little2add Posted July 2, 2016 Author Share Posted July 2, 2016 Google "Kermit Gosnel", sweetly . The Texas law was a direct result of the so-called Doctor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
little2add Posted July 2, 2016 Author Share Posted July 2, 2016 And legit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tab'le De'Bah-Rye Posted July 17, 2016 Share Posted July 17, 2016 yes if abortion is to remain legal it should be clean and standerdized, including minimalising pain to the unborn child or eraticating pain some how. Also free counselling must be available to a mother who has aborted a child and also free counselling for at least 5 sessions over 5 weeks before the descision is made, everything possible must be done to avoid the baby being aborted if at all possible, all payed by the government. I could be wrong. It isnt if you can't beat them join them it is if they wont convert then water them down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 On 7/1/2016 at 7:16 PM, cooterhein said: To be clear, this is one of those ends justifying means types of things. The ends are just fine, in the interest of decreasing abortions. Decreasing abortions is good. It really is. However that's just half of it, the ends half. The means by which it was achieved in Texas is what was being examined, and the means by which something is achieved aren't necessarily faultless just on account of the overall goal. There's absolutely nothing wrong or immoral with the means of tightening restrictions on clinics. (And, of course, the SCOTUS has no problem whatever with increased government restrictions and regulations on almost everything else. This was an ideologically-based ruling.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 2 hours ago, Socrates said: There's absolutely nothing wrong or immoral with the means of tightening restrictions on clinics. (And, of course, the SCOTUS has no problem whatever with increased government restrictions and regulations on almost everything else. This was an ideologically-based ruling.) what about the morality of tightening restrictions via lies? The legislature didn't just put to a vote a law to restrict abortion. They said it was needed for the woman's health reasons. That justification proved to be a falsehood. The problem with using BS as justification, is it risks being discredited. I understand the politics, but it ended up being a wasted effort, made anti-abortionists look disingenuous, liars, and stupid. Also, it did absolutely NOTHING about providing legal status for in-womb persons. It wasn't an ideological ruling. It was simple proving BS on a misguided strategy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
little2add Posted July 20, 2016 Author Share Posted July 20, 2016 On July 19, 2016 at 4:05 PM, Anomaly said: what about the morality of tightening restrictions via lies? The legislature didn't just put to a vote a law to restrict abortion. They said it was needed for the woman's health reasons. That justification proved to be a falsehood. The problem with using BS as justification, is it risks being discredited. I understand the politics, but it ended up being a wasted effort, made anti-abortionists look disingenuous, liars, and stupid. Also, it did absolutely NOTHING about providing legal status for in-womb persons. It wasn't an ideological ruling. It was simple proving BS on a misguided strategy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYijO3OrWBQ the texas law is a direct result or response to the atrocities committed by "Kermit Gosnel" it is neither a lie, BS, misguided or falsehood strategy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
little2add Posted July 20, 2016 Author Share Posted July 20, 2016 watch the youtube link , if you dare Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted July 20, 2016 Share Posted July 20, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, little2add said: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYijO3OrWBQ the texas law is a direct result or response to the atrocities committed by "Kermit Gosnel" it is neither a lie, BS, misguided or falsehood strategy. Kermit was convicted of murder and is spending life in prison. There are PA laws covering what he did. The significant point is that he could only be charged with murders for persons AFTER they were born alive. That right there supports my point that a fundamental issue is no legal protection for unborn persons. It is misguided to think abortion will be resolved by limiting abortion clinics and never fight for legal status of in-womb persons. In Kermit's case, PA didn't even follow its own laws or investigate multitudes of complaints. What use is another bureaucratic law that won't be enforced when the victims have no legal status? Edited July 20, 2016 by Anomaly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
little2add Posted July 21, 2016 Author Share Posted July 21, 2016 38 minutes ago, Anomaly said: What use is another bureaucratic law that won't be enforced when the victims have no legal status? If this activity is okay with you, vote democrat. They will make sure that this kind of behavior is tolerated and even called "women's health." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 (edited) On 7/19/2016 at 3:05 PM, Anomaly said: what about the morality of tightening restrictions via lies? The legislature didn't just put to a vote a law to restrict abortion. They said it was needed for the woman's health reasons. That justification proved to be a falsehood. The problem with using BS as justification, is it risks being discredited. I understand the politics, but it ended up being a wasted effort, made anti-abortionists look disingenuous, liars, and stupid. Also, it did absolutely NOTHING about providing legal status for in-womb persons. It wasn't an ideological ruling. It was simple proving BS on a misguided strategy. I'm not sure what "lies" are being referred to. The prevention of filthy and unhealthy hell-holes like Grosnell's (and his case was not unique; I've read of other, similar horrors) would be justification enough for such restrictions. Such operations are definitely not beneficial to women's health. Absolutely nothing immoral about holding abortion mills subject to the same standards as other medical facilities that provide surgery. (other than that they still allow abortion, of course.) And, of course, constitutionally speaking, such state regulations are entirely outside the federal government's jurisdiction. Interestingly, the SCOTUS generally sees no need to subject the countless government regulations (both federal and state) on nearly everything else to similar scrutiny. This just happened to touch on the left-liberal ideological sacred cow of abortion. Your attack on the Texas legislation is extremely misplaced and ironic given that the whole Supreme Court decision you defend is itself based on nothing but lies, falsehoods, and BS. Chief among them being: A) That killing unborn children is "women's health." B) That abortion is an absolute "right" somehow enshrined in the Constitution. and C) That such state regulations are any of the federal government's beaver dam business. And if you're actually interested, you might look up Thomas's dissent. The three remaining SCOTUS justices who actually give a beaver dam about the Constitution (well, sometimes, in the case of Roberts) evidently see things different from you and the liberal justices. http://thefederalist.com/2016/06/27/8-best-quotes-from-clarence-thomass-texas-abortion-dissent/ Edited July 21, 2016 by Socrates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benedictus Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 On 28/06/2016 at 2:08 AM, little2add said: Abortion entails known medical risks. Shouldn't abortion clinics should have to meet basic sanitary requirements and safety standards. the first major abortion case in nearly a decade. On Monday, the court ruled 5-3 to reverse Texas’ law requiring abortion clinics meet commonsense safety standards regularly followed by facilities that perform invasive outpatient surgeries and requiring doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. it's a sad day for women and their health Most abortions now are increasingly medical [pill form], not surgical. So the need for complex regulations are reduced, but obviously not eliminated. The issue is whether statistics are kept on abortion rates, complications and so on. This can be used as a measure as to whether the safety element is adequate or not. Laws, especially out of some states, are far from being based on commonsense. Is safety the issue really or were the regulations politically motivated to reduce abortions? I suspect a mix of both, but especially the latter. It's just obvious that they're not upfront about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
little2add Posted July 30, 2016 Author Share Posted July 30, 2016 4 hours ago, Benedictus said: Is safety the issue really or were the regulations politically motivated to reduce abortions? Abortion using a pill or knife is “cruel and unusual” punishment. Pretending that a fetus is not a person doesn't change anything. It is not safe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benedictus Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 2 minutes ago, little2add said: Abortion using a pill or knife is “cruel and unusual” punishment. Pretending that a fetus is not a person doesn't change anything. It is not safe What you said is a Moral position, which every Catholic knows. But what's that got to do with the safety of the woman having the procedure? Not everything that's immoral is unsafe If the conditions and hygiene are unsafe then it should be clear to anyone, right? Even a pro choice person shouldn't technically want a woman to use a dirty clinic. However, like I said, most women don't have surgical abortions anymore. So the issue of their safety isn't as big as it was in past decades. Antiabortionists wanting higher medical standards so women can feel more content to have abortion procedures makes no sense unless there's a secondary objective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
little2add Posted July 30, 2016 Author Share Posted July 30, 2016 See: http://www.phila.gov/districtattorney/pdfs/grandjurywomensmedical.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
little2add Posted July 30, 2016 Author Share Posted July 30, 2016 3 hours ago, Benedictus said: Not everything that's immoral is unsafe really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now