jump to last post 1-2 of 2 discussions (18 posts)

Pro-choice Abortion controversy: Texas, death thru a 1000 cuts

  1. Credence2 profile image84
    Credence2posted 3 years ago

    See:

    http://bigstory.ap.org/article/texas-la … strictions

    Based on the linked article I offer the following:

    I knew that the Texas legislature, the GOP in particular, has been determined to introduce its moral hypocrisy to the stage, front and center. This will force women to leave the state to address this matter, and leave they will before being held captive to restrictions disguised as paternalism and concern for the woman who would have to undergo the procedure. Perhaps the Texas legislature have alternative plans to prevent pregnant women from leaving the state without notification? Who knows, what with the rightwing infestation in Texas, is next?

    They righties won't stop there, whenever you give them an inch, they take a mile, contraception issues will be next. So ladies, welcome back to the world of barefoot and pregnant. We all know that much of the freedom you enjoy today is tied to control of your reproductive options, take that away and who knows? 

    This is what irks me the most from this article:

    "Women who may currently take abortion-inducing pills at home would also be required to take those medications in front of the doctor by making visits to the surgical center under the bill."

    Now the 'meddling' government want to control what you ingest and when. So you can't take abortion inducing drugs unless the Texas state government permits it? If I were female, I would resent the imposition and defy you just because of your gall.  It is like trying to get a firm grip on so much jello.

    I ask the rightwinger, so what do you accomplish when those who desire to abort go to another state? I am sure that Planned Parenthood is going to help these women, rather than allow them to live subject to Texas paternalism.

    The demographic forces that will soon turn Texas from red to blue need to hurry along!

    Your thoughts, please, both pro and con is appreciated.

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      "I ask the rightwinger, so what do you accomplish..."  That answer is obvious; a decrease in the murder rate in Texas as defined by the religious right.

      A more relevant question might be "What gives the legislator the authority to apply it's religious concepts to the rest of the population?"

      1. Credence2 profile image84
        Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Your second paragraph is right on, thanks Wilderness....
        That, sir, is the foundation of this entire controversy.

    2. GA Anderson profile image85
      GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      First, I am not pro-abortion - I am anti-abortion, but that is only my position. I do not propose to push that view, or enforce my belief on anyone else. With few exceptions, what a women does with her body is none of my damn business - no matter how I feel about it.

      I don't like Lima beans either - can we get them outlawed?

      But, to your point... (and almost everyone else)

      When elected representatives pass something you agree with - you say it is the will of the people, because they elected their legislators.

      But, when they pass something you don't agree with, you say it's wrong, or dumb, or hypocrisy...

      Which is it? The will of the people, or legislative malfeasance?

      On the surface it may seem a silly analogy, but how does this differ from New York City's soda restrictions? Efforts to regulate salt intake? Isn't that regulating what you ingest or controlling your behavior?

      Someone in government telling you what's good for you and how to behave... same old, same old. Just on a more serious and illuminating level.

      As for it being typical right-wing or GOP neanderthal behavior - maybe, but that's only how you, (and like-minded others), see it. The fact that it passed could be proof that there is a majority in Texas that see it otherwise.

      My opinion is the voters of Texas are getting what they deserve - they elected those nimrods.

      GA

      ps. as a supporter of Obamacare, (you are aren't you?) - are you really comfortable using the descriptor: "meddling government?"

      1. Credence2 profile image84
        Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        GA, as always thanks for dropping by

        YOU SAID: First, I am not pro-abortion - I am anti-abortion, but that is only my position. I do not propose to push that view, or enforce my belief on anyone else. With few exceptions, what a women does with her body is none of my damn business - no matter how I feel about it.

        I SAY: My point exactly


        But, to your point... (and almost everyone else)

        Just because the Texas legislature forbids the consumption of Lima Beans does not mean that I do not have the fundamental right to consume them, the basis of that edict steps upon rights that cannot be legislated upon. Of course, that also applies to the madness about soda pop serving sizes and the like. It is not acceptable.

        Most issues are properly resolved in the legislature, but a few are not that is where we have to drag out the Constitution 'Roe vs Wade' (established law) and the courts...

        I lean toward pro-life in my take on things, but that is just my opinion as I am not the woman that has to deal with that and related issues. So, I don't dare impose that upon others.



        YOU SAID: Someone in government telling you what's good for you and how to behave... same old, same old. Just on a more serious and illuminating level. As for it being typical right-wing or GOP neanderthal behavior - maybe, but that's only how you, (and like-minded others), see it. The fact that it passed could be proof that there is a majority in Texas that see it otherwise.

        I SAY:
        But the majority cannot tell me or any ethnic group that they do not have the right to vote, states rights and their legislatures have limits as imposed by the 14th, 15th amendments and any number of legislation coming out of Washington since that time. 



        YOU SAID: ps. as a supporter of Obamacare, (you are aren't you?) - are you really comfortable using the descriptor: "meddling government?"

        I SAY: There is a big difference in federal public policy verses the moral priggishness shown by the right in its crusades. Would you really want to live in a society prior to the New Deal, what about Social Security, Medicare? I include Obamacare amonst those ideas. What about the prohibition of child labor? I don't consider any of that nanny government, do you? This nation would not have survived intact without these needed reforms.

        The pursuit of my rights end where your nose begins. There is no motorcycle helmet law in Hawaii, if people decide to use their skull as a helmet that is their affair but the costs of public services to respond to greater injuries and fatalities and the resulting increase of insurance rates makes the issue more than that of an individual choice. An individual woman's choice regarding abortion and what she chooses to ingest has nothing to do with anyone else's nose....

        1. GA Anderson profile image85
          GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          @Cred - Wonderful platform, these forums. Here we are apparently in agreement, yet using explanations that neither appear to accept.

          Fundamental rights vs. enumerated rights - one is subjective and one is objective.

          On the subjective rights, The success of Baskin-Robbins proves the point; chocolate for me, vanilla for you, and 30 other flavors for everyone else.

          I think the Texas law falls in the subjective category. I may not like it, and may even consider it an aberration, but in the world of ice cream - I see Rocky Road the same way. Nuts in ice cream, how silly is that?

          It seems you still want to pick and choose good legislation vs. bad legislation based on your perspective.

          Can a community tell you whether or not you can have an outhouse in your backyard? A swimming pool in your front yard? A neon pink house in an historic district? Or that you must pay to hook up to municipal water lines when you already have great well water?

          You have a fundamental right to eat Lima Beans? Ok, then why not pot Brownies? Or magic mushrooms? All can be called food. But government has outlawed two of them for "societal" reasons?

          These are not frivolous or trivial examples, just less intense than your topic. They all apply to the same concept of a community/societal group having the right to determine its rules for living. Perhaps an argument could be made that at the state level, this prerogative is less sacrosanct, but as long as the form of government is elected representation, along with the rule of law - it is what it is.

          As for the New Deal, etc... I won't even get started. (but once again, you seem to be picking and choosing which governmental actions are right or wrong based on your visions) They are topics I have strong opinions on, and by your use of them as examples - it appears we have different perspectives. I am not of the "ends justifies the means" school of thought.

          But even so, I would not put Obamacare on their par.

          But, Cred, your last paragraph is confusing. You use an illustration of the potential social costs of helmetless riders, then say that: "An individual woman's choice regarding abortion and what she chooses to ingest has nothing to do with anyone else's nose...."

          Considering it is probably safe to say the majority of these type of abortion decisions will involve lower income women; do you really think the abortion question would not include similar social/community costs?

          GA

          1. Credence2 profile image84
            Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            @Cred - Wonderful platform, these forums. Here we are apparently in agreement, yet using explanations that neither appear to accept.

            AGREED

            Leading progressive constitutional theorists at the
            turn of the twenty-first century insist that rights formerly thought unenumerated
            are actually enumerated.

            You say:
            On the subjective rights, The success of Baskin-Robbins proves the point; chocolate for me, vanilla for you, and 30 other flavors for everyone else.

            You say: I think the Texas law falls in the subjective category. I may not like it, and may even consider it an aberration, but in the world of ice cream - I see Rocky Road the same way. Nuts in ice cream, how silly is that? It seems you still want to pick and choose good legislation vs. bad legislation based on your perspective.

            I say:
            The right to obtain an abortion has been codified, and the ability to whittle away at Roe vs Wade disturbs progressives as if, heaven forbid, we even suggest any changes to how the 2nd Amendment is interpreted, for conservatives, same difference. The right will continue to play along the borders until a complaint is brought through the legal system by a courageous individual, claiming that the state is out of line and is trying to water-down establish law, much like the South attempted in its grandfather clauses and literacy tests when the court clearly established through the Constitution what constitutes being eligible to cast a ballot. The Right chomps at the bit for the opportunity to overturn Roe vs Wade.

            You say:
            Can a community tell you whether or not you can have an outhouse in your backyard? A swimming pool in your front yard? A neon pink house in an historic district? Or that you must pay to hook up to municipal water lines when you already have great well water?

            I said:
            I have problems with covenance ageements, it depends on the purpose, is it to protect or prevent something that concerns all and that your pink house is adversely affecting the rights of others, I cannot see how, though. I choose to live where such restrictions are not applicable. There are reasons to restrict the perogatives of the individual in the interests of the community, but these reasons need to outlined and better be good or they can be subject to challenge. Who says that I cannot have a pink house and why?

            You said:
            You have a fundamental right to eat Lima Beans? Ok, then why not pot Brownies? Or magic mushrooms? All can be called food. But government has outlawed two of them for "societal" reasons?

            I say:

            Of course here is the question of whether the government has the right to create 'controlled substances'. I may very well question the 'war on drugs' and its actual effectiveness. But I don't want people to access plutonium from the corner drug store, the balance is hard to determine. But in my humble opinion, the Right bases its restriction on the abortion issue on religious dogma that all of us don't subscribe to, forgeting the fact the everybody has the right to worship who and what they wish, that is a fundamental right, regardless of what state legislatures or the majority say. So these religious based crusades are again the right playing along the borders.

            You said:
            These are not frivolous or trivial examples, just less intense than your topic. They all apply to the same concept of a community/societal group having the right to determine its rules for living. Perhaps an argument could be made that at the state level, this prerogative is less sacrosanct, but as long as the form of government is elected representation, along with the rule of law - it is what it is.

            I say:
            Those rules cannot impose on a specific group of adults and their options relative to everybody else. If the 4th amendment says that I have some expectation to be secure in my possessions from arbitrary searches and seizure, what one does with his or her body that affect only that individual has to be at least as important.

            YOu said:
            As for the New Deal, etc... I won't even get started. (but once again, you seem to be picking and choosing which governmental actions are right or wrong based on your visions) They are topics I have strong opinions on, and by your use of them as examples - it appears we have different perspectives. I am not of the "ends justifies the means" school of thought.

            I said:
            We do have a different perspective, libertarian concepts and ideas will never work in the real world. Without the pursuit and effort to make for a fair and equitable society, society will simply be ripped apart by the masses recognizing that the game is rigged. And no, I am not talking about equality of results, but opportunity.  Responsible leaders recognize that this cannot be allowed to happen or this great American experiment will come to a crashing end.

            You said:
            But even so, I would not put Obamacare on their par.
            But, Cred, your last paragraph is confusing. You use an illustration of the potential social costs of helmetless riders, then say that: "An individual woman's choice regarding abortion and what she chooses to ingest has nothing to do with anyone else's nose...."
            Considering it is probably safe to say the majority of these type of abortion decisions will involve lower income women; do you really think the abortion question would not include similar social/community costs?

            I said:
            I could deal with all this much better if the issue was really to  reduce costs much like was attempted in Virginia when they got involved in abortion restriction legislation, perhaps you remember the probe? But imposition of these requirement was said to increase costs to the state, was that not right? It is not about saving money, but only to impose one group of moral doctrine on others.

            1. GA Anderson profile image85
              GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Well done Cred, I think you nailed it with the text I left quoted. To nit-pick your response would be silly.

              But I would offer one qualifier - from Right to Far Right

              I think that there are many folks, on the right, that see late term abortion, (which is the intent of the Texas law), as cruel murder, but, even though being anti-abortion - do not want to eliminate all rights to abortion choice. ie. 1st trimester early term abortions.

              In other words - they don't want to enforce their beliefs on everyone else.

              But as in most things, "the squeaky wheel gets the grease," and in this case the squeaky wheel is the far-right, and they are tainting conservatives as a whole.

              GA

              1. Credence2 profile image84
                Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                You know, GA, I really can't disagree with what you say here. I am not a female so I cannot say where if any a line needs to be drawn, but I would like to think that the state has a valid interest in preserving life and that if there were to be a line drawn as to where abortions would be prohibited it would be at the point the fetus is developed enough to live independent of the mother. You are astute in recognizing that Texas is infested with hard right wingers. Many of them balk at the idea that exceptions should be made in the case of rape and incest. The nerve of these people to subject women to such outrage. The far right is unreasonable and out of control, far in excess of anything coming from the ultra-left.

                Just a question for you, you express a certain disdain with the "New Deal" if you were Herbert Hoover in 1929 with this crisis on your hands, what would you have done? Was the status quo regarding the nature of the American economy during the 1920's and before really workable for you? Could you see that as a foundation for our modern economy, (Perhaps I should start a new hub)

                1. GA Anderson profile image85
                  GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Don't want much do ya?

                  For an answer, how about a series of hubs, one for each major aspect of the New Deal.

                  A brief answer would be that it is many parts of the New Deal process and its implementation that I have problems with. Also, the long term intangibles that caused a change in the relationship between the people and their government. To me, the New Deal was the seed of what has grown into the nanny state of today.

                  But as with most things, it's a matter of perspective. I would venture that most liberals and progressives do not see the condition I refer to as "the nanny state" as a problem. So, I guess we're back to Baskin-Robbins.

                  Many lives and families were rescued/saved by aspects of the new deal. Our country gained valuable, (and beneficial) infrastructure benefits from it. And a lot of necessary changes to our capitalistic system's operations and financial process, (read "Robber Barons", unscrupulous industries), restructuring resulted from it.

                  But... the real debate is the cost. Not in dollars but in fundamental change to a concept of living. (and the power of the government to step outside the rule of law)

                  Hmm... "fundamental change", where have I heard that before? (you didn't think O came up with that by himself did you?)

                  The individual condition - whatever that may be, or the collective/benefactor condition - for the good of many at the expense of each.

                  I suspect that no matter which aspect of the new deal you would put forth as a shining example of beneficial, perhaps even life-saving, government effort, I would say, "Yes, but..."  with the "but" being the cost of the benefit.

                  On the other hand, maybe the new deal was just an evolutionary step in the progression from individual to community - and I'm just a fossil looking for my Chalk Cliff.

                  GA

                  ps. Hoover? His tariffs and tax increases did not help, and he opposed FDR's New Deal...????? I would have done almost the opposite of Hoover.

      2. profile image0
        Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Are you serious?

        I thought I'd heard every bad comparison to killing unborn babies,  but this one takes the cake------you're comparing the abortion issue to a preference about LIMA BEANS?!!

        roll

        1. GA Anderson profile image85
          GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Hello Brenda, Unfortunately, your response is not surprising. Perhaps when you read further you will find the pot brownies and pink house equally upsetting.

          GA

          1. profile image0
            Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            That's not an answer.
            But hey, you don't have to give one.
            You don't even have to think about why you'd so flippantly compare babies to lima beans.
            Fortunately, you're right, my reaction is not surprising.    There are millions of people who react like I did.   Thank God.   That means there's still hope,  despite the uncaring attitude of liberals.

            1. Uninvited Writer profile image82
              Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Well, I hope you will care when women in Texas start dying. But, I guess it'll be their own fault.

              Yes, we all know how some conservatives have shown just how caring they are...

              1. GA Anderson profile image85
                GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I see that this is probably directed to Brenda, but what do you mean, "when women in Texas start dying...?

                GA

            2. GA Anderson profile image85
              GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Oh my Brenda, conversations like these would be much more coherent if you were to address the context instead of looking for openings to make the point you want to make.

              So, to offer an explanation to the point that was being made, relative to the Lima bean non-comparison, (only you could make that connection)...

              The point was; my likes or preferences have no legitimacy relative to regulating someone's rights or behaviors.

              More clearly - just as the fact that I don't like Lima beans has no bearing on whether they should be outlawed, my opinion relative to abortions has no bearing on whether or not the law is a legitimate exercise of legislative power, or an abominable example of self-righteous blindness.

              Hopefully that puts in context my opinion of my right to control others. Would you care to  explain why you feel you feel justified forcing your preferences on others?

              GA

              ps. In case you missed it, I do not support this Texas law. But that does not mean I support late term abortions. So now can I have my cake?

              1. Josak profile image61
                Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                +100000

  2. profile image0
    Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago

    The liberal activists get nastier and nastier.   And so many of them cross State lines just to bully people and force their agenda on everyone else.


    http://www.wnd.com/2013/07/unhinged-cro … ith-feces/

 
working