TEXAS ABORTION LAW STRUCK DOWN

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 31, 2011 2:27 AM GMT
    Big government anyone?



    "A federal judge on Tuesday blocked key provisions of Texas' new law requiring a doctor to perform a sonogram before an abortion, ruling the measure violates the free speech rights of both doctors and patients."

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44334105/ns/us_news-life/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 31, 2011 1:24 PM GMT
    Yes but you like big government so you should be overjoyed! ;)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 31, 2011 1:31 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidYes but you like big government so you should be overjoyed! ;)


    Do I? Explain.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 31, 2011 1:34 PM GMT
    catfish5 said
    mocktwinkie saidYes but you like big government so you should be overjoyed! ;)


    Do I? Explain.


    Oh I'm sorry, my bad, you're like a total libertarian! icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 31, 2011 1:38 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    catfish5 said
    mocktwinkie saidYes but you like big government so you should be overjoyed! ;)


    Do I? Explain.


    Oh I'm sorry, my bad, you're like a total libertarian! icon_rolleyes.gif


    Yea. Your bad. Stop putting words in people mouths and acting like a total a-hole! Thanks.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 01, 2011 3:18 AM GMT
    I'm not understanding the "big government" thing. To me, if anything, it's "big government" that a state would pass a law regulating what female bodied persons do with their bodies. But the thread kind of suggests (to me at least) that your reference to big government is in regards to the judge striking down the law.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 01, 2011 3:22 AM GMT
    Fountains saidI'm not understanding the "big government" thing. To me, if anything, it's "big government" that a state would pass a law regulating what female bodied persons do with their bodies. But the thread kind of suggests (to me at least) that your reference to big government is in regards to the judge striking down the law.


    Exactly.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 01, 2011 1:24 PM GMT
    Fountains saidI'm not understanding the "big government" thing. To me, if anything, it's "big government" that a state would pass a law regulating what female bodied persons do with their bodies. But the thread kind of suggests (to me at least) that your reference to big government is in regards to the judge striking down the law.


    Not if you define that a baby's life begins some time prior to birth, making it another human being needing protection under the law from being murdered just like everyone else. I would hope that "big government" doesn't include that everyone should be protected under the law from harm or being infringed on.

    Is it a bit difficult to grasp this?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 01, 2011 4:44 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    Fountains saidI'm not understanding the "big government" thing. To me, if anything, it's "big government" that a state would pass a law regulating what female bodied persons do with their bodies. But the thread kind of suggests (to me at least) that your reference to big government is in regards to the judge striking down the law.


    Not if you define that a baby's life begins some time prior to birth, making it another human being needing protection under the law from being murdered just like everyone else. I would hope that "big government" doesn't include that everyone should be protected under the law from harm or being infringed on.

    Is it a bit difficult to grasp this?


    To be fair, if this were the case, then the law would/should make it a crime to have an abortion. To force a "killer" to see a biosigns reading before "executing" the child is an odd way to go about protecting the child.

    At the moment, the right to an abortion is protected under the Constitution. To make a woman go through this dance (and raise costs by mandating unnecessary spending) to attempt to guilt her or make it harder to do what she has every right to do is paternalistic and, to the cognitive dissonance of tea partiers, big government.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 01, 2011 4:53 PM GMT
    torrentprime said
    mocktwinkie said
    Fountains saidI'm not understanding the "big government" thing. To me, if anything, it's "big government" that a state would pass a law regulating what female bodied persons do with their bodies. But the thread kind of suggests (to me at least) that your reference to big government is in regards to the judge striking down the law.


    Not if you define that a baby's life begins some time prior to birth, making it another human being needing protection under the law from being murdered just like everyone else. I would hope that "big government" doesn't include that everyone should be protected under the law from harm or being infringed on.

    Is it a bit difficult to grasp this?


    To be fair, if this were the case, then the law would/should make it a crime to have an abortion. To force a "killer" to see a biosigns reading before "executing" the child is an odd way to go about protecting the child.

    At the moment, the right to an abortion is protected under the Constitution. To make a woman go through this dance (and raise costs by mandating unnecessary spending) to attempt to guilt her or make it harder to do what she has every right to do is paternalistic and, to the cognitive dissonance of tea partiers, big government.


    +1
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 01, 2011 5:18 PM GMT
    I must repeat myself it seems:

    1c72b1c6-3a01-4af1-b378-522ca910ba90.jpg

    capslock.png

    caps_lock2.jpg

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 01, 2011 5:21 PM GMT
    torrentprime said
    mocktwinkie said
    Fountains saidI'm not understanding the "big government" thing. To me, if anything, it's "big government" that a state would pass a law regulating what female bodied persons do with their bodies. But the thread kind of suggests (to me at least) that your reference to big government is in regards to the judge striking down the law.


    Not if you define that a baby's life begins some time prior to birth, making it another human being needing protection under the law from being murdered just like everyone else. I would hope that "big government" doesn't include that everyone should be protected under the law from harm or being infringed on.

    Is it a bit difficult to grasp this?


    To be fair, if this were the case, then the law would/should make it a crime to have an abortion. To force a "killer" to see a biosigns reading before "executing" the child is an odd way to go about protecting the child.

    At the moment, the right to an abortion is protected under the Constitution. To make a woman go through this dance (and raise costs by mandating unnecessary spending) to attempt to guilt her or make it harder to do what she has every right to do is paternalistic and, to the cognitive dissonance of tea partiers, big government.


    So I actually add to the discussion as well, I must say this that we as gay men really have no say when it comes to this discussion. I mean its her fucking body guys, it adds a lot of crap going on that goes all cray cray with her.

    Second, its not like the decision to have an abortion is an easy one, its very psychologically damaging to the women herself as it does go against biology, however that does not mean we should harass her even more, or try to add to those feelings she will all ready have.

    Furthermore, not all children deserve to be born, I present exhibit A of my argument:

    hitler.jpg
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Sep 02, 2011 12:00 AM GMT
    I'm glad to see this federal judge has some sense. There was just a wave of pro-life bills going through the state legislature in early 2011 as soon as the newly elected Republicans took over.

    It's a relief to see their craziness denied.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 02, 2011 12:13 AM GMT
    Troyathlete said
    So I actually add to the discussion as well, I must say this that we as gay men really have no say when it comes to this discussion. I mean its her fucking body guys, it adds a lot of crap going on that goes all cray cray with her.

    Second, its not like the decision to have an abortion is an easy one, its very psychologically damaging to the women herself as it does go against biology, however that does not mean we should harass her even more, or try to add to those feelings she will all ready have.


    There is zero evidence that having an abortion is psychologically damaging.

    ZERO.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 02, 2011 12:32 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    Troyathlete said
    So I actually add to the discussion as well, I must say this that we as gay men really have no say when it comes to this discussion. I mean its her fucking body guys, it adds a lot of crap going on that goes all cray cray with her.

    Second, its not like the decision to have an abortion is an easy one, its very psychologically damaging to the women herself as it does go against biology, however that does not mean we should harass her even more, or try to add to those feelings she will all ready have.


    There is zero evidence that having an abortion is psychologically damaging.

    ZERO.


    There's OK evidence for first abortions, but the effect of multiple abortions remains unknown:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_and_mental_health
    In 2008, a team at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore concluded, in a systematic review of the medical literature, that "the best quality studies indicate no significant differences in long-term mental health between women in the United States who choose to terminate a pregnancy and those who do not."[12][25] Dr. Robert Blum, the senior author on the study, stated: "The best research does not support the existence of a 'post-abortion syndrome' similar to post-traumatic stress disorder." The researchers further reported that "... studies with the most flawed methodology consistently found negative mental health consequences of abortion," and wrote: "Scientists are still conducting research to answer politically motivated questions."
    ..
    In 2007, APA established a new task force to review studies on abortion published since 1989.[1] The APA task force issued an updated summary of medical evidence in August 2008, again concluding that a single first-trimester abortion carried no more mental health risk than carrying a pregnancy to term. The panel noted a lack of quality data on the effect of multiple abortions. Additionally, the same factors which predispose a woman to multiple unwanted pregnancies may also predipose her to mental health difficulties; therefore, they declined to draw a firm conclusion on multiple abortions.[10]
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 02, 2011 1:15 PM GMT
    torrentprime said
    mocktwinkie said
    Fountains saidI'm not understanding the "big government" thing. To me, if anything, it's "big government" that a state would pass a law regulating what female bodied persons do with their bodies. But the thread kind of suggests (to me at least) that your reference to big government is in regards to the judge striking down the law.


    Not if you define that a baby's life begins some time prior to birth, making it another human being needing protection under the law from being murdered just like everyone else. I would hope that "big government" doesn't include that everyone should be protected under the law from harm or being infringed on.

    Is it a bit difficult to grasp this?


    To be fair, if this were the case, then the law would/should make it a crime to have an abortion. To force a "killer" to see a biosigns reading before "executing" the child is an odd way to go about protecting the child.

    At the moment, the right to an abortion is protected under the Constitution. To make a woman go through this dance (and raise costs by mandating unnecessary spending) to attempt to guilt her or make it harder to do what she has every right to do is paternalistic and, to the cognitive dissonance of tea partiers, big government.


    I wasn't talking about this particular issue of forcing a mother to see her unborn child, I was talking about the concept in general (see the quote above mine) of someone against big government also being in favor of protecting unborn children. The point is that there is no contradiction there depending on how one defines when life begins.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 02, 2011 1:43 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    torrentprime said
    mocktwinkie said
    Fountains saidI'm not understanding the "big government" thing. To me, if anything, it's "big government" that a state would pass a law regulating what female bodied persons do with their bodies. But the thread kind of suggests (to me at least) that your reference to big government is in regards to the judge striking down the law.


    Not if you define that a baby's life begins some time prior to birth, making it another human being needing protection under the law from being murdered just like everyone else. I would hope that "big government" doesn't include that everyone should be protected under the law from harm or being infringed on.

    Is it a bit difficult to grasp this?


    To be fair, if this were the case, then the law would/should make it a crime to have an abortion. To force a "killer" to see a biosigns reading before "executing" the child is an odd way to go about protecting the child.

    At the moment, the right to an abortion is protected under the Constitution. To make a woman go through this dance (and raise costs by mandating unnecessary spending) to attempt to guilt her or make it harder to do what she has every right to do is paternalistic and, to the cognitive dissonance of tea partiers, big government.


    I wasn't talking about this particular issue of forcing a mother to see her unborn child, I was talking about the concept in general (see the quote above mine) of someone against big government also being in favor of protecting unborn children. The point is that there is no contradiction there depending on how one defines when life begins.



    Conservatives are all about small government until it involves a woman's vagina. Then, the bigger the better!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 02, 2011 2:46 PM GMT
    Troyathlete said1c72b1c6-3a01-4af1-b378-522ca910ba90.jpg

    Interesting pic, I think silent film actor Douglas Fairbanks Sr., perhaps directing one of his own films, possibly Around the World in 80 Minutes.

    Or else addressing a US war bond (Liberty Bonds) rally during WWI, although the clothes don't agree. His actor wife, Mary Pickford ("America's Sweetheart"), raised more money than anyone else for the war effort.

    I'd be interested in knowing the citation for this pic.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 02, 2011 3:28 PM GMT
    catfish5 said
    mocktwinkie said
    torrentprime said
    mocktwinkie said
    Fountains saidI'm not understanding the "big government" thing. To me, if anything, it's "big government" that a state would pass a law regulating what female bodied persons do with their bodies. But the thread kind of suggests (to me at least) that your reference to big government is in regards to the judge striking down the law.


    Not if you define that a baby's life begins some time prior to birth, making it another human being needing protection under the law from being murdered just like everyone else. I would hope that "big government" doesn't include that everyone should be protected under the law from harm or being infringed on.

    Is it a bit difficult to grasp this?


    To be fair, if this were the case, then the law would/should make it a crime to have an abortion. To force a "killer" to see a biosigns reading before "executing" the child is an odd way to go about protecting the child.

    At the moment, the right to an abortion is protected under the Constitution. To make a woman go through this dance (and raise costs by mandating unnecessary spending) to attempt to guilt her or make it harder to do what she has every right to do is paternalistic and, to the cognitive dissonance of tea partiers, big government.


    I wasn't talking about this particular issue of forcing a mother to see her unborn child, I was talking about the concept in general (see the quote above mine) of someone against big government also being in favor of protecting unborn children. The point is that there is no contradiction there depending on how one defines when life begins.



    Conservatives are all about small government until it involves a woman's vagina. Then, the bigger the better!


    Has nothing to do with her vagina it has to do with the baby growing inside her body and defining when it is a life worth protecting. If a woman is due to give birth within days I'm assuming that you think she should have the "right" to kill her nearly born baby? It has to do with protecting other humans against harm, not telling her what she can and can't do with her own body. If it had only to do with her body then no one would care.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 02, 2011 4:53 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    catfish5 said
    mocktwinkie said
    torrentprime said
    mocktwinkie said
    Fountains saidI'm not understanding the "big government" thing. To me, if anything, it's "big government" that a state would pass a law regulating what female bodied persons do with their bodies. But the thread kind of suggests (to me at least) that your reference to big government is in regards to the judge striking down the law.


    Not if you define that a baby's life begins some time prior to birth, making it another human being needing protection under the law from being murdered just like everyone else. I would hope that "big government" doesn't include that everyone should be protected under the law from harm or being infringed on.

    Is it a bit difficult to grasp this?


    To be fair, if this were the case, then the law would/should make it a crime to have an abortion. To force a "killer" to see a biosigns reading before "executing" the child is an odd way to go about protecting the child.

    At the moment, the right to an abortion is protected under the Constitution. To make a woman go through this dance (and raise costs by mandating unnecessary spending) to attempt to guilt her or make it harder to do what she has every right to do is paternalistic and, to the cognitive dissonance of tea partiers, big government.


    I wasn't talking about this particular issue of forcing a mother to see her unborn child, I was talking about the concept in general (see the quote above mine) of someone against big government also being in favor of protecting unborn children. The point is that there is no contradiction there depending on how one defines when life begins.



    Conservatives are all about small government until it involves a woman's vagina. Then, the bigger the better!


    Has nothing to do with her vagina it has to do with the baby growing inside her body and defining when it is a life worth protecting. If a woman is due to give birth within days I'm assuming that you think she should have the "right" to kill her nearly born baby? It has to do with protecting other humans against harm, not telling her what she can and can't do with her own body. If it had only to do with her body then no one would care.


    A woman has the right to abort a fetus in the US. Republicans are trying to take away a woman's rights. It's plain and simple hipocrisy. Small government unless it has to do with social issues- then big government all the way baby!!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 02, 2011 5:01 PM GMT
    catfish5 said
    mocktwinkie said
    catfish5 said
    mocktwinkie said
    torrentprime said
    mocktwinkie said
    Fountains saidI'm not understanding the "big government" thing. To me, if anything, it's "big government" that a state would pass a law regulating what female bodied persons do with their bodies. But the thread kind of suggests (to me at least) that your reference to big government is in regards to the judge striking down the law.


    Not if you define that a baby's life begins some time prior to birth, making it another human being needing protection under the law from being murdered just like everyone else. I would hope that "big government" doesn't include that everyone should be protected under the law from harm or being infringed on.

    Is it a bit difficult to grasp this?


    To be fair, if this were the case, then the law would/should make it a crime to have an abortion. To force a "killer" to see a biosigns reading before "executing" the child is an odd way to go about protecting the child.

    At the moment, the right to an abortion is protected under the Constitution. To make a woman go through this dance (and raise costs by mandating unnecessary spending) to attempt to guilt her or make it harder to do what she has every right to do is paternalistic and, to the cognitive dissonance of tea partiers, big government.


    I wasn't talking about this particular issue of forcing a mother to see her unborn child, I was talking about the concept in general (see the quote above mine) of someone against big government also being in favor of protecting unborn children. The point is that there is no contradiction there depending on how one defines when life begins.



    Conservatives are all about small government until it involves a woman's vagina. Then, the bigger the better!


    Has nothing to do with her vagina it has to do with the baby growing inside her body and defining when it is a life worth protecting. If a woman is due to give birth within days I'm assuming that you think she should have the "right" to kill her nearly born baby? It has to do with protecting other humans against harm, not telling her what she can and can't do with her own body. If it had only to do with her body then no one would care.


    A woman has the right to abort a fetus in the US. Republicans are trying to take away a woman's rights. It's plain and simple hipocrisy. Small government unless it has to do with social issues- then big government all the way baby!!!


    No it isn't hypocrisy, it just depends on when you define life beginning. After a baby is born you would agree that someone shouldn't "abort" the baby...other people believe that the life is worth protecting as a human being even prior to the baby being born.

    This has nothing to do with big government and your arguments make no sense. And btw it's "hypocrisy" not "hipocrisy".
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 02, 2011 5:17 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    catfish5 said
    mocktwinkie said
    catfish5 said
    mocktwinkie said
    torrentprime said
    mocktwinkie said
    Fountains saidI'm not understanding the "big government" thing. To me, if anything, it's "big government" that a state would pass a law regulating what female bodied persons do with their bodies. But the thread kind of suggests (to me at least) that your reference to big government is in regards to the judge striking down the law.


    Not if you define that a baby's life begins some time prior to birth, making it another human being needing protection under the law from being murdered just like everyone else. I would hope that "big government" doesn't include that everyone should be protected under the law from harm or being infringed on.

    Is it a bit difficult to grasp this?


    To be fair, if this were the case, then the law would/should make it a crime to have an abortion. To force a "killer" to see a biosigns reading before "executing" the child is an odd way to go about protecting the child.

    Its not about what you believe or your personal views. Its about rights dictated according to law. And btw how an ultrasound prior to abortion medically necessary.

    At the moment, the right to an abortion is protected under the Constitution. To make a woman go through this dance (and raise costs by mandating unnecessary spending) to attempt to guilt her or make it harder to do what she has every right to do is paternalistic and, to the cognitive dissonance of tea partiers, big government.


    I wasn't talking about this particular issue of forcing a mother to see her unborn child, I was talking about the concept in general (see the quote above mine) of someone against big government also being in favor of protecting unborn children. The point is that there is no contradiction there depending on how one defines when life begins.



    Conservatives are all about small government until it involves a woman's vagina. Then, the bigger the better!


    Has nothing to do with her vagina it has to do with the baby growing inside her body and defining when it is a life worth protecting. If a woman is due to give birth within days I'm assuming that you think she should have the "right" to kill her nearly born baby? It has to do with protecting other humans against harm, not telling her what she can and can't do with her own body. If it had only to do with her body then no one would care.


    A woman has the right to abort a fetus in the US. Republicans are trying to take away a woman's rights. It's plain and simple hipocrisy. Small government unless it has to do with social issues- then big government all the way baby!!!


    No it isn't hypocrisy, it just depends on when you define life beginning. After a baby is born you would agree that someone shouldn't "abort" the baby...other people believe that the life is worth protecting as a human being even prior to the baby being born.

    This has nothing to do with big government and your arguments make no sense. And btw it's "hypocrisy" not "hipocrisy".
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 02, 2011 5:20 PM GMT
    This is not about your beliefs or personal views or how u define terms. Its about protecting rights dictated to a woman according to law. An ultrasound is not medically necessary prior to abortion.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 02, 2011 5:21 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said

    No it isn't hypocrisy, it just depends on when you define life beginning. After a baby is born you would agree that someone shouldn't "abort" the baby...other people believe that the life is worth protecting as a human being even prior to the baby being born.

    This has nothing to do with big government and your arguments make no sense. And btw it's "hypocrisy" not "hipocrisy".


    But this does nothing to protect the life of the child. I personally am not disputing the theoretical position that there is no conflict between being pro-life and believing in small government, but unless you are actually protecting the life of the child, sonogram and parental consent and waiting period laws do not protect the child; they only create roadblocks and hassles and inconveniences between a woman and an abortion, making it harder to get done. It's not like we have a "You can shoot anyone you want if you choose as long as you wait 48 hours" law and call that "protecting" human life.

    And a spell check, bro? Really?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 02, 2011 5:21 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    Troyathlete said
    So I actually add to the discussion as well, I must say this that we as gay men really have no say when it comes to this discussion. I mean its her fucking body guys, it adds a lot of crap going on that goes all cray cray with her.

    Second, its not like the decision to have an abortion is an easy one, its very psychologically damaging to the women herself as it does go against biology, however that does not mean we should harass her even more, or try to add to those feelings she will all ready have.


    There is zero evidence that having an abortion is psychologically damaging.

    ZERO.


    Well my mom studied clinical psychology at the University of San Francisco, which is a pretty damn good school, and thats what she said. So until I see evidence otherwise Im going to go with the idea that abortion is a difficult decision for someone to make, and its not like they wake up one day and decide to suck out the fetus.

    Thats my idea.