Texas Repubs pass abortion bill

[Cain]

I recently stumbled across the following article in the neo-con rag The Weekly Standard:

The American left loves Western European democracies for their cultural sensibilities and for their policies on everything from crime to health care. One policy area where you won’t hear American liberals cite the European example, though, is abortion.

Not to U.S. liberals, who call “extremism” the attempt by some in Congress to promote a bill banning abortions after 22 weeks. A similar bill in Texas is “a sweeping assault on women’s rights,” in the words of the Nation. Yet even these bills—in the unlikely event they became laws—would be among the most permissive in the Western world.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs...tml?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

 

[RandFan]

The point of it all, I believe, is not about welfare of either mother, nor child, but a religious point of view taken as something of an emergency measure to bolster flagging pew attendance. I'll elaborate.

The idea is to force women to raise children they didn't intend. Children these days are expensive. Poorer families tend to be religious families, and religious families tend to indoctrinate their children in their chosen faith. So at the modest tradeoff of the quality of life of their parishioners, church leaders get more attendance, more pennies in the pie tins, and more people willing to vote in the direction they prefer. It's about power.

But education is something that stands in the way of this. Sex education, rational thinking, et cetera, all are also roadblocks in the way of this sort of plan. You'd expect the religious right to also attack along these venues, and sure enough, they're there.

It is a callous, malicious practice that isn't even backed up by their own holy book. If left to their own devices, I imagine they'd convert areas under their control to conditions you see in third world countries... poverty stricken faithful, and the ruling class that has the vast majority of the nation's wealth.

Every time I see the religious right working some agenda in the political arena, I ask myself this question: "Is this an action consistent with christian teachings, or is this an action consistent with a subtle attack aimed at the working poor to keep them faithful and ignorant and obedient?" Want to guess how often it's the latter?

... anyway, sorry for the long rant. I have family that is unfortunately fundamentalist, so this is something I have to deal with all the bloody time, and it tends to get my hackles up a bit. Even to see them doing something so unchristianlike like trying to ban abortion.

Excellent rant.

California's teen pregnancy rate recently dropped a whopping 60%. Red states? They remain highest in teen pregnancy.

Barefoot, pregnant and religiously indoctrinated favors Republicans. I hate to be cynical enough to think there are bastards that would happily sacrifice the well being of young women for political expedience but face it, educating young women and getting them off of the cycle of reproduction would mean less votes for the GOP.

And hey, if women can't keep their legs closed then they deserve poverty, right? Make certain that if they do get pregnant that the state isn't going to let them out of their responsibility. It's about time to cut these moochers off from the teat. They should get a job.

 

[mikedenk]

... Barefoot, pregnant and religiously indoctrinated favors Republicans. I hate to be cynical enough to think there are bastards that would happily sacrifice the well being of young women for political expedience but face it, educating young women and getting them off of the cycle of reproduction would mean less votes for the GOP. ...

What the...? Cycle of reproduction? Is this the new phrase being floated by people trying to make motherhood seem weird and abnormal? The language brings to mind the attempt to shame Ann Romney for being a housewife and stay-at-home mom who "never worked a day in her life".

I'm not so sure about your speculation regarding the voting habits of these young moms. Right off the top, the ones who are single (35-40%) are reliable Democrat voters. Obama received a higher percentage of votes from mothers (56%) than he got from overall voters (51%) or overall women (55%).

 

[gnome]

Is the 22 week thing really what has got people upset? I was under the impression it was more about throwing up obstacles to even early abortions.

 

[thaiboxerken]

What the...? Cycle of reproduction? Is this the new phrase being floated by people trying to make motherhood seem weird and abnormal? The language brings to mind the attempt to shame Ann Romney for being a housewife and stay-at-home mom who "never worked a day in her life".

I'm not so sure about your speculation regarding the voting habits of these young moms. Right off the top, the ones who are single (35-40%) are reliable Democrat voters. Obama received a higher percentage of votes from mothers (56%) than he got from overall voters (51%) or overall women (55%).

Unwanted pregnancy is weird and abnormal... well, it should be. But conservatives want it to be the norm.

 

[Mister Earl]

The thing that ticks me off is some religious fundies think that every child that could possibly be born, SHOULD be born. This is not rational.

Having a child is the biggest responsibility any person will ever have. Why should we take such a careless approach to something that important?

Abortion isn't about killing babies. It's about responsibility. Taking responsibility for your reproduction. Taking responsibility for that child to come, to make sure he or she comes when the groundwork has been laid out, the finances arranged, the lifestyles changed, so when that child is here, they have everything they need to come into this world metaphorically running.

Children deserve better. They deserve the best. Making it that far likelier that they'll come into the world to unprepared, harried parents who have many other concerns beyond them is doing them a gross, mean disservice.

Excellent rant.

Thank you. It takes a considerable thing to make me annoyed. I once went eight months straight with an abscessed tooth simply because I couldn't be bothered with it at the time. There is very, very little in this world that can get my hackles up, but chief amongst those few things is willful stupidity and ignorance. There's simply no excuse for it.

 

[RandFan]

What the...? Cycle of reproduction?

Prior to birth control and abortion women had lots of children. A woman would get married. Have sex. Get pregnant. Have a baby. Have sex. Get pregnant. Have a baby. Have sex. Get pregnant. EndLoop = menopause.

Is this the new phrase being floated by people trying to make motherhood seem weird and abnormal? The language brings to mind the attempt to shame Ann Romney for being a housewife and stay-at-home mom who "never worked a day in her life".

I think motherhood is wonderful. I think stay at home moms are wonderful. I think women who work outside of the home are wonderful. I think women should be free to pursue happiness. I think a woman should not have to live a life of celibacy because she doesn't want to get pregnant. Birth control and abortion put women in control of their lives. They choose how to pursue happiness. If they want to have sex but not have babies I think that is wonderful. You?

I'm not so sure about your speculation regarding the voting habits of these young moms. Right off the top, the ones who are single (35-40%) are reliable Democrat voters. Obama received a higher percentage of votes from mothers (56%) than he got from overall voters (51%) or overall women (55%).

I had this debate with eeyore. I can't remember how it ended. He had some good points but I don't remember offhand what they were.

So, the crux of my argument is this, red states remain highest in teen pregnancy, in large part because the women do not get comprehensive sex education and they are fare more likely to be indoctrinated with conservative religious notions about life beginning at conception. They are inculcated with superstition and fear of hell fire if they have sex on a much higher level than Blue states. Blue states have more democrat women and women who are educated and thus value their right to reproductive freedom. For instance, California's teen pregnancy rate recently dropped a whopping 60%.

Factor in the women from Blue states who are educated and who are less likely to take the indoctrination of ensoulment seriously and the disparity is clear. The GOP would love to take away comprehensive sex education (Bush the elder and Bush the younger both removed funds for comprehensive sex education). They GOP would love to eliminate OTC contraception and make conception the point at which a single cell is a human being. I'm not making this stuff up. Honest to Ed I wish I were. Paul Ryan Sponsored Fetal Personhood Bill, Opposes Family Planning Funds.

The efforts of the GOP to restrict contraception and abortion on both the federal and state levels is truly astounding and would serve to put women back on the cycle of reproduction. There is simply no evidence that intellectual reason is superior to evolution when it comes to motivating humans to copulate.

Orgel's Second Rule: Evolution is cleverer than you are. Is there any real mystery as to why the human population is 7,102,661,000 and rising? Is there really any reason to wonder why educated women have far less children than uneducated women? Can't we move past religious superstition and silly beliefs in ghosts (aka souls)?

So, let me make clear. I stand by my statement 100%. People have sex throughout the world even during famines, war, pestilence, poverty, religious proscription, threat of disease, etc., etc.

You are not going to stop it. The GOP isn't going to stop it. No piddling law is going to stop it. All you are going to do is create a social and health problem and then blame the women for doing what evolution has perfected over millions of years.

 

[thaiboxerken]

The thing that ticks me off is some religious fundies think that every child that could possibly be born, SHOULD be born. This is not rational.

Having a child is the biggest responsibility any person will ever have. Why should we take such a careless approach to something that important?

Abortion isn't about killing babies. It's about responsibility. Taking responsibility for your reproduction. Taking responsibility for that child to come, to make sure he or she comes when the groundwork has been laid out, the finances arranged, the lifestyles changed, so when that child is here, they have everything they need to come into this world metaphorically running.

Children deserve better. They deserve the best. Making it that far likelier that they'll come into the world to unprepared, harried parents who have many other concerns beyond them is doing them a gross, mean disservice.



Thank you. It takes a considerable thing to make me annoyed. I once went eight months straight with an abscessed tooth simply because I couldn't be bothered with it at the time. There is very, very little in this world that can get my hackles up, but chief amongst those few things is willful stupidity and ignorance. There's simply no excuse for it.

They often say that it's about taking responsibility for the consequences of having sex. (which is a way to say "punishment" without using the word.)

 

[Elizabeth I]

Prior to birth control and abortion women had lots of children. A woman would get married. Have sex. Get pregnant. Have a baby. Have sex. Get pregnant. Have a baby. Have sex. Get pregnant. EndLoop = menopause.

Or death, usually in childbirth.

So, the crux of my argument is this, red states remain highest in teen pregnancy, in large part because the women do not get comprehensive sex education

Whoa, there - the boys/men need some of that too.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Whoa, there - the boys/men need some of that too.

Agreed, especially considering the nonsense conservative leaders, both men and women, have said about biology/reproduction/sex/rape....

 

[RandFan]

Or death, usually in childbirth.



Whoa, there - the boys/men need some of that too.

Fair point. Thanks.

 

[funk de fino]

I recently stumbled across the following article in the neo-con rag The Weekly Standard:



[qimg]http://www.weeklystandard.com/sites/all/files/images/abortion.jpg[/qimg]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs...tml?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

This doesn't give the full picture. Look at Swedens for example. They are not banned after 18 weeks. That's when it becomes an issue not solely reliant on the females choice. Abortions are permitted until the foetus is viable with additional permissions. Many of them do not only mention physical health of the female but also mental health.

 

[Dcdrac]

When it comes to abortion the person with the final say alone is the woman not the state.

 

[mikedenk]

When it comes to abortion the person with the final say alone is the woman not the state.

Since when? Unless things radically changed in the last few minutes when I wasn't paying attention, this is demonstrably false.

 

[RandFan]

Since when? Unless things radically changed in the last few minutes when I wasn't paying attention, this is demonstrably false.

I'm pretty sure Dcdrac was simply offering an opinion not stating the status of the law.

 

[Mister Earl]

They often say that it's about taking responsibility for the consequences of having sex. (which is a way to say "punishment" without using the word.)

And it disproportionately punishes women over men. On one hand, the "taking responsibility" doesn't bring children into the world until the world is ready for them, giving them the best possible start on their life. On the other red tinged hand, the "taking responsibility" punishes the mother and child both by reducing the quality of their lives. The father too most of the time.

What kind of sadistic "take responsibility" angle is it that punishes the child on top of it? What part of that wrong was it their doing?

I could probably rant all day how the fundie nuts get my hackles up.

 

[RandFan]

And it disproportionately punishes women over men. On one hand, the "taking responsibility" doesn't bring children into the world until the world is ready for them, giving them the best possible start on their life. On the other red tinged hand, the "taking responsibility" punishes the mother and child both by reducing the quality of their lives. The father too most of the time.

What kind of sadistic "take responsibility" angle is it that punishes the child on top of it? What part of that wrong was it their doing?

I could probably rant all day how the fundie nuts get my hackles up.

Thank you. I just don't get it. Ask a conservative what they think of WIC? Food Stamps? Welfare? Section 8 housing? When someone says "take responsibility" what they are really saying is that they have an idolized fantasy of a woman working two jobs to make a better life for her and her child. If only there were no public resources to weaken the moral fabric of these women they would rise to new heights and have dignity and understand that reward comes from hard work. Never mind that many if not most single women on WIC work a hell of a lot harder than most white collar office workers and damn sure much harder than trust fund babies.

Modern liberal Democracies provide universal health care and support for unwed mothers. We do so because as a social species we evolved to do so. That is why most of us are endowed with empathy and compassion.

In evolutionary biology, reciprocal altruism is a behaviour whereby an organism acts in a manner that temporarily reduces its fitness while increasing another organism's fitness, with the expectation that the other organism will act in a similar manner at a later time.

Here's the thing, if you are a conservative and you really believe that WIC, SNAP, general welfare and Section 8 housing are harmful to society then get rid of the idolized fantasy and provide inexpensive comprehensive alternatives for birth control including abortion up until 24 weeks. Policies like those in California are the only proven ways to reduce dependency.

When I was a staunch "pro-life" advocate I volunteered at St. Annes home for unwed mothers in Glendale California and at a Mormon home for unwed mothers in Salt Lake City. My charitable contributions went there also. I'd like to believe that I did this because I was truly interested in the life of the unborn child and I thought it was morally inconsistent of me to turn my back on the child after it was born. I would like to see more Christians demonstrate that they believe in the sanctity of the life of post-birth children. It's so easy to come to a forum and defend moral sentiments that grew out of iron age superstitions about ghosts entering a fertilized egg but how far does your moral philosophy go?

 

[RandFan]

Reversing Roe: The GOP’s ultimate abortion plan

“Fetal pain,” based on shaky medical evidence that the fetus can experience pain after 20 weeks, has become the best-known rationale for banning abortion at that threshold. There are others. Mindful of accusations that they don’t care about women, anti-abortion activists have looked for grounds on which to “protect” them. So one of the arguments made in support of Arizona’s 20-week abortion ban by Americans United for Life and anti-abortion doctors, for example, is that women need to be prevented from having later abortions for their own good, because “researchers have also found that women who undergo abortions at 13 weeks or beyond report ‘more disturbing dreams, more frequent reliving of the abortion, and more trouble falling asleep.” (They also point out that such abortions are medically riskier, but that’s in comparison to earlier abortions. If they’re truly concerned about safety, the more relevant statistic is that childbirth is riskier still, 14 times so.)

The Supreme Court has yet to include bad dreams in its abortion jurisprudence–or, for that matter, fetal pain. But the abortion bans rippling across state legislatures are meant to offer as many routes as possible for the Justices to change their minds–or really, just one Justice, Anthony Kennedy.

These are just ad hoc moving of goal posts and have no basis in fact.

 

[R.A.F.]

...recent polls show that most Americans would make abortion illegal after the 1st trimester.

Why should I care what others think? why should I surrender my freedom to choose to some third person who likely believes that abortion is "bad", because of their beliefs in some god.

Why should I allow their irrationality to in any way influence personal decisions that "I" make?


No, seriously...why should I even care??

 

[xjx388]

Why should I care what others think? why should I surrender my freedom to choose to some third person who likely believes that abortion is "bad", because of their beliefs in some god.

I'm not suggesting you need to care. I'm just pointing out that as long as most Americans feel that strongly about abortion, it will continue to be highly regulated. That's just reality.

Why should I allow their irrationality to in any way influence personal decisions that "I" make?

Because we live in a society and that is the way things work. You don't get to do whatever you want just because you think other people are irrational. I think it's highly irrational that I can't buy beer before 12pm on a Sunday. I think it is irrational that Marijuana is illegal. I think it's irrational that I'm being forced to buy Heath insurance that I don't need. But here we are....

No, seriously...why should I even care??

you don't have to care. You just have to accept.