Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Bravery and fortitude in Texas


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Bravery and fortitude in Texas Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Bravery and fortitude in Texas - 6/28/2013 1:22:54 AM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline 		Dr. James Shwayder, the new obstetrics and gynecology chair at University Medical Center in Jackson sent the clinic a letter signed "warm regards" that states: "The medical staff of University Hospital is only accepting from physicians who are employed faculty of University of Mississippi Medical Center."

#At Baptist Medical Center, executive assistant for medical staff services Teresa Ayala told JWHO administrators that hospital would not send an admitting privileges application. Brewer's declaration also indicates that Ayala was less than helpful in providing the clinic information it needed to contact Baptist's physicians.

#The other five hospitals that rejected JWHO's applications--River Oaks Hospital in Flowood, Crossgates River Oaks Hospital in Brandon, Madison River Oaks in Canton, Woman's Hospital in Jackson and Central Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson--are owned by Naples, Fla.-based Health Management Associates Inc. Each of these hospitals responded to JWHO with similarly worded letters citing the hospitals' abortion policies and concerns about "internal and external disruption of the hospital's function and business within this community."

University Medical Center is not a religious based hospital.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 61
RE: Bravery and fortitude in Texas - 6/28/2013 1:31:45 AM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

But you have no evidence of it Tazz. There is nothing to suggest that TX will be like Mississip instead of Fl, or MI, or MN


Yes, we do. Florida is made up of snow birds.... they tend to be a bit less bible thumping then Texas or Mississippi.

Michigan and Minnesota are not bible thumping states either.

quote:

Regarding admittance. There were horrible cases here in florida where people died because of cosmetic surgery where the doctors had no admitting privileges and rather than call 911 the patients --- died.

And there are also valid reasons that a hospital won't grant admitting privileges. Not carrying insurance. Poor medical history. History of mapractice.


And how many of those were closed down? How many still perform those services?

Surely if this is what is being said as of June 13th, then I would say not enough were closed.

http://nuccimedicalclinic.com/is-a-cosmetic-surgeon-a-plastic-surgeon/

Now, lets get down to the nitty gritty... I have no issue with physicians being required to have admitting privileges. I do have a problem with a state requiring those physicians to obtain privileges and not ensuring there are privileges to be had. Which is the problem the Judge saw in Mississippi. There should be a back up plan.... and there isnt.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 62
RE: Bravery and fortitude in Texas - 6/28/2013 1:33:17 AM   
jlf1961


Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline 		The FDA ruled, with the courts' help that the Morning after pill must be made available over the counter in the US.

And if you would do any kind of research, you would know that laws passed in recent years in states such as Virginia and others have made it almost impossible for Abortion Clinics to get state approval to operate. Then there are laws that have been passed that require invasive techniques to be performed on woman seeking an abortion before she can get the procedure.

Try reading Abortion restrictions gain steam in the states.

Now personally, I am against abortion except in some cases such as rape, incest or if the life of the mother is in danger by carrying the child to term.

I dont consider the morning after pill an abortions since it prevents implantation of the egg therefore gestation cannot occur.

However, I do not believe that the Federal or State government has the right or authority to legislate what a woman can and cannot do with her body concerning reproductive health care.

The conservatives scream for smaller government yet they insist on passing laws to restrict abortion in such ways as to require procedures that are not necessary to determine anything concerning abortion.

Now here is something to consider each year in the U.S., about 700 women die of pregnancy-related complications and 52,000 experience emergencies such as acute renal failure, shock, respiratory distress, aneurysms and heart surgery. An additional 34,000 barely avoid death.

Since Roe v. Wade, only 400 women have died as a result of complications from abortions.

I guess it is okay for that many women to die each year in the US from complications due to child delivery. Which could actually rise still more if abortions are restricted even more.

Bottom line, the women getting an abortion have to live with their choice, and have to face a far greater judge than any on earth, as do the doctors performing the procedure.

So for the religious right, who oppose abortions with such passion as to passively advocate the murder of doctors performing them, I have but one thing to say, shut the fuck up and let god pass judgement, unless of course you people do not think he is up to the task.

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 63
RE: Bravery and fortitude in Texas - 6/28/2013 1:33:49 AM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

quote:

Remember, the current rationale for Roe v Wade is viability (read wiki, or court proceedings), which makes it looks as if the texas court on its face is in alignment with the supreme court.


No.

The United States Supreme Court stated in Roe v. Wade (1973) that viability (i.e., the "interim point at which the fetus becomes ... potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid"[6]) "is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viability


Yes:

The Justices had discussed the trimester framework extensively. Powell had suggested that the point where the State could intervene be placed at viability, which Marshall supported as well.[27] Blackmun wrote of the majority decision he authored: "You will observe that I have concluded that the end of the first trimester is critical. This is arbitrary, but perhaps any other selected point, such as quickening or viability, is equally arbitrary."[28] Douglas preferred the first trimester line,[29] while Stewart said the lines were "legislative" and wanted more flexibility and consideration paid to the state legislatures, though he joined Blackmun's decision.[30] Brennan proposed abandoning frameworks based on the age of the fetus and instead allowing states to regulate the procedure based on its safety for the mother.[29]

http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/nvp/roe/roe2.html
The final stage of pregnancy under Roe v. Wade occurs after the fetus becomes viable[4]. After viability, the state could regulate or prohibit abortions unless they were ``necessary, in appropriate medical judgement'', to preserve the life or health of the woman. This standard must be read, however, in light of the Court's decision the same day in Doe v. Bolton, that clinical judgement ``may be exercised in light of all factors -- physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age -- relevant to the well-being of the patient[5]. Thus, the Court nominally allowed the state to prohibit post-viability abortions except in apparently limited cases, but it actually defined the limitation in a way that bars the state from prohibiting such abortions if physicians are willing to perform them.

In a later case the Court sustained a statute defining viability as a stage where the fetus's life ``may be continued outside the womb by the natural or artificial life-supportive systems''[6]. This definition allows the state to regulate the decision to have an abortion, a decision made while the fetus is in the womb, on the basis of what must at that time be a prediction about what will happen after the fetus is removed from the womb. The uncertainty of this prediction might lead physicians to refrain from performing abortions if, as Roe seemed to suggest, states could readily prohibit post-viability abortions. The Court thus stressed that viability was essentially a medical judgement, and invalidated a law making physicians criminally liable for performing abortions when the fetus ``is viable'' or when there is ``sufficient reason to believe that the fetus may be viable''[7]. The threat of criminal liability in the face of the uncertainty associated with viability determinations unacceptably burdened the abortion decision.


< Message edited by Phydeaux -- 6/28/2013 1:34:36 AM >

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 64
RE: Bravery and fortitude in Texas - 6/28/2013 1:47:00 AM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:


Now, lets get down to the nitty gritty... I have no issue with physicians being required to have admitting privileges. I do have a problem with a state requiring those physicians to obtain privileges and not ensuring there are privileges to be had. Which is the problem the Judge saw in Mississippi. There should be a back up plan.... and there isnt.



See you and I mostly agree. I am opposed to abortion but I am honest. I wouldn't close an abortion clinic on a pretext of not allowing admitting privileges. If the law was passed that a physician must have admitting privileges then I would support what you said - that there are privileges to be had.

On the other hand taz - I think you can't demonize your opponents all the time - it just causes horrible polarization in the body politic. I vote against liars all the time. Others do too. If the people that pass a bill say its not intended to close down all abortion clinics in tx- perhaps what the say is true.

On the question of 20 weeks vs whatever. Roe was decided on a completely arbitrary basis. Babies have been born before the last trimester - and lived fine lives. Its clear the guiding principle of roe v wade and ff. is viability. On that basis, the 20 week rule is certainly closer to reflecting reality than the last trimester rule.

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 65
RE: Bravery and fortitude in Texas - 6/28/2013 1:50:00 AM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline 		From Roe vs Wade text...

As we have noted, the common law found greater significance in quickening. Physicians and their scientific colleagues have regarded that event with less interest and have tended to focus either upon conception, upon live birth, or upon the interim point at which the fetus becomes "viable," that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. 59 Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks. 60 The Aristotelian theory of "mediate animation," that held sway throughout the Middle Ages and the Renaissance in Europe, continued to be official Roman Catholic dogma until the 19th century, despite opposition to this "ensoulment" theory from those in the Church who would recognize the existence of life from the moment of conception. 61 The latter is now, of course, the official belief of the Catholic Church. As one brief amicus discloses, this is a view strongly held by many non-Catholics as well, and by many physicians. Substantial problems for precise definition of this view are posed, however, by new embryological data that purport to indicate that conception is a "process" over time, rather than an event, and by new medical techniques such as menstrual extraction, the "morning-after" pill, implantation of embryos, artificial insemination, and even artificial wombs. 62

...........

With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.



http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1562778/posts

Viability age decreased for 50 years. It has stangnated the last 12.

Babies born at 23 weeks or earlier are no more likely to survive than they were a decade ago, a study has found.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7390522.stm

WHEN science can improve the age, then I will revisit my thinking on the age of viability. Problem is, according to biological development, surfactant is needed to breathe (to sustain the gas exchange required for life). Unless they discover a way to miraculously change the developmental growth of the lungs to an earlier date, viability is pretty much where it is.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 66
RE: Bravery and fortitude in Texas - 6/28/2013 2:06:38 AM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

On the other hand taz - I think you can't demonize your opponents all the time - it just causes horrible polarization in the body politic. I vote against liars all the time. Others do too. If the people that pass a bill say its not intended to close down all abortion clinics in tx- perhaps what the say is true.


I dont demonise anyone. I give facts. I give fetal development facts. I give answers based on science. If what they said was true, after watching Mississippi and the problems there, they would have made a "plan B" for the event in case it did happen... they did not. Its not like you cant say they didnt know.

quote:

On the question of 20 weeks vs whatever. Roe was decided on a completely arbitrary basis. Babies have been born before the last trimester - and lived fine lives. Its clear the guiding principle of roe v wade and ff. is viability. On that basis, the 20 week rule is certainly closer to reflecting reality than the last trimester rule.


I am happy with the 23 - 24 week rule. I certainly am not happy with .. at 19.6 weeks, a physician refusing to prevent a spontaneous abortion (yes, they do that) then at 20.1 weeks a woman being told she cannot effectively abort her fetus with the full knowledge that its not viable yet.

Now, since its way past my bedtime and I will definitely hear about it tomorrow.. I am going to leave you with one last question.

What would we have done with an extra 56 million people?

http://www.numberofabortions.com/

Haven’t we all heard about long lines of people waiting to adopt a child, and even going overseas to find them? If so, then might there be enough adoptive parents to handle the increase in unwanted children if abortion weren’t used? To answer this we would need to know how many adoption seekers there are. As reported by the National Adoption Information Clearinghouse, the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth found that 500,000 women were currently seeking to adopt a child, though of these only 232,000 were taking concrete steps toward adoption, and only 100,000 had actually applied to adopt a child. I don’t know how long these women had been trying to adopt. That is to say, if all 500,000 of these women were to succeed in adopting a child this year, I don’t know whether there would be 500,000 new women wanting to adopt the following year. Perhaps the most helpful statistic is from the 1988 National Survey of Family Growth, which estimated that there are 3.3 adoption seekers for every actual adoption. Combining this with the 120,000 adoptions a year statistic from above makes for just under 400,000 adoption seekers a year.

So suppose abortion were to be made illegal (except, say, in cases of rape and danger to mother’s health—a very small fraction of yearly abortions). Would the “supply” of unwanted babies outstrip the “demand” of adoptive parents? (I hate to use those terms, but they’re the easiest way to get a handle on the issue.) I don’t know the answer. The lack of the abortion option might inspire some people to be more careful with contraceptives, or have less sex in the first place. Plus it is likely that many women who would otherwise have aborted would end up choosing to keep their babies. These effects mean that one cannot simply say “1.2 million abortions a year, therefore 1.2 million babies put up for adoption a year if abortion is made illegal.” (There is also the fact that some women would procure illegal abortions or travel to other countries to get them. This would be only cold-comfort to abortion opponents, however, and thus they will not want to place great emphasis on these factors.)

Still, even taking account of these effects, the supply of unwanted babies would surely increase dramatically if abortion were made illegal. Just to make things concrete, suppose that increased abstinence and increased care with contraceptives led to 20% fewer unwanted pregnancies a year, and that of the unwanted pregnancies that still arise, fully 1/3 of the pregnant women decide to keep their babies. Starting from the current baseline of 1.2 million abortions a year, these changes would still mean an increase of 640,000 babies put up for adoption per year, in addition to the 120,000 that are already put up per year. Would there be enough demand to handle 760,000 unwanted babies a year—over 6 times more than there are now? If we rely on the (somewhat optimistic, I think) figure from above positing 400,000 adoption seekers a year, that still leaves 360,000 babies—almost half—left over per year.

Problems remain even on the more optimistic assumptions that, say, increased abstinence and increased care with contraceptives leads to 50% fewer unwanted pregnancies a year, and that of the unwanted pregnancies that arise, fully 1/2 of the pregnant women decide to keep their babies. This would still create an increase of 300,000 babies in addition to the 120,000 that are already put up for adoption each year. Again assuming 400,000 adoption seekers per year, this would leave 20,000 babies per year unwanted and unadopted.

http://www.ithaca.edu/faculty/cduncan/230/adoption.htm

Do we reopen orphanages?

Since 2006, with the option of Plan B, there has been a decline in abortions. Will it decline enough?

Since the majority of abortions occur long before the viability date, we are arguing over 1.5% of all abortions.. depending on when you decide viability is. But, I can assure you, 20 weeks is not viable and never has been.

United States: In 2003, from data collected in those areas that sufficiently reported gestational age, it was found that 6.2% of abortions were conducted between 13 and 15 weeks, 4.2% between 16 and 20 weeks, and 1.4% at or after 21 weeks.[13] Because the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's annual study on abortion statistics does not calculate the exact gestational age for abortions performed past the 20th week, there are no precise data for the number of abortions performed after viability.[13] In 1997, the Guttmacher Institute estimated the number of abortions in the U.S. past 24 weeks to be 0.08%, or approximately 1,032 per year.[14]



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_termination_of_pregnancy



_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 67
RE: Bravery and fortitude in Texas - 6/28/2013 2:07:50 AM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

The FDA ruled, with the courts' help that the Morning after pill must be made available over the counter in the US.


Yes, I've follwed the story of rU486 since early trials.

quote:

And if you would do any kind of research,


I read more than anyone I know, at more than 2000 wpm tested.

quote:

you would know that laws passed in recent years in states such as Virginia ......
Try reading Abortion restrictions gain steam in the states.


Certainly, I know that laws have been passed (and attempted to be passed) that attempt to restrict abortion. Irrelevent to the discussion of this law, for the most part.

quote:

Now personally, I am against abortion except in some cases such as rape, incest or if the life of the mother is in danger by carrying the child to term.

I dont consider the morning after pill an abortions since it prevents implantation of the egg therefore gestation cannot occur.



Yes, there has been a recent study that said that one of the new abortifaecants prevents implantation. Previoiusly, the mechanism of action wasn't known.

quote:

However, I do not believe that the Federal or State government has the right or authority to legislate what a woman can and cannot do with her body concerning reproductive health care.


Whereas, I believe that the courts do not have the ability to create a federal preemption of states rights when there is no enumeration of such a right. Prior to Roe v Wade abortions were mostly illegal. The supreme court said they were legal based on an expectation of privacy which is nowhere enumerated in the constitution.

IF we the people wanted to have a right to privacy - or a right to abortion then we should have passed such a right in the method the constitution envisions for such an action- amendment. Inventing a right out of whole cloth short circuits the political debate.

IF an amendment had been passed, it is possible that the pro and anti abortion crowds could have met in the middle. Or it is possible that the anti abortion crowd could have prevailed.

As it is a precedent was set for all kinds of judicially active rulings on both left and right. And instead of participatory democracy we have democracy by court fiat.

quote:

The conservatives scream for smaller government yet they insist on passing laws to restrict abortion in such ways as to require procedures that are not necessary to determine anything concerning abortion.


Conservative believe in meaningful regulation: Meatpacking rules, Road & building construction. Things that might kill a person. Abortion falls into that category.

quote:

Now here is something to consider each year in the U.S., about 700 women die of pregnancy-related complications and 52,000 experience emergencies such as acute renal failure, shock, respiratory distress, aneurysms and heart surgery. An additional 34,000 barely avoid death.

Since Roe v. Wade, only 400 women have died as a result of complications from abortions.

I guess it is okay for that many women to die each year in the US from complications due to child delivery. Which could actually rise still more if abortions are restricted even more.


Offensive strawman. No conservative wants women to die in abortions or in childbirth.

quote:

Bottom line, the women getting an abortion have to live with their choice, and have to face a far greater judge than any on earth, as do the doctors performing the procedure.

So for the religious right, who oppose abortions with such passion as to passively advocate the murder of doctors performing them, I have but one thing to say, shut the fuck up and let god pass judgement, unless of course you people do not think he is up to the task.


So you are advocating that political groups you disagree with should just "shut the fuck up".

'Nuff said.


(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 68
RE: Bravery and fortitude in Texas - 6/28/2013 2:23:03 AM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:


quote:

On the other hand taz - I think you can't demonize your opponents all the time - it just causes horrible polarization in the body politic. I vote against liars all the time. Others do too. If the people that pass a bill say its not intended to close down all abortion clinics in tx- perhaps what the say is true. [/quoteI dont demonise anyone. I give facts. I give fetal development facts. I give answers based on science. If what they said was true, after watching Mississippi and the problems there, they would have made a "plan B" for the event in case it did happen... they did not. Its not like you cant say they didnt know.


And there's nothing to say that the problem you envision will ever materialize. Texas really is not Mississipi. And there is also nothing to prevent a bill from being revisited or modified when necessary.





quote:



What would we have done with an extra 56 million people?



Well thanks for a cordial debate taz. Always a pleasure seeing you.

I really don't see a problem with 56 million more people. Most of Europe / Russian is below population replacement. So are we, except for immigration.
To which most people will say that more people will compete for more resources life will be miserable.

Two famous economists had a bet. The contention was that the population was exploding and the same commodities were being chased by more people - commodities would increase in price. The other economist bet that people produce ideas. The ideas led to better ways of farming and manufacturing - and that therefore commodities would decrease.

They made the bet. They waited 20 years. Commodity prices were lower.


(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 69
RE: Bravery and fortitude in Texas - 6/28/2013 2:47:45 AM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline 		And yet you dont address the 18 years they will require care...

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 70
RE: Bravery and fortitude in Texas - 6/28/2013 2:53:43 AM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline 		Whats there to address?

People born in 72 would be 40 now. children are cared for the way they are always cared for.
Or, putting it another way.

Since 1972 we've added a gabillion population. How were they cared for?

We'll never know how it might have happened. Perhaps having one child instead of having an abortion would have encourage more responsible sex.
Perhaps it would have encouraged a less promiscuous society.

We'll never know.

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 71
RE: Bravery and fortitude in Texas - 6/28/2013 3:01:05 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

Secondly, the bill changes the term of abortion to 20 weeks - after it has been demonstrated that babies born at the 20 week mark are viable.


No it has not, not by any stretch of the imagination.

But, because I know you would not deliberately lie, I want the source for that information.


Yes it has taz - not all babies, but some babies. And that was one of the horrors that came out of Gosnell, if you listened to any of the testimony.
But anyway here's one line (and google will give you several more) saying that 10% of babies born at the 20 week mark have long term viability.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/house-democrat-falsely-claims-babies-born-20-weeks-arent-viable_733894.html

The earliest preemie to survive at all ever was 21 weeks 5 days.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterm_birth#Notable_preterm_births

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 72
RE: Bravery and fortitude in Texas - 6/28/2013 3:20:59 AM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

Secondly, the bill changes the term of abortion to 20 weeks - after it has been demonstrated that babies born at the 20 week mark are viable.


No it has not, not by any stretch of the imagination.

But, because I know you would not deliberately lie, I want the source for that information.


Yes it has taz - not all babies, but some babies. And that was one of the horrors that came out of Gosnell, if you listened to any of the testimony.
But anyway here's one line (and google will give you several more) saying that 10% of babies born at the 20 week mark have long term viability.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/house-democrat-falsely-claims-babies-born-20-weeks-arent-viable_733894.html

The earliest preemie to survive at all ever was 21 weeks 5 days.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterm_birth#Notable_preterm_births


Already discussed. Scroll up and read conversation.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 73
RE: Bravery and fortitude in Texas - 6/28/2013 5:03:34 AM   
jlf1961


Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

The conservatives scream for smaller government yet they insist on passing laws to restrict abortion in such ways as to require procedures that are not necessary to determine anything concerning abortion.


Conservative believe in meaningful regulation: Meatpacking rules, Road & building construction. Things that might kill a person. Abortion falls into that category.


quote:

Bottom line, the women getting an abortion have to live with their choice, and have to face a far greater judge than any on earth, as do the doctors performing the procedure.

So for the religious right, who oppose abortions with such passion as to passively advocate the murder of doctors performing them, I have but one thing to say, shut the fuck up and let god pass judgement, unless of course you people do not think he is up to the task.


So you are advocating that political groups you disagree with should just "shut the fuck up".

'Nuff said.





First, I have yet to see regulations restricting access to surgical procedures, except Arizona which decided not to cover transplant costs that could save a life for those people on medicaid. So your point about restricting access or making it harder to get abortions is invalid.

At such time as legislation is passed that make heart surgery no longer optional after a period of time has passed, then your point would be valid.

Furthermore, these laws being passed or attempted to pass such as the law in Texas making it illegal to have an abortion after 20 weeks is not an attempt to save or prevent a woman from having complications from the procedure, it is an attempt to make it harder to get an abortion.

I was referring to those religious conservatives who are basing their arguments about abortion on religious grounds. These are the same people that print up "wanted dead or alive" posters with the name, addresses and phone numbers of abortion doctors, a tactic that passively condones the murder of these doctors.

And do not try to insult my intelligence by saying those wanted posters do no such thing.

My personal opinion is that since the morning after pills have been made legal for over the counter sales, then abortions for any reason other than the life of the mother should no longer be necessary. Of course there are some that would argue the opposite of that, stateing the possibility of reactions to the pills, the same reason that they argue about birth control pills or implants.

I have been hearing this crap since 73. Every conceivable reason to ban abortions and the opposite. I have seen pro lifers suggest constitutional amendments and other ideas.

Prior to Roe v. Wade, a woman could be arrested for leaving the country to get an abortion, and many were. That makes as much sense as arresting a stoner who goes to Amsterdam to smoke pot.

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 74
RE: Bravery and fortitude in Texas - 6/28/2013 6:13:01 AM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Whats there to address?

People born in 72 would be 40 now. children are cared for the way they are always cared for.
Or, putting it another way.

Since 1972 we've added a gabillion population. How were they cared for?

We'll never know how it might have happened. Perhaps having one child instead of having an abortion would have encourage more responsible sex.
Perhaps it would have encouraged a less promiscuous society.

We'll never know.


I was speaking of the sudden influx of children up for adoption.

What are your views on marijuana use?

Medical marijuana use?

The death penalty?

When does your morality stop interfering in my life?



_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 75
RE: Bravery and fortitude in Texas - 6/28/2013 6:41:41 AM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
quote:

tazzygirl
When does your morality stop interfering in my life?


Excellent question. The answer, if there is one, might prove interesting.

_____________________________



(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 76
RE: Bravery and fortitude in Texas - 6/28/2013 8:44:36 AM   
jlf1961


Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

And yet you dont address the 18 years they will require care...



Actually, I have a solution for this problem, and it comes from a Kurt Russell movie.

Instead of putting these children up for adoption, which nobody wants to address on the pro life side, they are placed in facilities run by the Dod. Conditioning begins at the earliest possible age to create the perfect military specimens.

Now granted, not all of these children will make the grade at the appropriate milestones, those that do not are then transferred to the NIH and CDC to be used to test vaccines and drugs on.

This solution eliminates the civilian population from having to volunteer for the military, and over time, the selective controlled breeding of the military stock will create the perfect soldiers, which will be faster, stronger, and in many ways smarter than the average human, so when they decide to revolt, the normal humans will be easy to round up and eliminate, thus paving the way for a better race of human beings.

The above plan makes as much sense as some of the legislative ways conservatives are tying to restrict or eliminate abortions, but the plan is workable.

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 77
RE: Bravery and fortitude in Texas - 6/28/2013 9:33:51 AM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

.

When does your morality stop interfering in my life?




Strawman. Since when is it the purpose of government to not interfere in your life? You don't object to driver's licenses to drive. Age restrictions to vote. Prohibitions on drinking.
Compunction to military service.

Why do you think your ability to commit murder should go unregulated?

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 78
RE: Bravery and fortitude in Texas - 6/28/2013 9:54:42 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
At the very least you have to concede that this is a combination of Mississipi's law and civic action - not Mississipi's law solely. And again, there is no indication that the local conditions are the same, and that they are likely to lead to the shut down of a significant number of clinics - let alone 90%.

Before the law was passed the forced birthers made sure they had put enough pressure on those hospitals that none would give the doctors involved privileges. And that ignores the fact that the Jackson clinic flies doctors in from out of state anonymously to protect them from violence.

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 79
RE: Bravery and fortitude in Texas - 6/28/2013 10:14:31 AM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
At the very least you have to concede that this is a combination of Mississipi's law and civic action - not Mississipi's law solely. And again, there is no indication that the local conditions are the same, and that they are likely to lead to the shut down of a significant number of clinics - let alone 90%.

Before the law was passed the forced birthers made sure they had put enough pressure on those hospitals that none would give the doctors involved privileges. And that ignores the fact that the Jackson clinic flies doctors in from out of state anonymously to protect them from violence.


That is part of the problem when you force an unpopular decision on a population. They resist in whatever way possible.
And the fact that abortion is popular in most of the country doesn't make it popular in mississipi.

Its been widely said you can't legislate morality. Proof of that in execution. By the way, I am sure that the federal policy and the evolution of opinions will gradually corrode mississippi's position.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 80
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Bravery and fortitude in Texas Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.125