The Texas abortion Bill

Shoulda called this thread "The Texas Abortion Massacre."

Abortion, Texas Style

__________________

You'd have to use a pretty broad definition of "alive" to say this, and it'd probably end up including things like detached skin cells. But the salient point is that a sperm cannot itself become a human being. A fertilized egg can, and indeed is constantly growing into one from the moment it's created.

This is just going in circles. What makes it an "extension" of the mother's body? All I can think of is the umbilical cord. But you agreed that that's not enough. So that means you agree that it's a human being before birth, yes?

Again, I would ask you to clarify what it is you're referring to if you want a substantive response.

If you want to have a much broader discussion about what produces better long-term health care, I'm fine with that, too, but it should probably have its own thread, or else piggyback on an existing one.

Re: exemption for life of the mother. I haven't seen the text so I can't say for sure, but it probably does; any bill that doesn't gets struck down by the courts. Heck, even the ones that do can get struck down, unless they include an extremely broad exemption for health of all kinds.

Re: how many clinics would close. This is an intentionally misleading claim. What it really means is that the clinics would have to close if they all stayed exactly as they are, rather than complied with the standards. But of course, some of them will be able to, and some will be able to raise money for these purposes, too. And the degree to which they would have to close is ultimately a reflection not of how onerous the standards are, but of how lax the clinics have been before.

This didn't come up out of nowhere, after all. It comes as a result of things like the Gosnell trial. And a quick PSA on that: if anyone here hasn't heard of the Gosnell trial, and you're pro-choice, then you need to get out of your echo chamber, fast.

Well, congratulations, you're already way more moderate on this issue than the Supreme Court and most Democrats, and even most of the people who cheer people like Wendy Davis on even though, when you press them, they often say things like the above. The pro-choice side is filled with people who routinely support in law what they say they disagree with when actually questioned. Often by just turning a blind eye to it.

So before we try to turn Davis into some kind of folk hero, let's be clear on what she was actually fillibustering for: the right to abort fully developed children. This is what people are cheering for.

Pardon my ignorance, but does that bill say that you can't perform an abortion if the fetus is more than 20 weeks old, unless there's a risk of mother's death? Was it legal before? Well, I don't know anything about abortion in US, but in Poland it's absolutely forbidden, no matter how old is the fetus. Unless, it's perilous for mother, was due to rape (only to 12 weeks since impregnation), or they found out the child will be handicapped.

__________________
Look, I'm not judging you - after all, I'm posting here myself, but maybe, just maybe, if you spent less time here and more time watching films, maybe, and I stress, maybe your taste would be of some value. Just a thought, ya know.

That is correct. Ever since Roe v Wade abortions have been legal in the US, and states and political parties have been fighting over it since. Poland seems to have a much stricter policy on abortion.

Also my two cents, I do not approve of abortion.

__________________
Fear and Loathing in MoFo... The Gunslinger 45's Top 50 Favorite Films

In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's reviews

FYI, it's also restricted past 12 weeks in France, that notorious cesspool of right-wing extremism.

Then that's fine, if the woman can get an abortion if her life is at risk than 20 weeks is more than enough time in other cases, including rape and incest. Plus apparently 20 weeks is when the baby feels pain, so I think that should defiantly have an effect on when you can or can't.

I don't know if the standards required were reasonable, but if they were than I'm fine with that too. In fact I don't even see this bill as seeming that pro-life, just more moderate.

Did a quick google and ya I heard of him. Sick man


So before we try to turn Davis into some kind of folk hero, let's be clear on what she was actually fillibustering for: the right to abort fully developed children. This is what people are cheering for.[/quote]

I don't have enough knowledge on the full procedure of abortion, but in the documentary Lake of Fire I saw some shaking videos. While overall I am pro choice since I believe unwanted children are the spawn of a lot of problems.

Attachments

 

And to think my ballsack is a cradle of life!

Now that I think of it, it's like a bees nest.

donniedarko's post
+

=
I need a break from Internet.

I can't believe that you actually consider this to be a reasonable position. You don't think that there's something wrong with killing a fully developed, able to exist on its own fetus minutes before birth, just because it's "still in the womb?" That is flat out insane, in my opinion. It's viewpoints like this that are why so many conservatives are against "Roe v. Wade." It's exactly this kind of dehumanization that many feel inevitably flows from the idea that the woman should always and in every case be advantaged over a developing human life.

In addition, what is wrong with a bill that bans abortion after 20 weeks? I can understand not supporting vaginal ultrasounds, as that is a pretty intrusive procedure, but is 5 months not enough time for a woman to decide that she wants to have an abortion? Of course exceptions need to be made for the life of the mother. Should our laws not be encouraging people to make responsible choices, rather than incentivizing people to be irresponsible and careless by allowing a woman to get an abortion at any stage of the pregnancy, even minutes before birth? At what point does the rights of the developing fetus/human life get to be considered?

"Roe v. Wade" places that point at viability. Most agree that this should be the standard, so if medical technology allows a fetus to survive much earlier in pregnancy now than in 1973, shouldn't the time at which a woman can lawfully have an abortion be adjusted to reflect that reality?

We don't have to completely overturn "Roe v. Wade" and relegate women to back-alley abortions in order to regulate this procedure in a way that respects human life. If we cannot all agree on abortion generally, can we not reach a compromise on reasonable restrictions? Is every conservative who wants to place any restriction on abortion at all unreasonable? If you do believe that, why do you believe it, and what makes that a reasonable position to you?

There's something wrong with any form of killing, right?

__________________
#31 on SC's Top 100 Mofos list!!

I'm still waiting for a reply to this. I thought that this was a reasonable perspective. Why hasn't anyone responded to refute these points?