If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Salon)   A panel of judges rules that Texas laws shutting down all but six clinics for women in the state "on its face does not impose an undue burden on the life and health of a woman"   (salon.com) divider line 21
    More: Fail, undue burden, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Texas, health crisis, speed limits, chemical abortion, appeals courts, reproductive rights  
•       •       •

596 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 Mar 2014 at 8:58 AM (25 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-03-28 07:47:59 AM
7 votes:

SauronWasFramed: If you disagree, thank Gosnell, Booker and other abortionists that allowed their patients to die, or suffer tremendous infection. Safe? Not so much.


If only the procedure hadn't been driven underground, it could be performed in a hospital by competent doctors, and this kind of thing wouldn't happen.
2014-03-28 07:56:37 AM
6 votes:

SauronWasFramed: If you disagree, thank Gosnell, Booker and other abortionists that allowed their patients to die, or suffer tremendous infection. Safe? Not so much.


It's cute when conservatives act like they care about the healthcare of women.
2014-03-28 07:23:16 AM
4 votes:
Now add in the Hobby Lobby decision - the religious right wants to give corporations the 'right' to limit abortion even further, and have corporations reduce access as much as possible.  it all adds up to a fairly well coordinated attack on women's rights and a comprehensive approach to controlling women's health care and reproductive health choices.
2014-03-28 08:00:14 AM
3 votes:

Marcus Aurelius: SauronWasFramed: If you disagree, thank Gosnell, Booker and other abortionists that allowed their patients to die, or suffer tremendous infection. Safe? Not so much.

If only the procedure hadn't been driven underground, it could be performed in a hospital by competent doctors, and this kind of thing wouldn't happen.


I think that many conservatives would rather just have the slutty women die off, leaving only the pliant obedient ones for breeding and general slavery.
2014-03-28 08:12:02 AM
2 votes:

baka-san: Weaver95: I think that many conservatives would rather just have the slutty women die off, leaving only the pliant obedient ones for breeding and general slavery.

No, they wank to The Handmaid Tale.


that too, yes.  this is a very coordinated attack on women's health issues.  i'm rather impressed at the ground work and effort the evangelicals put into all of this.  Now imagine if the evangelicals had spent all that time, money, effort and manpower trying to eliminate poverty instead of denying women access to affordable health care...

*sigh*

But strong, independent women in charge of their own lives scares the jesus out of some men.
2014-03-28 04:15:17 PM
1 votes:

Dansker: Phinn: madgonad: A person has absolutely no duty to do anything to save another person's life.

Except as to your offspring.

It's not offspring before it's born.


Yes, it is.  It's made from two persons' biological material.  It's just a person inside another person.

Tough concept, I know, but try to wrap your head around it.  It might help if you keet up with the last 200 years of biology and medicine.
2014-03-28 04:10:38 PM
1 votes:

grumpfuff: So, instead of you defining what makes a fetus a person, now the burden is on me to prove it isn't?


Yes.  The burden is on you.  A fetus is the offspring of a person, so the fetus is also a person until you show my why it isn't.

"Personhood" is an abstraction.  It's been denied to slaves, children, prisoners, foreigners and women, to name a few.  Until you can show me why the immature offspring of persons are not persons, merely because they are dependent on the very care and protection that all immature persons need and are entitled to, then "personhood" is just an empty, formalistic label for "I want to kill it, it's easy, and you can't stop me."
2014-03-28 03:20:06 PM
1 votes:

grumpfuff: You don't get to solve decades-old problems in bioethics by defining around them.

/by the way, discrete implies it can exist on its own


"Exist on its own" is defining around the problem.  Try leaving a newborn to its own devices and see how long it lives.  It's totally dependent on protection and sustenance.  Parents don't get to leave their 2 year-olds to their own devices because they can live on their own.

Parents clearly have a duty of protection and care.  The fact that an 8.5 month gestation unborn fetus needs more protection and care than a 2 month-old infant is not an ethical reason to deprive it of protection and sustenance.  It means you have to be MORE attentive.  Same thing all the way back to the beginning of the organism. There's no magic line, other than existence/non-existence itself, to rationally differentiate between the care needed by a 2-minute-old zygote versus a fetus 2 seconds away from birth.  It's only a matter of degree.
2014-03-28 12:36:10 PM
1 votes:

wookiee cookie: my high school latin-fu is dead. but tx for the pretension.

where did i mention past abortions, i'm talking about future ones. obviously.

nice to see you cop to the completely unrealistic, dystopian, handmaid's tale-esque vision of doctors, nurses and women being prosecuted imprisoned and executed for murder. bc most of your kinfolk are intellectually dishonest cowards.


I'm knee-deep in Latin again for a project of mine, so it seems more normal to me.

I don't really have kinsfolk.  And I don't make my decisions about legal issues based on electoral politics.  Is squishiness on the question of prosecuting abortionists a by-product of cowardice?  Maybe, sure, sometimes.  In my experience, inconsistency and hypocrisy is more often just a matter of sloppy thinking and unfamiliarity with abstract thought, plus a big helping of plain old marketing considerations.

Anyway, I'm not so much pro-choice as I am pro-abortion.  I want a free-to-use self-serve abortion booth installed in every 7-Eleven and quickie-mart in America, one that dispenses a $200 gift card on completion, more if you opt to self-sterilize, and a free iPad if you refer a friend.
2014-03-28 12:06:02 PM
1 votes:
Why do conservatives care so much (or at least pretend to) about unborn babies yet don't give a rats ass if they starve to death after they are born or are born with a painful abnormality and only survive 5-10 minutes?

Does the experience of life regardless of how painful or short lived it is trump everything?
2014-03-28 10:30:45 AM
1 votes:

APO_Buddha: bigsteve3OOO: Fast Moon: bigsteve3OOO: Some people believe that a fetus is a human.  That killing a human is murder.  Laws should protect people from being murdered.  You may disagree.  Those people are finally using the liberal tactic of using petty laws to erode freedom slowly rather than head on.  Liberals are being hoisted on their own petards.  I find it amusing.

Okay, we'll play it that way.

If there should be no differentiation of rights between the born and unborn, when do I get to start using other people's bodies against their will?

The argument from the left isn't that a fetus should have fewer rights than a born person, it's that they  shouldn't have more.

You disagree with them.  OK.

 Its not the disagreement but the tactics that they stole from you.  Don't like something but cant make it illegal?  No problem....slowly.. make it harder to do.  Its right out of the Liberal playbook.  So I merely point at you and laugh.  HA HA you are getting your own medicine.

You're confusing business 'rights' and person rights.

Regulation of businesses that are dumping toxic slug into the air/water/earth, where it harms untold numbers of people is one thing.  Restricting the reproductive rights of women is something completely different.


Next thing is to get the young ones by standardized tests:

Coming up on a common core math test:

Question:  Since an abortion clinic without hospital visitation rights is 20% more likely to cause infection in the patients and in Texas there were 100,000 abortions before the bill saving the patents from this was passed; how many infections were prevented by this law?

Oh man this is awesome. The fundies are using your stuff against you LOL at you.
2014-03-28 10:15:19 AM
1 votes:

bigsteve3OOO: DrBenway: bigsteve3OOO: Fast Moon: bigsteve3OOO: Some people believe that a fetus is a human.  That killing a human is murder.  Laws should protect people from being murdered.  You may disagree.  Those people are finally using the liberal tactic of using petty laws to erode freedom slowly rather than head on.  Liberals are being hoisted on their own petards.  I find it amusing.

Okay, we'll play it that way.

If there should be no differentiation of rights between the born and unborn, when do I get to start using other people's bodies against their will?

The argument from the left isn't that a fetus should have fewer rights than a born person, it's that they  shouldn't have more.

You disagree with them.  OK.

 Its not the disagreement but the tactics that they stole from you.  Don't like something but cant make it illegal?  No problem....slowly.. make it harder to do.  Its right out of the Liberal playbook.  So I merely point at you and laugh.  HA HA you are getting your own medicine.

Needs more Alinsky.

Also, "Ha ha, no abortion for you. Funny!" You crack yourself up.

Realistically the only thing they did not do was install a tax on the providers and the patients.  And say the tax money would go to DR. training and education.  Then it would have been so perfect I would have peed myself laughing at you.


It's as though these Progderps aren't even aware of their own history.

This Texas law isn't an Alinsky tactic at all. It's a much older method, straight out of the Fabian Society.

If the Progderps ever have to face a well-orchestrated campaign of Fabian conservatism, or even Fabian libertarianism, the entertainment value will be very high. Much popcorn will be consumed. My schadenfreud-o-meter will asplode.
2014-03-28 09:57:58 AM
1 votes:

Fast Moon: bigsteve3OOO: Some people believe that a fetus is a human.  That killing a human is murder.  Laws should protect people from being murdered.  You may disagree.  Those people are finally using the liberal tactic of using petty laws to erode freedom slowly rather than head on.  Liberals are being hoisted on their own petards.  I find it amusing.

Okay, we'll play it that way.

If there should be no differentiation of rights between the born and unborn, when do I get to start using other people's bodies against their will?

The argument from the left isn't that a fetus should have fewer rights than a born person, it's that they  shouldn't have more.


You disagree with them.  OK.

 Its not the disagreement but the tactics that they stole from you.  Don't like something but cant make it illegal?  No problem....slowly.. make it harder to do.  Its right out of the Liberal playbook.  So I merely point at you and laugh.  HA HA you are getting your own medicine.
2014-03-28 09:16:53 AM
1 votes:
Some people believe that a fetus is a human.  That killing a human is murder.  Laws should protect people from being murdered.  You may disagree.  Those people are finally using the liberal tactic of using petty laws to erode freedom slowly rather than head on.  Liberals are being hoisted on their own petards.  I find it amusing.
2014-03-28 09:12:05 AM
1 votes:
Justice? In Texas?
2014-03-28 09:11:57 AM
1 votes:

SauronWasFramed: If you disagree, thank Gosnell, Booker and other abortionists that allowed their patients to die, or suffer tremendous infection. Safe? Not so much.


Didn't Gosnell get life in prison?

I would think that shows that existing laws would be sufficient deterrent to abortion doctors not getting their patients to an ER if they need one.
2014-03-28 09:09:50 AM
1 votes:
I'm going to go out on a limb here... the panel of Texas judges is a bunch of old white guys?
2014-03-28 09:07:46 AM
1 votes:
As the Texas Tribune reports, Chief Justice Edith Jones' opinion stated that Texas' "articulation of rational legislative objectives, which was backed by evidence placed before the state legislature, easily supplied a connection between the admitting-privileges rule and the desirable protection of abortion patients' health."

Sure, but by that logic ALL clinics of ALL types should be required to have admitting privileges.  If you're singling out abortion providers, then the "connection" is pretext bullsh*t and isn't constitutional.
2014-03-28 09:06:19 AM
1 votes:
Texas can straight fark off.
2014-03-28 07:58:37 AM
1 votes:

clancifer: SauronWasFramed: If you disagree, thank Gosnell, Booker and other abortionists that allowed their patients to die, or suffer tremendous infection. Safe? Not so much.

It's cute when conservatives act like they care about the healthcare of women.


Gotta keep the breeding stock healthy.
2014-03-28 07:43:26 AM
1 votes:
Did the decision say "if sluts wouldn't slut their sluttery, then sluts sluts sluts Jesus."?
 
Displayed 21 of 21 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report