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 27th October 2014, 03:30 AM   #281
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 51,403
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
I was in Dallas several years ago not long after the Texas law permitting women to leave a child at a firehouse -- no questions asked -- was passed. I was pleasantly surprised at the sensitivity local officials exhibited in terms of understanding the desperation that some young mothers obviously feel.

In fact while I was in Big D -- either on that trip or another -- a young woman was apprehended after she had murdered her infant child. It was a sad case. The woman was a low-wage earner who could barely support herself. The father, her boyfriend, ended their relationship as soon as he found out she was pregnant. When Dallas police took her for the 'perp walk' the woman seemed overwhelmed and distraught. Despite killing her infant it was very hard not to feel compassion for this woman.
Clearly the slut shouldn't have had sex. Abstinence only FTW!
__________________
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 27th October 2014, 03:34 AM   #282
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 51,403
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
It was probably a bad way to phrase it. I mean only that a fetus is not something that was artificially and forcibly attached to the mother by some third party*. It grows in her uterus through mostly-well-understood biological processes as a result of sexual intercourse. I'm not assigning a value judgement to its "naturalness." Cancer is natural, after all.





*Given that raped women who get pregnant can get 1)Emergency contraception and 2) a legal abortion within the constraints of the law, I won't get into those nuances.
Like patient who started to die that caused the Nun to be excommunicated, and fired, she should have known better than to go to a catholic hospital if she wanted to live. Once there you can't force them to abort the baby that is killing her. Best let the slut die after all, that is the most moral option 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 27th October 2014, 10:27 AM   #283
cosmicaug
Graduate Poster
 
cosmicaug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,497
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
*Given that raped women who get pregnant can get 1)Emergency contraception and 2) a legal abortion within the constraints of the law, I won't get into those nuances.
Sorry, you can't do that. I do not think that those "nuances" are so inconsequential as to be trivially dismissed like you are trying to do. In fact, given that you are the one person here arguing that alleged* local community standards should rule all, these "nuances" cut to the core of your argument. The ability to get an abortion is the very thing we were trying to discuss in the first place (whether a pregnancy is the result of a rape or not).

You can't say, when you are arguing that (given certain community standards) you shouldn't be able to get an abortion because no one is forcing an obligate parasite on you, that the case of rape is not relevant because you could just get an abortion. Following your original argument to its logical conclusion, raped women should not be able to get a legal abortion within the constraints of the law given non-permissive local community standards (regarding fetal personhood) any more than women who have not been raped.

In practice, your alleged obligation of the mother/incubator would be the same for the blameless rape victim as for the slut who has carelessly allowed herself to become parasitized. This is what you are arguing for given a certain set of "community standards". You are arguing that if local community standards make it difficult enough (because no hospitals want the unwanted attention of a minority of loud, anti-abortion activists and they will thus decline to either permit abortion on hospital grounds or to grant admission privileges to abortion clinic physicians) it's perfectly fine that some affected women are forced to go the DIY route. That community standards should rule supreme and that Roe v. Wade should be mostly irrelevant is the argument you are making (if you are not arguing for an actual "should" you are at least arguing that you have absolutely no problem with this being the case).

You can't simultaneously say that it's OK to punish the slut with a pregnancy because of fetal personhood because... you know,... community standards; but that abortion is OK for blameless rape victims.



* I write "alleged" because I feel that reducing the Texas situation to a case of 'the people have spoken', like you are attempting to do, is disingenuous at best given the backdoor nature of the measures that are effectively attempts at eliminating abortion services in Texas.
__________________
--
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 27th October 2014, 01:40 PM   #284
Minoosh
Penultimate Amazing
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 12,465
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Whatever risks exist in pregnancy are almost always due to pre-existing problems in the woman.
Where are you getting numbers to support this claim?
Minoosh 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 17th November 2015, 08:05 PM   #285
cosmicaug
Graduate Poster
 
cosmicaug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,497
Mother Jones: Up to 240,000 Women Have Tried to Give Themselves Abortions in Texas.
__________________
--
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 17th November 2015, 08:11 PM   #286
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by cosmicaug View Post
From the article:
A 2008 national study found that about 2 percent of women reported that they tried to terminate pregnancies on their own. In 2012, a year after Texas passed several new abortion restrictions, a study of Texas women seeking care at an abortion clinic found that about 7 percent reported attempting to end their pregnancies without medical assistance before seeking clinic care.

Reading that, it sounds like the women making the news were able to get abortions at abortion clinics after trying and failing on their own. Doesn't that put the lie to the idea that you can't get an abortion in Texas? The survey numbers come from abortion clinics.

It sounds like what I'd do when trying to save a couple bucks. Self treat first, and if that doesn't work, pay for a pro. With the availability of Plan B, it kinda makes sense.

ETA: I'm more suspicious of Momma Jones since that SJW rape kerfuffle in Rolling Stone. Maybe I shouldn't be. Also, if 7% of the women was 240,000, then the number of abortions performed in Texas would be on the order of 3 million. I had no idea abortion was so popular in Texas. I found one site that says there were 72,332 in Texas in 2011. If that's right, I don't understand where these numbers are coming from.

Last edited by marplots; 17th November 2015 at 08:19 PM.
marplots 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 17th November 2015, 09:30 PM   #287
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 31,785
Originally Posted by marplots View Post

Reading that, it sounds like the women making the news were able to get abortions at abortion clinics after trying and failing on their own. Doesn't that put the lie to the idea that you can't get an abortion in Texas?
Yes. However, intelligent people understand that it is much, much harder to get an abortion so that is why the number is increasing.
__________________
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 17th November 2015, 09:39 PM   #288
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,087
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
Yes. However, intelligent people understand that it is much, much harder to get an abortion so that is why the number is increasing.
How is Roe v Wade any different than Heller v DC or McDonald v Chicago?

IIRC you have no objection to restrictions on 2nd amendment rights enacted by state/local jurisdictions.
BStrong 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 17th November 2015, 09:41 PM   #289
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 41,468
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
From the article:
A 2008 national study found that about 2 percent of women reported that they tried to terminate pregnancies on their own. In 2012, a year after Texas passed several new abortion restrictions, a study of Texas women seeking care at an abortion clinic found that about 7 percent reported attempting to end their pregnancies without medical assistance before seeking clinic care.

Reading that, it sounds like the women making the news were able to get abortions at abortion clinics after trying and failing on their own. Doesn't that put the lie to the idea that you can't get an abortion in Texas? The survey numbers come from abortion clinics.

It sounds like what I'd do when trying to save a couple bucks. Self treat first, and if that doesn't work, pay for a pro. With the availability of Plan B, it kinda makes sense.

ETA: I'm more suspicious of Momma Jones since that SJW rape kerfuffle in Rolling Stone. Maybe I shouldn't be. Also, if 7% of the women was 240,000, then the number of abortions performed in Texas would be on the order of 3 million. I had no idea abortion was so popular in Texas. I found one site that says there were 72,332 in Texas in 2011. If that's right, I don't understand where these numbers are coming from.
Well, the reporting is sloppy, maybe intentionally so, but the number does not refer to any single year. The question was worded so that people responded based on their life experience. Have you ever known someone... have you ever...

It also doesn't account for the X% who knew someone who'd attempted to end their own pregnancy who may have known the same person.

But if they're asking reproductive age females, that broad a question could apply to 20/25 years of experience. It also doesn't say what, exactly, they did? Drink lemon juice in a graveyard at midnight. Pray to the big sky daddy? Morning after concoctions? Etc....
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz 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 18th November 2015, 12:23 PM   #290
xjx388
Moderator
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,062
So a year after the supposed ban on abortions in Texas, women can still legally get abortions in Texas? What's up with that?
__________________
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 18th November 2015, 12:41 PM   #291
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 31,785
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
So a year after the supposed ban on abortions in Texas, women can still legally get abortions in Texas? What's up with that?
Nice way to miss the point. Good job.
__________________
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 21st November 2015, 12:55 PM   #292
Darth Rotor
Salted Sith Cynic
 
Darth Rotor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 38,527
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
Nice way to miss the point. Good job.
Nice way to miss his point on a dishonest thread title. (Well, I think that was his point, but I may have missed it).
__________________
Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission.
"Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis
Darth Rotor 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 24th November 2015, 03:53 AM   #293
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 25,688
Planned Parenthood is suing Texas over attempts to block Medicaid payments.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate 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 26th November 2015, 10:06 PM   #294
Dog Town
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,862
So, not banned! Got it!
Dog Town 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 26th November 2015, 11:33 PM   #295
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 31,785
Originally Posted by Dog Town View Post
So, not banned! Got it!
San Francisco didn't ban gun sales either.
__________________
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 3rd December 2015, 05:54 AM   #296
Beerina
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
 
Beerina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 30,660
Originally Posted by Dessi View Post
Another approach to the discussion, besides the pointless argument whether the word "human" includes fetuses or skin cells, is that laws against abortion are inconsistent with the view that people own their bodies, in so far that there is no other circumstance where one person is entitled to the blood, organs, and body of another person.

This is true despite kinship: no laws compels a parent to donate bone marrow, by virtue of being their parent.

And true despite medical need: no laws compel a parent to donate bone marrow, even if their child's life depended on it.

And true despite cause: no law compels a parent to donate their body parts to their child, even if that parents action or inaction (e.g. abuse, accident, genetic disorder) were the reason for their child needing some body part in the first place.

And true despite duration: no law compels a parent to donate a kidney to their child, even on the condition that they will get the kidney back in 9 months or so.

And true despite someone already using your body: if you woke up and discovered another person were hooked up to your body, using you as living dialysis machine, no law compels you to remain hooked together without your permission.

But laws against abortion, which grant unborn children (but not born children) a right to use their mothers blood and organs without her consent, do not make sense in a moral or legal framework where my bodily autonomy takes precedence over whatever life-saving-or-otherwise advantage another may gain by using it.

That's a problem and it needs to be addressed.

Pro-choicers address the problem by conceding that laws against abortion are not consistent with every other accepted norm concerning people using others blood and organs.

Pro-lifers fall back on the view that pregnancy be treated differently, which is special pleading. They might dispute this on the basis that removing a fetus is fatal and infringes on the fetuses bodily integrity; but pro-lifers do not carry that view over to born persons, as there is almost never a circumstance where they argue that mothers ought to be compelled to give up their blood and organs to their born children. We're right back to special pleading again.

In the case of abortion, the vast majority of pregnancies are more like your example where you wake up with someone attached to your body, except you went to sleep in a bed where you knew there was a good chance of it.

In that case, one could argue an implied contract, and that you can no more walk out than a surgeon can walk out in the middle of a heart operation.

I think the proper reasoning is that you control your reproduction and can terminate it because the fetus is not a conscious human, and thus has no rights.
__________________
"Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson

The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales now! More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?
Beerina 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 21st January 2016, 11:40 PM   #297
cosmicaug
Graduate Poster
 
cosmicaug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,497
http://www.vox.com/2016/1/21/10808706/women-texas-abortion-hb2-clinics-study
__________________
--
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 22nd January 2016, 12:24 AM   #298
Chuck Guiteau
Graduate Poster
 
Chuck Guiteau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 1,846
I'm solidly pro-choice in the matter, even though my ex-wife had one without my knowledge (I didn't find out until 20 or so years after we were divorced, when my ex-sister-in-law dropped a dime on her).
I do wonder if there should be some sort of cut off, however. I can see during the first trimester without question, but how about when the fetus is viable ( as in the last few weeks or whatever)? I honestly don't know.
Chuck Guiteau 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 22nd January 2016, 01:18 AM   #299
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 32,369
Originally Posted by Chuck Guiteau View Post
I do wonder if there should be some sort of cut off, however. I can see during the first trimester without question, but how about when the fetus is viable ( as in the last few weeks or whatever)? I honestly don't know.
I think that most countries do have a limit on the age of foetus that can be aborted and that this is based on the age at which foetuses are viable. Advances in medical science have meant that the limits may need to be revised.

In the UK the limit is (was ?) 24 weeks but there was comparatively recent pressure to reduce this to 20 weeks:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/heal...mit-QandA.html

That said, as the article mentions, survival rates for 23 week foetuses have not improved so the whole exercise could have been a "slippery slope" argument by anti-choice proponents.
The Don 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 22nd January 2016, 03:30 AM   #300
Innocuous
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 112
Originally Posted by Chuck Guiteau View Post
I do wonder if there should be some sort of cut off, however. I can see during the first trimester without question, but how about when the fetus is viable ( as in the last few weeks or whatever)? I honestly don't know.
I also don't know what the right cut-off is, but I don't like using viability since it depends on technology. What happens when technology makes a fertilized egg almost immediately viable?
Innocuous 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 23rd January 2016, 04:00 PM   #301
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 18,941
Originally Posted by Chuck Guiteau View Post
I'm solidly pro-choice in the matter, even though my ex-wife had one without my knowledge (I didn't find out until 20 or so years after we were divorced, when my ex-sister-in-law dropped a dime on her).
...
Do you wonder who the father was?
__________________
Any sufficiently advanced idea is indistinguishable from idiocy to those who don't actually understanding the concept.
casebro 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 23rd January 2016, 04:40 PM   #302
Minoosh
Penultimate Amazing
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 12,465
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
So a year after the supposed ban on abortions in Texas, women can still legally get abortions in Texas? What's up with that?
Did you ever find the source I asked for?
Minoosh 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 2nd March 2016, 09:08 PM   #303
cosmicaug
Graduate Poster
 
cosmicaug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,497
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
Did you ever find the source I asked for?
A month later, I'm guessing not.
__________________
--
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 2nd March 2016, 09:09 PM   #304
cosmicaug
Graduate Poster
 
cosmicaug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,497
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/02/ruth_bader_ginsburg_asks_the_most_important_questi on_of_oral_arguments_in.html
__________________
--
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 2nd March 2016, 10:15 PM   #305
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 90,482
Originally Posted by cosmicaug View Post
So the question is, will Kennedy, who has voted ignorantly in the last 20 of 21 abortion decisions, including holding the false belief that because women might regret their decision later (ignoring this could apply to any surgical procedure decision) he should support some oppressive pro-life position, will be swayed by the reasonable arguments on the court now that Scalia's pro-life rationalizations are absent and make a better informed choice?

Let's hope so. Let's hope we don't need a fifth liberal, we only need rational arguments without Scalia's irrational but persuasive influence.
Skeptic Ginger 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 2nd March 2016, 10:19 PM   #306
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 8,129
Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
150 miles is a very long way for anyone without a solid car and/or without the ability to take time off work (assuming they have a job in the first place). Hell, it's been years since I went more than 100 miles away from my home.
It's a long, long way even for people with a decent car... and only 9 out of 10? That's openly admitting that they're still putting quite the significant potential burden on a LOT of women.

Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
Besides, one would think Republicans would line up against this law. It's unnecessary government regulation and it's anti-business.
Yeah... I've long since ceased to buy the line that Republicans actually support those things in anything more than name. Similar, much less nice sounding things, perhaps, but not those.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 2nd March 2016 at 10:28 PM.
Aridas 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 2nd March 2016, 11:26 PM   #307
Ladewig
I lost an avatar bet.
 
Ladewig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 28,231
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
It's a long, long way even for people with a decent car... and only 9 out of 10? That's openly admitting that they're still putting quite the significant potential burden on a LOT of women.
Today, they said that 25% of women would live more than 100 miles away from an abortion clinic if the new law is enforced.
__________________
I lost an avatar bet to Doghouse Reilly.
Ladewig 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 2nd March 2016, 11:44 PM   #308
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,203
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
It's a long, long way even for people with a decent car
Nah, it's a 2.5 - 3 hour drive, not that bad with a decent car and the US highway system, less if the speed limits are 70mph rather then 60mph.

Quote:
That's openly admitting that they're still putting quite the significant potential burden on a LOT of women.
Quite agree with this, it's ridiculous that they have to travel so far. I used to have to travel 170 miles to see my Optometrist though, so I don't consider 150 that far at all.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf 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 3rd March 2016, 02:54 AM   #309
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
What's a reasonable distance to travel to get an abortion?
marplots 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 3rd March 2016, 03:36 AM   #310
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,203
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
What's a reasonable distance to travel to get an abortion?
Depends how far away the nearest Doctor's clinic is.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf 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 3rd March 2016, 04:13 AM   #311
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 51,403
Originally Posted by Ladewig View Post
Today, they said that 25% of women would live more than 100 miles away from an abortion clinic if the new law is enforced.
Of course that includes out of state clinic's that are not held to this important standard for womens safety.
__________________
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 3rd March 2016, 04:18 AM   #312
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
What's a reasonable distance to travel to get an abortion?
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Depends how far away the nearest Doctor's clinic is.
If there's no maximum distance, then arguments about travel seem a bit lacking. One presumes it wouldn't be a regular trip, but more of a semi-yearly holiday thing.

It's considered elective surgery, right?

Last edited by marplots; 3rd March 2016 at 04:20 AM.
marplots 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 3rd March 2016, 04:39 AM   #313
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 51,403
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
If there's no maximum distance, then arguments about travel seem a bit lacking. One presumes it wouldn't be a regular trip, but more of a semi-yearly holiday thing.

It's considered elective surgery, right?
Well the waiting period and such means that it is out of the reach of those with out sufficient means. Of course such people are being irresponsible in the first place by having sex with out the financial means to take a few days off work in a hotel to get an abortion.
__________________
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 3rd March 2016, 04:52 AM   #314
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Well the waiting period and such means that it is out of the reach of those with out sufficient means. Of course such people are being irresponsible in the first place by having sex with out the financial means to take a few days off work in a hotel to get an abortion.
I don't think that's unique to abortion but a reflection of our healthcare system overall.

I recently signed up for VA healthcare benefits to offset what I would have otherwise had to pay to meet my Obamacare obligations. I have been informed that to use the benefit I have to drive an hour to their facility, even for emergency services (if I want them to foot the bill). On the plus side, they reimburse for mileage.

I would say the distance in my case would present a significant burden to those without transportation. Like many things, the working poor take it on the chin - making too much for the really good benefits, but too little to participate in the higher tier stuff. (Higher tier being lower-middle-class.)

My point isn't to manufacture a tu quoque, but to place abortion services in the larger context of how we approach healthcare generally and the difficulties in trying to reach "fair."

Last edited by marplots; 3rd March 2016 at 04:57 AM.
marplots 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 3rd March 2016, 05:21 AM   #315
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 11,799
I think the underlying issue is, whether the Texas law (the challenge is being heard in the U.S. Supreme Court) was a good faith law or not. Whether it was really put in place to protect women or to actually try and limit access to abortion. Under Roe v. Wade women have a Constitutional right to abortion, so any law whose purpose is to limit that right is unconstitutional.

IMO the really sad thing is, anti-abortion groups have recommended using strategies such as the Texas law (similar laws are about to be enacted in Louisiana and I think Oklahoma) as a "legal" way to limit the availability of abortion. Essentially it's a charade. Texas officials lie (under oath) as to the real purpose of the law and the Court and the media have to pretend not to know that.
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 3rd March 2016, 05:27 AM   #316
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
I think the underlying issue is, whether the Texas law (the challenge is being heard in the U.S. Supreme Court) was a good faith law or not. Whether it was really put in place to protect women or to actually try and limit access to abortion. Under Roe v. Wade women have a Constitutional right to abortion, so any law whose purpose is to limit that right is unconstitutional.

IMO the really sad thing is, anti-abortion groups have recommended using strategies such as the Texas law (similar laws are about to be enacted in Louisiana and I think Oklahoma) as a "legal" way to limit the availability of abortion. Essentially it's a charade. Texas officials lie (under oath) as to the real purpose of the law and the Court and the media have to pretend not to know that.
It will be interesting to read the decision. I find a strong parallel with gun rights and limitations, only in that case it's the other political wing wanting to use the same mechanism.
marplots 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 3rd March 2016, 07:11 AM   #317
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 51,403
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
I don't think that's unique to abortion but a reflection of our healthcare system overall.
But in other area's we don't have people specifically making things more expensive for those people to get them to avoid treatments. That is the goal of most of these laws, to add enough BS restrictions to close most abortion providers and make it so that only those of sufficient means can access this and the worthless classes can't.
Quote:
I recently signed up for VA healthcare benefits to offset what I would have otherwise had to pay to meet my Obamacare obligations. I have been informed that to use the benefit I have to drive an hour to their facility, even for emergency services (if I want them to foot the bill). On the plus side, they reimburse for mileage.
Yea entitlement programs are a often insufficient.
__________________
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 3rd March 2016, 08:13 AM   #318
xjx388
Moderator
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,062
It's not the job of the government to ensure easy access to abortion for anyone who wants one. For example, pediatric neurosurgeons are concentrated in larger urban areas. Rural people in Texas who need their services must travel for that service. And let's not fool ourselves, even finding a primary care doctor can involve travel for the medically underserved. Yet no one would suggest that we lower the standards of surgery and primary care facilities to make it easier to open up in rural areas. Why should Texas lower the standards that it's duly elected legislature as deemed appropriate?
__________________
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 3rd March 2016, 08:19 AM   #319
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 51,403
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
It's not the job of the government to ensure easy access to abortion for anyone who wants one. For example, pediatric neurosurgeons are concentrated in larger urban areas. Rural people in Texas who need their services must travel for that service. And let's not fool ourselves, even finding a primary care doctor can involve travel for the medically underserved. Yet no one would suggest that we lower the standards of surgery and primary care facilities to make it easier to open up in rural areas. Why should Texas lower the standards that it's duly elected legislature as deemed appropriate?
And can it add in any random requirement it decides it wants to raise the cost and make clinics close?

The requirements are total BS. They are there to close clinics period. So when is the government permitted to add restrictive pointless regulations solely to make a constitutionally protected right much more costly and less available?
__________________
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 3rd March 2016, 08:28 AM   #320
elbe
Illuminator
 
elbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 4,983
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
It's not the job of the government to ensure easy access to abortion for anyone who wants one. For example, pediatric neurosurgeons are concentrated in larger urban areas. Rural people in Texas who need their services must travel for that service. And let's not fool ourselves, even finding a primary care doctor can involve travel for the medically underserved. Yet no one would suggest that we lower the standards of surgery and primary care facilities to make it easier to open up in rural areas. Why should Texas lower the standards that it's duly elected legislature as deemed appropriate?
There will always be underserved areas for services, but the issue is when the state government is taking actions to intentionally reduce current access by requiring standards that no medical agency feels are anywhere near necessary.
__________________
"Take the weakest thing in you and beat the bastards with it"
realityisnotadditive... blog... thingy...
elbe 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 04:19 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.