• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Texas bans abortion.

Status
Not open for further replies.

thaiboxerken

Penultimate Amazing
thaiboxerken
Joined
Sep 17, 2001
Messages
34,470
Well the conservatives won in Texas. Abortion is now banned in the state.
 
What has become of this ruling?
AUG. 29, 2014

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/30/us...-law.html?_r=0

A federal judge in Austin, Tex., blocked a stringent new rule on Friday that would have forced more than half of the state’s remaining abortion clinics to close, the latest in a string of court decisions that have at least temporarily kept abortion clinics across the South from being shuttered.
Click to expand...
 
Yes, it's only banned for those who can't get to the remaining 7 clinics that are not anywhere near them.

This is a major step towards a complete prohibition of abortion.
 
Texas bans abortion for the rural poor. Because you can't tell women what to do with their bodies, but you can tell poor people what to do as much as you want.
 
theprestige said:
And there it is.

Elective abortions are legal in Texas, and there are several clinics in the state that offer the service.

So much for "Texas bans abortion".
Click to expand...

So, if Texas only allowed guns to be purchased in 7 locations, that would be okay? After all, it wouldn't be a ban, so it should be fine, right?
 
The dishonesty of the anti-woman crowd in this thread is equivalent to open, direct, public lying.

Just like other evidence, the anti-woman, anti-rights, pro-slavery crowd now feels like it's safe to come out of the woodwork.

And yes, compelling any woman to carry a child to term, regardless of how it's done, is an act of slavery. The so-called pro-life movement is simply a slavery movement. A pro-life movement would care about the woman and the child, not just the fetus.
 
Ziggurat said:
For certain values of "practically". And "Texas".
Click to expand...

I do not understand your objection. I get the objection to saying 'banned' outright, but the further qualifiers are spot on. If you think any of the qualifiers are wrong or misleading, please explain how. I'd say that the common use of 'practically' and 'Texas' are closer to the use in the post you're complaining about than the use you seem to be saying.

When someone says 'for certain values', they're usually saying that what was said could technically be true, but as they are generally understood what was said was not accurate.

___________________________________________________


For those more interested in addressing the exact accuracy of description of what is happening than in discussing what is happening (as evidenced by saying nothing else), what do you all think of these rules? Do you think they are being put forth honestly (that the claimed reason for them is the actual reason)? Do you think they are not overly burdensome? Do you think they are a bad end-around? Apart from 'it's not technically a ban', what do you all have to say about it? How do you think similar restrictions on gun ownership/purchases wouldn't be overly burdensome either, or that they'd pass muster?

For me this is blatantly bad end around trying to regulate legal abortion out of existence, a de facto attempt at bans. It's effect will be deaths from illegal abortions in rural areas and won't have any of the benefits proponents claim. Further I believe the proponents are not making these claims in good faith. They know what they're doing, why they're doing it, and how they're lying about it.

EDIT: Ninja by crescent on that point.
 
crescent said:
So, if Texas only allowed guns to be purchased in 7 locations, that would be okay? After all, it wouldn't be a ban, so it should be fine, right?
Click to expand...

Ask thaiboxerken. He's the one who seems to think that the only possible options are "okay" and "ban". Well, he and you. Not really a conversation I need to be a part of, don't you think?
 
tyr_13 said:
I do not understand your objection. I get the objection to saying 'banned' outright, but the further qualifiers are spot on.
Click to expand...

The ban isn't very effective if you just need to drive a bit of a distance to overcome it. That may be unfair, that may be restrictive for certain people, that may be bad policy, but it's not a ban, nor is it even "practically" a ban. And the "further qualifier" of rural Texas is also quite different than "Texas".
 
Last edited:
Loss Leader said:
Nothing in Texas is "a bit of distance" from anything.
Click to expand...

Fort Bliss to Austin. I've made that drive. It's a bit of distance. Fort Bliss is in a dry county. Austin is not. I can tell you from direct personal experience that nothing about that arrangement equates to "Texas bans bar hopping." Not even "practically". Not even "rural".

Tyr is right. The discussion is poorly framed. I think there's a place for well framed discussion of this issue,but this thread probably isn't it, and defending the poor framing of the OP probably won't get you there.
 
Ziggurat said:
The ban isn't very effective if you just need to drive a bit of a distance to overcome it. That may be unfair, that may be restrictive for certain people, that may be bad policy, but it's not a ban, nor is it even "practically" a ban. And the "further qualifier" of rural Texas is also quite different than "Texas".
Click to expand...

Your answer suggests to me you've never driven, or worse ridden greyhound, across Texas.
 
if the Republicans continue, IS will get jealous for all those "godly" policies :D
 
thaiboxerken said:
Well the conservatives won in Texas. Abortion is now banned in the state.
Click to expand...
I appreciate the sentiment, but as we see, the basic issue gets lost in the noise trumpeting the error in wording
crescent said:
So, if Texas only allowed guns to be purchased in 7 locations, that would be okay? After all, it wouldn't be a ban, so it should be fine, right?
Click to expand...
You didn't expect an honest did you?
Unabogie said:
Libertarians have a strange idea of liberty.
Click to expand...
It is consistent with my observation that Libertarian belief is a religious belief and like religious beliefs the believers pick and choose what they want to believe. It's also consistent with the concept that the overtly religious are Republicans first and religious second.
 
Last edited:
Loss Leader said:
Nothing in Texas is "a bit of distance" from anything.
Click to expand...

Especially for women who don't own cars, don't have jobs, can't afford to take days of work, can't afford a hotel in another city, or can't spare time away from their jobs or kids. Again, conservatives have a bizarre sense of personal freedom. They claim freedom is sacrosanct and therefore Obamacare is evil, but shrug their shoulders at the government dictating what women can do with their own bodies.
 
The purpose of the law is to make it hard to access abortion, especially for those in the poor, rural areas. It's just another step towards the ban that Conservatives want.
 
Unabogie said:
Especially for women who don't own cars, don't have jobs, can't afford to take days of work, can't afford a hotel in another city, or can't spare time away from their jobs or kids. Again, conservatives have a bizarre sense of personal freedom. They claim freedom is sacrosanct and therefore Obamacare is evil, but shrug their shoulders at the government dictating what women can do with their own bodies.
Click to expand...

Pop quiz time:

Does Ziggurat think abortion should be legal or illegal?
 
thaiboxerken said:
The purpose of the law is to make it hard to access abortion, especially for those in the poor, rural areas. It's just another step towards the ban that Conservatives want.
Click to expand...

Limiting the number of clinics makes it easier to put a cordon of protesters around every clinic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom