|
|
| Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules (1167697) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 2 of 11 |
||
|
| (1167846) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Sat Mar 29 10:44:16 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by ChicagoMotorman on Sat Mar 29 09:07:22 2014. Isn't murder by definition. |
|
|
| (1167848) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Sat Mar 29 10:45:37 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by RockParkMan on Sat Mar 29 08:57:38 2014. +1 |
|
|
| (1167849) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by mtk52983 on Sat Mar 29 10:47:47 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by ChicagoMotorman on Sat Mar 29 09:07:22 2014. For the crime of murder you must bring about the death of a human who was "alive". In determining whether someone is brain dead, we look to the presence or absence of brain activity as measured with an EEG. Using that same measure, unless and until the fetus has brain activity as measured with an EEG or similar measurer, the fetus is not "alive" and therefore it cannot be murder |
|
|
| (1167861) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by chicagomotorman on Sat Mar 29 11:32:31 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by bingbong on Sat Mar 29 10:44:16 2014. No, it's murder by reality. |
|
|
| (1167868) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Sat Mar 29 11:46:18 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by chicagomotorman on Sat Mar 29 11:32:31 2014. Wrong. "Murder" is defined by law. One has to have been born to be murdered. |
|
|
| (1167872) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by ChicagoMotorman on Sat Mar 29 11:58:30 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by bingbong on Sat Mar 29 11:46:18 2014.  Which one is you?
|
|
|
| (1167877) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Sat Mar 29 12:12:11 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by mtk52983 on Sat Mar 29 10:47:47 2014. Right. That is why some places have had a separate crime of "feticide." |
|
|
| (1167878) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Mar 29 12:25:21 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by bingbong on Sat Mar 29 10:25:09 2014. The issue is surgical abortions so why are you trying to cloud the issue with the "Plan B" pill? If just a hand full of women died due to legal surgical abortions but those deaths could have been prevented by the provisions of the Texas law, why would any woman (including you) be against making abortions safer? |
|
|
| (1167879) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Mar 29 12:32:14 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by bingbong on Sat Mar 29 10:26:30 2014. Those are your beliefs and are certainly not universally held. In addition you are trying to impose your lack of religious belief on others who may not share your callousness. Considering that you have had no experience in bringing a child into the world, your opinion is not based on anything but political motivations. |
|
|
| (1167880) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Sat Mar 29 12:45:31 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Train Dude on Sat Mar 29 12:25:21 2014. There is no evidence that the existing rules in Texas have led to deaths or unsafe abortions. And to the extent that legal abortion clinics close because of these onerous and unnecessary rules, women will seek out illegal, underground abortions, as was common before Roe v. Wade, thus increasing the injuries and deaths you are rightfully concerned about. |
|
|
| (1167881) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Sat Mar 29 12:50:22 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by ChicagoMotorman on Sat Mar 29 11:58:30 2014. ?? |
|
|
| (1167882) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Mar 29 12:51:27 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by italianstallion on Sat Mar 29 12:45:31 2014. You are making deliberately misleading statements. I said that the new law will make legal abortion safer. |
|
|
| (1167883) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Mar 29 12:53:30 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by mtk52983 on Sat Mar 29 10:47:47 2014. Except that it is well established that a fetus does have significant brain function, does move in the uterus, and can and does feel pain. |
|
|
| (1167887) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Mar 29 13:09:00 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Dave on Sat Mar 29 08:36:54 2014. It would seem that the author of editorial you provided as proof has a political agenda - which I have no quarrel with but I do have two thoughts on this issue.First: If it was a loved one of mine, I'd want her to have as much medical safety and protection as possible. The Texas law seems to do that without restricting the practice or access to it. Second: The courts agree with me and with the law. QED |
|
|
| (1167888) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by mtk52983 on Sat Mar 29 13:11:46 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Train Dude on Sat Mar 29 12:53:30 2014. I believe someone posted on a previous thread about abortion that brain function is usually first documented between about 20-22 weeks give or take. At that point it would be murder |
|
|
| (1167889) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Mar 29 13:12:07 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Fred G on Sat Mar 29 06:50:17 2014. I disagree with you, Fred. Kermit Gosnell is proof that the abortion industry needs more safeguards. |
|
|
| (1167890) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Mar 29 13:13:27 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by mtk52983 on Sat Mar 29 13:11:46 2014. Hence it supports the position of many who believe late-term abortion is murder. |
|
|
| (1167891) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by mtk52983 on Sat Mar 29 13:15:25 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Train Dude on Sat Mar 29 13:09:00 2014. Except having surgical privileges at a hospital does not make the procedure any safer. The law could have provided the same protection by simply requiring that there be a local hospital that will accept the patient if a complication should arise even if the doctor performing the procedure does not have privileges at that hospital. Second, if the need is so great why isn't the law in place for vasectomies? Or dentists? |
|
|
| (1167892) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by mtk52983 on Sat Mar 29 13:17:02 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Train Dude on Sat Mar 29 13:13:27 2014. I am not denying that and would never advocate a woman get a late term abortion unless medically necessary to save her life. However, as the law is written it restricts the number of places where a woman can get an abortion BEFORE 20-22 weeks (or whenever the first documentation of brain activity is) |
|
|
| (1167893) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Mar 29 13:21:47 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by mtk52983 on Sat Mar 29 13:15:25 2014. Indeed, why is it not? My gastro doctor now does his colonoscopies as an out-patient procedure in the hospital. My urologist is affiliated with a local hospital but if I were going to have a surgical procedure such as a vasectomy, I'd opt to have it done as an outpatient in the hospital as well. |
|
|
| (1167897) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by mtk52983 on Sat Mar 29 13:26:32 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Train Dude on Sat Mar 29 13:21:47 2014. It isn't because the law was put in place solely to limit access to abortions by making it next to impossible to get one (I believe only 6 or 7 facilities in the state of Texas meet the requirements of the law) because a total ban that involves pre-3rd Trimester would be DOA in the Courts |
|
|
| (1167898) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Mar 29 13:27:13 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by mtk52983 on Sat Mar 29 13:17:02 2014. As I understand the law, it does not restrict the number of places where a woman can get an abortion but does restrict who the practitioners are. Apparently, the Appeals court did not find this to be unduly restricting or onerously burdensome. |
|
|
| (1167899) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Mar 29 13:28:50 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by mtk52983 on Sat Mar 29 13:26:32 2014. I'm not following your argument. Can you clarify it for me? |
|
|
| (1167902) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by mtk52983 on Sat Mar 29 13:38:16 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Train Dude on Sat Mar 29 13:27:13 2014. And I disagree with the Court of Appeals on that point. The law does not place a limit on the number of facilities, but by making the restrictions so onerous it has the effect of shuttering numerous facilities, especially in more remote and poorer areas. It is like New York city passing a law that creates requirements for train operators that all but limits it to white men (by imposing certain height requirements, eligibility based on if your relative could have voted in New York when blacks were not allowed to vote, etc.) and claiming that the law does not restrict who can operate a train |
|
|
| (1167904) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Mar 29 13:42:28 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by mtk52983 on Sat Mar 29 13:38:16 2014. That's a bogus argument. There is no justification for race or height requirements of train operators. There could be medical justification for who may be qualified to perform an abortion as an office procedure. |
|
|
| (1167905) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by mtk52983 on Sat Mar 29 13:42:29 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Train Dude on Sat Mar 29 13:28:50 2014. Because the Supreme Court has consistently held that outright bans on abortions prior to the Third trimester are unconstitutional, Texas passed a law that imposed such onerous requirements on facilities that performed what are essentially out-patient abortions that approximately 80% or more (I believe the number dropped from high 30's to 6 or 7) of the facilities could not meet. They are not outright banning the procedure, but by making it so impossible to get (consider the size of Texas), especially among the rural and the poor, the effect is to get in through the back door what they cannot through the front |
|
|
| (1167906) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by mtk52983 on Sat Mar 29 13:45:24 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Train Dude on Sat Mar 29 13:42:28 2014. But the medical justification argument fails on two grounds:1) There were less burdensome methods that would have produced the same result. As I stated previously rather than requiring the performing physician to have surgical privileges at a hospital, the law could have merely required an agreement with a local hospital to accept patients in case of emergency. 2) If we are concerned about the problems of outpatient surgical procedures, why is this bill limited to just abortions? Why isn't for vasectomies, dentists, etc. as well? |
|
|
| (1167907) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Mar 29 13:51:02 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by mtk52983 on Sat Mar 29 13:42:29 2014. Back when I was in high school, I had a part time job working in a luncheonette. Part of the job meant that I had to handle hot and cold foods. Then the city of NY passed an ordinance that a certain number of food handlers in each establishment took a course in "safe food handling". Perhaps not as burdensome as the Texas law but the owner of that luncheonette had to send 3 employees who handled food on a regular basis, to take this course before he could get a certificate allowing him to serve food in NY City.This will only restrict abortions until abortion clinics can get Drs who meet the requirements. They will do so or close their doors. Which do you think they will do? So then let this work its way to the Supreme Court. It will all be sorted out in the end. |
|
|
| (1167909) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Mar 29 13:54:24 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by mtk52983 on Sat Mar 29 13:45:24 2014. Asked and answered, counselor :) |
|
|
| (1167912) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by mtk52983 on Sat Mar 29 13:59:38 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Train Dude on Sat Mar 29 13:51:02 2014. Considering that doctors who have performed legal abortions have been killed, I think it may be a wee bit more difficult to find doctors to work at these facilities. Also, many of the people who actually perform the procedures are volunteering their time and as medicine becomes more expensive to practice due to declining reimbursement rates, increased malpractice premiums, mounting medical school debt, etc. it is tougher to find qualified physicians who want to volunteer their time. I do agree that the Supreme Court will have the last say on this and I think for Justice Kennedy it will come down to the scope of the law and whether it restricts access prior to periods that the Supreme Court has upheld |
|
|
| (1167915) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Mar 29 14:05:09 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by mtk52983 on Sat Mar 29 13:59:38 2014. Again, a false argument. Since Roe v Wade, 8 abortion doctors have been killed. An unjustifiable crime, of course but less than the number of women who died during legal abortions (including Kermit Gosnell's last adult victim). Yet there is no evidence that there is any shortage of doctors willing to perform the procedure despite the risk to their safety. There is no reason to assume that this risk or fear of the risk will be increased because of this law. |
|
|
| (1167916) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Sat Mar 29 14:05:42 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Train Dude on Sat Mar 29 12:25:21 2014. Wrong. The Texass bill also bans the low-side effect newer ru486 regimen that uses one pill and requires the use of the older, two pill regimen that doesn't work as well.Abortion is the safest ambulatory surgery there is. Even getting a tooth extracted carries higher risks. |
|
|
| (1167917) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Sat Mar 29 14:06:35 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Train Dude on Sat Mar 29 12:32:14 2014. Wrong. That is how the law is written. Nothing callous about it. |
|
|
| (1167925) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Mar 29 14:34:51 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by bingbong on Sat Mar 29 14:05:42 2014. "Abortion is the safest ambulatory surgery there is. Even getting a tooth extracted carries higher risks. "9 women died in 2009 from legal abortions. How many died of tooth extractions in the same year? Please provide proof of your outrageous claim. |
|
|
| (1167926) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Mar 29 14:35:56 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by bingbong on Sat Mar 29 14:06:35 2014. Look, this is an adult discussion and there is no place for you here. |
|
|
| (1167934) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Mar 29 14:44:56 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Train Dude on Sat Mar 29 14:34:51 2014. She tries to equate pregnancy as some kind of plague, disorder, or disease. It's sick actually. |
|
|
| (1167941) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Mar 29 14:50:20 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Mar 29 14:44:56 2014. She does not quite understand pregnancy or how serious an abortion really is. |
|
|
| (1167946) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Sat Mar 29 15:05:42 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Train Dude on Sat Mar 29 14:05:09 2014. Yet there is no evidence that there is any shortage of doctors willing to perform the procedure despite the risk to their safety."The hospitals in Beaumont told us verbally that there's no way they'll send us an application because of what we do," Miller said. "And the physicians at the hospital in McAllen were too scared to cosign our application because they were worried about being targeted by the community." ["Miller" is Amy Hagstrom Miller, CEO of Whole Women's Health] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/05/texas-abortion-clinics-shut_n_4907050.html |
|
|
| (1167948) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Sat Mar 29 15:08:26 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by mtk52983 on Sat Mar 29 13:15:25 2014. Except having surgical privileges at a hospital does not make the procedure any safer."Both the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists oppose the law, saying there is no medical need for doctors to have hospital privileges." http://www.dallasnews.com/news/local-news/20140106-federal-judges-question-whether-texas-abortion-law-has-forced-clinics-to-close.ece |
|
|
| (1167950) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Sat Mar 29 15:09:36 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Train Dude on Sat Mar 29 13:12:07 2014. One of the reasons Texas passed the law it did was because of Kermit Gosnell. |
|
|
| (1167952) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sat Mar 29 15:32:26 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by bingbong on Sat Mar 29 10:35:16 2014. #wivesrule |
|
|
| (1167953) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Sat Mar 29 15:34:36 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by bingbong on Sat Mar 29 14:05:42 2014. Abortion is the safest ambulatory surgery there is.WABB. |
|
|
| (1167954) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sat Mar 29 15:41:05 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Dave on Sat Mar 29 15:34:36 2014. oh shit.Dave, resident of Tarrant County, is in this abortion thread. I know you live in Texas, but I'm surprised to see you here. |
|
|
| (1167957) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by ChicagoMotorman on Sat Mar 29 16:11:35 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Sat Mar 29 12:50:22 2014. 2 question marks. |
|
|
| (1167963) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Sat Mar 29 16:27:53 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by ChicagoMotorman on Sat Mar 29 16:11:35 2014. yep |
|
|
| (1167965) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by cortelyounext on Sat Mar 29 16:39:00 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Sat Mar 29 16:27:53 2014. !! |
|
|
| (1167968) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Sat Mar 29 17:09:45 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by cortelyounext on Sat Mar 29 16:39:00 2014. LOL |
|
|
| (1167970) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by ChicagoMotorman on Sat Mar 29 17:20:10 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Sat Mar 29 17:09:45 2014. lol |
|
|
| (1167971) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Sat Mar 29 17:29:39 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by ChicagoMotorman on Sat Mar 29 17:20:10 2014. LOL ! |
|
|
| (1167972) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Mar 29 17:39:40 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Dave on Sat Mar 29 15:09:36 2014. Then its a good thing. You do remember that bing-bong supported Kermit Gosnell and said he did nothing wrong. |
|
|
|
Page 2 of 11 |
||