Texas legislator fillibusters against abortion bill (Page 3)

davesdatahut: Some ninny? Some NINNY? From what lofty seat do you paint, with a broad brush, the circumstances of pregnancies, and the decision on whether to abort, that vary one case to the next. To sneeringly cast all women who unwittingly get pregnant and then have a hard time making up their minds about parenthood as "ninnies" is to utterly ignore the facts of each pregnancy. There surely is responsibility on the part of women when they get pregnant, just as there is responsibility on the part of the guy who does half the deed. But sometimes shit happens and there may be no, as you put it, ninnies involved. I won't go into the different kinds of circumstances; near has cited a few good enough ones. There are others. And I'll reiterate that the viability standard is about the most reasonable one smarter minds than ours have come up with.
But it most definitely not just "her responsibility" and to pick off those who struggle with their decision until it is almost too late - or too late - as ninnies belies a view of this issue that, uh, lacks nuance.

davesdatahut: Deep, you are to be commended for "mastering" birth control. Alas, not everyone has the same mastery ot the art, which is why the mother and father need a chance to think it over and decide if parenthood is right for them.

near50ohoh: but as said previously, until he gives birth and breastfeeds, until he bears at least as much social shame as she does and perhaps more for not wrapping his presents, the vote is more hers. she does the lionshare of the heavy lifting so should get the most say!!

OCD_OCD: The ultimate responsibility always rests with the woman whether to terminate or not. Extenuating circumstances such as harm to the mother or the baby or mental capacity are taken into account when having an abortion after 5 months.

I am not going to enumerate every single hypothetical here. There is no excuse for a mentally functioning female to wait until she is five months pregnant before she terminates. A man may do half of the deed, but as far as the legalities are concerned, he gets no choice in whether to abort or not. No one seems to care that a man might want his child and might not want the mother whereas a woman can choose to have a child and ignore the father.

near50ohoh: change the world and i may change my mind. but i think you and i have a common ground you arent seeing. i dont think abortion should be used as birth control. period. i think abortion should be case per, dependent on the woman and baby needs. but i am disgusted when the woman is blamed. and i am horrified when we as a society let the man off the hook.
and under no circumstances should we go back to the days when all we had to offer were back alley butcheries. i'd rather have abortion used as birth control than go back to that.

OCD_OCD: The woman is still the ultimate decider in the case of abortion. There is no way around that. Some will use it wisely and some won't. babies being born alive in an abortion and then killed gives me cold chills.

near50ohoh: it does me too and i hope to God they dont do that!! i've never heard of that happening before

OCD_OCD: I listened to a woman describing what happened to her. The meds they gave her to stop the baby's heart before the abortion didn't work. the meds they gave her to expel the baby did. She was at the abortion clinic, the baby was born alive. They were going to take the baby from her but she called 911 and told them where she was and they wouldn't come. the baby died in her arms. I had nightmares for a month.

near50ohoh: look ocd i get where ur coming from. but the exception doesnt justify changing the rules. we need safe places for women to go to for abortions. they then have to be monitored and doctors properly licensed. there's just no justification for killing both mom and child. and there never will be.
the system needs to be changed badly but not at the expense of mom surviving. without her all else fails.
we do basically agree. abortion is a horrible choice to make. it shouldnt be done but hey it is.
most often because mom is pressured when she's most vulnerable. and more often than not by a lazy good for nothing shiftless spineless creep who wont bag it!! then leaves her to deal. if he doesnt want kids and cant man up to do something about it how is it her fault? or just hers?
you will never talk me out of that!!
and it seems you want to blame her.nu uh. in no world i live in will i ever do that!!

OCD_OCD: I do not think birth control is only a female's responsibility. However, once there is a fetus, then it is the woman's decision to keep or abort it. Regulations requiring licensed clinics is a good thing.

Barring extenuating circumstances, waiting over 5 months to make a decision to abort is unconscionable. No woman should ever wait that long.

Men may get women pregnant but whether a man stays or leaves does not change the fact that a decision has to be made and it is the woman's sole decision to make.

OCD_OCD: Again, barring extenuating circumstances, I WOULD blame a woman for procrastinating and refusing to make a decision until such a late date.

near50ohoh: ok then we'll leave it at extenuating circumstances (referring to mom and baby's health and safety) and preferably before 5 mths.(barring complications) and that it's not advisable as the sole means of birth control.(for either mom or dad) . that's where you and i might have it.
but the govt doesnt legislate for us.they must draw a legal line in the sand where most people would vote them back into office. that's their bottom line. and they must respect the precedent set by court decisions (ie roe vs wade). they have no choice.
and for the good of both mom and baby, they must legislate safe abortion sites if its going to be legal. because they have responsibilities as our guardians of a sort. for the wisest use of limited resources.(money and staff, etc).
but for me to feel ok about that very basic outline, i have to add they must do competent case by case analysis and allow for exceptions. or i'd rather it be used as birth control than have some mom needlessly die. she has to survive the procedure and it's ramifications.
in order to do that, there has to be proper assessment and counselling not just procedures. we're not that far apart, you know. i cant think of many reasons why i would have an abortion or counsel someone to have one either. i think birth control decisions should be made before pregnancy whenever possible. but sometimes life gets in the way, doesn't it? and we cant reign it back in then can we?

near50ohoh: and i would never blame just the woman.

davesdatahut: The unresolvable debate over who is most responsible and who is most to blame for unwanted pregnancies and abortions notwithstanding, I still don't understand why the legislation in Texas would be good if it would put out of business significant numbers of clinics that provide abortion and have no record of being unsafe, or greatly increase their costs. Is that not the issue at hand with the proposed law and the filibuster? Were there any indications that this law was anything other than an attempt to limit access to abortion providers and kowtow to the faith-based brutes of the world? Or were there, indeed, clinics in Texas that were shown to be unsafe?

the real slim DEEPy: the unresolved debate is whom deserves more rights than whom- whom is the orwellian "more equal"

davesdatahut: We have resolved that debate under the law to allow women access to abortions up to a certain point. We are a country of laws and this is the law. Those who see themselves as the faith-based guardians of some supposed god's will have annointed themselves as the morality brigade, in a crusade to undo the law. Fortunately, they are a dwindling lot who's influence will gradually diminish more and more.

the real slim DEEPy: no, the guardians of the viable unborn, not all "pro-life" supporters are religious. it could be a question of morality, OR ethics

davesdatahut: The guardians of the unborn indeed.
This is the same rhetoric that comes belching from the mouths of people who say 'government, OUT of our lives!" They object to government regulation of practically all kinds. They want the government's hands off their guns. They want the government to stop telling them what foods are good for them. They want the government out of the health-care debate. They love life so much, they back capital punishment like it's some kind of badge of honor. But when it comes to a woman's decision about whether to have kids, and protecting "life," they want the government allllll in people's faces.
Their anti-abortion fervor rings about as hollow as their sanctified heads.

the real slim DEEPy: if there is one thing that is a legitimate purpose of government, it is to safeguard against homicide. it is proper for government to protect people from the misdeeds of others, it is improper for government to protect people from allegedly unwise personal decisions- "victimless crimes".

OCD_OCD: Again, regulating the safety of abortion clinics so that they meet basic health care standards is a good thing. If the clinics cannot reach that goal, then they should be closed down because no woman getting an abortion should have to take that risk. Not ever.

Yes, Texas does have back alley abortionists. We have lots of illegal aliens from many countries and they use word of mouth to find people who will give them an abortion on their kitchen table or in the back of some ethnic restaurant. Where do you think the sex slave trade goes to when they get pregnant? The Filipinos, Taiwanese, Vietnamese, Koreans? They go to unlicensed butchers. Don't even get me started on the sex slaves. It makes me want to kill the slavers, revive them and then burn them with a torch.

davesdatahut: The government does safeguard against homicide and has found a reasonable way to safeguard against it when it comes to pregnancies. There is no nice and clean and neat solution to this very messy question. It is the best we can do, and it is at least a reasonable compromise.
I just wish the deified forces against abortion would also be against capital punishment and in favor of some reasonable approach to other regulation. Then, at least, their rhetoric would not sound like complete horse droppings.

the real slim DEEPy: fetuses arent convicted murderers. "no one shall be deprived of LIFE, liberty or property, without due process of law"- hence, capital punishment is constitutional- not necessarily optimal, tho...

davesdatahut: Either you're for life or you're not. You want government to be in the business of murder, that's your choice. But it renders the pro-life argument a pile of excretia.

the real slim DEEPy: not at all, see the bill of rights...

near50ohoh: the difference between canada and the usa is we agree that life is life and our faith position is that we dont have capital punishment. we believe that mom is the one who must survive the pregnancy so we legislate abortion. and we do not allow our citizens to walk down the street with their side arm.so we have stricter gun control.we also use our army for peace missions since Pearson was our prime minister. we show the world (and yes the usa) that it can so be done. by a faithful nation. the bible says do not kill, the hindus and buddhists say do no harm. it doesnt qualify it.
i'm thinking dave should move here and we'd be happy to have him. he'd fit right in.
IT CAN SO BE DONE!!