Texas bans abortion.

[Sherman Bay]

Unable to get privileges at other hospitals the clinics were forced to shut down.

I'm sure this has happened in many other places as well.

It doesn't need to happen in some places since the threat is often enough.

The cry is "Protect women's health! Shut down the clinics!"

The opposing view should be "Protect women's health! Open up the clinics!"

 

[Kestrel]

Texas could follow Colorado's lead and provide free contraception to sexually active teenagers if they really wanted to cut the abortion rate.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Texas could follow Colorado's lead and provide free contraception to sexually active teenagers if they really wanted to cut the abortion rate.

It's not about abortion rate. It's about punishing women and girls for having sex.

 

[xjx388]

Sorry, lost track of where the forum went!

Anyway. Dont communities get to determine the moral standards of their own communities? For example, there is no state law against sexually oriented businesses but the city of McAllen has an ordinance that makes it difficult to operate a strip bar in the city limits.

Similarly, States can't outright ban abortion but they can certainly make it more restrictive. If the residents of the State want it more restricted then what's the problem? Further, if the residents of McAllen don't want a murder factory (actual words of a resident) in their city then shouldn't they be able to restrict it?

 

[RandFan]

Sorry, lost track of where the forum went!

Anyway. Dont communities get to determine the moral standards of their own communities? For example, there is no state law against sexually oriented businesses but the city of McAllen has an ordinance that makes it difficult to operate a strip bar in the city limits.

Similarly, States can't outright ban abortion but they can certainly make it more restrictive. If the residents of the State want it more restricted then what's the problem? Further, if the residents of McAllen don't want a murder factory (actual words of a resident) in their city then shouldn't they be able to restrict it?

A.) It doesn't appear that you are bothering to read the responses to you. B.) we've been over this before.

You are obscuring the issues.

1. First off, that there is some idiot who thinks clinics are murder factories isn't a valid argument for anything other than the person is an idiot. There is no law against public stupidity but one can dream. The idiot might think she is president of the United States. So what?
2. Freedom of speech isn't absolute, if the state has a compelling interest then the state can restrict speech within certain guidelines. Community standards can be a means to restrict some forms of speech. (see United States free speech exceptions)
3. What the community cannot do is set restrictions for the sole purpose of restricting the free exercise of speech.
4. The laws against the clinics have the sole purpose of curtailing women from exercising their rights.
5. If women were at significant risk of harm then the state would have a compelling interest. The women are not and the state does not.

Further, if the residents of McAllen don't want a murder factory (actual words of a resident) in their city then shouldn't they be able to restrict it?

That's akin to saying, if some idiot doesn't want filth in the local library should she not be able to ban books?

At the end of the day, there is little helpful comparison between regulating obscenity and abortion.

Take some time and review the following links. Feel free to PM me or ask further questions. I'm not an attorney or legal scholar but I did study civics in grade school.

judicial review

Tyranny of the majority

Strict Scrutiny

Compelling governmental interest

Rational basis review

 

[newyorkguy]

It's interesting that Roe v. Wade turned on the issue of privacy. Ironically it involved a case in Texas.

The Court argued that the Constitution's First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual's "zone of privacy" against state laws and cited past cases ruling that marriage, contraception, and child rearing are activities covered in this "zone of privacy." The Court then argued that the "zone of privacy" was "broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." This decision involved myriad physical, psychological, and economic stresses a pregnant woman must face. Link

I was never too keen on the idea of abortion but I have come to accept the idea of a woman's right to privacy. That a woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy in consultation with her physician. I feel the right of a woman to decide not to go through with a pregnancy overrides any other concern. I don't feel it's anyone else's business and I don't think the state -- much less private citizens -- should have a voice other than deciding on restrictions when it's too late or too dangerous based on medical grounds. I don't think any woman should be forced to carry a baby to term in order to please neighbors who don't approve of abortion.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Sorry, lost track of where the forum went!

Anyway. Dont communities get to determine the moral standards of their own communities? For example, there is no state law against sexually oriented businesses but the city of McAllen has an ordinance that makes it difficult to operate a strip bar in the city limits.

Similarly, States can't outright ban abortion but they can certainly make it more restrictive. If the residents of the State want it more restricted then what's the problem? Further, if the residents of McAllen don't want a murder factory (actual words of a resident) in their city then shouldn't they be able to restrict it?

No. No and no.

If communities want to legalize child-rape, shouldn't they be able to?

 

[xjx388]

I think you guys are begging the question. You are assuming that it is unambiguously true that opposition to abortion is idiotic and motivated solely by a desire to opress women. But what if it's motivated by a sincere belief that a fetus is a human deserving of protection? If fetuses are human beings with rights themselves, then terminating their life is murder.

There is no clear scientific answer to this moral question. Thus, if a community decides through it's democratic process that they want to consider abortion murder, I cannot really find fault with that. Since the SC has made it impossible to ban it outright it presents a moral conundrum that these communities (Texas for example) are trying to find a way to reconcile. And that's what leads to laws like we have now.

I think the comparison to obscenity is apt. Obscenity is defined by community standards. Nevada has very different ideas about the subject than Texas does. Abortion is no different. That's kind of the point of our Federal Republic form of government; each State , County and Municipality has the power to set their standards.

As far as rights go, if abortion is considered murder, then no one has a right to abortion.

 

[RandFan]

I think you guys are begging the question. You are assuming that it is unambiguously true that opposition to abortion is idiotic and motivated solely by a desire to opress women. But what if it's motivated by a sincere belief that a fetus is a human deserving of protection? If fetuses are human beings with rights themselves, then terminating their life is murder.

Fetuses cannot think or feel anymore that sperm and ovum can think and feel.

There is no clear scientific answer to this moral question.

Yes there is. A pregnant woman can think and feel. Sperm and ovum cannot.

Thus, if a community decides through it's democratic process that they want to consider abortion murder, I cannot really find fault with that.

If the community through democratic process decides that sperm and ovum are human beings and therefore we must take precaution that each are given protection that is complete and utter BS.

I think the comparison to obscenity is apt.

No, it's silly BS to compare the two.

 

[Sherman Bay]

As far as rights go, if abortion is considered murder, then no one has a right to abortion.

If "murder" is your only criterion, how do you feel about these "murders"?

• Self defense
• Shooting to kill the enemy on military orders
• Euthanasia
• Capital punishment

If you are a "purist," all of these are equally bad, for they all are "murders." If you are a rationalist, you might want to consider your priorities. Some "murders" are OK, some are not, and some fall in between, perhaps considering the circumstances.

And that's exactly what it comes down to -- the circumstances.

 

[newyorkguy]

I think you guys are begging the question. You are assuming that it is unambiguously true that opposition to abortion is idiotic and motivated solely by a desire to opress women. But what if it's motivated by a sincere belief that a fetus is a human deserving of protection? <snip>

We are assuming that opposition to abortion is idiotic and motivated solely by a desire to oppress women? I don't think that's true at all. Except for the fact that in denying abortion rights women are being oppressed.

Is a fetus human? Yes. Is it a human being? Obviously not. There is no widespread opposition to abortion even in Texas where polls show an even split between supporters of either side. The Supreme Court decided forty years ago that women had the right to an abortion in a case involving a woman from...Texas.

 

[theprestige]

If "murder" is your only criterion, how do you feel about these "murders"?

This should be fun.

Self defense

As far as I know, self defense against one's own baby is already provided for in every "anti-abortion" law in this country.

Shooting to kill the enemy on military orders

I hope I never live to see the day when we are engaged in a just war against an army of babies.

Euthanasia

Euthanasia is, ideally, an informed choice made by a consenting adult about their own situation. And while it's true that parents are recognized to have wide powers over their children, we don't normally permit mothers to euthanize two year olds simply because they're inconvenient.

Capital punishment

I hope I never live to see the day when, through due process of law, we find ourselves compelled to convict a baby of a capital crime.

Huh. Not as fun as I had expected. What makes you say that aborting a child is the same as executing someone convicted of a heinous crime?

ETA: Never mind, I think I figured it out. You're begging the question that abortions are as justifiable as those other forms of killing, so that you can falsely conclude that anyone who accepts other justified killings must accept abortions. It's a neat trick, but it doesn't actually get you anywhere.

 

[cosmicaug]

The ban isn't very effective if you just need to drive a bit of a distance to overcome it. That may be unfair, that may be restrictive for certain people, that may be bad policy, but it's not a ban, nor is it even "practically" a ban. And the "further qualifier" of rural Texas is also quite different than "Texas".

The purpose of the law is to make it hard to access abortion, especially for those in the poor, rural areas. It's just another step towards the ban that Conservatives want.

This is not theoretical people. If the ban regulations are not very effective in curtailing access we can make concrete predictions. The predictions would be that you should be having as many people as before getting legal abortions at the remaining clinics and that you should not have people choosing to have DIY abortions. That is, if supply is truly restricted you should see alternate ways of meeting demand emerge even if they have higher costs (as long as the cost of the alternatives are less than the increased cost for legal abortions stemming from the restrictions).

For me this is blatantly bad end around trying to regulate legal abortion out of existence, a de facto attempt at bans. It's effect will be deaths from illegal abortions in rural areas and won't have any of the benefits proponents claim. Further I believe the proponents are not making these claims in good faith. They know what they're doing, why they're doing it, and how they're lying about it.

You won't be surprised that we are seeing people taking a page from the developing world and choosing the DIY approach with black market drugs being used off label to induce abortions. Fortunately, this drug induced abortion is a lot safer than other DIY approaches but it's still no substitute for a medically supervised abortion. There will be deaths even from this.

See http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/06/the-rise-of-the-diy-abortion-in-texas/373240/

So to address Ziggurat's comment, this may be more effective as a "ban" than he gives it credit for.

 

[Sherman Bay]

ETA: Never mind, I think I figured it out.

No, you didn't. You totally missed the point. The statement was made that abortion is murder. For the sake of argument only, I will accept that. Next, I pointed out that if the objection to abortion is that it is murder, you need to justify why some kinds of murder are not only acceptable, but encouraged, while others are discouraged and punished, even harshly, even to the point of death (=murder!).

Otherwise, you are just a hypocrite, and the philosophy that "all murder is wrong" cannot be a reasonable argument.

Is it possible that the question of what is life and/or human is not so clear cut? Everyone wants to say, "The fetus/embryo is alive/human at X days, therefore..." and the argument degenerates into how many days. Does a sperm and egg feel? Does a 2 week embryo feel? Does an 9 month unborn fetus feel enough to be called a baby? Where do we draw the line?

Now we are at the territory where, since there is no hard and fast agreement, we must decide who decides. Will it be the female who is most affected or the courts, who are least affected? Who will be allowed to make this critical decision?

 

[theprestige]

No, you didn't. You totally missed the point. The statement was made that abortion is murder. For the sake of argument only, I will accept that. Next, I pointed out that if the objection to abortion is that it is murder, you need to justify why some kinds of murder are not only acceptable, but encouraged, while others are discouraged and punished, even harshly, even to the point of death (=murder!).

You're right. I did miss the point. I didn't realize that I have no idea what you mean by "murder". Please help me understand:

What, to you, makes killing in self defense "murder"?

What, to you, makes killing an enemy soldier in battle "murder"?

What, to you, makes euthanasia "murder"?

What, to you, makes executing someone who committed a heinous crime "murder"?

Do you simply define all killing as "murder", or do you define only killing that has certain qualities as "murder"? If so, what are those qualities? If I know how you define murder, then I can probably better understand and answer your question.

 

[RandFan]

You're right. I did miss the point. I didn't realize that I have no idea what you mean by "murder". Please help me understand:

What, to you, makes killing in self defense "murder"?

What, to you, makes killing an enemy soldier in battle "murder"?

What, to you, makes euthanasia "murder"?

What, to you, makes executing someone who committed a heinous crime "murder"?

Do you simply define all killing as "murder", or do you define only killing that has certain qualities as "murder"? If so, what are those qualities? If I know how you define murder, then I can probably better understand and answer your question.

His point is that we can assume one of two propositions. If I may be so presumptuous. He has created an exclusive disjunction to eliminate equivocation and thereby consider our own moral consistency when it comes to the killing of human beings. Is it always illegal or, IOW, always unjustified, to take the life of another human being or is it sometimes justified?

A.) All killing of human beings is murder.
B.) Not all killing of human beings is murder.

If you think that any and all killing of human beings is murder to justify your stance against abortion then you must also accept proposition A = Killing another human being is prima face murder in each and ever circumstance.

I accept proposition B. Sometimes the killing of another human being is justified and therefore by definition not all killing of human beings is murder. Abortion doesn't even meet the legal definition of killing a human being as a fetus isn't a human being.

So, here is the question. Do you think any and all killing of human life is unjustifiable and therefore homicide (killing sperm or ovum would fit that definition)?

There simply is no need to make the point complicated. No need to define qualities or give specifics as that is simply obfuscating a very simple choice. You either accept A or B (not a false choice as it is an exclusive disjunction).

 

[Sherman Bay]

You're right. I did miss the point. I didn't realize that I have no idea what you mean by "murder". Please help me understand:

What, to you, makes killing in self defense "murder"?

As Louis Jordan said so eloquently, "Jack, you dead."

What, to you, makes killing an enemy soldier in battle "murder"?

Jack, you dead.

What, to you, makes euthanasia "murder"?

Jack, you dead.

What, to you, makes executing someone who committed a heinous crime "murder"?

Jack, you dead.

Do you simply define all killing as "murder", or do you define only killing that has certain qualities as "murder"? If so, what are those qualities? If I know how you define murder, then I can probably better understand and answer your question.

You are welcome to replace any mention of murder with "killing." It won't change the outcome.

RandFan, you said it well, and my hat's off to you.

 

[theprestige]

You are welcome to replace any mention of murder with "killing." It won't change the outcome.

It changes the outcome for me, because I make a distinction between justified and unjustified killing, and I use the term "murder" to indicate unjustified killing. Do you not make such a distinction?

 

[mortimer]

As far as rights go, if abortion is considered murder, then no one has a right to abortion.

And if breathing air is considered murder, then no one has the right to breathe. What's your point?

 

[RandFan]

It changes the outcome for me, because I make a distinction between justified and unjustified killing, and I use the term "murder" to indicate unjustified killing. Do you not make such a distinction?

Oey vey. THAT'S the point. Of course he makes such a distinction. Abortion is not murder.

His whole point is that killing is not per se murder.