Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

no more abortions!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Maddhattter
    replied
    Originally posted by Vertnut View Post
    I'm against paying for them.
    Then don't pay for them. No one is being forced to get, or pay for, an abortion.

    Leave a comment:


  • racrguy
    replied
    Originally posted by Vertnut View Post
    I'm against paying for them.
    They're cheaper than the alternative
    BTW, I thought you were a guy?
    He is, doesn't mean he likes the government telling him what to do with his body.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vertnut
    replied
    Originally posted by Baron View Post
    I wont go into if I am for or against abortions, but I am against the government telling me what I can and cannot do because it is what they think is best.
    I'm against paying for them. BTW, I thought you were a guy?

    Leave a comment:


  • Baron Von Crowder
    replied
    Originally posted by Vertnut View Post
    Quick! Everybody needs to run out and get one right now whether they need one or not!

    Damn. I guess Wendy Davis wasted a perfectly good catheter...
    I wont go into if I am for or against abortions, but I am against the government telling me what I can and cannot do because it is what they think is best.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vertnut
    replied
    Quick! Everybody needs to run out and get one right now whether they need one or not!

    Damn. I guess Wendy Davis wasted a perfectly good catheter...

    Leave a comment:


  • Baron Von Crowder
    replied
    Originally posted by GhostTX View Post
    You're right. Fed government doesn't.

    Read 10th Amendment.
    You are aware that Texas has a state constitution as well, right?

    Leave a comment:


  • GhostTX
    replied
    Originally posted by Baron View Post
    where does it say in the constitution that women can or cannot have an abortion anywhere they want? Actually, where in the constitution does it give the government the power to regulate abortions?

    If its in there, Id like to know, so please do post it up.
    You're right. Fed government doesn't.

    Read 10th Amendment.

    Leave a comment:


  • Baron Von Crowder
    replied
    Originally posted by GhostTX View Post
    Like to see how it's "unconstitutional" for a clinic to be within 30 miles of a hospital. That's where, exactly, in the Constitution?




    Another activist judge running on feelings. "What they think is best..."
    where does it say in the constitution that women can or cannot have an abortion anywhere they want? Actually, where in the constitution does it give the government the power to regulate abortions?

    If its in there, Id like to know, so please do post it up.

    Leave a comment:


  • GhostTX
    replied
    Like to see how it's "unconstitutional" for a clinic to be within 30 miles of a hospital. That's where, exactly, in the Constitution?

    A federal judge on Monday blocked part of a recently signed Texas law that requires abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.

    District Judge Lee Yeakel wrote Monday that the provision violates the rights of abortion doctors to do what they think is best for their patients and would unreasonably restrict a woman's access to abortion clinics.
    ...


    Another activist judge running on feelings. "What they think is best..."

    Leave a comment:


  • talisman
    Guest replied
    Awesome.

    Leave a comment:


  • Maddhattter
    replied


    A federal judge has ruled that new abortion restrictions passed by the Texas Legislature are unconstitutional and should not take effect as planned on Tuesday.

    District Judge Lee Yeakel issued his decision Monday following a three-day trial over whether the state can restrict when, where and how women obtain abortions in Texas.

    Lawyers for Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers argued that the regulations did not protect women and would shut down a third of the abortion clinics in Texas.

    The Texas attorney general's office argued that the law protects women and the life of the fetus. State officials are expected to file an emergency appeal of Yeakel's order to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.

    The proposed restrictions were among the toughest in the nation.
    Copyright 2013 Associated Press, All rights reserved.
    This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Maddhattter
    replied
    It seems rather disingenuous to focus on the 20 week limit as if anyone is acting like this is the major point of contention. Although there are many serious health conditions for mother and fetus that are only discovered near or after the 20th week of pregnancy.

    The major point of dispute is the arbitrary distinction that clinics must meet the same standards as ambulatory clinics and the claim that it is to protect women. If this were truly an attempt at protecting women's health, or children's health, this wouldn't be limited to just abortion clinics. Hell, I work at Pediatric and Family Medicine clinic that doesn't have any obligation to be a n ambulatory clinic and they focus on pregnant women, babies, and small children.

    It's also incredibly silly to claim that this is, somehow, going to prevent more Dr. Gosnells. He was already breaking the law, and on top of that the Department of State Health Services said that abortion clinics are inspected at least once a year, while ambulatory surgical centers are inspected every three to six years. If they are only inspected as often as all the other ambulatory clinics, this will give a greater opportunity to the Kermit Gosnells that may be hiding in Texas.

    It also doesn't help when the experts state “Generally speaking, compared with the other facility types, I have not been aware of any particular concerns” associated with abortion clinics, and later added, “There’s no reason for me to believe that one is safer than the other.”

    Leave a comment:


  • jdgregory84
    replied
    So this bill is supposed to reduce abortions after 20 weeks of birth. So most women know that they're pregnant within 8 weeks of birth. People go to hospitals all the time without insurance and get procedures done. Do you think it's gonna be any different?

    Leave a comment:


  • crapstang
    replied
    Originally posted by racrguy View Post
    The ability to maintain bodily functions without relying on the bodily functions of another.
    The likelihood of that fetus developing into an independent organism is fairly high. The fact that someone gets to decide whether to give someone a chance at life or not is pretty messed up. That's what really gets me.
    Every single person that I have ever met that had an abortion performed had it done due to fear of responsibility.

    The rape situation is not a pleasant one to think about. I do have a friend that was conceived this way, and that individual is very happy, along with their parent. They were nearly aborted, but the parent chose not to, and never regrets that. Though that isn't applicable to everyone, it's food for thought.


    I believe in people having the right to making every decision in their life, but the whole "chance at living" thing kind of throws in a grey area for me.
    Last edited by crapstang; 07-16-2013, 10:09 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vertnut
    replied
    Originally posted by dcs13 View Post
    As usual, they know it, it just doesn't fit their agenda to talk about it..

    On another note, did you guys see the list of stuff that was confiscated from protestors at the capitol ? urine,poop, tampoons...damn libs are nuts
    Also paint. I'm betting those are "professional" protestors for the most part. Your typical college student or mom and dad don't carry around turds and urine in bottles, nor chain themselves to the railing inside the capitol.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X