SCOTUS Voids Texas Abortion Clinic Law

[TitanTiger 20,561]

Who in hell are you to determine what helps women and what doesn't?

It's not me. It's reason, science, logic, a basic sense of human decency that does. Killing another person doesn't help women.

Well there are a lot of actual women who employ reason, science, logic and a basic sense of human decency that disagree with you.

You have no standing to impose your values on others who may disagree.

No, they actually defy reason, science and logic to do so.

They (and you) are imposing your values on others too. Not sure why you don't see this.

All law is imposed morality. Such imposition is not only desirable, it’s unavoidable. The only question is which morality will be imposed. In fact, the only way to avoid imposing morality is to abandon the rule of law altogether.

[homersapien 11,552]

And you are free to believe whatever you want, but you aren't free to impose those beliefs on others.

Why not? You're imposing your beliefs on others. Difference is, my "imposition" doesn't kill innocent human beings.

You'll have to explain exactly how I am imposing my beliefs on anyone.

And one could make a principled argument that just paying my taxes results in the death of innocent human beings. Ones that have actually been born.

s*** happens.

[homersapien 11,552]

Yeah, who cares if abortion mills are crappy dumps? It's mostly poor women anyway.

Do you really think that's what this law was about?

I think it was a means to curtail abortions and it was a reaction to the ghastly conditions of the clinic Kermit Gosnell ran in Philly.

You think Texas is really influenced by anything in Philly?

When it's that macabre and sickening, absolutely. Anyone with something resembling a soul should be influenced by it.

It was sickening. Absolutely . But it had no real influence on this legislation.

Except that it did. It was one of the key reasons.

Then why did they impose standards that had something to do with improving conditions?

Why did they deliberately impose standards that would make them close?

Why did the governor admit the purpose was to prevent abortions instead of simply improving conditions?

[TitanTiger 20,561]

You'll have to explain exactly how I am imposing my beliefs on anyone.

Just for one small example, how do you post the above with a straight face while believing that Plan B should not only be legal, but that you have the right to force someone to sell it to you? You totally belief in imposing your beliefs on others. You just don't want to cop to it.

A child in the womb is no more able to express their desire to live than one that's just emerged from the birth canal and even still has the umbilical cord attached. It's a game of semantics that allows you to fool yourself into thinking otherwise.

And one could make a principled argument that just paying my taxes results in the death of innocent human beings. Ones that have actually been born.

s*** happens.

And if you're a halfway decent human being, you work to put a stop to it. In other words, you work to "impose" your sense of morality on others who believe differently.

[homersapien 11,552]

Who in hell are you to determine what helps women and what doesn't?

It's not me. It's reason, science, logic, a basic sense of human decency that does. Killing another person doesn't help women.

Well there are a lot of actual women who employ reason, science, logic and a basic sense of human decency that disagree with you.

You have no standing to impose your values on others who may disagree.

No, they actually defy reason, science and logic to do so.

They (and you) are imposing your values on others too. Not sure why you don't see this.

All law is imposed morality. Such imposition is not only desirable, it’s unavoidable. The only question is which morality will be imposed. In fact, the only way to avoid imposing morality is to abandon the rule of law altogether.

That's your opinion, not fact.

You still haven't explained how I am imposing my beliefs on anyone. That sophistry doesn't cut it. How does supporting a woman's right to choose impose anything on her?

[homersapien 11,552]

You'll have to explain exactly how I am imposing my beliefs on anyone.

Just for one small example, how do you post the above with a straight face while believing that Plan B should not only be legal, but that you have the right to force someone to sell it to you? You totally belief in imposing your beliefs on others. You just don't want to cop to it.

And one could make a principled argument that just paying my taxes results in the death of innocent human beings. Ones that have actually been born.

s*** happens.

And if you're a halfway decent human being, you work to put a stop to it. In other words, you work to "impose" your sense of morality on others who believe differently.

Plan B is not illegal. It's available to anyone who wants to buy it.

If someone doesn't want to sell it, they shouldn't be in a job that involves selling it. But as far as I am concerned, as long as they advertise they don't sell it, they don't have to. And if you weren't a theocrat we wouldn't be having this argument. Theocracy is unAmerican.

And if I wanted to minimize abortions - which I am perfectly OK with - I'd work on preventing the conditions that cause them, not make them illegal.

[TexasTiger 13,234]

Yeah, who cares if abortion mills are crappy dumps? It's mostly poor women anyway.

Do you really think that's what this law was about?

I think it was a means to curtail abortions and it was a reaction to the ghastly conditions of the clinic Kermit Gosnell ran in Philly.

You think Texas is really influenced by anything in Philly?

When it's that macabre and sickening, absolutely. Anyone with something resembling a soul should be influenced by it.

It was sickening. Absolutely . But it had no real influence on this legislation.

Except that it did. It was one of the key reasons.

The details of the bill had little logical connection to that case. It may have been cited in the propaganda supporting it, but anyone being intellectually honest knows it was disingenuous.

[TitanTiger 20,561]

The details of the bill had little logical connection to that case. It may have been cited in the propaganda supporting it, but anyone being intellectually honest knows it was disingenuous.

It was part of the motivation and the deliberation over the bill. You can choose to believe whatever you wish, but Gosnell was part of the motivation behind it.

[TexasTiger 13,234]

The details of the bill had little logical connection to that case. It may have been cited in the propaganda supporting it, but anyone being intellectually honest knows it was disingenuous.

It was part of the motivation and the deliberation over the bill. You can choose to believe whatever you wish, but Gosnell was part of the motivation behind it.

It was not the motivation for what actually went into the bill. Abortion rights is not a burning issue for me, and I'm actually sympathetic to your concerns, but this bill was ridiculously over-the-top and disingenuous.

[TitanTiger 20,561]

Plan B is not illegal. It's available to anyone who wants to buy it.

If someone doesn't want to sell it, they shouldn't be in a job that involves selling it. But as far as I am concerned, as long as they don't have to sell it as long as they advertise that fact.

Exactly - it's not illegal and it is available to anyone who wants to buy it. And nothing this pharmacy did sought to change either of those facts. But the fact that something is legal does not therefore impose an obligation on every or even any store to sell it. There are tens of thousands of products out there in any given segment of retail. My local stores carry a small subset of those products. I am free to ask that they stock a certain product and from a customer service standpoint, it probably makes sense for them to carry it and make me happy. But they are not obligated to do so nor should they be. If I don't like that, I can take my business elsewhere. Neither of our freedoms have been curtailed in such a situation.

And if you weren't a theocrat we wouldn't be having this argument. Theocracy is unAmerican.

And if I wanted to minimize abortions - which I am perfectly OK with - I'd work on preventing the conditions that cause them, not make them illegal.

I'm not a theocrat, I just don't live under the delusion that only the other side uses the law to impose it's moral views on the rest of us.

And I don't think we should have to choose between dealing with the conditions or stopping the act.

[icanthearyou 4,465]

Plan B is not illegal. It's available to anyone who wants to buy it.

If someone doesn't want to sell it, they shouldn't be in a job that involves selling it. But as far as I am concerned, as long as they don't have to sell it as long as they advertise that fact.

Exactly - it's not illegal and it is available to anyone who wants to buy it. And nothing this pharmacy did sought to change either of those facts. But the fact that something is legal does not therefore impose an obligation on every or even any store to sell it. There are tens of thousands of products out there in any given segment of retail. My local stores carry a small subset of those products. I am free to ask that they stock a certain product and from a customer service standpoint, it probably makes sense for them to carry it and make me happy. But they are not obligated to do so nor should they be. If I don't like that, I can take my business elsewhere. Neither of our freedoms have been curtailed in such a situation.

And if you weren't a theocrat we wouldn't be having this argument. Theocracy is unAmerican.

And if I wanted to minimize abortions - which I am perfectly OK with - I'd work on preventing the conditions that cause them, not make them illegal.

I'm not a theocrat, I just don't live under the delusion that only the other side uses the law to impose it's moral views on the rest of us.

And I don't think we should have to choose between dealing with the conditions or stopping the act.

I think you are wrong on both. First, it is obvious that you wish to take the decision from an individual and, put it into your own hands. That is imposing your morality. Your statement seems illogical.

Second, an absolute ban seems impractical and, politically impossible. How many opportunities at limiting abortion are lost by those with an "all or nothing" position? Politically, does this serve any purpose other than that of insuring a political divide? Is it saving any lives?

Perhaps, being politically practical and, devoting more effort to real world solutions such as support for adoption would yield results? Those with your position seem to being doing more harm than good.

[TitanTiger 20,561]

I think you are wrong on both. First, it is obvious that you wish to take the decision from an individual and, put it into your own hands. That is imposing your morality. Your statement seems illogical.

Because it's not just a decision that affects one individual. There are two individuals. I don't wish to give one individual the power to take the life of the other. Whose imposing morality on whom here?

Second, an absolute ban seems impractical and, politically impossible. How many opportunities at limiting abortion are lost by those with an "all or nothing" position? Politically, does this serve any purpose other than that of insuring a political divide? Is it saving any lives?

Good thing I'm not advocating for all or nothing then, huh?

Perhaps, being politically practical and, devoting more effort to real world solutions such as support for adoption would yield results? Those with your position seem to being doing more harm than good.

Or perhaps this has never been an either/or proposition in the first place. Nor is it necessary for it to be.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Who in hell are you to determine what helps women and what doesn't?

It's not me. It's reason, science, logic, a basic sense of human decency that does. Killing another person doesn't help women.

And you are free to believe whatever you want, but you aren't free to impose those beliefs on others.

Why not? You're imposing your beliefs on others. Difference is, my "imposition" doesn't kill innocent human beings.

Please explain the science, reason, logic. How do you explain the number of women who choose abortion?

To your first, in centuries past we didn't understand exactly how life began. Science has changed that. We know exactly when a new human life begins. We can see the development of this beautiful individual. And advances in medical science have made it so that children can survive outside the womb earlier and earlier. We know it is not merely an extension of a woman's body, but a distinct human being in its own right. Reason and logic would dictate that we would take these cues from science and stop behaving as if an unborn child should be treated the same as removing a wart. Reason and logic would dictate that there is nothing magical about traveling a few inches down a vagina that should endow one with rights that shouldn't have already existed before. Especially when 97% of the pregnancies that end in abortion were the result of freely chosen actions that the woman knows naturally results in pregnancy. It is one of the signs that the man and woman's bodies were both functioning as intended.

We are finally beginning to come around to the idea that human life has inherent worth and it is beginning to influence our outlook on everything from torture to the death penalty. Reason and logic would dictate that if we can find it within ourselves to see such worth and dignity even in the guilty, we would surely extend it to the innocent.

Your second question is phrased as if it's contingent upon the first. But since when to people always act according to reason, science and logic, especially when they feel scared or are faced with loss of something significant to them? Not to mention, the reasons are varied and every person is different. Statistics show that most choose it because of a feeling (real or perceived) of lack of material and/or emotional support. Which is why I don't merely support not killing people, but helping women who become pregnant.

Excellent post and it compels me to ask..ever notice how lefties worship at the altar of science when they believe it benefits them ideologically and advances their agenda of accruing more power and control but how they view it as a virtual moral obligation to totally ignore medical science since it goes so profoundly against their political agenda?.I have.

[icanthearyou 4,465]

I think you are wrong on both. First, it is obvious that you wish to take the decision from an individual and, put it into your own hands. That is imposing your morality. Your statement seems illogical.

Because it's not just a decision that affects one individual. There are two individuals. I don't wish to give one individual the power to take the life of the other. Whose imposing morality on whom here?

Second, an absolute ban seems impractical and, politically impossible. How many opportunities at limiting abortion are lost by those with an "all or nothing" position? Politically, does this serve any purpose other than that of insuring a political divide? Is it saving any lives?

Good thing I'm not advocating for all or nothing then, huh?

Perhaps, being politically practical and, devoting more effort to real world solutions such as support for adoption would yield results? Those with your position seem to being doing more harm than good.

Or perhaps this has never been an either/or proposition in the first place. Nor is it necessary for it to be.

Then maybe you should advocate a law that recognizes the rights of the unborn? Wouldn't that be more genuine considering your statement of imposing morality?

I must have misinterpreted your previous post.

Well, I think there are some who wish for it to remain a political stalemate. Not suggesting you are one of those.

[TitanTiger 20,561]

Then maybe you should advocate a law that recognizes the rights of the unborn? Wouldn't that be more genuine considering your statement of imposing morality?

I'd love to. But the point still stands - killing a human child is imposing morality on them.

I must have misinterpreted your previous post.

I apologize if I wasn't clear.

Well, I think there are some who wish for it to remain a political stalemate. Not suggesting you are one of those.

Yeah, definitely not. I pray that one day the people I find so much kinship with on the death penalty and torture find it within them one day to extend the same sense of inherent worth and dignity to the unborn. I'm not interested in stalemates and political footballs.

[icanthearyou 4,465]

Then maybe you should advocate a law that recognizes the rights of the unborn? Wouldn't that be more genuine considering your statement of imposing morality?

I'd love to. But the point still stands - killing a human child is imposing morality on them.

I must have misinterpreted your previous post.

I apologize if I wasn't clear.

Well, I think there are some who wish for it to remain a political stalemate. Not suggesting you are one of those.

Yeah, definitely not. I pray that one day the people I find so much kinship with on the death penalty and torture find it within them one day to extend the same sense of inherent worth and dignity to the unborn. I'm not interested in stalemates and political footballs.

To be accurate, it is imposing death, not morality.

[homersapien 11,552]

Plan B is not illegal. It's available to anyone who wants to buy it.

If someone doesn't want to sell it, they shouldn't be in a job that involves selling it. But as far as I am concerned, as long as they don't have to sell it as long as they advertise that fact.

Exactly - it's not illegal and it is available to anyone who wants to buy it. And nothing this pharmacy did sought to change either of those facts. But the fact that something is legal does not therefore impose an obligation on every or even any store to sell it. There are tens of thousands of products out there in any given segment of retail. My local stores carry a small subset of those products. I am free to ask that they stock a certain product and from a customer service standpoint, it probably makes sense for them to carry it and make me happy. But they are not obligated to do so nor should they be. If I don't like that, I can take my business elsewhere. Neither of our freedoms have been curtailed in such a situation.

Fine then we can agree on that.

Again, tell me how I am imposing my beliefs or values on anyone by supporting a woman's right to have an abortion.

[homersapien 11,552]

And if you weren't a theocrat we wouldn't be having this argument. Theocracy is unAmerican.

I'm not a theocrat, I just don't live under the delusion that only the other side uses the law to impose it's moral views on the rest of us.

And I don't think we should have to choose between dealing with the conditions or stopping the act.

Advocating laws based on one's religious belief is a theocratic action regardless of what others may do.

And again, how does supporting the right of a woman to make her own choice create an imposition on you.

You have yet to explain that.

[homersapien 11,552]

Plan B is not illegal. It's available to anyone who wants to buy it.

If someone doesn't want to sell it, they shouldn't be in a job that involves selling it. But as far as I am concerned, as long as they don't have to sell it as long as they advertise that fact.

Exactly - it's not illegal and it is available to anyone who wants to buy it. And nothing this pharmacy did sought to change either of those facts. But the fact that something is legal does not therefore impose an obligation on every or even any store to sell it. There are tens of thousands of products out there in any given segment of retail. My local stores carry a small subset of those products. I am free to ask that they stock a certain product and from a customer service standpoint, it probably makes sense for them to carry it and make me happy. But they are not obligated to do so nor should they be. If I don't like that, I can take my business elsewhere. Neither of our freedoms have been curtailed in such a situation.

And if you weren't a theocrat we wouldn't be having this argument. Theocracy is unAmerican.

And if I wanted to minimize abortions - which I am perfectly OK with - I'd work on preventing the conditions that cause them, not make them illegal.

I'm not a theocrat, I just don't live under the delusion that only the other side uses the law to impose it's moral views on the rest of us.

And I don't think we should have to choose between dealing with the conditions or stopping the act.

I think you are wrong on both. First, it is obvious that you wish to take the decision from an individual and, put it into your own hands. That is imposing your morality. Your statement seems illogical.

Second, an absolute ban seems impractical and, politically impossible. How many opportunities at limiting abortion are lost by those with an "all or nothing" position? Politically, does this serve any purpose other than that of insuring a political divide? Is it saving any lives?

Perhaps, being politically practical and, devoting more effort to real world solutions such as support for adoption would yield results? Those with your position seem to being doing more harm than good.

Excellent points.

[homersapien 11,552]

Who in hell are you to determine what helps women and what doesn't?

It's not me. It's reason, science, logic, a basic sense of human decency that does. Killing another person doesn't help women.

And you are free to believe whatever you want, but you aren't free to impose those beliefs on others.

Why not? You're imposing your beliefs on others. Difference is, my "imposition" doesn't kill innocent human beings.

Please explain the science, reason, logic. How do you explain the number of women who choose abortion?

To your first, in centuries past we didn't understand exactly how life began. Science has changed that. We know exactly when a new human life begins. We can see the development of this beautiful individual. And advances in medical science have made it so that children can survive outside the womb earlier and earlier. We know it is not merely an extension of a woman's body, but a distinct human being in its own right. Reason and logic would dictate that we would take these cues from science and stop behaving as if an unborn child should be treated the same as removing a wart. Reason and logic would dictate that there is nothing magical about traveling a few inches down a vagina that should endow one with rights that shouldn't have already existed before. Especially when 97% of the pregnancies that end in abortion were the result of freely chosen actions that the woman knows naturally results in pregnancy. It is one of the signs that the man and woman's bodies were both functioning as intended.

We are finally beginning to come around to the idea that human life has inherent worth and it is beginning to influence our outlook on everything from torture to the death penalty. Reason and logic would dictate that if we can find it within ourselves to see such worth and dignity even in the guilty, we would surely extend it to the innocent.

Your second question is phrased as if it's contingent upon the first. But since when to people always act according to reason, science and logic, especially when they feel scared or are faced with loss of something significant to them? Not to mention, the reasons are varied and every person is different. Statistics show that most choose it because of a feeling (real or perceived) of lack of material and/or emotional support. Which is why I don't merely support not killing people, but helping women who become pregnant.

Excellent post and it compels me to ask..ever notice how lefties worship at the altar of science when they believe it benefits them ideologically and advances their agenda of accruing more power and control but how they view it as a virtual moral obligation to totally ignore medical science since it goes so profoundly against their political agenda?.I have.

Please point out the scientific paper that demonstrates when the body is "ensouled". After all, that's what we are talking about here.

And stop lying. You're terrible at it.

[homersapien 11,552]

Then maybe you should advocate a law that recognizes the rights of the unborn? Wouldn't that be more genuine considering your statement of imposing morality?

I'd love to. But the point still stands - killing a human child is imposing morality on them.

If you guys are going to employ science in your argument, then don't play word games and describe any and all phases of a pregnancy as involving a "child".

That may not be they way you see it, but that's the way science sees it.

[TitanTiger 20,561]

Then maybe you should advocate a law that recognizes the rights of the unborn? Wouldn't that be more genuine considering your statement of imposing morality?

I'd love to. But the point still stands - killing a human child is imposing morality on them.

If you guys are going to employ science in your argument, then don't play word games and describe any and all phases of a pregnancy as involving a "child".

That may not be they way you see it, but that's the way science sees it.

Calling it a fetus does not change what it is. It's semantics to push a philosophical (not scientific) idea that the child is somehow subhuman and not deserving of the basic right not to be killed.

[TitanTiger 20,561]

Then maybe you should advocate a law that recognizes the rights of the unborn? Wouldn't that be more genuine considering your statement of imposing morality?

I'd love to. But the point still stands - killing a human child is imposing morality on them.

I must have misinterpreted your previous post.

I apologize if I wasn't clear.

Well, I think there are some who wish for it to remain a political stalemate. Not suggesting you are one of those.

Yeah, definitely not. I pray that one day the people I find so much kinship with on the death penalty and torture find it within them one day to extend the same sense of inherent worth and dignity to the unborn. I'm not interested in stalemates and political footballs.

To be accurate, it is imposing death, not morality.

It's imposing both. To be able to impose death, it first imposes the moral code that says the unborn child is undeserving of basic human rights. It imposes a morality that many if not most of the same people wouldn't apply to a convicted murder or a terrorist.

And if you weren't a theocrat we wouldn't be having this argument. Theocracy is unAmerican.

I'm not a theocrat, I just don't live under the delusion that only the other side uses the law to impose it's moral views on the rest of us.

And I don't think we should have to choose between dealing with the conditions or stopping the act.

Advocating laws based on one's religious belief is a theocratic action regardless of what others may do.

And again, how does supporting the right of a woman to make her own choice create an imposition on you.

You have yet to explain that.

One does not need religious belief to argue for basic human rights for a human being. In fact, I haven't put forth a religious argument here at all, unless its your contention that human rights can only truly be grounded in religious belief, specifically Christianity.

[TitanTiger 20,561]

Please point out the scientific paper that demonstrates when the body is "ensouled". After all, that's what we are talking about here.

Surely you aren't advocating the idea that human rights are conferred on someone based on them having a 'soul.'

[TitanTiger 20,561]

The details of the bill had little logical connection to that case. It may have been cited in the propaganda supporting it, but anyone being intellectually honest knows it was disingenuous.

It was part of the motivation and the deliberation over the bill. You can choose to believe whatever you wish, but Gosnell was part of the motivation behind it.

It was not the motivation for what actually went into the bill. Abortion rights is not a burning issue for me, and I'm actually sympathetic to your concerns, but this bill was ridiculously over-the-top and disingenuous.

I think you underplay the influence of Gosnell on the legislation. It was enough of an influence that even Justice Breyer felt compelled to address it in his opinion. I don't find his logic persuasive (sounds eerily familiar to the arguments against any gun laws actually), but nonetheless he felt it warranted addressing:

“Gosnell’s behavior was terribly wrong,” Breyer wrote. “But there is no reason to believe that an extra layer of regulation would have affected that behavior. Determined wrongdoers, already ignoring existing statutes and safety measures, are unlikely to be convinced to adopt safe practices by a new overlay of regulations. Regardless, Gosnell’s deplorable crimes could escape detection only because his facility went uninspected for more than 15 years.”

http://www.elpasotimes.com/story/news/2016/06/27/us-supreme-court-overrules-tx-abortion-law/86426768/