Abortion Restrictions By State

[4588686]

Wrong.

 

http://afterabortion.org/1999/abortion-risks-a-list-of-major-physical-complications-related-to-abortion/

 

 

Not to mention, abortion is nearly 100% fatal for preborn children.

 

What specifically are you pointing to that is endemic and would be ameliorated by the regulations passed by Texas?

[Kateri89]

Ok.  So we should require that all dental clinics have all procedures, including standard cleaning, performed by a licensed dentist, and an ambulance and EMT crew parked outside the clinic for every patient.  We don't because dental clinics tend to be very safe and the cost of those regulations would be so burdensome that most dental clinics would be shut down and far more people would be unable to access dental care, and suffer from that scarcity, then would ever be helped from the EMT team or having a dentist do tedious cleaning.  

 

Abortion is a safe procedure.  The rates of complications are extremely low.  

 

Are you saying that a standard cleaning at a dentist's office is the equivalent of an abortion?  It doesn't have to be a physician who assesses the woman's vital signs or performs an ultrasound or administers medication.  These are things that can mainly be delegated to nurses, techs, etc.  But to perform the actual procedure? It should absolutely be a licensed physician.  And at no point did I say that there has to be an ambulance/EMT crew for each patient.

[4588686]

Are you saying that a standard cleaning at a dentist's office is the equivalent of an abortion?  It doesn't have to be a physician who assesses the woman's vital signs or performs an ultrasound or administers medication.  These are things that can mainly be delegated to nurses, techs, etc.  But to perform the actual procedure? It should absolutely be a licensed physician.  And at no point did I say that there has to be an ambulance/EMT crew for each patient.

 

 

I think you missed my point.  

[Kateri89]

I think you missed my point.  

 

Yep probably.

[Socrates]

Concern for the health and safety of women and for the lives of unborn children are not mutually exclusive, mind-blowing as that notion might be to the bleedin' hearts.

 

 

 

And - not that this will mean anything to "progressives" -  it should also be noted that the right of the people to own and bear arms, unlike the alleged "right" to an abortion, actually is found in the U.S. Constitution.

[Norseman82]

 

Abortion is a safe procedure.  The rates of complications are extremely low.  

 

And aside from the shooting, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?

[CatholicsAreKewl]

No one has actually answered Hasan properly. The ends don't justify the means, right? Lying about the purposes of a law, regardless of how beneficial the outcome, is wrong. It doesn't matter if democrats do the same thing with laws on other issues. That's irrelevant. 

Edited July 14, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[Socrates]

No one has actually answered Hasan properly. The ends don't justify the means, right? Lying about the purposes of a law, regardless of how beneficial the outcome, is wrong. It doesn't matter if democrats do the same thing with laws on other issues. That's irrelevant. 

 

There's absolutely nothing immoral about the means of tightening regulations and restrictions on abortion.

 

As, I've pointed out, there's nothing safe about abortions, for either the mother or the baby.  The fewer abortions, the safer everyone will be.  Nobody's lying about anything.  Wishing to protect the health/safety of women and the life of babies are not mutually exclusive goals.

 

The safest and healthiest thing would no abortions, but until the supremely dishonest abortion of a Supreme Court ruling, Roe v. Wade, is overturned, pro-lifers will have to do with what restrictions we can get.

[Ice_nine]

No one has actually answered Hasan properly. The ends don't justify the means, right? Lying about the purposes of a law, regardless of how beneficial the outcome, is wrong. It doesn't matter if democrats do the same thing with laws on other issues. That's irrelevant. 

 

It's not outright lying. Although Hasan likes to insinuate the average pro-lifer as a group of men who don't care about women only insofar as they would like to control them, their bodies and their sexuality (which I READILY admit that a number of pro-life men probably fit the bill, and that even larger swaths are simply insensitive in the sense they have never given more than 2 seconds of fleeting thought on the unjust obstacles that women face), most pro-lifers I've met do have concern for the women who face abortion, such concerns include: post abortive depression and other psychological complications, medical complications, and spiritual moral complications.

 

Even if the former two complications don't result from abortion (the woman is physically happy and healthy as a pig in shit) allowing a woman to kill her child has much more graver consequences. Of course my primary concern with women (and men in connection) who can kill their unborn children is the child itself, but I am also concerned for the spiritual welfare of the parents. You well know such a concern would be laughed down in the modern atheist state.

 

So how do we decrease abortions? Again no matter how sympathetic I might be to a person considering murder (of any type, not just abortion, but people sometimes land themselves in impossible situations and see murder as an option, and me I'm a bleeding heart and can understand, but of course not condone, how people might end up there) my primary concern lies with the would be victim. This is not to say that the life of the unborn child is less than the life of the mother, but that the life of the child is worth more than the perhaps grave discomfort and distress of the mother. But I am immensely concerned with the welfare of the woman as well, don't get me wrong.

 

So when it comes down to this law, yes we all know the primary purpose is to reduce access to abortion (cite your primary motive as concern for unborn persons or control of women as you fancy) but there is also a concern for the safety of the mothers (even if the medical concern is a really minor motive next to the psychological and spiritual problems for would-be parents).

 

If this bill has an ulterior motive, chalk it up to the thousands of other laws that do. It's a ridiculous game really, but it's a game I think we need to play. I don't think bill-makers have medical safety as their primary concern for the goal that it is striving to achieve, but as long as there is a medical concern, even a slight one, is it ok to use this reason? Well, it's the only one that will really resonate with a modern audience. Psychology is a soft-science and can be manipulated to suit both pro-choice and pro-life arguments, and "leave your religion out of the state/law" is not gonna work.

 

It's not lying outright, it's playing a game. 100% honesty is not possible and I'm not even sure if it's the ideal. This bill is not showing all it's cards, even though the guy across the table can see the hand. It's a tactical move. Politics is dirty.

 

I rambled a lot. My bizad

[Ice_nine]

I use so many parentheses holy shit.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

It's not outright lying. 

 

So when it comes down to this law, yes we all know the primary purpose is to reduce access to abortion (cite your primary motive as concern for unborn persons or control of women as you fancy) but there is also a concern for the safety of the mothers (even if the medical concern is a really minor motive next to the psychological and spiritual problems for would-be parents).

 

If this bill has an ulterior motive, chalk it up to the thousands of other laws that do. It's a ridiculous game really, but it's a game I think we need to play. I don't think bill-makers have medical safety as their primary concern for the goal that it is striving to achieve, but as long as there is a medical concern, even a slight one, is it ok to use this reason? Well, it's the only one that will really resonate with a modern audience. Psychology is a soft-science and can be manipulated to suit both pro-choice and pro-life arguments, and "leave your religion out of the state/law" is not gonna work.

 

It's not lying outright, it's playing a game. 100% honesty is not possible and I'm not even sure if it's the ideal. This bill is not showing all it's cards, even though the guy across the table can see the hand. It's a tactical move. Politics is dirty.

 

I rambled a lot. My bizad

 

Thanks for the post! I still find it wrong to accept this way of playing politics. Even if it's the way our system works, that doesn't make it right. Half lies and white lies are still lies. It doesn't really make sense to me for a group to claim to stand for a higher moral cause and be zen with using immoral means of getting there. 

[CatholicsAreKewl]

There's absolutely nothing immoral about the means of tightening regulations and restrictions on abortion.

 

As, I've pointed out, there's nothing safe about abortions, for either the mother or the baby.  The fewer abortions, the safer everyone will be.  Nobody's lying about anything.  Wishing to protect the health/safety of women and the life of babies are not mutually exclusive goals.

 

The safest and healthiest thing would no abortions, but until the supremely dishonest abortion of a Supreme Court ruling, Roe v. Wade, is overturned, pro-lifers will have to do with what restrictions we can get.

 

You're arguing the same way I would in my high school theology classes whenever I'd get bored. This isn't a real argument. Do you actually believe they meant whatever you're implying?

Edited July 15, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[KnightofChrist]

Thanks for the post! I still find it wrong to accept this way of playing politics. Even if it's the way our system works, that doesn't make it right. Half lies and white lies are still lies. It doesn't really make sense to me for a group to claim to stand for a higher moral cause and be zen with using immoral means of getting there.

Those who supported slavery when states began to put restrictions on slavery probably attempted to use the same kind of 'lets us a twist view of morality against those with morals' logic. Even if this law was created with the intent of restricting abortion it doesn't make it a lie that it was also intended to tighten regulations on abortion.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Those who supported slavery when states began to put restrictions on slavery probably attempted to use the same kind of 'lets us a twist view of morality against those with morals' logic. Even if this law was created with the intent of restricting abortion it doesn't make it a lie that it was also intended to tighten regulations on abortion.

 

And they would have been right if the abolitionists were being disingenuous. I can't believe I'm actually arguing with you guys on a point that Catholics taught me. The ends never justify the means. Nixon found this out the hard way.

Edited July 15, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[KnightofChrist]

And they would have been right if the abolitionists were being disingenuous. I can't believe I'm actually arguing with you guys on a point that Catholics taught me. The ends never justify the means. Nixon found this out the hard way.

I don't see this as a lie, like you see it. Having a dual purpose doesn't necessarily make the official purpose a lie.