would hope she would discuss it with me, but I certainly would not demand that she not. She is her own person, and is capable of making her own decisions over what she can do with her own body.

What gives you the right to not allow your wife or daughter to do something? Do you own them?

 

[Dcdrac]

Abortion is a matter of medical and private choice and why use drugs as an example if you have no intention of linking the two?

Abortion currently it not an illegal activity, and is a and should remain a private choice, the attempts to deny this choice to private individuals by conseravtive groups who normally scream that the state should stay out of an indivduals life are mind boggling acts of hypocrisy.

 

[xjx388]

This stands out for me. I also see it as the greater problem. People want to control what others do with their own bodies. Take choice away from them. Limit their options in a great number of ways. If my wife were pregnant, ad decided to have an abortion, I would hope she would discuss it with me, but I certainly would not demand that she not. She is her own person, and is capable of making her own decisions over what she can do with her own body.

What gives you the right to not allow your wife or daughter to do something? Do you own them?

I don't own them, but I can certainly choose who to associate with. If my wife exercised her right to abort my kid, that would be a huge blow to my relationship with her. Similarly, if my friend is a rabid racist, I would end my relationship with that friend. These are my values and I only intimately associate with others who share them. If that's control, then we all control others.

That's the thing: We all want to control people even if we don't think of it that way. We want to control discriminatory attitudes so we force everyone to hire regardless of race, color or creed. We want to force employers to pay for birth control. We want to stop people from killing each other.

So why shouldn't abortion be subject to control when every other aspect of human interaction is?

 

[xjx388]

Abortion is a matter of medical and private choice and why use drugs as an example if you have no intention of linking the two?

Recreational drug use is a matter of private choice. Selling my organ to a rich guy who needs one is a matter of medical and private choice. Being a matter of medical and/or private choice does not preclude the activity from being regulated.

Abortion currently it not an illegal activity,

It is illegal after the 20th week in Texas. And illegal after the 24th week in most other States.

and is a and should remain a private choice, the attempts to deny this choice to private individuals by conseravtive groups who normally scream that the state should stay out of an indivduals life are mind boggling acts of hypocrisy.

Again, being a matter of private choice does not preclude an activity from being regulated. And similarly, liberals who want abortion to be a private choice have no problem screaming for state funding for birth control and abortion. It goes both ways.

 

[Dcdrac]

Again trying to link a very private chocie to public choices is a false aergument.

Abortion is a private matter and the state has no right to attempt to control a choice like this.

 

[xjx388]

Again trying to link a very private chocie to public choices is a false aergument.

Look at what I'm actually arguing instead of what you think I'm arguing. A choice being private does not preclude regulation of that choice. Drugs and birth control are examples of private choices that are publicly regulated.

Abortion is a private matter and the state has no right to attempt to control a choice like this.

Since being a private matter doesn't preclude certain choices from being regulated, what makes abortion a private choice that shouldn't be regulated?

For the record, I dispute that abortion is an entirely private choice. There is another life involved which deserves protection.

 

[Shalamar]

I don't own them, but I can certainly choose who to associate with. If my wife exercised her right to abort my kid, that would be a huge blow to my relationship with her. Similarly, if my friend is a rabid racist, I would end my relationship with that friend. These are my values and I only intimately associate with others who share them. If that's control, then we all control others.

You certainly can. You can drop your wife like a hot potato, divorce her, and never see her again. But you said you would not allow her or your daughter to even consider it. This says a lot about you. You want to control the choices your wife and daughter make, regardless of whether you think they actually would. You would demand this of them. You would not even allow them to consider it. You want control over their own bodies.

That's the thing: We all want to control people even if we don't think of it that way. We want to control discriminatory attitudes so we force everyone to hire regardless of race, color or creed. We want to force employers to pay for birth control. We want to stop people from killing each other.

So why shouldn't abortion be subject to control when every other aspect of human interaction is?

I don't aim to control people. If something does something I don't like. I tell them that. If they decide to keep doing it, I may simply stop associating with them. I certainly don't demand that they stop, or tell them that they are no longer permitted to do this thing, or else. I am not their keeper. I don't own them. People are free to make their own choices. I certainly have no idea to pass laws to restrict legal choices, simply because I don't like it.

Abortion is legal. It is the choice of the woman to follow through with it, or not. It is wrong to find any way to limit it, just because you don't like it. This is what Texas is doing. They are doing everything in their power to limit freedom of choice of women, while saying they can still do it.

 

[Dcdrac]

Abortion is legal and is private, it is not a public act and therefore is not in the public realm, and any choices about it rest with the private individual not the state.

Women are not public property.

 

[xjx388]

You certainly can. You can drop your wife like a hot potato, divorce her, and never see her again. But you said you would not allow her or your daughter to even consider it. This says a lot about you.

I would make it clear that I am totally against aborting my child/grandchild and if they did it, I would divorce her/cut her off. They could still do it, but I don't have to accept it or them.

You want to control the choices your wife and daughter make, regardless of whether you think they actually would. You would demand this of them. You would not even allow them to consider it. You want control over their own bodies.

By the same token, they want to control my behavior. I'm not allowed to ignore them for my own hedonistic needs. If I ever had even a brief fling, my wife would drop me like a hot potato.

I don't aim to control people. If something does something I don't like. I tell them that.

Exactly, that's not control, it's expressing how you feel.

If they decide to keep doing it, I may simply stop associating with them.

I'm with you 100%

I certainly don't demand that they stop, or tell them that they are no longer permitted to do this thing, or else. I am not their keeper. I don't own them. People are free to make their own choices.

But by exercising your choice to dissociate, you are certainly showing that you don't allow those kinds of things around you. That's really all I'm saying.

I certainly have no idea to pass laws to restrict legal choices, simply because I don't like it.

I suspect you want minorities to have equal opportunities. If you do, then you likely support anti-discrimination laws. You then support controlling people's choices on who not to hire.

Abortion is legal. It is the choice of the woman to follow through with it, or not. It is wrong to find any way to limit it, just because you don't like it. This is what Texas is doing. They are doing everything in their power to limit freedom of choice of women, while saying they can still do it.

Abortion is legal but regulated. I suspect you would not support an abortion at the 39th week, so would support laws banning that particular practice. The State, as SCOTUS ruled, has an interest in protecting the fetus beginning at conception and that interest overtakes the woman's interest at the vague point of viability. That's the Constitutional interpretation and Texas has a right to craft laws that reflect the will of It's people and don't violate Roe V Wade and the cases that followed it. We'll see how this law fares.

 

[xjx388]

Abortion is legal and is private, it is not a public act and therefore is not in the public realm, and any choices about it rest with the private individual not the state.

Abortion is legal but heavily regulated. When performed outside of State laws, they are illegal. It ceases to be a private matter, as SCOTUS ruled, when the fetus reaches viability. At that point it most certainly is in the public realm.

Amphetamines are legal but heavily regulated. Their use is a private matter between a physician and his/her patient. When not used under the direction of a physician, they are illegal. Then their use is no longer private.

Women are not public property.

Never said they were.

 

[Dcdrac]

Again just to make sure you get it abortion is not a public act, it is a private act, and therefore the public have no say in whether a woman chooses to have one or not.

It is not a matter for public law.

 

[Shalamar]

I would make it clear that I am totally against aborting my child/grandchild and if they did it, I would divorce her/cut her off. They could still do it, but I don't have to accept it or them. By the same token, they want to control my behavior. I'm not allowed to ignore them for my own hedonistic needs. If I ever had even a brief fling, my wife would drop me like a hot potato.

You seek to control their bodies. As if you own them. Such a kind, loving husband, and father.

Fortunately for me, my wife is aware f my views, and we've discussed it. If she needed an abortion, she would have it. As I love her. If she WANTED an abortion, and I did not, I wouldn't leave her either, as I do indeed love her, and respect her rights over her own body.

Exactly, that's not control, it's expressing how you feel. I'm with you 100% But by exercising your choice to dissociate, you are certainly showing that you don't allow those kinds of things around you. That's really all I'm saying.

And I've done so in the past. But I don't seek to control their behavior, as if I own the person. I don't say You are no longer allowed to do that, because I don't like it'.

I suspect you want minorities to have equal opportunities. If you do, then you likely support anti-discrimination laws. You then support controlling people's choices on who not to hire.

People have always been able to hire who they wish. The laws, however, make it illegal to discriminate based on certain traits.


Abortion is legal but regulated. I suspect you would not support an abortion at the 39th week, so would support laws banning that particular practice. The State, as SCOTUS ruled, has an interest in protecting the fetus beginning at conception and that interest overtakes the woman's interest at the vague point of viability. That's the Constitutional interpretation and Texas has a right to craft laws that reflect the will of It's people and don't violate Roe V Wade and the cases that followed it. We'll see how this law fares.[/QUOTE]

Abortion is legal up to a certain point. The decision should be strictly between the woman, and her health care provider. Not the state.

I do not seek to control the bodies of women, or to restrict their rights.

 

[ponderingturtle]

You can see it smile with a 3D ultrasound.

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

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.

Yes if she gets an ectopic preganacy cut out all the woman parts so you don't call it an abortion and a couple of weeks of suffering are expected when you are losing a desired pregnancy, just be glad you are not left to die like they do in catholic countries

I wonder though if you would switch your tone when she actually starts suffering.

 

[xjx388]

You seek to control their bodies. As if you own them. Such a kind, loving husband, and father.

They remain free to make a choice that I find abhorrent and I remain free to cut them off. I'm not controlling their bodies anymore than my wife controls my body by not "allowing" me to have sex with other women. I'm pretty sure that most people don't "allow" their spouses to have sex with other people. The fact that sex is a private decision would not hold much water.

Fortunately for me, my wife is aware f my views, and we've discussed it. If she needed an abortion, she would have it. As I love her.

If my wife needed one, she would have it as well. But there are few situations where one is needed.

If she WANTED an abortion, and I did not, I wouldn't leave her either, as I do indeed love her, and respect her rights over her own body.

Then you obviously don't feel very strongly about abortion. We are different, and that's OK.

And I've done so in the past. But I don't seek to control their behavior, as if I own the person. I don't say You are no longer allowed to do that, because I don't like it'.

No, you just stop talking to them which is basically the same thing. The person can then decide whether or not to change their behavior depending on how much they value your relationship. This isn't control; it's normal human interaction.

People have always been able to hire who they wish. The laws, however, make it illegal to discriminate based on certain traits.

So that means employers can't freely choose who not to hire. They can privately think that Mexicans are lazy, but if a qualified one comes around and they don't hire them based on their private thinking, they can be sued. This is obviously a law designed to control private employer behavior. Shouldn't private employers get to make hiring decisions privately? Why do you seek to control their behavior?

Abortion is legal up to a certain point.

Quite correct.

The decision should be strictly between the woman, and her health care provider. Not the state.

Until that legal point is reached, quite correct again. Past that legal point, the State can intervene. The reason for this is that the fetus is deserving of protection. The woman is not the only party involved and her rights get superseded at that legal line.

Further, the State can always intervene in regulating the practice of medicine. Even if a midwife was well trained in abortion technique, it would never be legal for a midwife to perform abortions. Ditto chiropractors, dentists and hairdressers. So women's options are already severely limited to only doctors. But not every doctor will perform an abortion and you can't force them to. So that limits it even further. Those are legal limitations on the rights of women to do what ever they want with their bodies already. Do you advocate that any of these things should be changed? I don't see the current law as much different from any of these kinds of regulations.

I do not seek to control the bodies of women, or to restrict their rights.

Sure you do. You acknowledge that the legal line exists and you don't argue against the line so I assume that means you think that there should be some legal line. So after that line, wherever you draw it, is crossed, the State can control and restrict their rights in deference to protecting the fetus. Unless you don't support any legal restriction on abortion at all . . . if so, I'd like to hear your argument.

 

[xjx388]

Yes if she gets an ectopic preganacy cut out all the woman parts so you don't call it an abortion and a couple of weeks of suffering are expected when you are losing a desired pregnancy, just be glad you are not left to die like they do in catholic countries.

Ectopic pregnancies are not viable. It may be medically necessary to remove the affected "woman part." This is not considered an illegal abortion except in those really strict Catholic countries. Indeed, this can be devastating for a woman who loses a baby this way.

I wonder though if you would switch your tone when she actually starts suffering.

I have no issue with excising the ectopic pregnancy as it cannot grow in a fallopian tube or ovary. I have great sympathy for women who lose their babies in this way and even more for women who's future fertility is affected because they had to remove her "woman parts."

I hope one day medical science can develop a safe way to save these pregnancies and the future fertility of the woman.