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 9th October 2014, 12:01 PM   #161
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 16,432
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
Well the conservatives won in Texas. Abortion is now banned in the state.
First, let me say *sigh*

Second, let me say: This is stupid annoying invasive legislation and the people in charge of Texas are jerks.

Finally, let me say: thaiboxerken, your statement is factually wrong. Please refrain from making factually wrong statements that appear to be solely for the purpose for starting flamewars and tugging at heartstrings because... well... it's not particularly rational, and it makes people like me who are nearly neurotic about exactness lose our shirts. It's effectively dirty politics. As is evidenced by four pages of distraction about the fact that what you led with was demonstrably false.
__________________
The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian
Emily's Cat 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 9th October 2014, 09:10 PM   #162
xjx388
Moderator
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,062
I think it's obvious that killing isn't always murder. The elements of murder are laid out in the law which is defined by society.

If I kill you and you are not a threat to me, our countries aren't at war and it wasn't accidental, then it will likely be considered murder. So it's not that much of a stretch to consider an act where a human being is killed simply because they aren't wanted as murder.
__________________
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 9th October 2014, 09:54 PM   #163
SezMe
post-pre-born
Moderator
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 25,178
Originally Posted by bynmdsue View Post
Kermit Gosnell had a flea infested cat wandering his clinic leaving its feces on the floor. Sure that was the least of his crimes but wouldn't that appear to be perhaps symptomatic of the larger problems? People that don't care about cat **** probably don't care about basic sanitation or sterilization. Maintaining surgery-style standards might go a long way to cutting down on MRSA on any number of other infections that could occur. Or is the important thing to simply terminate the pregnancy and to Hell with the woman's health?
If you get to use Gosnell's clinic as the standard for all PPA clinics, then I get to use Larry Pratt as the standard for all gun owners. Deal?
SezMe 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 10th October 2014, 07:05 AM   #164
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 60,134
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
I think it's obvious that killing isn't always murder. The elements of murder are laid out in the law which is defined by society.

If I kill you and you are not a threat to me, our countries aren't at war and it wasn't accidental, then it will likely be considered murder. So it's not that much of a stretch to consider an act where a human being is killed simply because they aren't wanted as murder.
No one is advocating killing human beings.
  • You mention the law. Legally a fetus isn't anything close to a human being until it has reached the stage of viability.
  • Scientifically a fetus isn't a human being anymore than sperm and ovum are human beings.
__________________
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 10th October 2014, 07:19 AM   #165
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 11,799
  • Scientifically a fetus isn't a human being anymore than sperm and ovum are human beings.

This line of reasoning is rejected by people who reject science itself. Science has become a political issue. We're revisiting issues from the 19th century!
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 10th October 2014, 09:16 AM   #166
Dessi
Species Traitor
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Omaha, NE
Posts: 3,615
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
No one is advocating killing human beings.
  • You mention the law. Legally a fetus isn't anything close to a human being until it has reached the stage of viability.
  • Scientifically a fetus isn't a human being anymore than sperm and ovum are human beings.
I believe abortion should be permitted I reject the argument that "a fetus isn't a human being". Of course it is. Taxonomic classification has nothing to do with someone's stage of development or "viability".

It is killing a human being. However, the argument "abortion is wrong because it takes a human life" assumes that fetuses, by virtue of being in one particular taxonomic group and not another, have some kind of unexplained intrinsic value. That's an incredible assumption which unfortunately isn't justified by anything. There's no basis for the view that any single taxonomic group has an inherent 'moral advantage' over any other group, similar to the way that no ethnic or racial grouping (however they are defined) has an inherent advantage of any other. Knowing that a fetus belongs to my taxonomic group instead of another communicates exactly no information needed to make an argument for or against abortion.
__________________
>^.^<

Last edited by Dessi; 10th October 2014 at 09:32 AM.
Dessi 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 10th October 2014, 09:53 AM   #167
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 31,785
Dessi, a human being is an individual human life with sapience. A fetus is a human life, but not a being.
__________________
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 10th October 2014, 09:57 AM   #168
Dessi
Species Traitor
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Omaha, NE
Posts: 3,615
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
Dessi, a human being is an individual human life with sapience. A fetus is a human life, but not a being.
I'm a native English speaker but I don't understand your comments. What does "with sapience" mean?

And you are using the word "being" in a way I've never heard before, I assumed a "being" as a noun is something that exists, thought to exist, or represented as existing (i.e. cats are beings, but abstract objects like numbers are not). Fetuses exist, but aren't beings? I can't parse that.
__________________
>^.^<

Last edited by Dessi; 10th October 2014 at 10:04 AM.
Dessi 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 10th October 2014, 10:33 AM   #169
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 60,134
Originally Posted by Dessi View Post
I believe abortion should be permitted I reject the argument that "a fetus isn't a human being". Of course it is. Taxonomic classification has nothing to do with someone's stage of development or "viability".
What is the taxonomic classification of human sperm? Human ovum? What is the taxonomic classification of human skin cells? They are human. If they are living then they are human life. Like sperm and ovum, a fetus is human life. It's not a human being.

Just because something is classified as human and just because it is living does not make it a human being.

Quote:
It is killing a human being. However, the argument "abortion is wrong because it takes a human life" assumes that fetuses, by virtue of being in one particular taxonomic group and not another, have some kind of unexplained intrinsic value. That's an incredible assumption which unfortunately isn't justified by anything. There's no basis for the view that any single taxonomic group has an inherent 'moral advantage' over any other group, similar to the way that no ethnic or racial grouping (however they are defined) has an inherent advantage of any other. Knowing that a fetus belongs to my taxonomic group instead of another communicates exactly no information needed to make an argument for or against abortion.
I make no such assumptions.

What makes us intrinsically human beings is our ability to appreciate our existence, to think, to suffer, to experience joy, to have hope for the future, to fear for the future. We value our life and so we want to protect our life. We suffer when others suffer so we want to protect others. This is what makes us moral agents and together all of these are the attributes that make us human beings.

As for other taxonomic groups. I make no such assumptions. I don't place value on living human skin cells simply because they are genetically human. I also don't think a chimp should be able to be used for vivisection simply because it is not a human being. I value all living things but most importantly I value and want to protect those living things that can think and feel and are capable of suffering. Including non-humans. I think it important we consider the variables that we share and find important. Is a particular animal self aware? Can it appreciate suffering? Is there an emotional component to its pain? Does it have the cognitive machinery to appreciate its life? Those are the reasons we protect others. Not because of their DNA. If species of creatures were found to have the exact same attributes as humans but did not share our DNA I would still happily call them human. I'm happy to call myself an primate and I value the lives of other primates.

One of these things is not like the others.

__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

Last edited by RandFan; 10th October 2014 at 10:38 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 10th October 2014, 10:43 AM   #170
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 60,134
Originally Posted by Dessi View Post
I'm a native English speaker but I don't understand your comments. What does "with sapience" mean?

And you are using the word "being" in a way I've never heard before, I assumed a "being" as a noun is something that exists, thought to exist, or represented as existing (i.e. cats are beings, but abstract objects like numbers are not). Fetuses exist, but aren't beings? I can't parse that.
Equivocation. Terms often don't lend themselves to reductionism. To be a human being is not simply to have human DNA.

Originally Posted by Encyclopedia Britannica
human being (Homo sapiens), a culture-bearing primate that is anatomically similar and related to the other great apes but is distinguished by a more highly developed brain and a resultant capacity for articulate speech and abstract reasoning.
__________________
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 10th October 2014, 11:08 AM   #171
Dessi
Species Traitor
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Omaha, NE
Posts: 3,615
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
What makes us intrinsically human beings is our ability to appreciate our existence, to think, to suffer, to experience joy, to have hope for the future, to fear for the future. We value our life and so we want to protect our life. We suffer when others suffer so we want to protect others. This is what makes us moral agents and together all of these are the attributes that make us human beings.
Ok, so human beings are humans who have important moral characteristics (ability to suffer, experience their lives, thought, moral agency) that fetuses do not. The terminology is super confusing because it contains a lot of asterisks and implied characteristics that aren't at all obvious from context. But I understand your comment now, and I agree that abortion destroys a life which is not a being (i.e. has no morally relevant characteristics in common with adult humans).

Code:
HumanBeing human = (HumanBeing)(new Fetus()); // ClassCastException thrown here
// TODO: maybe use AbstractFetusFactory instead?
__________________
>^.^<

Last edited by Dessi; 10th October 2014 at 11:36 AM. Reason: Sorry, it's been a really slow work day
Dessi 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 10th October 2014, 11:28 AM   #172
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 60,134
Originally Posted by Dessi View Post
Ok, so human beings are humans who have important moral characteristics (ability to suffer, experience their lives, thought, moral agency) that fetuses do not. The terminology is super confusing because it contains a lot of asterisks and implied characteristics that aren't at all obvious from context. But I understand your comment now, and I agree that abortion destroys a life which is not a being (i.e. has no morally relevant characteristics in common with adult humans).
And to be sure there is no bright and shinny line. Life is a continuum. At what point does the fetus become a human being? Such a question is fraught with philosophical, moral and legal land mines. I have no illusions that this is anything but a quandary that we might never fully understand. FWIW: I was a former pro-life activist. I went to meetings. Past out literature, wrote to news papers, called radio programs and wrote letters to politicians, abortion is something that stirs my moral sense. Contrary to what my arguments might make it seem, I don't take abortion lightly and would never presume to tell any woman if she should or should not have an abortion. My heart goes out to those women who must wrestle with such a decision. I do not judge them and I think our society would be better if we made it clear that ultimately its the quality of life and health of the mother that is most sacrosanct in this discussion. Far too often it gets down to a debate about when "life" begins. Let's not forget the life of the mother.

Thanks Dessi.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

Last edited by RandFan; 10th October 2014 at 11:32 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 10th October 2014, 02:59 PM   #173
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 8,258
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
At what point does the fetus become a human being?
Scientifically speaking? About a year after birth. That's when babies begin to pass things like the mirror test (demonstrating self-awareness), and start showing language, empathy and other abilities generally regarded as higher-order. They may have desires and personalities before then, but so do most animals.
Beelzebuddy 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 10th October 2014, 03:21 PM   #174
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 60,134
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
Scientifically speaking? About a year after birth. That's when babies begin to pass things like the mirror test (demonstrating self-awareness), and start showing language, empathy and other abilities generally regarded as higher-order. They may have desires and personalities before then, but so do most animals.
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 12th October 2014, 09:27 PM   #175
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
A lot of texans need to suck on the undercarriages of a tribe of rabid weasels.
fuelair 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 12th October 2014, 09:38 PM   #176
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
Scientifically speaking? About a year after birth. That's when babies begin to pass things like the mirror test (demonstrating self-awareness), and start showing language, empathy and other abilities generally regarded as higher-order. They may have desires and personalities before then, but so do most animals.
When RocketGirl was about 4 months old I walked up to RocketBoy1.0 and rested her on top of his head and said "Baby on your head!" RocketGirl burst out laughing. So I'd say even the one year mark is variable. Some kids "wake up" earlier than others.
Jrrarglblarg 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 12th October 2014, 09:39 PM   #177
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
Oooops

Last edited by fuelair; 12th October 2014 at 09:40 PM.
fuelair 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 13th October 2014, 07:08 AM   #178
xjx388
Moderator
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,062
But surely you realize that YOU are drawing lines where you feel comfortable doing so? Your lines are not really based on science. They are based on your own moral compass.

My point is simply that if a community decides to draw a different line than you do through it's democratic process, how is that necessarily and obviously wrong? If a majority of citizens decide that a certain act is murder, it isn't tyranny of the majority to prosecute people for committing that act. For example, many States do not have "stand your ground" laws, which means you must retreat if possible. So a murder in one jurisdiction is not a murder in another. Those lines are up to each citizenry to draw through their legislatures.

A fetus is a human being in the earliest stages of development. It is complete, just not fully grown. As someone said earlier, a newborn infant might not even be considered a "human being" given that it has no self-awareness, sapience or ability to support itself. You could make a case that a 1 year old isn't fully human because it can't even feed itself; if you leave it alone, it will die. As you admit, there is no bright line and if one jurisdiction decides to draw a line in one area that is more conservative than another, then I think that is their right as a separate jurisdiction.

And to adress a point made by several people here: A fetus is fundamentally different, scientifically, from a sperm or ovum. To say otherwise is just . . . something else.
__________________
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 13th October 2014, 07:29 AM   #179
Donn
Philosopher
 
Donn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In my head.
Posts: 7,758
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
A fetus is a human being in the earliest stages of development. It is complete, just not fully grown.
Complete equivocation.

Quote:
.. if one jurisdiction decides to draw a line in one area that is more conservative than another, then I think that is their right as a separate jurisdiction.
And women should be encouraged to flee that jurisdiction, leaving it to stagnate in its beloved red tape.
__________________
"If I hadn't believed it with my own mind, I would never have seen it." - thanks sackett
"If you stand on a piece of paper, you are indeed closer to the moon." - MRC_Hans
"I was a believer. Until I saw it." - Magrat
Donn 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 13th October 2014, 08:02 AM   #180
Unabogie
Philosopher
 
Unabogie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 9,692
Originally Posted by Dessi View Post
Ok, so human beings are humans who have important moral characteristics (ability to suffer, experience their lives, thought, moral agency) that fetuses do not. The terminology is super confusing because it contains a lot of asterisks and implied characteristics that aren't at all obvious from context. But I understand your comment now, and I agree that abortion destroys a life which is not a being (i.e. has no morally relevant characteristics in common with adult humans).

Code:
HumanBeing human = (HumanBeing)(new Fetus()); // ClassCastException thrown here
// TODO: maybe use AbstractFetusFactory instead?
Ok, just chiming in to say that I disagree with your basic premise, but love the use of code to make your point. I too wish arguments could be made with code. We could just unit test the whole forum and declare that it passed all tests and is free of logical fallacy bugs.

__________________
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 13th October 2014, 08:22 AM   #181
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 11,799
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
But surely you realize that YOU are drawing lines where you feel comfortable doing so? Your lines are not really based on science. They are based on your own moral compass.

My point is simply that if a community decides to draw a different line than you do through it's democratic process, how is that necessarily and obviously wrong? <snip>
How is it wrong? Because the Supreme Court decided that women have a Constitutional right to abortion. Your community doesn't get the right to deny citizens their Constitutional rights because they're ones you don't happen to like. How about if your community decides to resegregate? How about if your community decides freedom of speech is totally overblown and unnecessary? Should you have the right to implement racial segregation and deny freedom of speech?

Finally, and I suspect you'll ignore this, how did Texas decide "through it's democratic process" to require abortion clinics to have admitting privileges at local hospitals? There was a referendum? The community voted on it? It seems to have been passed by the legislature primarily through lobbying by a special interest group. By the same special interest groups who have been attacking abortion all across the USA by requiring clinics to get admitting privileges at hospitals. Not because it's been shown to be necessary but because hospitals have shown they want to stay out of the abortion controversy. It's a tactic. In many conservative areas it has been highly effective in putting abortion clinics out of business, thereby denying local women their Constitutional right to seek an 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 13th October 2014, 07:44 PM   #182
xjx388
Moderator
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,062
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
How is it wrong? Because the Supreme Court decided that women have a Constitutional right to abortion.
OK, sure . . . but their ruling applies only under the circumstances they were asked to judge. If a State were to adopt a law that, say, defined a fetus after 12 weeks as a person, that might pass muster.
Quote:
Your community doesn't get the right to deny citizens their Constitutional rights because they're ones you don't happen to like.
Not because they simply don't like something but because they find it so objectionable that it is worthy of criminalizing; like strip bars in McAllen.

Of course, you are also overlooking extra-legislative measures that a community can take. What if no doctor in a rural community wants to perform abortions because they either object to them themselves or fear reprisals from their small community?
Quote:
How about if your community decides to resegregate?
There is no compelling government interest in doing so. It wouldn't pass strict scrutiny. In the case of abortion, the compelling interest is protection of human life. If a fetus is legislatively made a person, then that person deserves protection.
Quote:
How about if your community decides freedom of speech is totally overblown and unnecessary?
Speech is curtailed in many ways when there is a compelling government interest. Fire in a theater, libel and slander, etc.
Quote:
Finally, and I suspect you'll ignore this, how did Texas decide "through it's democratic process" to require abortion clinics to have admitting privileges at local hospitals?
Through electing a legislature that would be likely to do such a thing.
Quote:
There was a referendum? The community voted on it?
The community elected legislators who are very conservative. They used the legislative process in Texas to pass the law.
Quote:
It seems to have been passed by the legislature primarily through lobbying by a special interest group. By the same special interest groups who have been attacking abortion all across the USA by requiring clinics to get admitting privileges at hospitals.
Special interest groups? You mean groups of citizens who get together to try and get their interests represented? That's the way the American form of government works. I don't see a problem here . . .
Quote:
Not because it's been shown to be necessary but because hospitals have shown they want to stay out of the abortion controversy. It's a tactic. In many conservative areas it has been highly effective in putting abortion clinics out of business, thereby denying local women their Constitutional right to seek an abortion.
So hospitals are responding to the community? That sounds exactly like what I'm getting at.
__________________
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 13th October 2014, 07:55 PM   #183
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 31,785
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Of course, you are also overlooking extra-legislative measures that a community can take. What if no doctor in a rural community wants to perform abortions because they either object to them themselves or fear reprisals from their small community?
You mean, like in Kansas, where they kill abortion doctors? Is that a good thing? Are you advocating vigilantism?

That's not a right, it is a distortion of a civilized society. Of course, I'm not surprised that conservatives really don't care for the rule of law. Any means to the ends of what they want.
__________________
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.

Last edited by thaiboxerken; 13th October 2014 at 07:56 PM.
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 13th October 2014, 08:08 PM   #184
xjx388
Moderator
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,062
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
You mean, like in Kansas, where they kill abortion doctors? Is that a good thing? Are you advocating vigilantism?
Absolutely not. But in a community where feelings run strong on the matter it is a consideration for doctors.

Quote:
That's not a right, it is a distortion of a civilized society. Of course, I'm not surprised that conservatives really don't care for the rule of law. Any means to the ends of what they want.
I mentioned pickets and boycotts. Those are the means to an end I was thinking of . . . they happen regularly here in my town. And now they've succeeded in driving away the last abortion clinic. There's no reason an abortion clinic couldn't operate here under the current law; it's all about community pressure. No murder necessary.
__________________
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 13th October 2014, 09:02 PM   #185
cosmicaug
Graduate Poster
 
cosmicaug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,497
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Absolutely not. But in a community where feelings run strong on the matter it is a consideration for doctors.
I absolutely don't advocate vigilante action against businesses that don't serve blacks separately from whites but in a community where feelings run strongly on the matter it is a consideration for business owners.
__________________
--
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 13th October 2014, 09:47 PM   #186
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 11,799
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
<snip> Of course, you are also overlooking extra-legislative measures that a community can take. What if no doctor in a rural community wants to perform abortions because they either object to them themselves or fear reprisals from their small community?
Overlooking it? I have stated repeatedly -- as you're clearly demonstrating here -- that is the real rationale for requiring abortion clinics to gain hospital affiliation. That communities can then make life so miserable for the hospitals that they decline to allow a clinic to have admitting rights. Earlier you stated that if a clinic wouldn't undertake the upgrades necessary to comply with the Texas law they should be closed. I asked you what those upgrades were. You never answered. I'm suggesting there are no real upgrades, that it's all a political tactic that is backed up by, as you make so clear, the threat of reprisals to the hospital. Who can blame them? Your side has KILLED doctors over this. This is no parlor game.


Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
So hospitals are responding to the community? That sounds exactly like what I'm getting at.
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
You mean, like in Kansas, where they kill abortion doctors? Is that a good thing? Are you advocating vigilantism?
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Absolutely not. But in a community where feelings run strong on the matter it is a consideration for doctors.
You may not be advocating it but it certainly sounds like you're condoning it. You want to outlaw abortion and you're comfortable with the threat of violence to achieve that. At least have the decency to own up to it.

Originally Posted by cosmicaug View Post
I absolutely don't advocate vigilante action against businesses that don't serve blacks separately from whites but in a community where feelings run strongly on the matter it is a consideration for business owners.
That's exactly what they said too. Back in that era a black activist named H. Rap Brown said that, "Violence is as American as apple pie." Still is.
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 14th October 2014, 05:55 PM   #187
xjx388
Moderator
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,062
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
Overlooking it? I have stated repeatedly -- as you're clearly demonstrating here -- that is the real rationale for requiring abortion clinics to gain hospital affiliation.
Looking more closely at the law, the clinics don't have to gain affiliation; the doctors have to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles. If my wife, for example, wanted to provide abortions (she doesn't) she could easily do so right now. We could rent a building that is currently available that conveniently used to be an ambulatory surgical center. Why doesn't Planned Parenthood do that?

The bigger problem is that not enough doctors here want to 1)Invest the money required to open a clinic and 2)Face the pickets that would ensue.
Quote:
That communities can then make life so miserable for the hospitals that they decline to allow a clinic to have admitting rights.
Just about every doctor in the community has admitting privileges. This is a non-issue.
Quote:
Earlier you stated that if a clinic wouldn't undertake the upgrades necessary to comply with the Texas law they should be closed. I asked you what those upgrades were. You never answered. I'm suggesting there are no real upgrades, that it's all a political tactic that is backed up by, as you make so clear, the threat of reprisals to the hospital. Who can blame them? Your side has KILLED doctors over this. This is no parlor game.
1)I personally support abortion rights. Thus, no one on "my side" has killed anyone. My only point is that States and local communities should have some say in what kinds of activities are legal or not if the restrictions pass strict scrutiny.

Do you think there is ever any reason to restrict otherwise legal activities? Alcohol sales? Gambling? Sexually oriented businesses? I can cross various City, County or State borders and engage in all of those activities under a wide variety of restrictions -or not at all . Why is abortion different?

2)The law requires clinics to meet the standards of ambulatory surgery clinics. Stuff like widening hallways and having certain equipment and capabilities. You can look them up if you want more detail. The point is that abortion clinics can upgrade their facilities if they want to operate. Abortion is a surgical procedure. I fail to see treating them as such as a bad thing. We did minor surgical procedures in our clinic and we had certain requirements that the Board, OSHA, etc placed on us. How is this different?

Quote:
You may not be advocating it but it certainly sounds like you're condoning it. You want to outlaw abortion and you're comfortable with the threat of violence to achieve that. At least have the decency to own up to it.
Calm down a little . I have never advocated violence and I am not condoning it now. It's abhorrent. Any abortion opponent who resorts to murder is hypocritical. But any doctor/clinic has to exist in the reality they are in and those things are concerns. Here in South Texas, there haven't been murders but there have been plenty of pickets. It's tough to do business like that, especially when most of the population is Catholic and abhors the practice.
Quote:
That's exactly what they said too. Back in that era a black activist named H. Rap Brown said that, "Violence is as American as apple pie." Still is.
It's human nature that when someone finds something abhorrent, they react violently. That isn't an exclusively American practice.
__________________
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 14th October 2014, 06:26 PM   #188
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 11,799
New Texas Abortion Law Blocked by SCOTUS

Today the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling blocking Texas' new abortion law and protecting the health of hundreds of thousands of Texas women.

Quote:
The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed more than a dozen Texas abortion clinics to reopen, blocking a state law that had imposed strict requirements on abortion providers. The Supreme Court’s order — five sentences long and with no explanation of the justices’ reasoning — represents an interim step in a legal fight that is far from over....One required all abortion clinics in the state to meet the standards for “ambulatory surgical centers,” including regulations concerning buildings, equipment and staffing. The other required doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.

The Supreme Court, in an unsigned order apparently reflecting the views of six justices, blocked the surgical-center requirement entirely and the admitting privileges requirement as it applied to clinics in McAllen, Tex., and El Paso. Link
Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said the final outcome was far from certain. "This fight against Texas’s sham abortion law is not over." She said the new law would've meant “over 900,000 Texas women of reproductive age, more than a sixth of all such women in Texas," would have lived more than 150 miles from the nearest Texas abortion clinic, an increase over the current 86,000. I agree it is clearly a sham law. If people want to deny women the right to have an abortion let them say so. I think it's beyond dishonest to pretend to be "protecting women's health" when the real motive is to deny them abortion services. Not because of safety concerns but because of philosophical differences.
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 14th October 2014, 06:42 PM   #189
xjx388
Moderator
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,062
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
Today the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling blocking Texas' new abortion law and protecting the health of hundreds of thousands of Texas women.



Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said the final outcome was far from certain. "This fight against Texas’s sham abortion law is not over." She said the new law would've meant “over 900,000 Texas women of reproductive age, more than a sixth of all such women in Texas," would have lived more than 150 miles from the nearest Texas abortion clinic, an increase over the current 86,000. I agree it is clearly a sham law. If people want to deny women the right to have an abortion let them say so. I think it's beyond dishonest to pretend to be "protecting women's health" when the real motive is to deny them abortion services. Not because of safety concerns but because of philosophical differences.
I'll ask again in another way . . . Why are philosophical differences not enough to base laws on? The only reason Texas has to have a "sham law" is because SCOTUS made it impossible for them to make a law based on the real rationale: valuing the human fetus as much as a human infant. You don't even need religion to have that rationale.
__________________
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 14th October 2014, 06:56 PM   #190
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 11,799
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
<snip>
Do you think there is ever any reason to restrict otherwise legal activities? Alcohol sales? Gambling? Sexually oriented businesses? I can cross various City, County or State borders and engage in all of those activities under a wide variety of restrictions -or not at all . Why is abortion different?
Why is abortion different? Because of Roe v Wade?

You claimed
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
<snip> There are plenty of hospitals nearby and there is no reason that abortion clinics couldn't meet the requirements. If the owners of those clinics choose not to invest in the relatively minor upgrades to meet the law, then there must be good economic reasons for that. <snip>
You claimed, contrary to all the statements coming from pro-choice groups, that the new law merely required minor upgrades, that it was all about economics. Now you're claiming it's about widening hallways.
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
The law requires clinics to meet the standards of ambulatory surgery clinics. Stuff like widening hallways and having certain equipment and capabilities. You can look them up if you want more detail.
That's not what I'm seeing in news reports and if you are you need to show some cite for it and not tell me to prove your claim. Or you can admit you were misinformed.
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 14th October 2014, 07:17 PM   #191
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 11,799
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
<snip> The law requires clinics to meet the standards of ambulatory surgery clinics. Stuff like widening hallways and having certain equipment and capabilities. <snip>
If the Texas law was really about "widening hallways" I have trouble believing the U.S. Supreme Court would have blocked it.
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 14th October 2014, 09:12 PM   #192
theprestige
Suspended
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 53,565
So has Texas banned abortions yet? Or can a woman whose life is endangered by her pregnancy still go into any hospital in the state and get one?
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 15th October 2014, 01:31 AM   #193
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Absolutely not. But in a community where feelings run strong on the matter it is a consideration for doctors.

I mentioned pickets and boycotts. Those are the means to an end I was thinking of . . . they happen regularly here in my town. And now they've succeeded in driving away the last abortion clinic. There's no reason an abortion clinic couldn't operate here under the current law; it's all about community pressure. No murder necessary.
I know I should not ask the name of your town, but I want to avoid it and others like it as if they were ebola centers. No funds, no purchasing, let them dry up and blow away. Since this is within the rules, I wish your town a slow strangling death.

Unfortunately (NOT) I do think every woman should have the absolute right to control her own body (note: there is no argument against this that can affect me - I came by it on the basis of finding out about abortion when I was around 10 (mid/early late 50's.) Haven't moved an inch since on that.
fuelair 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 15th October 2014, 01:38 AM   #194
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
Today the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling blocking Texas' new abortion law and protecting the health of hundreds of thousands of Texas women.



Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said the final outcome was far from certain. "This fight against Texas’s sham abortion law is not over." She said the new law would've meant “over 900,000 Texas women of reproductive age, more than a sixth of all such women in Texas," would have lived more than 150 miles from the nearest Texas abortion clinic, an increase over the current 86,000. I agree it is clearly a sham law. If people want to deny women the right to have an abortion let them say so. I think it's beyond dishonest to pretend to be "protecting women's health" when the real motive is to deny them abortion services. Not because of safety concerns but because of philosophical differences.
Though I hate saying this given the many evils allowed by 5 ******** on the formerly Supreme Court, but they made a proper decision on this - but I strongly suspect from their past foulness that they used wording in the decision that will allow it to become law easily with their treachery and complicity.
fuelair 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 15th October 2014, 01:39 AM   #195
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
Or, in short, protecting women's health my rectum!!!!!
fuelair 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 15th October 2014, 05:23 AM   #196
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 51,403
If you can't afford to drive a several hundred miles and take a few days off work you shouldn't be having sex. It is like those irresponsible people who choose not to buy health insurance even though they have a serious long term health problems despite pulling in 9000 a year.

They best die and decrease the worthless population. #Compassionateconservatism.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle 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 15th October 2014, 05:50 AM   #197
xjx388
Moderator
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,062
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
Why is abortion different? Because of Roe v Wade?
That could be overturned or bypassed with the right legislation. I'm asking more on a philosophical basis.

Quote:
You claimed

You claimed, contrary to all the statements coming from pro-choice groups, that the new law <snip>
I responded to the claims of the pro-choice groups that have been cited. I haven't seen any of them itemize the changes that need to be made and why they've decided not to pursue it. That's on them to show. I only say that the regulations in question, which are easily available online, are about physical structure and medical operations and would not require huge capital investments. They could simply lease one of the current buildings available that meets the requirements. That they don't tells me that there isn't much money in providing abortions in our area and thus, no incentive to spend even moderate amounts to continue doing business.

The real problem isn't that it's too expensive to upgrade, it's that Texas is a large, mostly rural State with a strong Conservative constituency. There aren't enough doctors willing to perform abortions and on top of that, not enough women who want abortions. And there aren't enough communities that will allow a "murder factory" to operate without interference.

There is nothing in Texas law that prevents OB-Gyns from performing abortions in a hospital setting. Why don't more doctors do that? Even before this law, any doctor could have performed abortions in their offices. Why didn't they? The answer to both questions is the same: Mostly because doctors have a moral objection to it. Abortions have never been easily available in Texas.

A woman might have a constitutional right to seek an abortion but no one can be forced to give her one.
__________________
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 15th October 2014, 07:16 AM   #198
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 51,403
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
That could be overturned or bypassed with the right legislation. I'm asking more on a philosophical basis.

I responded to the claims of the pro-choice groups that have been cited. I haven't seen any of them itemize the changes that need to be made and why they've decided not to pursue it. That's on them to show. I only say that the regulations in question, which are easily available online, are about physical structure and medical operations and would not require huge capital investments. They could simply lease one of the current buildings available that meets the requirements. That they don't tells me that there isn't much money in providing abortions in our area and thus, no incentive to spend even moderate amounts to continue doing business.

The real problem isn't that it's too expensive to upgrade, it's that Texas is a large, mostly rural State with a strong Conservative constituency. There aren't enough doctors willing to perform abortions and on top of that, not enough women who want abortions. And there aren't enough communities that will allow a "murder factory" to operate without interference.

There is nothing in Texas law that prevents OB-Gyns from performing abortions in a hospital setting. Why don't more doctors do that? Even before this law, any doctor could have performed abortions in their offices. Why didn't they? The answer to both questions is the same: Mostly because doctors have a moral objection to it. Abortions have never been easily available in Texas.

A woman might have a constitutional right to seek an abortion but no one can be forced to give her one.
Yep abortion is one of the few procedures you can let patients legally die from the want of. That is how catholic hospitals avoid providing proper treatment for ectopic pregnancy, because that is an abortion and those are never ok. Standards of care means nothing in the face of moral objections after all.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle 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 15th October 2014, 07:41 AM   #199
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 11,799
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
I responded to the claims of the pro-choice groups that have been cited. I haven't seen any of them itemize the changes that need to be made and why they've decided not to pursue it.
It is incredible to me that you continue to ignore this despite the fact it involves the very clinic you were so happy to see shutdown:
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
Quote:
Since November [2013], the last abortion clinics in East Texas and the Rio Grande Valley, some of the poorest and most remote parts of the state, have been hanging on by their fingernails. The two clinics, both outposts of a network of abortion providers called Whole Woman’s Health, stayed open with slimmed-down staffs while their owner, Amy Hagstrom Miller, struggled to comply with the first chunk of HB2—the voluminous anti-choice law passed by the Texas legislature last summer—which requires abortion doctors to obtain admitting privileges at a local hospital. Today, after weeks of failed negotiations with nearby hospitals, Hagstrom Miller announced that both clinics are closing their doors. The clinics in Beaumont, about an hour east of Houston, and McAllen, just north of the Mexico border in the Rio Grande Valley, were the last rural abortion providers left in Texas..

Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
I only say that the regulations in question, which are easily available online, are about physical structure and medical operations and would not require huge capital investments.
You keep referring to the regulations, now you're saying they're easily available online, yet you steadfastly refuse to even provide a link. This is the anybody can say anything if they don't have to back it up rule. In all honesty I keep insisting you provide something because I suspect if you start looking you'll discover the situation is not as you think it to be.
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 15th October 2014, 08:54 AM   #200
cosmicaug
Graduate Poster
 
cosmicaug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,497
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
There is nothing in Texas law that prevents OB-Gyns from performing abortions in a hospital setting. Why don't more doctors do that? Even before this law, any doctor could have performed abortions in their offices. Why didn't they? The answer to both questions is the same: Mostly because doctors have a moral objection to it. Abortions have never been easily available in Texas.
Hospital administrators have no say in the matter?
__________________
--
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
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 02:52 AM.
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.