Texas extrem abortion bil pass

[ninjadude]

No one is making abortion illegal, ....

The Republicans are trying very hard

[ninjadude]

prevent pregnancy

justify the death of a human being

If you believe that, then these are the same things.

[Arbenol]

I can see at least one major problem with the 20-week limit. The lack of exceptions.

In Texas, for example, there's no exception for Rape or Incest. God forbid that you don't escape from the cellar until week 21.

More disturbingly - the testing for most genetic disorders doesn't occur until around week 20.

If, for example, in week 21 you were to discover that you're carrying a child which is guaranteed to live the rest of their life in a permanent vegetative state - then, even though the child is not viable at that point outside of the womb - you are not allowed under Texas law to terminate that pregnancy - even though Roe vs Wade says otherwise.

All fair points. I don't know about the US but I believe that most abortions don't fall into those categories of reasons. Most women know they're pregnant within the first trimester, and haven't been raped or are carrying a profoundly handicapped foetus.

For those examples you cite, I believe any abortion law should be intelligent enough to cover them. The problem is often the unintelligent sorts that enforce it.

[Arbenol]

It seems clear to me that this bill seeks to ban abortions by stealth. And that the motivation for this is largely religious.

I find it ironic that those who would defend their right to own guns citing the sacred cow of their Constitution are so often the same ones who are willing to trash it for their dogmatic beliefs.

[Tiggs]

All fair points. I don't know about the US but I believe that most abortions don't fall into those categories of reasons. Most women know they're pregnant within the first trimester, and haven't been raped or are carrying a profoundly handicapped foetus.

Well, only around 1.5% of abortions in the US happen after 20 weeks.

Roughly 10% or those are due to genetic reasons. The majority, however, are elective.

The two main reasons for those later elective abortions are discovery time and logistics:

58% of women who have abortions in the second trimester don't have their pregnancy confirmed until the second trimester.

58% is coincidentally also the percentage of women who had abortions in the US that said that they would have liked to have had their abortion earlier, but could not afford to do so due to a lack of money. In Texas, the cost of an abortion typically ranges from $450 to $3,000, becoming more expensive the later it is.

Texas, of course, is also the state with mandated Sonograms.

From the linked article:

The ride Martha referred to is the 50-mile round trip to the abortion clinic so that she could have a government-mandated sonogram. In January 2012, a law came into effect requiring Texas women seeking abortions to hear a clinician describe the fetus’ physical characteristics and to view it on a screen. They must then wait 24 hours before proceeding with the abortion. The waiting period and mandatory ultrasound has added personal, financial and logistical barriers to getting an abortion. In a 2012 survey conducted by the Texas Policy Evaluation Project at UT-Austin, women had to travel an average of 42 miles to have their consultation. Some traveled more than 400 miles. The research team discovered that almost one-quarter of women found it hard to get to the clinic for the sonogram.

[Yamato]

So confirming something late and lazy is a good excuse for aborting in the 2nd trimester? This is a blatant disregard for personal responsibility that makes these huge annual abortion numbers in this country.. People should be able to understand that when they're having unprotected sex, pregnancy is a real possibility. Given that they know that up front, it's ridiculous that it takes them four months to figure out that they're pregnant. Go to the store and buy a pregnancy kit already. Do we need mandatory seminars in our education system on family planning or do people just not give a damn to such an extent that it wouldn't even matter? I think the latter is the case. This isn't rocket science where people just don't understand how to be responsible. It's not an intelligence problem, people just don't care.

If women have a lack of money and can't even afford an abortion, how are they going to afford a baby? If there is no financial ability to deal with the results of unprotected sex, it's reckless behavior to be having unprotected sex in the first place. I could go out and do a lot of reckless things that would create huge bills for myself that I can't afford to pay, but I'm not that stupid. Condoms work. Sodomy works. m********ion works. Celibacy works. Making political hay about the unwanted results of having careless stupid sex might be popular for people who self-identify with one party or the other in this manufactured wedge issue, but preventing the reckless behavior in the first place would put an end to the problems and excuses alike.

[darkmoonlady]

The restrictions were declared unconstitutional...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/28/texas-abortion-unconstitutional_n_4171087.html

Just like I said in my post they were attempting to restrict access not for the health of women but to keep them from a legal and safe abortion.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

If women have a lack of money and can't even afford an abortion, how are they going to afford a baby?

The usual way - Welfare.

[green_dude777]

Just bringing to the table another thought on abortion laws; I don't think men should be allowed to vote one way or another on the issue. It's such a gender specific issue, I find it reeking of arrogance when a man thinks he can tell a woman what she can or can't do pertaining to her body. Being pregnant and giving birth is risky.

For clarification, I'm a man.

[Ugly1]

As with other states attempting similar restritive legislation the higher courts ask for proof of the failure ofcrrgulations already in place. Before these bills were passed women were in fact recieving good medical care and were having abortions that were safe. The new legislation supposedly being about a higher level of care is simply a smokescreen to pass a bill that will reduce access to abortion. It does nothing to raise the level of care or safety as that already existed in those states. The statistics in all the states prove that out. Its bunk they want better healthcare for women they only want to restict access.

Actually, yes it does give a higher level of care in Texas at least. This is preventing women from going to some quack shack abortion center and requiring that they use a reputable (Clean, regulated) center. I am not naïve to the fact that this will make it harder for some women to have abortions. That is undeniable if you are shutting down the vast majority of abortion clinics in the state. I do not think that abortion should be big business and I think that people should use protection more so that we don't make abortion big business to begin with.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Just bringing to the table another thought on abortion laws; I don't think men should be allowed to vote one way or another on the issue. It's such a gender specific issue, I find it reeking of arrogance when a man thinks he can tell a woman what she can or can't do pertaining to her body. Being pregnant and giving birth is risky.

For clarification, I'm a man.

In that case, surely then the sperm-donor needs to be taken out of the equation altogether, including in relation to things like support payments.

If the sperm-donor wants to be the father then yes, they've accepted the obligation otherwise it's the woman's choice alone, and so it's her responsibility alone.

[green_dude777]

In that case, surely then the sperm-donor needs to be taken out of the equation altogether, including in relation to things like support payments.

If the sperm-donor wants to be the father then yes, they've accepted the obligation otherwise it's the woman's choice alone, and so it's her responsibility alone.

I disagree. The sperm donor doesn't put his life on the line to give birth.

[+and-then]

Maybe some of you can answer a question I have, slightly veering off topic - Why is it ( In my experience ) the same general people who are pro-choice, also tend to be anti-death penalty, anti-firearm ( suppposedly due to the deaths related to them ). Why is this the case with some left leaning people?

It's an interesting point. People tend to be somewhat hypocritical (myself included at times) and maybe it is about being caught up in the politics of hate and dissension for many. Other than that I can only conclude that they want the convenience of burying their mistakes while crucifying others for their own.

[Papagiorgio]

Just bringing to the table another thought on abortion laws; I don't think men should be allowed to vote one way or another on the issue. It's such a gender specific issue, I find it reeking of arrogance when a man thinks he can tell a woman what she can or can't do pertaining to her body. Being pregnant and giving birth is risky.

For clarification, I'm a man.

Most people who take issue with abortion are concerned with the fetus. It has nothing to do with "telling a woman what she can do with her body". They want to save the fetus, which they see as a human life.

Until everybody can agree on when a human life begins there will be the pro-life/pro choice paradigm.

[green_dude777]

Most people who take issue with abortion are concerned with the fetus. It has nothing to do with "telling a woman what she can do with her body". They want to save the fetus, which they see as a human life.

Until everybody can agree on when a human life begins there will be the pro-life/pro choice paradigm.

And what I'm pointing out is the risk that comes with being pregnant and giving birth, something a man will never have to risk. This is why I find it arrogant when a man thinks he can make a judgement on such a gender specific issue.

I'm well aware of what pro lifers are thinking. I'm pointing out what they are not thinking.

Is there a higher value placed on an unborn fetus in comparison with a woman? Apparently so in Ireland; http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/apr/08/abortion-refusal-death-ireland-hindu-woman

What about if the woman truly doesn't like the child, do we make her take care of it? I notice, a lot of pro lifers are fighting this fight against abortion, but don't give a damn once the child is born. We even have a kid who was born with HIV, who is now HIV free. Do you know how? Neither do the doctors, because the woman didn't give the kid treatments for 8-10 months. http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/03/health/hiv-toddler-cured/

Oh, but we're in it for the children. With as many people thumping their chest proclaiming this in the U.S., it's certainly strange to see these numbers; http://www.ccainstitute.org/why-we-do-it-/facts-and-statistics.html

[Papagiorgio]

And what I'm pointing out is the risk that comes with being pregnant and giving birth, something a man will never have to risk. This is why I find it arrogant when a man thinks he can make a judgement on such a gender specific issue.

I'm well aware of what pro lifers are thinking. I'm pointing out what they are not thinking.

Is there a higher value placed on an unborn fetus in comparison with a woman? Apparently so in Ireland; http://www.theguardi...and-hindu-woman

What about if the woman truly doesn't like the child, do we make her take care of it? I notice, a lot of pro lifers are fighting this fight against abortion, but don't give a damn once the child is born. We even have a kid who was born with HIV, who is now HIV free. Do you know how? Neither do the doctors, because the woman didn't give the kid treatments for 8-10 months. http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/03/health/hiv-toddler-cured/

Oh, but we're in it for the children. With as many people thumping their chest proclaiming this in the U.S., it's certainly strange to see these numbers; http://www.ccainstit...statistics.html

You think it's arrogant that a man could have a problem with someone killing a baby?

[green_dude777]

You think it's arrogant that a man could have a problem with someone killing a baby?

Is that what we're going to resort to now? Not sure if my post's concepts were too complex, if you're being obtuse, or maybe you have crappy reading comprehension?

I'll also defend the position that a 20 week old fetus isn't the same as a birthed baby.

Since you obviously do think a 20 week old fetus is a baby, and terminating a pregnancy at that time is killing a baby, I'd love to hear your definition for what is and isn't a baby.

[Papagiorgio]

Is that what we're going to resort to now? Not sure if my post's concepts were too complex, if you're being obtuse, or maybe you have crappy reading comprehension?

I'll also defend the position that a 20 week old fetus isn't the same as a birthed baby.

Since you obviously do think a 20 week old fetus is a baby, and terminating a pregnancy at that time is killing a baby, I'd love to hear your definition for what is and isn't a baby.

I never made any such claim. People who are pro life believe it is a baby. Their opinion has nothing to do with arrogance or wanting to tell a woman what to do with her body. They want to save what they perceive as a baby. From that perspective a man's opinion is just as valid as a woman. So calm down with the insults.

[aztek]

so what is not a baby by pro life people?? do you know?

never mind, lol.

Edited October 29, 2013 by aztek

[aztek]

Maybe some of you can answer a question I have, slightly veering off topic -

if you base your views on logic and reason, you will have many more questions, most likely with no answers. politics does not work by logic and reason.

[green_dude777]

I never made any such claim. People who are pro life believe it is a baby. Their opinion has nothing to do with arrogance or wanting to tell a woman what to do with her body. They want to save what they perceive as a baby. From that perspective a man's opinion is just as valid as a woman. So calm down with the insults.

A man's opinion on what a woman can do, pertaining to a risk that they themselves would never be subject to..... maybe arrogance isn't the correct word. Maybe thoughtless? Selfish in some instances? What would your suggestion be? What if the "perceived baby" is brain dead? What if the "perceived baby" has a crippling disability? I think you get the idea of why I find it arrogant that a man, who would never be subjected to these risks, thinks he should be able to make that call. I don't see how the opinion would be just as valid, because they want to save something they perceive as a baby. Perception, especially in your example, is too subjective to make a call that could end someone's life. I perceive puppies as babies, but the police won't respond with an Amber Alert because I perceive my puppy the same as a baby.

You think it's arrogant that a man could have a problem with someone killing a baby?

This right here is what elicited my previous response. You framed the question to imply that I'm OK with someone killing a baby. I'm not OK with someone killing a baby, but a 20 week fetus isn't a baby. You framed the question to flame, but when you get a response that you can't answer, you come in with the condemning "calm down." If you want to be taken seriously in a conversation, try addressing points in one's statements.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

I disagree. The sperm donor doesn't put his life on the line to give birth.

So because they make a woman pregnant, they have to take responsibility for the baby's life financially with no choice in the matter?

The woman gets to choose whether or not to have the baby but the man doesn't get a choice in the matter afterwards?

[green_dude777]

So because they make a woman pregnant, they have to take responsibility for the baby's life financially with no choice in the matter?

The woman gets to choose whether or not to have the baby but the man doesn't get a choice in the matter afterwards?

Yes, that is correct. Nobody said life was fair. It's also not fair that a woman runs the risk of death by giving birth, something us men never have to worry about. I don't agree with a lot of the arrangements our courts here in the states impose, but that's an entirely different topic. I'm simply stating that one person (or group), who isn't subjected to the same risks as the other, shouldn't be allowed to make a call that could end the other person's life.

To be honest, I don't like it either. If it were originally up to me, I would've structured reproduction and family/community structure way different than it currently is. Unfortunately, I don't have the power to change either of those.

[Bavarian Raven]

@ green_dude... imho... unless the guy gets an equal say/choice in keeping the baby/terminating it, the guy should not be financially responsible. But I have to agree with what you said, the law/life is not fair.

[Papagiorgio]

A man's opinion on what a woman can do, pertaining to a risk that they themselves would never be subject to..... maybe arrogance isn't the correct word. Maybe thoughtless? Selfish in some instances? What would your suggestion be? What if the "perceived baby" is brain dead? What if the "perceived baby" has a crippling disability? I think you get the idea of why I find it arrogant that a man, who would never be subjected to these risks, thinks he should be able to make that call. I don't see how the opinion would be just as valid, because they want to save something they perceive as a baby. Perception, especially in your example, is too subjective to make a call that could end someone's life. I perceive puppies as babies, but the police won't respond with an Amber Alert because I perceive my puppy the same as a baby.

This right here is what elicited my previous response. You framed the question to imply that I'm OK with someone killing a baby. I'm not OK with someone killing a baby, but a 20 week fetus isn't a baby. You framed the question to flame, but when you get a response that you can't answer, you come in with the condemning "calm down." If you want to be taken seriously in a conversation, try addressing points in one's statements.

My suggestion would be none of those. It is neither arrogant, thoughtless nor selfish to not want to kill a baby. According to you a 20 week fetus isn't a baby. According to pro lifers it is. So to call them arrogant, thoughtless or selfish is more flaming. I did not frame the question to imply you are ok with killing a baby. I framed the question to show that pro lifers see abortion as killing babies. To them it is not a gender specific issue.

"Perception, especially in your example, is too subjective to make a call that could end someone's life." These are your words. Isn't it your perception that a fetus is not a baby? Is your perception too subjective to make a call that could end someone's life (the fetus/baby)?

I said calm down with the insults, because they are not necessary. No condemnation involved. This is obviously a hot button topic that is going to have emotions running high.