Texas Repubs pass abortion bill

[RandFan]

Thanks for the response.

SCOTUS gave latitude to the States to set that date.

Actually they did not. Kennedy provided a window for states to challenge viability. But Kennedy set the date and it has not changed.

The point is that any rights to have abortions, drink beer and smoke marijuana are encompassed in the rights reserved to the people in the Ninth Amendment.

SCOTUS set the date for viability. There is no comparison to marijuana or beer. I understand your argument and it's not as if you have no point, it's just that at the moment, the point is not relevant.

I do accept it. But the fact remains that Constitutional rights are "voted away" all the time based on the "compelling interest," standard. The task of those who oppose abortion regulation is to convince the rest of us that there is no compelling interest: i.e., that the unborn's life is not worth protecting. I don't think you will find that to be an achievable task in the immediate future.

Until SCOTUS rules the laws are constitutional then they remain unconstitutional. If AZ voted to allow slavery the law would not be constitutional. SCOTUS may decide to take up any challenges but simply voting on something doesn't make it constitutional Only SCOTUS can say what is constitutional. Sadly the wheels of justice grind slowly and states can act counter to the constitution while the courts take up the matter.

AZ could vote to slaughter atheists and they could actually start doing it. Gov Boggs once issued a death warrant on Mormons. Such acts are prima facie unconstitutional. Though SCOTUS could rule that they are in fact constitutional.

 

[SomedayGirl]

I support improving the adoption infrastructure so that children have a better situation...

I've often wondered about this particular line of reasoning. I think adoption is great but the numbers don't seem to work out well. If the oft cited number of 1M abortions a year is right and the link below is correct that 500K women have sought to adopt:

http://statistics.adoption.com/information/adoption-statistics-hoping-to-adopt.html

...even if you adjust for the fact that the figures are somewhat old (they were the most recent I found) and may be higher, and that some parents may want to adopt more than one child, and that some women who would have had an abortion would keep a child, I think pretty quickly have far more children than homes for them.

What do we do with them? Does the state care for them in an orphanage system? Once we've saturated the market, as it were, do we force the birth mothers to keep the babies because that would be the responsible thing? (After all, they had sex.) As a practical matter, what happens if the pro-life vision becomes law?

 

[Mister Earl]

Yes, exactly. And then we feel the consequences. Why should our sexual behaviors be different?

I answered this and you ignored it. It's different because your vindictive preference would also punish the child.

That's an opinion. (The following assumes consensual sex, of course.) No one forced her to have sex. No one forced her not to use birth control. No one forced her to avoid the issue until past the legal timeframe. What's immoral is killing the child because he has crappy parents. There are plenty of loving parents who would adopt that child.

And yet most children remain unadopted until they're adults. But sure, let's add to those numbers and lower the quality of life? After all, who cares, right? You have an important agenda to push. If it hurts people, well, it's their fault for not being a member of the right cult.

I think you need to review human reproduction again. But there are plenty of poor families having kids. In fact around 26% of kids are born to families who are below the poverty line. Most of these poor parents want and continue to have more children and those kids are not born in the best possible situation. So sex education, freely available birth control and abortion are already failing to control this. The only way to control it is to give people an incentive to control their behavior. Right now, our welfare and tax systems actually incentivize having kids. That needs to change.

And you'd change it by intentionally making the situation worse?

I support improving the adoption infrastructure so that children have a better situation, helping more families get out of poverty, strengthening our educational system so that the children of the poor have more opportunities and incentivizing people to control their behavior.

Oh, please. Helping people is not your concern. You proved that to us adequately. You're more interested in legislating your abhorrent version of morality in a supposedly free country, regardless of how many children it hurts.

I do not support making it easier to make bad decisions.

Nor would you support the children who were born to parents not intending to have any. You're not about helping people, improving the quality of life, or making the world a better place. No, you're about punishing people and making people miserable and have worse off lives for the crime of not adhering to your abhorrent version of morality. You want to punish people who have the appalling gall to not live to your religious ideals.

No wonder people call you folks the Christian Taliban. Both of you want religious law, both of you don't care about how many people you hurt, and both of you don't care how many people you have to trample to force others to bend to your will.

You're both evil, and you both make me sick. Go do your evil on some other world, please.

 

[thaiboxerken]

It's the height of hypocracy that there is such concern for the unborn until the birth....then the child is pretty much on their own.

I dunno about that. It's not like they're trying to de-fund SNAP programs or anything.

 

[R.A.F.]

I dunno about that. It's not like they're trying to de-fund SNAP programs or anything.

No...they are just trying to get rid of food stamps....not the same thing at all...


Sheesh....

 

[Mister Earl]

I'm pretty sure ThaiBoxerKen was practicing the lost art of sarcasm.

 

[R.A.F.]

I'd be willing to wager that many people who oppose me here are controlling their behavior right now.

Ya got that one right....willful ignorance disgusts me.

 

[R.A.F.]

I'm pretty sure ThaiBoxerKen was practicing the lost art of sarcasm.

Yeah...shooting from the hip doesn't always work out well.


Apologies if I misinterpreted you Thai.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Here's a clue....buy your beer earlier, and don't tell everyone you are smoking pot.

See..."problems" solved.

I think xjx meant 12:00 noon. In Texas you can't buy alcohol until noon on Sunday - and no liquor or "fortified wines" (like sherry, madeira, etc.) at all. He would either have to buy his beer before 1:00 a.m. on Sunday morning or wait until noon.

Exercise some freaking restraint. If you don't have the means to have a kid, then don't have sex.

So a married, committed couple have recreational sex because they love each other (you do know sex can have purposes other than procreation, don't you?) and their birth control method fails. (You do know contraception can fail, don't you?) Are they supposed to have a child they don't want and can't support to just to satisfy your moral quibbles?

You seem to think we're talking about Rush Limbaugh's imaginary "sluts" having sex all the time with random strangers and then rushing to the nearest abortion clinic so they don't have to give up their fun. All kinds of people can need the services of an abortion clinic, even those on such a high moral plane as you. You wouldn't believe the number of "Adoption Not Abortion" bumper stickers to be seen on some days in the parking lot of the clinic where I worked. Or maybe you would, I don't know.

 

[RandFan]

By the same token, don't make it harder on yourself and society. Exercise some freaking restraint. If you don't have the means to have a kid, then don't have sex.

I agree intelectually with you but the problem is that such advice seriously ignores human nature. As I point out time and again, people will have sex in third world nations knowing that offspring may very well starve to death in front of them. Famine doesn't slow birth rates of survivors. War doesn't slow the birth rate of survivors. The most powerful drives of humans is survival, thirst, hunger and sex.

It is very simple and I don't understand why people make such vehement arguments to the contrary.

Orgel's second rule. Evolution is cleverer than you are. Evolution has had approximately 1200 million years to perfect the drive of sexual reproduction. Saying that it is simple is like telling a drug addict to just stop taking drugs. Sure, the concept is simple but human phisilogy is a bit more complex than you imagine. You can't tell paranoid schizophrenic to just stop being paranoid.

Now, I here you thinking, yes, most people are fairly rational and they can largely control their sexual desires on a day by day basis. But that's not the issue. Sooner or later the girls who make the vows to their god not to have premarital sex are just as likely to have premarital sex as any other person.

The facts are so non-controversial I don't understand why anyone argues against them.

A safety net is important. But there is a danger of dependence. That's what we have to eliminate.

There is danger of dependence but the vast majority of people don't want to live on welfare. It's not nearly as problematic as the rhetorical demagoguery of the right suggests. Denmark and other nations have far more generous social benefits as we do and there is no evidence that these benefits result in worse outcomes than if they were not offered. Denmark ranks very high in well being. Low crime rates. High standards of living. And they are in the top 10 for economic freedom. That's not to say that I would not want conservatives to serve as loyal opposition to liberals on these issues. They are very needed IMO. But keep in mind that many conservatives have called for deep cuts in social programs.

^aAnd those same MLDs often have even more limited abortion access than Texas. What about empathy and compassion for the unborn?

A.) I'm skeptical. B.) I feel about a fetus prior to viability as I do about sperm. When you start saving your sperm in the hopes of seeing them all become babies I'll take you serious. Your "unborn" rhetoric is simply loaded language to evoke an emotional response. I'm skeptical that a fetus in the third trimester can appreciate pain or it's own existence. There is good reason to question whether a baby is a moral agent. But killing babies is unnecessary. If a woman doesn't want her baby she can give it to the state. Likewise a 24-26 old fetus.

BTW, where is YOUR compassion and empathy for the fetus that will eventually be born to an abusive mother who lacks the resources to give the child a good start in life.

 

[gnome]

I agree intelectually with you but the problem is that such advice seriously ignores human nature.

It really is excellent advice! The disconnect as I see it is imagining that good advice can solve a problem.

Can "Don't abuse alcohol" solve the substance abuse problem? No, even though it is objectively and inarguably good advice.

 

[xjx388]

I think xjx meant 12:00 noon. In Texas you can't buy alcohol until noon on Sunday - and no liquor or "fortified wines" (like sherry, madeira, etc.) at all. He would either have to buy his beer before 1:00 a.m. on Sunday morning or wait until noon.

And the larger point to that is that the State heavily regulates what we can and can't do in regards to a whole host of activities we have a right to do. So while it remains true that I have the right to drink beer to my belly's content, it is also true that the State has the ability to control how, where and when I exercise that right.

So a married, committed couple have recreational sex because they love each other (you do know sex can have purposes other than procreation, don't you?) and their birth control method fails. (You do know contraception can fail, don't you?) Are they supposed to have a child they don't want and can't support to just to satisfy your moral quibbles?

No, they can have an abortion within the legal framework if they really wanted to.

You seem to think we're talking about Rush Limbaugh's imaginary "sluts" having sex all the time with random strangers and then rushing to the nearest abortion clinic so they don't have to give up their fun.

That's not my impression. I understand that abortion-seekers come from all walks of life. I don't assign any judgement or think they are sluts or bad people.

All kinds of people can need the services of an abortion clinic, even those on such a high moral plane as you. You wouldn't believe the number of "Adoption Not Abortion" bumper stickers to be seen on some days in the parking lot of the clinic where I worked. Or maybe you would, I don't know.

I am not surprised at all. I managed my wife's Family Practice clinic for 13 years so I get what you are saying. Again, I'm not here to judge people. I get that people make other moral choices than I do. But that doesn't change the fact that I view a fetus as a human being with every bit as much right to live as you or I. This is obviously the most significant point on which we disagree. I feel like I've compromised on my philosophy by acknowledging that others may feel differently and thus some form of abortion should be legal. I don't see any compromise whatsoever on the other side.

 

[R.A.F.]

I feel like I've compromised on my philosophy by acknowledging that others may feel differently and thus some form of abortion should be legal. I don't see any compromise whatsoever on the other side.

Why should those who are in favor of making their own, personal choice have to compromise??

 

[Dcdrac]

The state has no right what so ever to regulate any decision a woman might make about her own body, trying to equate drinking beer with making a personal decison about abortion is a sleight of hand and clearly a false analogy the two are not even remotley the same.

The point does not stand.

 

[RandFan]

But that doesn't change the fact that I view a fetus as a human being with every bit as much right to live as you or I. This is obviously the most significant point on which we disagree. I feel like I've compromised on my philosophy by acknowledging that others may feel differently and thus some form of abortion should be legal. I don't see any compromise whatsoever on the other side.

The compromise is the date of viability set by SCOTUS. The experts in the field who say that these laws will harm women are not saying that for any other reason than legitimate concern and their experience. I trust them more than I trust your "feelings" and "beliefs". Further, there is no scientific basis to say that a fetus prior to 24-26 weeks is capable of appreciating pain.

Look, perhaps tomatoes can feel and appreciate pain. I can't tell you definitively that they don't. I only know that there is no mechanism for them to appreciate pain and therefore suffer. We know at what cognitive state a human being experiences stress. We can monitor physiological responses to pain before, during and after anesthesia. We know what cognitive capacity is required for suffering of humans. And a 20 week old fetus simply doesn't have those capabilities. So, if you don't want to eat vegetables because you are worried that you might be causing suffering then don't eat veggies. Perhaps some people think cockroaches should have the same rights as human beings. That's fine with me. But it's not okay to cause harm to women and the children that will result from unwanted pregnancies. And that is what the Texas law does.

It does harm pregnant women who did not plan on getting pregnant and the subsequent children. Saying "to bad so sad you should have kept an aspirin between your legs or get into the clinic sooner' is callous disregard toward suffering of people who can appreciate their pain and stress. Your attitude is basically cruel and unusual suffering because of your "feelings" and "beliefs". The people you are acting callously toward are people who can mourn a potentially devastating condition. You shrug your shoulders and want us to compromise.

Give me some science. Otherwise you are in effect asking me to respect the sentiments of Buddhists who would rather I not kill insects and enact laws to prevent me from using ant spray. It's fine if you don't want your daughter to have an abortion. We will let you work that out between the two of you, but don't force your feelings on the rest of us.

 

[thaiboxerken]

They say not to have kids if you don't have the means to raise them.....and then they want to ban abortion. ....

 

[xjx388]

Why should those who are in favor of making their own, personal choice have to compromise??

If you believe that abortion should not be legally regulated at all then you must compromise because you don't live in a vacuum. You live in a society where the majority of people don't share your belief.

If you do accept that regulation is desirable, then we are merely quibbling over what point regulation should commence. Compromise must be reached at some point.

In Texas, through the legislative process, they arrived at a date of 20 weeks. I think it is a bit on the early side of "viability," but still within reason. If I were making the laws to fit my morality, abortion would be illegal, period. If a more liberal person were making the law, they might make it legal at any point. So, 20 weeks is a good compromise, I'd say. It gives the woman plenty of time to exercise her Constitutional rights while protecting the life of the fetus.

 

[RandFan]

If you believe that abortion should not be legally regulated at all then you must compromise because you don't live in a vacuum. You live in a society where the majority of people don't share your belief.

If you do accept that regulation is desirable, then we are merely quibbling over what point regulation should commence. Compromise must be reached at some point.

In Texas, through the legislative process, they arrived at a date of 20 weeks. I think it is a bit on the early side of "viability," but still within reason. If I were making the laws to fit my morality, abortion would be illegal, period. If a more liberal person were making the law, they might make it legal at any point. So, 20 weeks is a good compromise , I'd say. It gives the woman plenty of time to exercise her Constitutional rights while protecting the life of the fetus.

Experts in the field say it's a very, very bad compromise. It harms women and future offspring for religious superstitious reasons or personal sentiment. I think you could make a similar point about when it's okay to hang dissidents in the former soviet union or the hanging of homosexuals in Iran. Hell, you could make a "compromise" on slavery.

A fetus prior to 24 weeks is simply incapable of appreciating suffering. If you don't want to have an abortion prior to 24 weeks then don't have one. Otherwise don't force your "feelings" on the rest of us.

 

[RandFan]

I'm curious, why should human beings be harmed in the most fundemental of ways because of Democracy? Why should we be able to enslave the minority or kill people because of the most base of instincts or religious superstition. If the majority voted that the Sun revolves around the Earth and anyone who does not agree should be burned at the stake so life imprisonment would be a "good compromise"?

XJX, that's what you are asking us to swallow. There is no compromise. There is objective truth and tyranny of the majority. I'll stand by that dichotomy. If and when you have science that demonstrates that a fetus prior to 24 weeks has the cognitive capabilities to appreciate it's life then you are basically saying that it is possible that the Sun revolves around the Earth. And there are educated people who believe that. If the majority believed that would it be proper to imprison dissenters?