• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Texas bans abortion.

Status
Not open for further replies.
The question we should be asking, the question some people obviously want to avoid, is: What's the purpose of this legislation? What will it accomplish? A. Make abortion more affordable by limiting the number of clinics and thus gaining economies of scale? B. Make getting an abortion more difficult?

I think it's pretty clear the real purpose is B. The people hand waving away the notion that there is an ulterior motive behind this legislation, do you think abortion should be legal? I agree: this is probably part of a political strategy whose goal is to eventually ban abortion altogether. I think it's foolish not to recognize that reality.
 
Unabogie said:
Libertarians have a strange idea of liberty.
Click to expand...

It should be legal because the belief it is murder is based on the religious concept of ensoulment, which cannot be legislated to protect any more than any other religious belief.

Furthermore, even if God existed, God would be wrong, as He is an infinite dictator with no more right to force this idea on people than any mortal.
 
It's clear the political forces aligned behind this legislation -- which requires abortion clinics to maintain surgical-style standards -- are anti-abortion.

This is from the Pro-Life Texas Facebook page:

Don't think Planned Parenthood is taking their latest walloping in the courts lying down. They're out at the Capitol today rallying. They'll be out block walking and phone banking tomorrow. If conservatives sit out or take a win in November for granted then we can and will be saying Governor Davis. Get to work!
Click to expand...
 
Beerina said:
It should be legal because the belief it is murder is based on the religious concept of ensoulment, which cannot be legislated to protect any more than any other religious belief.

Furthermore, even if God existed, God would be wrong, as He is an infinite dictator with no more right to force this idea on people than any mortal.
Click to expand...

I agree. So then why do so many self-described "libertarians" vote for and apologize for a party that is openly devoted to making all abortions illegal, even going so far as to advocate the hanging of the women who have them?

There's nothing in the Democratic Party's platform I find morally reprehensible. If there were, I wouldn't support them anymore.
 
It's a great opportunity for abortion advocates to step in and offer rides and other resources. Then publicize what they are doing and why.
 
newyorkguy said:
The question we should be asking, the question some people obviously want to avoid, is: What's the purpose of this legislation? What will it accomplish? A. Make abortion more affordable by limiting the number of clinics and thus gaining economies of scale? B. Make getting an abortion more difficult?

I think it's pretty clear the real purpose is B. The people hand waving away the notion that there is an ulterior motive behind this legislation, do you think abortion should be legal? I agree: this is probably part of a political strategy whose goal is to eventually ban abortion altogether. I think it's foolish not to recognize that reality.
Click to expand...


Surely you realize you've made the cardinal mistake of being rational and sensible in a political thread!? Don't you?
 
newyorkguy said:
The question we should be asking, the question some people obviously want to avoid, is: What's the purpose of this legislation? What will it accomplish? A. Make abortion more affordable by limiting the number of clinics and thus gaining economies of scale? B. Make getting an abortion more difficult?

I think it's pretty clear the real purpose is B. The people hand waving away the notion that there is an ulterior motive behind this legislation, do you think abortion should be legal? I agree: this is probably part of a political strategy whose goal is to eventually ban abortion altogether. I think it's foolish not to recognize that reality.
Click to expand...

A slight derail, but this is basically the same thing with voter ID. I'm not even against it so long as it's implemented after an election and assistance is given to ensure those who don't have an ID and have difficulty getting one get one.

However, it's fairly obvious that it's only being put in place to suppress votes for democrats. Same thing with the effort to reduce the timeframe in which one can vote.
 
IMO: If they had an sense, people wouldn't choose to be born in Texas.
 
newyorkguy said:
The question we should be asking, the question some people obviously want to avoid, is: What's the purpose of this legislation? What will it accomplish? A. Make abortion more affordable by limiting the number of clinics and thus gaining economies of scale? B. Make getting an abortion more difficult?

I think it's pretty clear the real purpose is B. The people hand waving away the notion that there is an ulterior motive behind this legislation, do you think abortion should be legal? I agree: this is probably part of a political strategy whose goal is to eventually ban abortion altogether. I think it's foolish not to recognize that reality.
Click to expand...

It's no mystery that lots of people in this country are not in favor of elective abortions. It's no mystery that the government of Texas would, most days of the week, prefer to restrict access to elective abortions to the uttermost limit permitted by the federal government and by the Supreme Court's interpretation of the constitution.

Nobody's hand waving away the notion that there is an ulterior motive behind this legislation. There's just no ulterior motive. Nobody is trying to fool anybody about the purpose of this law.
 
The arguments giving vague, handwaving support to the law in this thread are almost as disingenuous as the arguments the state's lawyers are putting forth.
Attorneys for the state have denied that women would be burdened by fewer abortion facilities, saying nearly 9 in 10 Texas women would still live within 150 miles of a provider.
Click to expand...
150 miles is a very long way for anyone without a solid car and/or without the ability to take time off work (assuming they have a job in the first place). Hell, it's been years since I went more than 100 miles away from my home.

Besides, one would think Republicans would line up against this law. It's unnecessary government regulation and it's anti-business.
 
theprestige said:
It's no mystery that lots of people in this country are not in favor of elective abortions. It's no mystery that the government of Texas would, most days of the week, prefer to restrict access to elective abortions to the uttermost limit permitted by the federal government and by the Supreme Court's interpretation of the constitution.

Nobody's hand waving away the notion that there is an ulterior motive behind this legislation. There's just no ulterior motive. Nobody is trying to fool anybody about the purpose of this law.
Click to expand...


Wait, what? Nobody? Perry and Abbott both have said that the law is only to protect women's health. :confused:
 
Babbylonian said:
Besides, one would think Republicans would line up against this law. It's unnecessary government regulation and it's anti-business.
Click to expand...

No, no, no! You must not have gotten Chapter 2 in the mail order "Convenient Dicta" course that Karl sent out. Unnecessary government regulation is when progressives use the Commerce Clause to stifle the freedom of speech of anti-abortion bullies. Necessary government regulation is when a local government steps in to protect our God-Given Right to wield weapons in a Chuck E. Cheese's.
 
Kermit Gosnell had a flea infested cat wandering his clinic leaving its feces on the floor. Sure that was the least of his crimes but wouldn't that appear to be perhaps symptomatic of the larger problems? People that don't care about cat **** probably don't care about basic sanitation or sterilization. Maintaining surgery-style standards might go a long way to cutting down on MRSA on any number of other infections that could occur. Or is the important thing to simply terminate the pregnancy and to Hell with the woman's health?
 
bynmdsue said:
Kermit Gosnell had a flea infested cat wandering his clinic leaving its feces on the floor. Sure that was the least of his crimes but wouldn't that appear to be perhaps symptomatic of the larger problems? People that don't care about cat **** probably don't care about basic sanitation or sterilization. Maintaining surgery-style standards might go a long way to cutting down on MRSA on any number of other infections that could occur. Or is the important thing to simply terminate the pregnancy and to Hell with the woman's health?
Click to expand...

Well, from testimony we know that he had cats wandering around his "clinic" but did we call in the VP (veterinary police) to find out that it had fleas? Or is that hyperbole, 'cuz it sounds dirtier?
(ETA: No argument from this quarter that the place wasn't filthy and unsafe nor that Gosnell was anything less than a disgusting ********* and deserved to be buried under the jail.)

Gosnell was/is the poster boy for the RtL crowd. They had themselves an actual Satan and of course tried to use the miscreants mis-deeds as a way to assure that there would be more Kermit Gosnell's... greedy ************ who exploit desperate women. The pro-choice side looks at Gosnell and sees as horrible a monster as the purest-thinking God-fearing right-to-lifer. The right-to-lifer, though, doesn't see how the saddling of more and more bureaucratic hurdles onto the poor and desperate is going to inevitably create WTG(worse than Gosnell) scenarios.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Political rhetoric. I don't take it as a serious attempt to fool anyone--the same way I don't take the title of this thread as a serious attempt to fool anyone.
Click to expand...

Greg Abbott argued that 'political rhetoric' in court defending the law, at least when it was ruled against before the latest appeal.

I'd like to see the new ruling to see if it played a part in that decision as well. Maybe it seriously fooled an appeals court judge whether or not Abbott was serious in that line of argument.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom