IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags abortion issues , abortion laws , Texas issues

Reply
Old 5th October 2014, 10:29 AM   #121
The_Animus
Illuminator
 
The_Animus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,259
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
Seems like Roe v. Wade is dying the death of a thousand cuts. While abortion is still legal, it's getting harder and harder to actually get one.

There's also this new law in Alabama:

New Alabama Law Puts Teens Who Need Abortions on Trial. That's Dangerous and Cruel.
Absolutely disgusting.
The_Animus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2014, 12:11 PM   #122
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 60,134
Originally Posted by Unabogie View Post
Sounds like a government takeover of healthcare.

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor View Post
Sounds more like government interference in health care, for non health reasons.
Damn teens having sex. I didn't have sex when I was a teen. Make the sinners suffer the consequences of their actions.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2014, 12:26 PM   #123
nvidiot
Botanical Jedi
 
nvidiot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,121
Originally Posted by Corsair 115 View Post
Puny! Ontario = 415,598 sq miles.
Western Australia: 976,790. GOML.
__________________
www.sq1gaming.com
nvidiot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2014, 03:25 PM   #124
Babbylonian
Penultimate Amazing
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,715
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
But it's not clear. Anyone can be admitted to an emergency room.
Precisely, and this is how private practice doctors who are not affiliated with hospitals (and there are plenty of them) handle emergency situations. They stabilize the patient as best they can while waiting for an ambulance, which will take the patient (and possibly the doctor) to the ER where the patient will receive further treatment and potential admission by the hospital's attending physician(s).

"Admitting privileges" mean that the doctor can a) authorize an admission directly to that hospital (e.g., straight to an ICU or other inpatient department) and b) directly attend the patient (and thus preempt the hospital's own physicians' decisions in cases of disagreement) on the floor. They're handy abilities to possess but neither is really medically necessary for outpatient procedures with very low complication rates.
Babbylonian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2014, 03:51 PM   #125
Corsair 115
Penultimate Amazing
 
Corsair 115's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 14,519
Originally Posted by nvidiot View Post
Western Australia: 976,790. GOML.

Good on ya, mate!
__________________
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve
to organize and measure the best of our abilities and skills, because that challenge is one we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and
one which we intend to win."
Corsair 115 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2014, 05:55 PM   #126
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 11,810
Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
<snip> They're handy abilities to possess but neither is really medically necessary for outpatient procedures with very low complication rates.
The requirement that abortion clinics have admitting privileges is a clever tactic for anti-abortion groups. First, it sounds good. "It ensures that abortion doctors are vetted by their peers," says Denise Burke, vice president of legal affairs at Americans United for Life. But in practice it provides a way for Pro-Life groups to shutdown clinics legally.

The example was given in the Washington Post news story. Two clinics in Dallas secured admitting privileges at a Dallas hospital. Then the Pro-Life groups began picketing and demonstrating at the hospital grounds. Eventually it became too much and the hospital revoked the admitting privileges. 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.
newyorkguy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2014, 06:02 PM   #127
Babbylonian
Penultimate Amazing
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,715
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
The requirement that abortion clinics have admitting privileges is a clever tactic for anti-abortion groups. First, it sounds good. "It ensures that abortion doctors are vetted by their peers," says Denise Burke, vice president of legal affairs at Americans United for Life. But in practice it provides a way for Pro-Life groups to shutdown clinics legally.
Absolutely. The worst part is that to people who may be ambivalent on the issue, and who don't really know what "admitting privileges" are, requiring this of private practice doctors doing any procedures might not seem like a bad idea. It makes it easier to paint opponents of the legislation as somehow being advocates of bad medical practices, when the opposite is closer to the truth.

Last edited by Babbylonian; 5th October 2014 at 06:13 PM. Reason: Clarity/grammar
Babbylonian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2014, 07:10 PM   #128
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 31,823
Originally Posted by The_Animus View Post
Absolutely disgusting.
Conservatives like prosecuting women for having sex.
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2014, 11:04 PM   #129
Corsair 115
Penultimate Amazing
 
Corsair 115's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 14,519
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
Conservatives like prosecuting women for having sex.

Unless their the ones having sex with the women, that is. Then it's all hunky dory.
__________________
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve
to organize and measure the best of our abilities and skills, because that challenge is one we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and
one which we intend to win."
Corsair 115 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2014, 07:04 AM   #130
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Central Scrutinizer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 53,055
Originally Posted by Unabogie View Post
You've claimed to be one on this forum.
Evidence?
__________________
If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

Lupus is Lupus tor central scrutineezer
The Central Scrutinizer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2014, 07:05 AM   #131
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Central Scrutinizer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 53,055
Originally Posted by Unabogie View Post
I don't know. Isn't the point of the OP that Texas is passing laws that curtail freedoms? Shouldn't people at least try to address that point rather than picking at the wording?
The point of the OP is that abortions were banned in Texas. That is not true. If the OP wanted to address restrictions on abortion, I'm sure he would have done that.
__________________
If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

Lupus is Lupus tor central scrutineezer
The Central Scrutinizer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2014, 07:35 AM   #132
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 60,134
Has anyone provided data that shows that restricting abortions actually does anything other than impose hardship and barriers on women seeking to exercise their rights?

Is there any practical purpose to the new law?

State Facts About Abortion: Texas
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2014, 07:42 AM   #133
Unabogie
Philosopher
 
Unabogie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 9,692
Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer View Post
Evidence?
Oh, right. It's the new forum. That was the last forum.
__________________
Cleek's Law: Today’s conservatism is the opposite of what liberals want today, updated daily.

"Palin must now be considered the future of the Republican Party." ~ Brainster
Unabogie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2014, 07:42 AM   #134
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 60,134
Keep in mind that many if not most these so called "pro-life" people are against social services to care for poor children who are a result of an unwanted pregnancy.

Now if we could only bring back child labor laws.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2014, 07:45 AM   #135
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 60,134
Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer View Post
The point of the OP is that abortions were banned in Texas. That is not true.
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2014, 07:48 AM   #136
Unabogie
Philosopher
 
Unabogie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 9,692
Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer View Post
Evidence?
Oh, just because I have time, here you go.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ve#post7004368

Quote:
I have no idea what Teabaggers have to do with Liberals. Very little, suspect. As a conservative, I have many liberal friends, who I respect.
__________________
Cleek's Law: Today’s conservatism is the opposite of what liberals want today, updated daily.

"Palin must now be considered the future of the Republican Party." ~ Brainster
Unabogie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2014, 08:14 AM   #137
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 60,134
Originally Posted by Unabogie View Post
According to the OP, it just got much harder for women to exercise their freedom. Isn't that more important than scoring internet points for a self-described "conservative"?

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer View Post
I have no idea. You'd have to ask a "conservative".

Originally Posted by Unabogie View Post
You've claimed to be one on this forum.

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer View Post
Evidence?

Quote:
As a conservative, I have many liberal friends, who I respect.
Which is worse, to dissemble or to engage in hyperbole?

Those of us who are actively discussing the merits of the law are not hung up on the thread title.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2014, 08:28 AM   #138
Unabogie
Philosopher
 
Unabogie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 9,692
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
Which is worse, to dissemble or to engage in hyperbole?

Those of us who are actively discussing the merits of the law are not hung up on the thread title.
As a doctor, astronaut, and NBA superstar, I totally concur. Dissembling is the worst.
__________________
Cleek's Law: Today’s conservatism is the opposite of what liberals want today, updated daily.

"Palin must now be considered the future of the Republican Party." ~ Brainster
Unabogie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2014, 08:37 AM   #139
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 60,134
Originally Posted by Unabogie View Post
As a doctor, astronaut, and NBA superstar, I totally concur. Dissembling is the worst.
Have you heard Jim Jefferies "as a christian" segment? It starts @ 1:28

NSFW

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2014, 10:18 AM   #140
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 31,823
Originally Posted by Corsair 115 View Post
Unless their the ones having sex with the women, that is. Then it's all hunky dory.
Not even. They'll still blame the woman if some consequence comes of it
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2014, 12:52 PM   #141
Sherman Bay
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posts: 2,353
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
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!"
Sherman Bay is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2014, 01:52 PM   #142
Kestrel
Philosopher
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 6,152
Texas could follow Colorado's lead and provide free contraception to sexually active teenagers if they really wanted to cut the abortion rate.
Kestrel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2014, 05:43 PM   #143
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 31,823
Originally Posted by Kestrel View Post
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.
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2014, 12:31 PM   #144
xjx388
Moderator
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,076
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?
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2014, 02:05 PM   #145
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 60,134
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
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.
Quote:
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
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2014, 03:00 PM   #146
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 11,810
It's interesting that Roe v. Wade turned on the issue of privacy. Ironically it involved a case in Texas.
Quote:
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.
newyorkguy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2014, 04:38 PM   #147
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 31,823
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
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?
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2014, 07:52 PM   #148
xjx388
Moderator
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,076
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.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2014, 08:04 PM   #149
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 60,134
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
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.

Quote:
There is no clear scientific answer to this moral question.
Yes there is. A pregnant woman can think and feel. Sperm and ovum cannot.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
I think the comparison to obscenity is apt.
No, it's silly BS to compare the two.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2014, 08:22 PM   #150
Sherman Bay
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posts: 2,353
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
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.
Sherman Bay is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2014, 08:46 PM   #151
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 11,810
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
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.
newyorkguy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2014, 08:47 PM   #152
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 53,836
Originally Posted by Sherman Bay View Post
If "murder" is your only criterion, how do you feel about these "murders"?
This should be fun.
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Last edited by theprestige; 7th October 2014 at 08:51 PM.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2014, 08:55 PM   #153
cosmicaug
Graduate Poster
 
cosmicaug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,532
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
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".
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
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).

Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
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.
__________________
--
August Pamplona
cosmicaug is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2014, 09:41 PM   #154
Sherman Bay
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posts: 2,353
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
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?

Last edited by Sherman Bay; 7th October 2014 at 09:51 PM. Reason: typo
Sherman Bay is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2014, 10:09 PM   #155
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 53,836
Originally Posted by Sherman Bay View Post
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.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2014, 03:57 AM   #156
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 60,134
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
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).
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

Last edited by RandFan; 8th October 2014 at 04:17 AM.
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2014, 08:38 AM   #157
Sherman Bay
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posts: 2,353
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
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."

Quote:
What, to you, makes killing an enemy soldier in battle "murder"?
Jack, you dead.

Quote:
What, to you, makes euthanasia "murder"?
Jack, you dead.

Quote:
What, to you, makes executing someone who committed a heinous crime "murder"?
Jack, you dead.

Quote:
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.

Last edited by Sherman Bay; 8th October 2014 at 08:43 AM. Reason: better Jordan quote
Sherman Bay is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2014, 05:13 PM   #158
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 53,836
Originally Posted by Sherman Bay View Post
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?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2014, 05:59 PM   #159
mortimer
NWO Janitor
 
mortimer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,518
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
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?
__________________
"why would i bother?" - Bikerdruid, on providing evidence for his claims
"I view hamas as an organization fighting for the freedom of its people." - Bikerdruid
mortimer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2014, 06:53 PM   #160
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 60,134
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
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.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:26 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.