Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

Rick Perry signs abortion bill

DoubtingDave
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 10:13:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Great job Texas! Let's make this a federal law


AUSTIN, Texas " Texas Gov. Rick Perry signed sweeping new abortion restrictions on Thursday that could shutter most of the clinics in the state.
More than 100 Republican lawmakers attended the signing ceremony with a small band of protesters outside dressed in black and holding a sign that read, "Shame." The legislation had sparked weeks of protests at the state Capitol.
The new law bans abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy and dictates when abortion-inducing drugs can be taken. But it also requires abortion clinic doctors to have hospital admitting privileges and restricts abortions to surgical centers. Only five of Texas' 42 abortion clinics currently meet the new requirements.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com...
The Great Wall of Fail

"I have doubts that anti-semitism even exists" -GeoLaureate8

"Evolutionists think that people evolved from rocks" -Scotty

"And whats so bad about a Holy war? By Holy war, I mean a war which would aim to subdue others under Islam." -Ahmed.M

"The free market didn't create the massive wealth in the country, WW2 did." -malcomxy

"Independant federal regulators make our capitalist society possible." -Erik_Erikson
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 1:03:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/18/2013 10:13:59 AM, DoubtingDave wrote:
Great job Texas! Let's make this a federal law


AUSTIN, Texas " Texas Gov. Rick Perry signed sweeping new abortion restrictions on Thursday that could shutter most of the clinics in the state.
More than 100 Republican lawmakers attended the signing ceremony with a small band of protesters outside dressed in black and holding a sign that read, "Shame." The legislation had sparked weeks of protests at the state Capitol.
The new law bans abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy and dictates when abortion-inducing drugs can be taken. But it also requires abortion clinic doctors to have hospital admitting privileges and restricts abortions to surgical centers. Only five of Texas' 42 abortion clinics currently meet the new requirements.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com...

In Europe, this law would be considered long overdue. Here, the abortion lobby is so extreme that they oppose it. What ever happened to 'safe, legal, and rare'? How is it that abortion clinics are not forced to meet the same requirements as other surgical centers?
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 1:14:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/18/2013 1:03:49 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 7/18/2013 10:13:59 AM, DoubtingDave wrote:
Great job Texas! Let's make this a federal law


AUSTIN, Texas " Texas Gov. Rick Perry signed sweeping new abortion restrictions on Thursday that could shutter most of the clinics in the state.
More than 100 Republican lawmakers attended the signing ceremony with a small band of protesters outside dressed in black and holding a sign that read, "Shame." The legislation had sparked weeks of protests at the state Capitol.
The new law bans abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy and dictates when abortion-inducing drugs can be taken. But it also requires abortion clinic doctors to have hospital admitting privileges and restricts abortions to surgical centers. Only five of Texas' 42 abortion clinics currently meet the new requirements.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com...

In Europe, this law would be considered long overdue. Here, the abortion lobby is so extreme that they oppose it. What ever happened to 'safe, legal, and rare'? How is it that abortion clinics are not forced to meet the same requirements as other surgical centers?

They already were. This is over and beyond, and more than required of other places that perform similar procedures.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 1:25:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/18/2013 1:21:27 PM, JustinAMoffatt wrote:
Texas. You're doing it right.

Some faith in humanity has been restored.

No, they really aren't. It's a shady move to get around something they don't like, and it's likely to be struck down because the motivations are so obvious.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Subutai
Posts: 3,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 1:28:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It's not going to stop women taking abortion pills - there has been a spike in women going to Mexico to purchase abortion-inducing pills from Mexican pharmacies.

Regulations will not solve the safety issue - The busiest clinics do up to 4,000 a year. Now the remaining surgical centers will have to conduct about 14,400 each year.

Then, of course, there's the abortion paradox - by introducing more regulations on abortions, you're forcing women to get abortions later in their pregnancy, which is the very thing you discourage.

The main message I'm trying to get across is that regulating abortions will not help the situation. The only way to solve the issue is to make abortions illegal - but then, that will create a black market for abortions. Any way you have it, those who are pro-life should leave the situation alone, as your regulations are not making things any better.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
DoubtingDave
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 1:42:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/18/2013 1:28:08 PM, Subutai wrote:
It's not going to stop women taking abortion pills - there has been a spike in women going to Mexico to purchase abortion-inducing pills from Mexican pharmacies.

Regulations will not solve the safety issue - The busiest clinics do up to 4,000 a year. Now the remaining surgical centers will have to conduct about 14,400 each year.

Then, of course, there's the abortion paradox - by introducing more regulations on abortions, you're forcing women to get abortions later in their pregnancy, which is the very thing you discourage.

The main message I'm trying to get across is that regulating abortions will not help the situation. The only way to solve the issue is to make abortions illegal - but then, that will create a black market for abortions. Any way you have it, those who are pro-life should leave the situation alone, as your regulations are not making things any better.

I argue that

1. Human offspring are human beings, persons from conception, whether that takes place as natural or artificial fertilization, by cloning, or by any other means.

2. Abortion is homicide -- the killing of one person by another.

3. One's right to control one's own body does not allow violating the obligation not to aggress. There is never a right to kill an innocent person. Prenatally, we are all innocent persons.

4. A prenatal child has the right to be in the mother's body. Parents have no right to evict their children from the crib or from the womb and let them die. Instead both parents, the father as well as the mother, owe them support and protection from harm.

5. No government, nor any individual, has a just power to legally "de-person" any one of us, born or preborn.

6. The proper purpose of the law is to side with the innocent, not against them.

To say that because abortions will continue after illegalization; therefore abortion should be legal is like saying that rape is illegal and happens therefore we should legalize it.

http://www.abortionfacts.com...
http://l4l.org...
The Great Wall of Fail

"I have doubts that anti-semitism even exists" -GeoLaureate8

"Evolutionists think that people evolved from rocks" -Scotty

"And whats so bad about a Holy war? By Holy war, I mean a war which would aim to subdue others under Islam." -Ahmed.M

"The free market didn't create the massive wealth in the country, WW2 did." -malcomxy

"Independant federal regulators make our capitalist society possible." -Erik_Erikson
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 1:50:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/18/2013 1:42:25 PM, DoubtingDave wrote:
At 7/18/2013 1:28:08 PM, Subutai wrote:
It's not going to stop women taking abortion pills - there has been a spike in women going to Mexico to purchase abortion-inducing pills from Mexican pharmacies.

Regulations will not solve the safety issue - The busiest clinics do up to 4,000 a year. Now the remaining surgical centers will have to conduct about 14,400 each year.

Then, of course, there's the abortion paradox - by introducing more regulations on abortions, you're forcing women to get abortions later in their pregnancy, which is the very thing you discourage.

The main message I'm trying to get across is that regulating abortions will not help the situation. The only way to solve the issue is to make abortions illegal - but then, that will create a black market for abortions. Any way you have it, those who are pro-life should leave the situation alone, as your regulations are not making things any better.

I argue that

1. Human offspring are human beings, persons from conception,

Equivocation fallacy.

whether that takes place as natural or artificial fertilization, by cloning, or by any other means.

2. Abortion is homicide -- the killing of one person by another.

Conclusion based on equivocation fallacy.

3. One's right to control one's own body does not allow violating the obligation not to aggress. There is never a right to kill an innocent person. Prenatally, we are all innocent persons.

Flatly untrue. If a person is mentally deficient and unable to distinguish right from wrong, that doesn't give them the right to your body, and you have the right to resist unwanted aggression upon your person with what force is necessary.

4. A prenatal child has the right to be in the mother's body. Parents have no right to evict their children from the crib or from the womb and let them die. Instead both parents, the father as well as the mother, owe them support and protection from harm.

Not true, and based on an equivocation fallacy to support "personhood"/"Child" without warrant.

5. No government, nor any individual, has a just power to legally "de-person" any one of us, born or preborn.

First, that begs the question of assuming personhood without justifying warrant for same. Second, it happens all the time when the state makes determinations as to "death" which is a legal "de-personing".

6. The proper purpose of the law is to side with the innocent, not against them.

A statement that could be easily argued as having no bearing on the present discussion.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
CanWeKnow
Posts: 217
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 1:58:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/18/2013 1:42:25 PM, DoubtingDave wrote:
At 7/18/2013 1:28:08 PM, Subutai wrote:
It's not going to stop women taking abortion pills - there has been a spike in women going to Mexico to purchase abortion-inducing pills from Mexican pharmacies.

Regulations will not solve the safety issue - The busiest clinics do up to 4,000 a year. Now the remaining surgical centers will have to conduct about 14,400 each year.

Then, of course, there's the abortion paradox - by introducing more regulations on abortions, you're forcing women to get abortions later in their pregnancy, which is the very thing you discourage.


To say that because abortions will continue after illegalization; therefore abortion should be legal is like saying that rape is illegal and happens therefore we should legalize it.

http://www.abortionfacts.com...
http://l4l.org...

No, but I agree with both of you. Not really. Sort of?

XD I don't think your comparison is quite accurate.
Legalized rape goes unpunished.
Legalized abortion sort of doesn't.

There will be lasting emotional and psychological effects on the mother and father who choose to abort. Additionally, any one who knows of their procedure will make their own judgements of them. When you know of someone who has had an abortion you think of them differently. It's not as easy as pushing a button, it's taking a "life".

Women will still get pregnant, and some will still want abortions. I don't want to see women engaging in shady black market abortions and dying from it because it's illegal.

It would much prefer if the process of attaining an abortions was very rigorous to weed out those with little conviction. Perhaps the mother and father must also be forced to register as abortion offenders, much like sex offenders do.

Either way, making it completely illegal or making it legal and easily obtainable is not the best solution. It's like saying we should never lie or that we can lie if we want to and have little to no consequences. We have to take things case by case and have a system that analyzes those cases well.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 2:00:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
CanWeKnow:

Abortion registry list? Really?

In order to justify being against abortion, you must justify why it's wrong in the first place. Something abortion opponents have utterly failed to do in general (though there is grey area in later-term discussions)
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Subutai
Posts: 3,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 2:07:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/18/2013 1:42:25 PM, DoubtingDave wrote:
At 7/18/2013 1:28:08 PM, Subutai wrote:
It's not going to stop women taking abortion pills - there has been a spike in women going to Mexico to purchase abortion-inducing pills from Mexican pharmacies.

Regulations will not solve the safety issue - The busiest clinics do up to 4,000 a year. Now the remaining surgical centers will have to conduct about 14,400 each year.

Then, of course, there's the abortion paradox - by introducing more regulations on abortions, you're forcing women to get abortions later in their pregnancy, which is the very thing you discourage.

The main message I'm trying to get across is that regulating abortions will not help the situation. The only way to solve the issue is to make abortions illegal - but then, that will create a black market for abortions. Any way you have it, those who are pro-life should leave the situation alone, as your regulations are not making things any better.

I argue that

1. Human offspring are human beings, persons from conception, whether that takes place as natural or artificial fertilization, by cloning, or by any other means.

2. Abortion is homicide -- the killing of one person by another.

3. One's right to control one's own body does not allow violating the obligation not to aggress. There is never a right to kill an innocent person. Prenatally, we are all innocent persons.

4. A prenatal child has the right to be in the mother's body. Parents have no right to evict their children from the crib or from the womb and let them die. Instead both parents, the father as well as the mother, owe them support and protection from harm.

5. No government, nor any individual, has a just power to legally "de-person" any one of us, born or preborn.

6. The proper purpose of the law is to side with the innocent, not against them.

To say that because abortions will continue after illegalization; therefore abortion should be legal is like saying that rape is illegal and happens therefore we should legalize it.

http://www.abortionfacts.com...
http://l4l.org...

Even if we accept that embryos are human beings (which I'll get to later), the only way to ever make the embryo's situation better is to completely prohibit abortion. This allows for a black market, however. However, abortion =/= rape in this instance in the same way that it does not make murder legal - abortion is a moral because it is a right. Even if someone who did not understand the concept of right and wrong was endangering you (i.e. a sociopath), that still gives you the right to defend yourself from it, be it a serial killer or an embryo.

Now that gets to the point of when life begins. The trouble is that the line is philosophical, and not scientific. There is no way to scientifically hypothesize, analyze, and conclude from evidence when life begins. The entity created by fertilization is indeed a human embryo, and it has the potential to be human adult. Whether these facts are enough to accord it personhood is a question influenced by opinion, philosophy and theology, rather than by science.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
DoubtingDave
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 2:13:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/18/2013 2:07:19 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 7/18/2013 1:42:25 PM, DoubtingDave wrote:
At 7/18/2013 1:28:08 PM, Subutai wrote:
It's not going to stop women taking abortion pills - there has been a spike in women going to Mexico to purchase abortion-inducing pills from Mexican pharmacies.

Regulations will not solve the safety issue - The busiest clinics do up to 4,000 a year. Now the remaining surgical centers will have to conduct about 14,400 each year.

Then, of course, there's the abortion paradox - by introducing more regulations on abortions, you're forcing women to get abortions later in their pregnancy, which is the very thing you discourage.

The main message I'm trying to get across is that regulating abortions will not help the situation. The only way to solve the issue is to make abortions illegal - but then, that will create a black market for abortions. Any way you have it, those who are pro-life should leave the situation alone, as your regulations are not making things any better.

I argue that

1. Human offspring are human beings, persons from conception, whether that takes place as natural or artificial fertilization, by cloning, or by any other means.

2. Abortion is homicide -- the killing of one person by another.

3. One's right to control one's own body does not allow violating the obligation not to aggress. There is never a right to kill an innocent person. Prenatally, we are all innocent persons.

4. A prenatal child has the right to be in the mother's body. Parents have no right to evict their children from the crib or from the womb and let them die. Instead both parents, the father as well as the mother, owe them support and protection from harm.

5. No government, nor any individual, has a just power to legally "de-person" any one of us, born or preborn.

6. The proper purpose of the law is to side with the innocent, not against them.

To say that because abortions will continue after illegalization; therefore abortion should be legal is like saying that rape is illegal and happens therefore we should legalize it.

http://www.abortionfacts.com...
http://l4l.org...

Even if we accept that embryos are human beings (which I'll get to later), the only way to ever make the embryo's situation better is to completely prohibit abortion. This allows for a black market, however. However, abortion =/= rape in this instance in the same way that it does not make murder legal - abortion is a moral because it is a right. Even if someone who did not understand the concept of right and wrong was endangering you (i.e. a sociopath), that still gives you the right to defend yourself from it, be it a serial killer or an embryo.

Now that gets to the point of when life begins. The trouble is that the line is philosophical, and not scientific. There is no way to scientifically hypothesize, analyze, and conclude from evidence when life begins. The entity created by fertilization is indeed a human embryo, and it has the potential to be human adult. Whether these facts are enough to accord it personhood is a question influenced by opinion, philosophy and theology, rather than by science.

If there is uncertainty about when human life begins, the benefit of the doubt should go to preserving life.
The Great Wall of Fail

"I have doubts that anti-semitism even exists" -GeoLaureate8

"Evolutionists think that people evolved from rocks" -Scotty

"And whats so bad about a Holy war? By Holy war, I mean a war which would aim to subdue others under Islam." -Ahmed.M

"The free market didn't create the massive wealth in the country, WW2 did." -malcomxy

"Independant federal regulators make our capitalist society possible." -Erik_Erikson
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 2:20:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/18/2013 2:13:42 PM, DoubtingDave wrote:

If there is uncertainty about when human life begins, the benefit of the doubt should go to preserving life.

At the expense of the life and autonomy of another? I disagree.

A woman is twice as likely to die during childbirth than abortion, don't forget.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
CanWeKnow
Posts: 217
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 2:23:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/18/2013 2:00:22 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
CanWeKnow:

Abortion registry list? Really?

In order to justify being against abortion, you must justify why it's wrong in the first place. Something abortion opponents have utterly failed to do in general (though there is grey area in later-term discussions)

What? I think it's a great idea. Why? Because people who Do care about abortion will feel satisfied, and people who don't wont give a dam.

I don't know if the BOP rests solely on abortion opponents either. Pro-abortion believers should also demonstrate why it's not wrong.

My gut-feeling on morality isn't infallible, but that doesn't mean I don't still feel things.

I realize the benefits of abortion. I can see why it would be beneficial to humanity. That doesn't change the fact that it still FEELS wrong if it's not for very good reasons like rape or other potential detrimental effects.

I can't be the only one who has this kind of mindset. I mean, we know that the death penalty is a good solution for the inmates that deserve it. We shouldn't have to feed and house a serial killer if all he is going to do is sit in a cell his whole life. It still doesn't change the fact that it feels wrong to kill him.

There are situations where that wrong feeling is over powered by reason and the act becomes justified. Such as the death penalty, but there are times when it's not.

I'm fine with leaving that decision up to the parents. I just propose that it shouldn't be a process that is swept under the rug once it's over, and just like when buying a gun the person who purchased it has to have some basic kind of background check and a waiting period. It weeds out crazies and prevents people from doing things on a whim.
Subutai
Posts: 3,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 2:26:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/18/2013 2:13:42 PM, DoubtingDave wrote:
At 7/18/2013 2:07:19 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 7/18/2013 1:42:25 PM, DoubtingDave wrote:
At 7/18/2013 1:28:08 PM, Subutai wrote:
It's not going to stop women taking abortion pills - there has been a spike in women going to Mexico to purchase abortion-inducing pills from Mexican pharmacies.

Regulations will not solve the safety issue - The busiest clinics do up to 4,000 a year. Now the remaining surgical centers will have to conduct about 14,400 each year.

Then, of course, there's the abortion paradox - by introducing more regulations on abortions, you're forcing women to get abortions later in their pregnancy, which is the very thing you discourage.

The main message I'm trying to get across is that regulating abortions will not help the situation. The only way to solve the issue is to make abortions illegal - but then, that will create a black market for abortions. Any way you have it, those who are pro-life should leave the situation alone, as your regulations are not making things any better.

I argue that

1. Human offspring are human beings, persons from conception, whether that takes place as natural or artificial fertilization, by cloning, or by any other means.

2. Abortion is homicide -- the killing of one person by another.

3. One's right to control one's own body does not allow violating the obligation not to aggress. There is never a right to kill an innocent person. Prenatally, we are all innocent persons.

4. A prenatal child has the right to be in the mother's body. Parents have no right to evict their children from the crib or from the womb and let them die. Instead both parents, the father as well as the mother, owe them support and protection from harm.

5. No government, nor any individual, has a just power to legally "de-person" any one of us, born or preborn.

6. The proper purpose of the law is to side with the innocent, not against them.

To say that because abortions will continue after illegalization; therefore abortion should be legal is like saying that rape is illegal and happens therefore we should legalize it.

http://www.abortionfacts.com...
http://l4l.org...

Even if we accept that embryos are human beings (which I'll get to later), the only way to ever make the embryo's situation better is to completely prohibit abortion. This allows for a black market, however. However, abortion =/= rape in this instance in the same way that it does not make murder legal - abortion is a moral because it is a right. Even if someone who did not understand the concept of right and wrong was endangering you (i.e. a sociopath), that still gives you the right to defend yourself from it, be it a serial killer or an embryo.

Now that gets to the point of when life begins. The trouble is that the line is philosophical, and not scientific. There is no way to scientifically hypothesize, analyze, and conclude from evidence when life begins. The entity created by fertilization is indeed a human embryo, and it has the potential to be human adult. Whether these facts are enough to accord it personhood is a question influenced by opinion, philosophy and theology, rather than by science.

If there is uncertainty about when human life begins, the benefit of the doubt should go to preserving life.

I disagree. Because there can be no consensus on the matter, the value accorded to a fetus is a subjective, personal matter. Individuals, not society as a whole, must choose what the status of a fetus should be, based on their personal beliefs, morality, and circumstances. And ultimately, this choice belongs only to pregnant women (i.e. the individual pregnant woman; not the collective decision of pregnant women).

http://www.abortionaccess.info...
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 2:32:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/18/2013 2:23:06 PM, CanWeKnow wrote:
At 7/18/2013 2:00:22 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
CanWeKnow:

Abortion registry list? Really?

In order to justify being against abortion, you must justify why it's wrong in the first place. Something abortion opponents have utterly failed to do in general (though there is grey area in later-term discussions)

What? I think it's a great idea. Why? Because people who Do care about abortion will feel satisfied, and people who don't wont give a dam.

Yeah, I don't think so at all. I'm pretty sure that those who do support a woman's right to choose will think it's an egregious violation of the women's privacy, because it is, and those that do not support that right will use it to bully and intimidate people.

Either it's allowed, or it isn't. Creating some kind of shame-list is just a way of pretending you aren't purposefully preventing it, when in point of fact you are.

I don't know if the BOP rests solely on abortion opponents either. Pro-abortion believers should also demonstrate why it's not wrong.

Oh, I didn't realize you didn't know how BoP works. Those who wish to restrict the rights of a person's autonomy generally have the BoP to explain WHY that is. You see, otherwise I could demand you justify why you're allowed to breathe, or type on the internet, etc. Those who are against abortion must justify why they want the women not to be able to control their own bodies. If embryos existed in isolation and people just wanted to kill them arbitrarily, the dialogue would be totally different. But that's not the case.

My gut-feeling on morality isn't infallible, but that doesn't mean I don't still feel things.

So? You can be as against abortion as you want. Don't get one.

I realize the benefits of abortion. I can see why it would be beneficial to humanity. That doesn't change the fact that it still FEELS wrong if it's not for very good reasons like rape or other potential detrimental effects.

Except that's philosophically inconsistent. Your gut feeling is pulling you in to hypocrisy, which is why I don't accept it.

I can't be the only one who has this kind of mindset. I mean, we know that the death penalty is a good solution for the inmates that deserve it. We shouldn't have to feed and house a serial killer if all he is going to do is sit in a cell his whole life. It still doesn't change the fact that it feels wrong to kill him.

Maybe to you. In principle, I have no such objections (the reality of the justice system and the use of the death penalty are different).

There are situations where that wrong feeling is over powered by reason and the act becomes justified. Such as the death penalty, but there are times when it's not.

Well, there are those who would argue that it's not justified with the death penalty, either. Tehre's no real point, here. You're completely disregarding the woman here, and that it's her body we're talking about.

I'm fine with leaving that decision up to the parents. I just propose that it shouldn't be a process that is swept under the rug once it's over, and just like when buying a gun the person who purchased it has to have some basic kind of background check and a waiting period. It weeds out crazies and prevents people from doing things on a whim.

Problem with waiting periods for things like this is it makes the situation more complicated. And a background check is ONLY justified for guns because there are people who are legally prohibited from owning them, and they are confirming you are not one of those people. There's absolutely on reason whatsoever for a background check for abortion.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
CanWeKnow
Posts: 217
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 2:57:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/18/2013 2:32:45 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:


Yeah, I don't think so at all. I'm pretty sure that those who do support a woman's right to choose will think it's an egregious violation of the women's privacy, because it is, and those that do not support that right will use it to bully and intimidate people.

Either it's allowed, or it isn't. Creating some kind of shame-list is just a way of pretending you aren't purposefully preventing it, when in point of fact you are.

Ok you're probably right. It was a dumb idea.

I don't know if the BOP rests solely on abortion opponents either. Pro-abortion believers should also demonstrate why it's not wrong.

Oh, I didn't realize you didn't know how BoP works. Those who wish to restrict the rights of a person's autonomy generally have the BoP to explain WHY that is. You see, otherwise I could demand you justify why you're allowed to breathe, or type on the internet, etc. Those who are against abortion must justify why they want the women not to be able to control their own bodies. If embryos existed in isolation and people just wanted to kill them arbitrarily, the dialogue would be totally different. But that's not the case.


Yes, I see what you're saying.

Rather, I was saying that with an issue like this with people who feel it is completely morally correct or completely morally incorrect it becomes necessary for both sides to make it clear WHY their morality is justified.

We do the same thing for deciding the moral value of all human actions. It's not enough just to put the burden of proving their morality on one side. The default moral value is all over the scale, and not on any one side.


Except that's philosophically inconsistent. Your gut feeling is pulling you in to hypocrisy, which is why I don't accept it.

Yes, it is hypocritical and irrational. I understand your rejection, and I like that you are a very logical and rational thinker.
I value that kind of thinking, but I can't help but feel like when one becomes too philosophical one loses perspective, from a Human view point and the pragmatic view point. The video talks about that a little.

http://www.youtube.com...



Maybe to you. In principle, I have no such objections (the reality of the justice system and the use of the death penalty are different).


Much can be said about principle haha. Like I said, I think it's just weak to ignore the reality of conflicting emotions. There are some emotions we can change with reasoning, but realistically there are some that we can't and we have to deal with that. It's not enough just to suppress them.


I'm fine with leaving that decision up to the parents. I just propose that it shouldn't be a process that is swept under the rug once it's over, and just like when buying a gun the person who purchased it has to have some basic kind of background check and a waiting period. It weeds out crazies and prevents people from doing things on a whim.

Problem with waiting periods for things like this is it makes the situation more complicated. And a background check is ONLY justified for guns because there are people who are legally prohibited from owning them, and they are confirming you are not one of those people. There's absolutely on reason whatsoever for a background check for abortion.

Eh, IDK about that. Three days is going to make a woman's situation more complicated? I'll scratch the background test. I'm just trying to think of ways to make the process harder without making it too hard. It should be reasonably rigorous to dissuade those who have weak constitution and give them time to think it over.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 2:59:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Is Roe v. Wade not still the law of the land? How do they just do something so blatantly illegal and then carry on? You can't ignore or undermine what SCOTUS says!
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 3:38:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/18/2013 2:57:22 PM, CanWeKnow wrote:
At 7/18/2013 2:32:45 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:

Yes, I see what you're saying.

Rather, I was saying that with an issue like this with people who feel it is completely morally correct or completely morally incorrect it becomes necessary for both sides to make it clear WHY their morality is justified.

Not really; if you say "X is WRONG!" all I have to do in general is rebut your reasoning for why it's wrong.

We do the same thing for deciding the moral value of all human actions. It's not enough just to put the burden of proving their morality on one side. The default moral value is all over the scale, and not on any one side.

I disagree. In general, actions are morally neutral. Is there any negative morality in walking down the street? Depends on factors, sure, but in general it's morally neutral. If someone wants to argue something's morally wrong, they're free to do so. But it's their obligation to make the case.

Except that's philosophically inconsistent. Your gut feeling is pulling you in to hypocrisy, which is why I don't accept it.

Yes, it is hypocritical and irrational. I understand your rejection, and I like that you are a very logical and rational thinker.
I value that kind of thinking, but I can't help but feel like when one becomes too philosophical one loses perspective, from a Human view point and the pragmatic view point. The video talks about that a little.


http://www.youtube.com...

Yes, that video's been going around on here. It's not relevant to this discussion; all of government is a process of cutting up, of putting lines in the sand, of "logic chopping".

And imprecision does not justify being simply wrong.

Much can be said about principle haha. Like I said, I think it's just weak to ignore the reality of conflicting emotions. There are some emotions we can change with reasoning, but realistically there are some that we can't and we have to deal with that. It's not enough just to suppress them.

Ah, but what you're saying is that person A has to adjust their behavior according to person B's irrational emotions. That seems pretty unjust to me. As I said, you're welcome to be exactly as against abortion as you'd like...but when you try to IMPOSE that on others, you have to justify yourself.

Eh, IDK about that. Three days is going to make a woman's situation more complicated? I'll scratch the background test. I'm just trying to think of ways to make the process harder without making it too hard. It should be reasonably rigorous to dissuade those who have weak constitution and give them time to think it over.

Well, first, since there will be a "hard line date", any waiting period means that you've shifted that date to X days BEFORE the actual hard line date.

What you're doing is trying to find as many roadblocks as possible, simply because you don't like a thing. If someone disagrees with you, by what right do you force them to wait? Because there's a chance they might come around do your opinion? Don't get me wrong, I can understand wanting to protect people from their own rash decisions, but when you're going to do that, you MUST tread carefully, and seriously consider why you're doing it.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2013 6:49:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I can no longer vote third-party. The Republican Party has revealed that they are too dangerous to not directly counter with a Democratic vote. I won't ever stop voting for Democrats now.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2013 6:51:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/18/2013 10:13:59 AM, DoubtingDave wrote:
Great job Texas! Let's make this a federal law


AUSTIN, Texas " Texas Gov. Rick Perry signed sweeping new abortion restrictions on Thursday that could shutter most of the clinics in the state.
More than 100 Republican lawmakers attended the signing ceremony with a small band of protesters outside dressed in black and holding a sign that read, "Shame." The legislation had sparked weeks of protests at the state Capitol.
The new law bans abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy and dictates when abortion-inducing drugs can be taken. But it also requires abortion clinic doctors to have hospital admitting privileges and restricts abortions to surgical centers. Only five of Texas' 42 abortion clinics currently meet the new requirements.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com...

I like how you want to make a law that promotes federal restrictions, lol. Some libertarian you are. Nobody is entitled to use your body for any reason. Just as you can deny someone access to your kidneys even if she will suffer a torturous death as a result, you can deny someone the right to access your body. It doesn't matter if she will die as a result. You don't care about the rights of women because you want to use them for your benefit. This is why I will never vote for anybody like you. "Libertarianism" to you just means "what is good for me", not "respect for rights".
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2013 6:53:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/18/2013 2:59:30 PM, 000ike wrote:
Is Roe v. Wade not still the law of the land? How do they just do something so blatantly illegal and then carry on? You can't ignore or undermine what SCOTUS says!

They want to distract everyone from their NSA program and they want to troll women. They didn't learn their lesson in the 2012 election; they want another lesson next year.

They even banned tampons from the capitol building. You can legally walk in with a gun, but not with a tampon. They want to discriminate against women. This was very clearly revealed by their actions.

This law will be struck down by SCOTUS; all they have done is provided fodder for their own demise in the next elections.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2013 9:14:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/18/2013 2:59:30 PM, 000ike wrote:
Is Roe v. Wade not still the law of the land? How do they just do something so blatantly illegal and then carry on? You can't ignore or undermine what SCOTUS says!

Sorry, but Roe v. Wade doesn't cover late-term abortions.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2013 9:21:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/19/2013 6:53:53 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 7/18/2013 2:59:30 PM, 000ike wrote:
Is Roe v. Wade not still the law of the land? How do they just do something so blatantly illegal and then carry on? You can't ignore or undermine what SCOTUS says!

They want to distract everyone from their NSA program and they want to troll women. They didn't learn their lesson in the 2012 election; they want another lesson next year.

They even banned tampons from the capitol building. You can legally walk in with a gun, but not with a tampon. They want to discriminate against women. This was very clearly revealed by their actions.

This law will be struck down by SCOTUS; all they have done is provided fodder for their own demise in the next elections.

That's real funny, because polls have consistently shown that that the vast majority of Americans support banning second and third-trimester abortions, as long as there is the usual rape/incest/save the life of the mother exception. It is you, not us, that are radically out of touch on that issue, and running candidates that support that view outside of blue states will do nothing to help you.

As for the tampons, they were banned because people intended to throw them (along with nearly two dozen jars filled with urine and feces, three bottles of paint, large amounts of feminine hygiene products, glitter, and confetti) at legislators. Violent mobs don't have a right to be in the Legislature, and the state was 100% right in removing those before you creeps could have injured somebody.