PDA

View Full Version : Senator pushes for Abortion discussions on the web to be restricted.


Chikara
October 20th, 2011, 10:39 AM
Here, have an article. (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/10/19/347993/jim-demint-prohibit-internet-abortion-discussion/)

Instead of focusing on job creation, congressional Republicans have spent their time passing socially conservative legislation like the “Let Women Die” bill that would allow hospitals that receive federal funds to deny women life-saving abortion procedures.

Now Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), one of the most die-hard anti-choice lawmakers, has jumped on the bandwagon by sneaking a radical anti-abortion amendment onto a completely unrelated piece of legislation. DeMint’s amendment would ban women and their doctors from discussing abortion over the Internet:


Anti-choice Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) just filed an anti-choice amendment to a bill related to agriculture, transportation, housing, and other programs. The DeMint amendment could bar discussion of abortion over the Internet and through videoconferencing, even if a woman’s health is at risk and if this kind of communication with her doctor is her best option to receive care.

Under this amendment, women would need a separate, segregated Internet just for talking about abortion care with their doctors.

I laughed. I laughed hard.

This is a classic case of "Because everyone who disagrees with me shouldn't be allowed to talk about their opinions." Or in this case, options as well.

GFA
October 20th, 2011, 10:53 AM
This is sad. He has much more pressing issues to work on for one, and secondly what the hell is he thinking. I thought Republicans were all for the Constitution. I know it's a taboo topic, but what the Hell happened to freedom of speech.

Shiny Celebi
October 20th, 2011, 10:59 AM
Thats unconstitutional. You cant ban someone from talking about Abortion just cause this guy is anti choice. This is a ridiculous waste. No way will this bill pass.

PkMnTrainer Yellow
October 20th, 2011, 11:18 AM
...Banning /doctors/ from talking about it with women /specifically/?

...

That won't even cut down on the worst part of it..! ...The ignorance that swamps any discussion on the internet directly discusses abortion as a topic without fail.

Sharp remarks aside, I don't know. Something seems kind of odd here. I question if we've been given all the facts, namely because this seems like ever so perfect conservative bashing material straight from a liberal source. Could someone really have been this dumb? I'm somewhat skeptical, to say the least.

I mean really. This is about what I've gathered from the story.

Pro-life opinions projected as wrong
Pro-lifers projected as fools/backwards
Politician somehow gets it in his mind that he can sneak that sort of thing through a bill as if that ever had a remote chance.
Politician goes through with stupid plan, gets caught quickly as expected
Politician's move is projected as representing pro-lifers as a whole

...Am I missing something here? It sure feels like I'm missing something.

(=Nemesis=)
October 20th, 2011, 11:50 AM
...Banning /doctors/ from talking about it with women /specifically/?

...

That won't even cut down on the worst part of it..! ...The ignorance that swamps any discussion on the internet directly discusses abortion as a topic without fail.

Sharp remarks aside, I don't know. Something seems kind of odd here. I question if we've been given all the facts, namely because this seems like ever so perfect conservative bashing material straight from a liberal source. Could someone really have been this dumb? I'm somewhat skeptical, to say the least.

I mean really. This is about what I've gathered from the story.

Pro-life opinions projected as wrong
Pro-lifers projected as fools/backwards
Politician somehow gets it in his mind that he can sneak that sort of thing through a bill as if that ever had a remote chance.
Politician goes through with stupid plan, gets caught quickly as expected
Politician's move is projected as representing pro-lifers as a whole

...Am I missing something here? It sure feels like I'm missing something.

Welcome to the U-S of A! Where, if you're stupid, everyone you agree with must also be stupid! It's the foundation of American politics! Well it certainly seems like it when I read things like this.

FreakyLocz14
October 20th, 2011, 11:59 AM
...Banning /doctors/ from talking about it with women /specifically/?

...

That won't even cut down on the worst part of it..! ...The ignorance that swamps any discussion on the internet directly discusses abortion as a topic without fail.

Sharp remarks aside, I don't know. Something seems kind of odd here. I question if we've been given all the facts, namely because this seems like ever so perfect conservative bashing material straight from a liberal source. Could someone really have been this dumb? I'm somewhat skeptical, to say the least.

I mean really. This is about what I've gathered from the story.

Pro-life opinions projected as wrong
Pro-lifers projected as fools/backwards
Politician somehow gets it in his mind that he can sneak that sort of thing through a bill as if that ever had a remote chance.
Politician goes through with stupid plan, gets caught quickly as expected
Politician's move is projected as representing pro-lifers as a whole

...Am I missing something here? It sure feels like I'm missing something.

Exactly. This is just a smear tactic from the radical abortion lobby. This legislation would not prevent you or I from talking about abortion on PC, or any other discussion forum. All it does is make sure that a harmful procedure is only performed in the most necessary circumstances.

Mr. X
October 20th, 2011, 12:39 PM
While I usually support pro choice, even i'll admit that this is just a plain smear tactic.

Although, it should be illegal to deny a person any type of life saving procedure... Even if that procedure is a abortion.

Esper
October 20th, 2011, 03:50 PM
I'm amused. I shouldn't be since this is the umpteenth piece of anti-abortion legislation that's been suggested/passed/implemented since the midterm elections when we should be focused on the economy or anything else, but what does amuse me is how quickly pro-lifers and people sympathetic to pro-life sentiments are up in arms about this being a smear tactic. The fact is that DeMind did put this amendment forward, and the idea of barring any discussion of any medical procedure in any form of communication between a woman and her doctor is ridiculous and perverse.

I will admit that a headline like "restrict discussion of abortion over the internet" is attention-grabbing, but the content of the article is still quite specific. And, of course, it's still true.

(=Nemesis=)
October 20th, 2011, 04:23 PM
"what does amuse me is how quickly pro-lifers and people sympathetic to pro-life sentiments are up in arms about this being a smear tactic."

A counter-counter-smear smear. I'm impressed.

Alley Cat
October 20th, 2011, 04:31 PM
This is just ridiculous, the internet is just a means of communication, it's nothing more or less than writing a letter, just that replies can be instantaneous. It's definitely a lot quicker. This bill would have a lot of opposition from the pro-choice and pro-free internet people. This would be a crime against both of their views. I personally think that this is really just a stupid thing to even consider passing. Why would the government do something stupid? Oh wait, we're talking about the USA I forgot.

Women are just the same as men, and they would need to talk to their doctors too. Taking that right away would be asinine. What would be next, banning cancer patients from talking to their doctor about cancer? People like him make me lose faith in this country.

GGJ
October 20th, 2011, 04:33 PM
It really shouldn't bother ya fellers about the whole pro-life/pro-choice things but what really tickles me in the wrong places is how this ain't even constitutional.

1st Amendment: Freedom of speech.

Right there.

Its a bloody shame how they stoop so low that they don't even regard the words of our forefathers that created tis nation.

Bloody shame

FreakyLocz14
October 20th, 2011, 04:34 PM
Abortion, even if it is a medical necessity, is too serious of an issue to be discussing over Skype. If it is a medical necessity, women should see their doctors for a referral so that we can be sure that it's a necessity before we end an innocent human life.

Alley Cat
October 20th, 2011, 04:43 PM
What if the patient has been seeing the doctor, and they reckon that an abortion would save her life? Say this patient wants to hold out until the last moment, because they want their child. Say a situation arises where she cannot get in to see her doctor, then this would be a practical solution. Maybe the doctor wanted to get a visual on the patient, but due to some outside force, they could not come to meet?

Also, there is a difference between discussing their abortion, and committing. It would take a shady doctor to preform an examination over Skype, and declare that grounds to go through with the procedure. No, that'd just be inane and anyone who did that should get their medical license revoked. But they would still be able to discuss alternatives, how to deal with it etc, or relay important information through the internet. Also keep in mind that it isn't just through a video-conference, it is over the net in general. That would include sending emails, or reaching out to them on a board such as PC(i.e. one aimed at abortion/health NOT pokemon).

Black Ice
October 20th, 2011, 09:58 PM
Abortion, even if it is a medical necessity, is too serious of an issue to be discussing over Skype. If it is a medical necessity, women should see their doctors for a referral so that we can be sure that it's a necessity before we end an innocent human life.
i still dont see the problem with discussing serious issues over skype

Harley Quinn
October 20th, 2011, 10:05 PM
http://i.imgur.com/QEve0.gif
The utter ignorance and stupidity that this Jim DeMint person has is really quite hilarious. It's ok to believe that abortion is wrong, but to deny people the opportunity to talk with thier doctors at least about the possibility of an abortion is just... god, some people in this world.

FreakyLocz14
October 20th, 2011, 10:08 PM
i still dont see the problem with discussing serious issues over skype

Doctors really need to see their patients in person to make informed medical decisions.

Alice
October 20th, 2011, 10:10 PM
This is sad. He has much more pressing issues to work on for one,
If he's this stupid, I don't want him working on more pressing issues in the first place.

Sodom
October 20th, 2011, 10:25 PM
What I find hilarious about this topic is that abortion is legal, even in situations where the woman's life is not threatened. So this proposed legislation would make it so that it's legal to have an abortion, yet illegal to talk about it with your doctor over the internet. It's laughable at best and seriously concerning at worst.

The progression toward a woman's right to choose went linearly with history. There's nothing that annoys me more than somebody trying to re-open a battle after it's already been won.

FreakyLocz14
October 20th, 2011, 11:14 PM
If he's this stupid, I don't want him working on more pressing issues in the first place.

You'll have to talk to the people of South Carolina about that.

What I find hilarious about this topic is that abortion is legal, even in situations where the woman's life is not threatened. So this proposed legislation would make it so that it's legal to have an abortion, yet illegal to talk about it with your doctor over the internet. It's laughable at best and seriously concerning at worst.

The progression toward a woman's right to choose went linearly with history. There's nothing that annoys me more than somebody trying to re-open a battle after it's already been won.

The battle is not as cut and dry as that. The pro-life movement has women several victories limiting the barbaric practice of elective abortion. The courts recognize that the "right" to have an abortion is not unlimited, and we will vigorously limit the practice to the fullest extent that the law allows.

littlebrother
October 21st, 2011, 07:50 PM
This sounds a lot like one of those dumb rules that would never be enforced, like it being illegal to tie a llama up onto a four-way stop sign in the winter in Colorado or something. Or if it would be enforced, it would cost a heck of a lot of money and manpower to try to control something that would be impossible to control.

Oh, I know! It's like that one time they outlawed alcohol!

EDIT: I'd love it if there was an unbiased description of this amendment floating around on the web, though. I don't trust that source very much.

Mr. X
October 21st, 2011, 08:06 PM
True that.

Even if this passes, (its technically unconstitutional though as it violates the first amendment) it will be practically impossiable to enforce... Unless the government starts monitoring all of your actions even more closely then now. (I can see a massive expansion of the Patriot Act being one of the ways to enforce this law)

But still, question... If life begins at conception, then can a woman be charged with involuntary manslaughter if she has a miscarriage?

Livewire
October 21st, 2011, 09:58 PM
The courts recognize that the "right" to have an abortion is not unlimited, and we will vigorously limit the practice to the fullest extent that the law allows.

Here is where your views get tangled up. The right to an abortion, even though protected by federal law, is somehow "limited", yet freedom of speech isn't?

Not mention, heavy and extreme federal regulation is ok, but only against things that don't jive with your ideology? You can't rail against government intervention 99% of the time, but turn into its biggest supporter the other 1% when it's an issue you seem to agree with. You either are or aren't.

FreakyLocz14
October 21st, 2011, 10:28 PM
True that.

Even if this passes, (its technically unconstitutional though as it violates the first amendment) it will be practically impossiable to enforce... Unless the government starts monitoring all of your actions even more closely then now. (I can see a massive expansion of the Patriot Act being one of the ways to enforce this law)

But still, question... If life begins at conception, then can a woman be charged with involuntary manslaughter if she has a miscarriage?

No.

Since the definition of involuntary manslaughter varies by state, I'll use the California Penal Code as an example. It goes beyond just a mere accident. You have to be acting in a criminally negligent manner. For example, you accidentally kill someone in the commission of a dangerous act not amounting to a felony (a felony would apply the felony murder rule), or you accidentally kill someone while acting in negligent manner that any other reasonable person would understand could risk death. [California Penal Code section 192 (b)]



Here is where your views get tangled up. The right to an abortion, even though protected by federal law, is somehow "limited", yet freedom of speech isn't?

Not mention, heavy and extreme federal regulation is ok, but only against things that don't jive with your ideology? You can't rail against government intervention 99% of the time, but turn into its biggest supporter the other 1% when it's an issue you seem to agree with. You either are or aren't.

There is hierarchy of law. Freedom of speech is come from the Constitution. Constitutional law is the highest form of law. I haven't read any part of the Constitution that mentions abortion. Thus, statutory law and case law are lower forms of law than constitutional law. That is why speech cannot be limited to the extent that abortion can. Abortion also is contrary to the harm principle, which is what libertarians like myself use as a test to see where liberty should end. Speech doesn't end a human life. Abortion does.

That being said, I do recognize that freedom of speech is not unlimited. There are four classes of speech that are not constitutionally protected. Those are:
1) Obscenity
2) Fighting words, where the threat of lawlessness is imminent
3) Dangerous words (the classic "yelling fire in a crowded theater)
4) Slander/libel

Netto Azure
October 21st, 2011, 10:35 PM
That being said, I do recognize that freedom of speech is not unlimited. There are four classes of speech that are not constitutionally protected. Those are:
1) Obscenity
2) Fighting words, where the threat of lawlessness is imminent
3) Dangerous words (the classic "yelling fire in a crowded theater)
4) Slander/libel

Which these forms of speech do not fall under yes?

FreakyLocz14
October 21st, 2011, 10:40 PM
Which these forms of speech do not fall under yes?

Internet connections cross state lines, so Congress can regulate this under its authority to regulate interstate commerce.

Livewire
October 21st, 2011, 10:40 PM
I haven't read any part of the Constitution that mentions abortion.

A document from 1789 wouldn't mention abortion, because it can't/couldn't possibly have. If there was ever more reason for loose constructionism, this is it.

Assuming it's a human life. A simple heartbeat a human does not make. Every vertebrate organism on earth has a heartbeat. That view is based entirely on an assumption with no finite and irrefutable scientific proof to back it.

FreakyLocz14
October 21st, 2011, 10:44 PM
A document from 1789 wouldn't mention abortion, because it can't/couldn't possibly have. If there was ever more reason for loose constructionism, this is it.

Assuming it's a human life. A simple heartbeat a human does not make. Every vertebrate organism on earth has a heartbeat. That view is based entirely on an assumption with no finite and irrefutable scientific proof to back it.

Abortion has existed since the Earth cooled. This is Wikipedia, so take it with grain of salt, but: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion

Eliminator Jr.
October 21st, 2011, 10:48 PM
I think that's a very biased article, even though I support women's right to choose. As for the actual law, I think it's pretty stupid - I mean unless the doctor is actually going to run tests on the woman involved then there's no difference between speaking face to face or speaking over video chat. The fact that this politician had to sneak the law into an unrelated bill shows that he didn't have confidence in the law passing on its own, which is saying something about the views of the majority of senators/Americans.

Livewire
October 21st, 2011, 10:49 PM
Abortion has existed since the Earth cooled. This is Wikipedia, so take it with grain of salt, but: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion

Earth cooled roughly 3-4 billion years ago, so no it hasn't.

But what does that say about the Constitution? That only harms your points. Our founding fathers never even bothered considering it. Meaning, they never intended to touch it or considered it a non-issue. Something to ponder.

FreakyLocz14
October 21st, 2011, 10:52 PM
Earth cooled roughly 3-4 billion years ago, so no it hasn't.

But what does that say about the Constitution? That only harms your points. Our founding fathers never even bothered considering it. Meaning, they never intended to touch it or considered it a non-issue. Something to ponder.

It's a figure of speech. I meant that abortion has existed for a long time in human history.

Anything that the Founding Fathers did not mention in the Constitution cannot be protected by federal law. It becomes purely a state issue.

Livewire
October 21st, 2011, 11:03 PM
It's a figure of speech. I meant that abortion has existed for a long time in human history.

Anything that the Founding Fathers did not mention in the Constitution cannot be protected by federal law. It becomes purely a state issue.

But like you said, the Constitution is the Supreme law of the land. And you won't find it in the individual states' constitutions either. Meaning we screwed something else up that the Founding Fathers were wise enough to know to avoid altogether.

FreakyLocz14
October 21st, 2011, 11:13 PM
But like you said, the Constitution is the Supreme law of the land. And you won't find it in the individual states' constitutions either. Meaning we screwed something else up that the Founding Fathers were wise enough to know to avoid altogether.

The California Constitution actually does give protections for abortion. Way too many, in my opinion, but that's the current state of things. See Cal. Health & Safety Code § 123466.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States_by_state#State_by_State_Table

(=Nemesis=)
October 22nd, 2011, 12:38 AM
To those of you ranting about Why The Constitution Doesn't Forbid Abortion, you're missing one of the most important lines.

The one giving its people the right to, you know, Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness?

I'm British and even I know that bit.


So what exempts an unborn child from this right? Is it because he's not independent of his mother? That would mean the slaughter of six-month-old children should be legal. Is it because he's not currently contributing to society? Nobody really is until they've got a job or voluntary work. It would also cover anyone currently asleep. Murder is acceptable as long as the victim isn't conscious! Don't rest your head!

Or is it something else? The formation of a 100% functional brain? How do you test that one? Do you scan the brain for a pattern which represents "I think, therefore I am", and if you don't find it, consider the child a sub-human zombie-thing?

Or is it generally considered that unborn children Do Not Yet Have A Soul? OK, so, killing people on a subjective, untestable basis. Cool.


And you call it a "woman's right to choose". I call it a "woman's right to kill her offspring". The only difference between those two statements is that one of them is the literal truth, and the other one is a political whitewash. No prizes for guessing which is which I'm afraid. Those of you who like the idea of abortion, I'm astonished that you can sleep at night if you have to use a euphemism for the idea every time it comes up.

Sodom
October 22nd, 2011, 02:59 AM
killing babies, killing babies, how can we live with ourselves, tl;dr

Whether you agree with abortion or not, the fact remains that it is legal and women do have the right to choose. This topic is about the ability to discuss abortion over the internet; what it is not is an opportunity to get on a soapbox and proclaim your moral high ground. I personally don't appreciate having pro-life propaganda thrust down my throat and I'm sure anyone else who doesn't agree with your views would feel the same. The difference is that we have been respectful enough not to go there, and I would very much appreciate it if you showed us the same courtesy.

I understand that abortion is an issue to which people attach a lot of emotion, but this is just ridiculous.

(=Nemesis=)
October 22nd, 2011, 09:54 AM
I personally don't appreciate having pro-life propaganda thrust down my throat and I'm sure anyone else who doesn't agree with your views would feel the same. The difference is that we have been respectful enough not to go there, and I would very much appreciate it if you showed us the same courtesy.

I understand that abortion is an issue to which people attach a lot of emotion, but this is just ridiculous.


The progression toward a woman's right to choose went linearly with history. There's nothing that annoys me more than somebody trying to re-open a battle after it's already been won.

Aha. Well.

I personally don't appreciate having pro-abortion propaganda thrust down my throat. And I'm sure anyone else who doesn't agree with your views would feel the same. The difference is I'm not changing my rules of discussion to suit the current situation, and I would very much appreciate it if you showed the same courtesy.

deoxys121
October 22nd, 2011, 09:58 AM
OK, here are my views on abortion in general: I don't like it, and I would never have it done if it was any of my business, such as a family member or close friend. If they couldn't take care of the child, adoption is the choice. But, as far as others, it's not my business. If they're gonna do it, let them. I don't know them and have never met them. It's none of my business what they do. Therefore, women should be allowed to discuss abortion with their doctors however necessary. And free to do it provided they make the decision intelligently.

TRIFORCE89
October 22nd, 2011, 10:32 AM
The pro-life side of the aisle seems very pro-death with preventing life-saving operations, performing executions, and wanting people who can't afford health insurance to just die.

(=Nemesis=)
October 22nd, 2011, 12:03 PM
The pro-life side of the aisle seems very pro-death with preventing life-saving operations, performing executions, and wanting people who can't afford health insurance to just die.

Abortion in the case of life-or-death scenarios is not something strongly contested as you infer. Also, health insurance? I thought that applied to everyone in the USA, and not just abortion patients.

Sweeping statements, cheap shot. Doesn't help, either, that your argument just doesn't conform to the basic rules of arithmetic, no matter how much emotive spin it's got.

For every mother who dies in childbirth, you would have a hundred lives terminated for the crime of being an inconvenience.

Alley Cat
October 22nd, 2011, 12:15 PM
^ Health insurance applies to like no one in the US these days, don't get your hopes up. The fact of the matter is this would ban the discussion between doctor and patient. No doctor in their right mind would preform an abortion due to information gathered on a Skype call. This is just the classical case of: You don't agree with me, so you you are wrong.

TRIFORCE89
October 22nd, 2011, 12:26 PM
Abortion in the case of life-or-death scenarios is not something strongly contested as you infer. Also, health insurance? I thought that applied to everyone in the USA, and not just abortion patients.

Sweeping statements, cheap shot. Doesn't help, either, that your argument just doesn't conform to the basic rules of arithmetic, no matter how much emotive spin it's got.

For every mother who dies in childbirth, you would have a hundred lives terminated for the crime of being an inconvenience.
Uh-huh, well, I wasn't speaking solely on abortion. It was a "sweeping statement", like you said, on just... what I see as general hypocrisy.

No arithmetic needed. The topic is about "life-saving" abortions and censorship.

(=Nemesis=)
October 22nd, 2011, 01:01 PM
Uh-huh, well, I wasn't speaking solely on abortion. It was a "sweeping statement", like you said, on just... what I see as general hypocrisy.

No arithmetic needed. The topic is about "life-saving" abortions and censorship.

I don't agree with the censorship. I just want to get that out of the way.

And abortion, when it's a case of extreme Any Abortion Whenever and No Abortions Ever at least, is completely about arithmetic.

∵ deaths-through-abortion > deaths-through-childbirth
∴ abortion is not universally effective at saving lives; quite the opposite.

Mr. X
October 22nd, 2011, 01:10 PM
Life doesn't not equal a life.

The abortion might not save the mother either way.

But still, if the mother is is need of a abortion to save her life then the odds are good that she might have a miscarriage. The fact that a miscarriage is possible is the only reason why I am pro-choice instead of pro-life.

Sodom
October 22nd, 2011, 02:47 PM
Aha. Well.

I personally don't appreciate having pro-abortion propaganda thrust down my throat. And I'm sure anyone else who doesn't agree with your views would feel the same. The difference is I'm not changing my rules of discussion to suit the current situation, and I would very much appreciate it if you showed the same courtesy.

A woman's right to choose is the official term for exactly that. If you disagree with that, that's fine, but facts are facts. In any event, referring to it as 'a woman's right to choose' is in no way anywhere near the same ballpark as what you were (and, looking at your subsequent posts, still are) doing. This is not a pro-choice vs. pro-life debate, please stop turning it into one.

Esper
October 22nd, 2011, 08:28 PM
What makes the whole idea of preventing discussion of abortion so ridiculous, aside from the sheer inanity of trying to censor the mere mention of something, is that what constitutes a "human being" is so nebulous that talking about birth control could be considered "abortion" in some people's minds if they consider that "life begins at conception."

On that note, no, life does not begin at conception. Life begins before that. Eggs and sperm are already alive. And "conception" is a nebulous term itself and saying that "life begins at conception" implies that it happens in an instant when it's more of a process.

And anyway, it's seems extreme to suggest that 4 human cells are a "person." Whatever your beliefs are I would hope that you'd accept that at some people in the process of going from sperm and eggs to birth a "person" is created. When that happens is when we have to protect them, but not before. We don't have to care about sperm that get lost because, even though each little one has the potential to become more, it's not a person yet.

Livewire
October 23rd, 2011, 09:10 AM
I don't agree with the censorship. I just want to get that out of the way.

And abortion, when it's a case of extreme Any Abortion Whenever and No Abortions Ever at least, is completely about arithmetic.

∵ deaths-through-abortion > deaths-through-childbirth
∴ abortion is not universally effective at saving lives; quite the opposite.

Yet you seem to agree that it's ok to censor others and make them conform to your idelology, or to force your narrow opinion down other's throats? Hmm!

And it's rather disingenuous and arrogant of you to assume you can condense this whole argument into a matter of simple arithmetic.

GFA
October 23rd, 2011, 10:53 AM
Thats unconstitutional. You cant ban someone from talking about Abortion just cause this guy is anti choice. This is a ridiculous waste. No way will this bill pass.

/late

Which is an issues in and of itself as it's being force-fed onto a completely unrelated act.

PkMnTrainer Yellow
October 23rd, 2011, 04:01 PM
In after exceedingly banal discussion about whether a fetus is alive. Are you guys aware of the basis on which abortion was legalized by the supreme court? It definitely wasn't on the basis that we don't believe fetuses are people yet. (As if anyone ever had the evidence to win via that argument.) I believe it was more about weighing rights against eachother in the end.

The question of how it was rationalized that anything could outweigh the right to life is unfortunately beyond me currently.

Mr. X
October 23rd, 2011, 04:36 PM
Just a random thought, but as the majority of pro-life rhetoric is driven by Religion ideal's, then wouldn't the separation of church and state forbid the federal government from passing laws effecting abortions?

Oryx
October 23rd, 2011, 04:44 PM
Just a random thought, but as the majority of pro-life rhetoric is driven by Religion ideal's, then wouldn't the separation of church and state forbid the federal government from passing laws effecting abortions?

Just because a religion supports an idea doesn't mean that the idea is inherently religious. For example, Catholicism is huge on volunteering. That doesn't mean volunteering cannot be associate with the government because of separation of church and state. The biggest argument for pro-life, life begins at conception, has nothing to do with religion really. You can believe it while being an atheist.

GFA
October 23rd, 2011, 04:51 PM
What? No. That doesn't ... What? Perhaps but ... Oh God that's a weird idea. I'm going to say no though, because of 4 things.

1: Their are health and biology standpoints on one side of the argument, and as long as their are disagreements, it's going to have to be settled somehow. And taking it to the courts makes the most sense.

2: Because if that's the way it worked, it'd be impossible to make legislation about anything mentioned in the 10 Commandments, so no laws regarding murder or theft.

3: Separation of Church and State was meant to keep the State out of the Church, not the other way around. We have "One Nation under God" in our pledge and swear on the Bible in court. Have you forgotten?

4: Even if the Separation of Church and State was meant to keep the Church out of the State, it means that in the most literal of sense. As in, no mandating everyone go to Church on Sunday or everyone be Christian. (Not that people haven't tried to pass such laws.)

Esper
October 23rd, 2011, 04:53 PM
Just a random thought, but as the majority of pro-life rhetoric is driven by Religion ideal's, then wouldn't the separation of church and state forbid the federal government from passing laws effecting abortions?
As much as such a thing would be okay by me in this particular situation, that's not quite how it works since people can have ideals not based in religion. Like you could be a pacifist without being at all religious and you'd want that to be respected if there were a draft.

Of course, when you try to pass any beliefs as scientific fact without any science to back it up then I think there's room to argue that beliefs shouldn't be enforced by being made into laws.

FreakyLocz14
October 23rd, 2011, 05:25 PM
Just a random thought, but as the majority of pro-life rhetoric is driven by Religion ideal's, then wouldn't the separation of church and state forbid the federal government from passing laws effecting abortions?

No. Just because the majority of religious people support a certain policy, that doesn't make that policy a government establishment of religion.

Mr. X
October 23rd, 2011, 05:30 PM
Thank you for misinterpreting my words. Didn't say people, said ideal's.

But still, this clarification pretty much neuters my own argument.

*facedesk*

FreakyLocz14
October 23rd, 2011, 08:31 PM
Thank you for misinterpreting my words. Didn't say people, said ideal's.

But still, this clarification pretty much neuters my own argument.

*facedesk*

Religious ideals are all over our law. It is against my religion to steal and to murder (I mean murder as it is now, not abortion). Does outlawing stealing and murdering equate to the government establishment or religion because those are ideals of my religion?

Mr. X
October 23rd, 2011, 08:42 PM
Stealing and Murder are completely diffrent from Abortion.

For one, you can say for certian what has been lost with the first two. You can't with abortion, know why? Miscarriage is a prime example. Sure, the pregenancy is not in danger of being aborted, but still, you can't stop a miscarriage. You CAN prevent some of the causes to make it rarer to occur, but you can't completely stop them.

But still, religion aside, murder is morally wrong. Stealing is wrong too, but not to the extent as murder is.

Basically, morals and religion are completely different.

FreakyLocz14
October 23rd, 2011, 08:50 PM
Stealing and Murder are completely diffrent from Abortion.

For one, you can say for certian what has been lost with the first two. You can't with abortion, know why? Miscarriage is a prime example. Sure, the pregenancy is not in danger of being aborted, but still, you can't stop a miscarriage. You CAN prevent some of the causes to make it rarer to occur, but you can't completely stop them.

But still, religion aside, murder is morally wrong. Stealing is wrong too, but not to the extent as murder is.

Basically, morals and religion are completely different.

What is morally wrong is completely subjective. There are people who would argue that stealing and murder are justified under certain circumstances. In a similar light, people like me would argue that abortion is morally wrong, but is justified under certain circumstances like rape or to save the life of the mother under a balancing act between the lesser of two evils.

Mr. X
October 23rd, 2011, 08:52 PM
So, in other words, you support punishing the child for the sins of the father?

As for the lesser evil, this saying has been passed down my family. Evil is evil, and only the evil consider themselves greater or lesser then the other.

That said, abortion is one of them black and white area's. Your either pro-life, or pro-choice. Not pro-life-unless-this-this-this-this-or-this-happened.

FreakyLocz14
October 23rd, 2011, 08:56 PM
So, in other words, you support punishing the child for the sins of the father?

What on Earth did I say that can even remotely be interpreted as that?

Mr. X
October 23rd, 2011, 09:00 PM
people like me would argue that abortion is morally wrong, but is justified under certain circumstances like rape.


You posted this 10 minutes ago.

Rape is usually done by the man. Man rapes woman. Woman gets pregnant. Women get's abortion, killing unborn child.

Essentially, punishing the child for the sins of the father.

Esper
October 24th, 2011, 08:56 AM
You posted this 10 minutes ago.

Rape is usually done by the man. Man rapes woman. Woman gets pregnant. Women get's abortion, killing unborn child.

Essentially, punishing the child for the sins of the father.
I would think that rather than "punishing the child for the sins of the father" it's more about not punishing a woman after she's already suffered such a horrible offense by making her carry to term the offspring of her attacker. Not every woman would feel that way, of course, but I think most sensible people, regardless of their views, accept that this is a justifiable use of abortion.

Mr. X
October 24th, 2011, 09:31 AM
In that case, its the right thing or the easy thing.

While my views come off as black and white, this is a black and white subject. As I said earlier, your either pro-choice or pro-life. Not pro-life-unless-this-this-this-this-or-this-happens. If your that, might as well come over to pro-choice since your halfway there anyway.

Esper
October 24th, 2011, 11:06 AM
In that case, its the right thing or the easy thing.
Choosing to go through with an abortion, regardless of the circumstances, is never an easy choice.

On something more related to this thread's original topic (restrictions on abortion) North Carolina has a new law going into effect this week which will make any woman seeking an abortion have to get an ultrasound first. Some of the places the state government is listing on its website as places where you can get a free ultrasound are these vaguely named "women's centers" or "crisis pregnancy centers" which are really anti-abortion centers and some, it seems, will not certify that you had an ultrasound with them if they know you're going to get an abortion, in addition to the usual misleading truthiness of the information many of these places provide. Talk about harsh, unfair, and deceitful.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/10/23/2715553/choose-life-on-state-plates.html

It's laws like this which make it important, nay, necessary for a woman to be able to speak with her doctor however she can. Not everyone can drop whatever they're doing and go to a hospital, especially if they have to take time off work already (time they may not have) to find a place that will actually try to give her honest information while she jumps through ultrasound hoops.

Yeah, I know, these are different states, but give it enough time and these kinds of laws will pop up all over the place if no one does anything about them.

PkMnTrainer Yellow
October 24th, 2011, 12:35 PM
this is a black and white subject. As I said earlier, your either pro-choice or pro-life. Not pro-life-unless-this-this-this-this-or-this-happens. If your that, might as well come over to pro-choice since your halfway there anyway.

Are you /actually/ suggesting that there is no possible reason benefit or logic in taking a non-extreme stance on an extremely difficult issue? That restricted legalization, no matter how strict, may as well just be fully legal? Or that restricted legalization, no matter how lax, may as well just be illegal?

...Because that would be absolutely /ludicrous/. o_o

GFA
October 24th, 2011, 03:20 PM
While my views come off as black and white, this is a black and white subject.
lol, wut?

Let's try to look at this in a light way (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kAgCYbcMYk).

femtrooper
October 25th, 2011, 10:51 AM
That's so sad. Makes me proud to be a Canadian. **** like that just doesn't happen here. How can people be so ignorant?

Mr. X
October 27th, 2011, 07:49 AM
I was talking about my views on ABORTION, not my views on this law.

While I'm all for abortion, I'm against this law.

I'm not against this law because I support abortion, im against this law because it is a violation of first amendment rights.