Briareos H on 2/7/2013 at 17:22
Quote Posted by Muzman
It's none of those things. It's legal chicanery to try to put standards for abortion clinics so high that they cannot be met and close them down.
I have yet to see a proof of that. I don't live in Texas, nor do I live in the U.S.A. and thus it's rather difficult for me to get an objective readout of the real motivations behind the bill, and I can't see the whole picture. I've been inclined from the beginning to think that this could indeed be a ploy to close down most abortion clinics, but the media coverage of the event, at least here, has been terribly biased and based only on second-hand information from mostly democrat senator interviews/tweets, sorry if that's not enough for me.
Quote Posted by Muzman
I'd be interested if there's anything to suggest there's a standards problem in Texas that needs to be so drastically addressed.
I'd be interested to know that, too. I'd also like to know from a reliable source how many clinics would have to close down because of the bill and what the costs to put them on level would be.
Quote Posted by Muzman
a silly arbitrary marker designed to make people who have no real business sticking their nose in feel slightly better
Now let's not be stupid here. I'm pro-abortion and free choice but the question of the limit is a very valid one. The core moral idea of abortion is to draw a line at the point where the fetus becomes alive. Of all the available "arbitrary markers" for life, the house amendments to the bill argue --study in hand-- that there is certainty the fetus can feel pain beyond 20 weeks. I find that... reasonable. Limits are lower than that in most countries where abortion is available, and I don't see anyone fighting over that.
Now if you want to argue that a fetus is never alive until it is born, I'm fine with that, but please have the decency to recognise that not everyone thinks the same way and that an abortion limit closer to 9 months than to 0 is a compromise that can be worked from.
In conclusion, while this could very well be a bill to prevent abortion, journalists and activists are very bad at making a solid case to prove it, and as such I am not convinced that we should sanctify a senator who bypasses the democratic rules to uphold that unproven case. I certainly do believe that it is a sane thing to present the bill a second time. If it is worth fighting over, I also hope the opponents will demonstrate it. As for the 20 week abortion limit, it is a false claim to pretend that all pro-choice people are in favor of no time limit at all.
@mopgoblin Nice ad hominem there. Now go back to your closet.
SlyFoxx on 2/7/2013 at 17:37
Quote Posted by Queue
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it the people's chambers?
It is. But it's one thing to shout and protest outside the house but inside in the galley is quite another thing. The speaker is in charge and there are rules of behavior just like a court of law.
june gloom on 2/7/2013 at 18:27
Quote Posted by mopgoblin
Yeah I'm sure it's all very reasonable when you've got a 0% chance of ever being pregnant and thus will never be directly affected.
How the fuck is this an ad hominem? It's the
truth.
Muzman on 2/7/2013 at 18:36
Quote Posted by Briareos H
Now let's not be stupid here. I'm pro-abortion and free choice but the question of the limit is a very valid one. The core moral idea of abortion is to draw a line at the point where the fetus becomes alive.
It's not really. It's to give back to the person who is assuming the risk and responsibility of gestation the legal ability to opt out.
The vast majority of abortions are performed before 12 weeks. With all the added exceptions that usually sit with going beyond these limits ( health, circumstances etc) you might as well not have any such limits. It's not as though there'd be a sudden rash of women getting the procedure late by choice.
(their study wasn't up to much, from memory. Or rather their interpretation of it was leading and selective, as is often the case, seizing on terminology regarding nervous system development etc. I'll have to find that).
There's additional clauses (again repeated from other states similar recent laws) to force people trying to get morning after pills to have a physical exam and counseling beforehand. There ain't nothing feeling pain when you're taking a morning after pill (or the month after pill). It's just hurdles for the sake of it.
This is an anti-abortion governor and an anti-abortion majority sitting. There is no question about that. You put all these disparate aspects in the same bill you're not looking out for people's health.
Briareos H on 2/7/2013 at 19:51
Maybe. Maybe it's all context, a context I don't fully comprehend, because of the limited view from reading one-sided news.
It's not exactly clear to me when reading the bill if drug-induced abortions fall under the same rule of requiring a physician with hospital access. If they do, that's unnecessary and I can understand the uproar. If not, if a similar law was proposed here, people wouldn't even raise a brow.
hopper on 2/7/2013 at 22:02
Quote Posted by dethtoll
How the fuck is this an ad hominem? It's the
truth.
Dude, as ad hominems go, that's a textbook specimen.
june gloom on 2/7/2013 at 22:23
So basically you're telling me that pointing out the inherent absurdity of dudes who do not and cannot give childbirth and therefore are not directly affected by abortion laws talking about the "reasonableness" of abortion restrictions (read: telling women what they can and can't do with their own freaking bodies) is an ad hominem?
You drink cat pee and therefore your opinion is invalid, how's that for an ad hominem?
Let me break it down for you. What do dude opinions re: abortion have in common with Pauly Shore's career and every post ever on Myspace? They're all fundamentally meaningless! There are two options to take when discussing abortion from a cis male perspective: either line up with the women who want agency over their own bodies, or shut the fuck up.
Chimpy Chompy on 2/7/2013 at 22:31
If my opinion is meaningless, any sort of pro-choice stance is meaningless too and shut the fuck up is the only viable option.
Vivian on 2/7/2013 at 22:34
Yo, how the fuck would it be any different if anyone talking about it is a transgendered male-to-female or whatever. Being cis or otherwise doesn't have any effect on your reproductive biology. Yet. If they are talking about head transplants with a straight face, then swapping other bits doesn't seem too far fetched. But at the moment being a 'cis male' is irrelevant?
june gloom on 2/7/2013 at 22:35
Actually, yeah, exactly. Leave abortion discussion to the people who it actually concerns -- women. Being a pro-choice male is little more than meeting basic standards of being a decent human being (read: supporting women's rights.)
dammit vivian get out of the way
