Funerals for abortions?!?!

[Czernobog]

Liberals say that viability determines personhood. That's hardly adults. More like defective morlocks.

Well, the law of the land says viability, so there's also that. The only thing you have that says otherwise is an irrational, badly written law that contradicts itself within the language of the very law you want to use as evidence of the rationality of your position, and should not exist. It's kind of like fake conservative moralists - should not exist, but we have to tolerate.

Dear Czernobog where the contradiction in law begins is pushing laws biased by beliefs into govt. Both sides have beliefs about abortion life and govt authority. If both sides don't agree, as you yourself don't agree here, that means lines were crossed between beliefs and public policy or church and state. That's where the contradiction is. Technically no laws should be passed or enforced at all that touch on beliefs unless there is a public consensus. Or else you are right there is a contradiction with laws, on religious freedom and equal protection of laws from discrimination by creed.

It goes both ways though, for laws to be fully constitutional they could not be biased toward or against either for or against legalized abortion. Prochoice seeks to allow free choice of either, but as long as prolife advocates don't agree but argue that laws are still biased then that's still infringing. Same with the laws you are contesting as infringing. Until and unless there is consensus then any objections by either side shows that law is biased does not represent all sides beliefs equally and is technically establishing an unconstitutional bias by belief.

Do you agree that laws involving beliefs should be resolved by consensus to protect all citizens equally instead of pushing one sides beliefs over the other thru govt?

Which is what I have been shouting for years. look. I don't want to tell the moralists what they have to believe, or how they have to behave, in regards to a fetus, life, personhood, etc., in their personal lives However, I also don't want them trying to use the law to tell anyone else, either.

Here's the irony. I am anti-abortion. I am a pagan, and therefore do have my personal believes about the soul, spiritual migration, and reincarnation. I believe that every soul migrates to a new life at conception. But did you notice the phrase I used? My. Personal. Believes. The last thing I ever want to do is to use the government to legislate that other people be required to behave in accordance with my. Personal. Beliefs. So, I am politically Pro-Choice. Why? Because my personal beliefs should never interfere with the individual decisions of another person.

You're anti abortion? That's a laugh. If the choice for which you are a proponent of involves someone being able to have an abortion, you're a liar to say you're opposed to it. That would be like me saying I oppose stealing then saying who am I to tell someone else they can't do it.

Yeah. We already know that you are a retard incapable of reasoning beyond that of a 5-year-old, and are thus incapable of understanding the difference between a personal moral view, and a political position.

 

[Conservative65]

Killing a cancer cluster doesn't end a human life. Killing an entire human, no matter the stage of development, does. Obviously you don't have the IQ to be able to tell the difference, so you should leave that for the adults.

The adults say that viability is the factor that determines personhood. So, maybe you should leave medical ethics to the adults. Off you go...

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Viability? Are you suggesting a fetus at any stage doesn't have the potential to grow into an adult?

I'm not even going to dignify that stupid question with a response. Why is it you moralists who keep insisting that those of us who support women's choice are 'ignoring science" always want to act stupid, and ignorant when that science doesn't support your claims? Like pretending that you don't know exactly what viability is, what it means, and how medical science defines it.

I find it funny that you lost the arguement so you bring up "viability" out of your ass when it has nothing to do with the topic. Viability of a dead human? I mean how stupid can you get?

Who cares about dead human tissue? You are trying to equate dead human tissued to a person. It is a person that requires viability.

I'll tell you the same thing I have told all of your moralist friends. There is a perfectly acceptable method being used by abortion clinics to dispose of human waste, and tissue after an abortion. If your sensibilities are offended by that method, and you want to require that a method that "respects the remains" be used, fine. You pay the extra cost it would incur. You pay the cost that would be incurred for the upkeep of an "abortion graveyard". You don't think it's fair that you should have to incur the costs of an abortion you didn't have? Then shut the fuck up, butt the fuck out, and quit dictating how clinics dispose of the dead tissue, when the method they currently use works just fine.

Why don't you apply that same concept of paying when it comes to women that choose to have children they can't afford?

 

[Conservative65]

Liberals say that viability determines personhood. That's hardly adults. More like defective morlocks.

Well, the law of the land says viability, so there's also that. The only thing you have that says otherwise is an irrational, badly written law that contradicts itself within the language of the very law you want to use as evidence of the rationality of your position, and should not exist. It's kind of like fake conservative moralists - should not exist, but we have to tolerate.

Dear Czernobog where the contradiction in law begins is pushing laws biased by beliefs into govt. Both sides have beliefs about abortion life and govt authority. If both sides don't agree, as you yourself don't agree here, that means lines were crossed between beliefs and public policy or church and state. That's where the contradiction is. Technically no laws should be passed or enforced at all that touch on beliefs unless there is a public consensus. Or else you are right there is a contradiction with laws, on religious freedom and equal protection of laws from discrimination by creed.

It goes both ways though, for laws to be fully constitutional they could not be biased toward or against either for or against legalized abortion. Prochoice seeks to allow free choice of either, but as long as prolife advocates don't agree but argue that laws are still biased then that's still infringing. Same with the laws you are contesting as infringing. Until and unless there is consensus then any objections by either side shows that law is biased does not represent all sides beliefs equally and is technically establishing an unconstitutional bias by belief.

Do you agree that laws involving beliefs should be resolved by consensus to protect all citizens equally instead of pushing one sides beliefs over the other thru govt?

Which is what I have been shouting for years. look. I don't want to tell the moralists what they have to believe, or how they have to behave, in regards to a fetus, life, personhood, etc., in their personal lives However, I also don't want them trying to use the law to tell anyone else, either.

Here's the irony. I am anti-abortion. I am a pagan, and therefore do have my personal believes about the soul, spiritual migration, and reincarnation. I believe that every soul migrates to a new life at conception. But did you notice the phrase I used? My. Personal. Believes. The last thing I ever want to do is to use the government to legislate that other people be required to behave in accordance with my. Personal. Beliefs. So, I am politically Pro-Choice. Why? Because my personal beliefs should never interfere with the individual decisions of another person.

You're anti abortion? That's a laugh. If the choice for which you are a proponent of involves someone being able to have an abortion, you're a liar to say you're opposed to it. That would be like me saying I oppose stealing then saying who am I to tell someone else they can't do it.

Yeah. We already know that you are a retard incapable of reasoning beyond that of a 5-year-old, and are thus incapable of understanding the difference between a personal moral view, and a political position.

Apparently you're incapable of understanding that when you support the concept of something existing you can't claim the moral view of opposing that very thing.

 

[koshergrl]

Liberals say that viability determines personhood. That's hardly adults. More like defective morlocks.

Well, the law of the land says viability, so there's also that. The only thing you have that says otherwise is an irrational, badly written law that contradicts itself within the language of the very law you want to use as evidence of the rationality of your position, and should not exist. It's kind of like fake conservative moralists - should not exist, but we have to tolerate.

Dear Czernobog where the contradiction in law begins is pushing laws biased by beliefs into govt. Both sides have beliefs about abortion life and govt authority. If both sides don't agree, as you yourself don't agree here, that means lines were crossed between beliefs and public policy or church and state. That's where the contradiction is. Technically no laws should be passed or enforced at all that touch on beliefs unless there is a public consensus. Or else you are right there is a contradiction with laws, on religious freedom and equal protection of laws from discrimination by creed.

It goes both ways though, for laws to be fully constitutional they could not be biased toward or against either for or against legalized abortion. Prochoice seeks to allow free choice of either, but as long as prolife advocates don't agree but argue that laws are still biased then that's still infringing. Same with the laws you are contesting as infringing. Until and unless there is consensus then any objections by either side shows that law is biased does not represent all sides beliefs equally and is technically establishing an unconstitutional bias by belief.

Do you agree that laws involving beliefs should be resolved by consensus to protect all citizens equally instead of pushing one sides beliefs over the other thru govt?

Which is what I have been shouting for years. look. I don't want to tell the moralists what they have to believe, or how they have to behave, in regards to a fetus, life, personhood, etc., in their personal lives However, I also don't want them trying to use the law to tell anyone else, either.

Here's the irony. I am anti-abortion. I am a pagan, and therefore do have my personal believes about the soul, spiritual migration, and reincarnation. I believe that every soul migrates to a new life at conception. But did you notice the phrase I used? My. Personal. Believes. The last thing I ever want to do is to use the government to legislate that other people be required to behave in accordance with my. Personal. Beliefs. So, I am politically Pro-Choice. Why? Because my personal beliefs should never interfere with the individual decisions of another person.

You're anti abortion? That's a laugh. If the choice for which you are a proponent of involves someone being able to have an abortion, you're a liar to say you're opposed to it. That would be like me saying I oppose stealing then saying who am I to tell someone else they can't do it.

Yeah. We already know that you are a retard incapable of reasoning beyond that of a 5-year-old, and are thus incapable of understanding the difference between a personal moral view, and a political position.

It sounds like you don't think 5 year olds are really people, either.

 

[koshergrl]

Nazi Medical Experiments — Photograph

 

[Czernobog]

Well, the law of the land says viability, so there's also that. The only thing you have that says otherwise is an irrational, badly written law that contradicts itself within the language of the very law you want to use as evidence of the rationality of your position, and should not exist. It's kind of like fake conservative moralists - should not exist, but we have to tolerate.

Dear Czernobog where the contradiction in law begins is pushing laws biased by beliefs into govt. Both sides have beliefs about abortion life and govt authority. If both sides don't agree, as you yourself don't agree here, that means lines were crossed between beliefs and public policy or church and state. That's where the contradiction is. Technically no laws should be passed or enforced at all that touch on beliefs unless there is a public consensus. Or else you are right there is a contradiction with laws, on religious freedom and equal protection of laws from discrimination by creed.

It goes both ways though, for laws to be fully constitutional they could not be biased toward or against either for or against legalized abortion. Prochoice seeks to allow free choice of either, but as long as prolife advocates don't agree but argue that laws are still biased then that's still infringing. Same with the laws you are contesting as infringing. Until and unless there is consensus then any objections by either side shows that law is biased does not represent all sides beliefs equally and is technically establishing an unconstitutional bias by belief.

Do you agree that laws involving beliefs should be resolved by consensus to protect all citizens equally instead of pushing one sides beliefs over the other thru govt?

Which is what I have been shouting for years. look. I don't want to tell the moralists what they have to believe, or how they have to behave, in regards to a fetus, life, personhood, etc., in their personal lives However, I also don't want them trying to use the law to tell anyone else, either.

Here's the irony. I am anti-abortion. I am a pagan, and therefore do have my personal believes about the soul, spiritual migration, and reincarnation. I believe that every soul migrates to a new life at conception. But did you notice the phrase I used? My. Personal. Believes. The last thing I ever want to do is to use the government to legislate that other people be required to behave in accordance with my. Personal. Beliefs. So, I am politically Pro-Choice. Why? Because my personal beliefs should never interfere with the individual decisions of another person.

You're anti abortion? That's a laugh. If the choice for which you are a proponent of involves someone being able to have an abortion, you're a liar to say you're opposed to it. That would be like me saying I oppose stealing then saying who am I to tell someone else they can't do it.

Yeah. We already know that you are a retard incapable of reasoning beyond that of a 5-year-old, and are thus incapable of understanding the difference between a personal moral view, and a political position.

Apparently you're incapable of understanding that when you support the concept of something existing you can't claim the moral view of opposing that very thing.

Your lack of understanding the difference between personal, and public really is pathetic. But, then that's the problem isn't it? Since you are personally against it, you expect everyone else to behave as if they agree with you.

 

[Conservative65]

Dear Czernobog where the contradiction in law begins is pushing laws biased by beliefs into govt. Both sides have beliefs about abortion life and govt authority. If both sides don't agree, as you yourself don't agree here, that means lines were crossed between beliefs and public policy or church and state. That's where the contradiction is. Technically no laws should be passed or enforced at all that touch on beliefs unless there is a public consensus. Or else you are right there is a contradiction with laws, on religious freedom and equal protection of laws from discrimination by creed.

It goes both ways though, for laws to be fully constitutional they could not be biased toward or against either for or against legalized abortion. Prochoice seeks to allow free choice of either, but as long as prolife advocates don't agree but argue that laws are still biased then that's still infringing. Same with the laws you are contesting as infringing. Until and unless there is consensus then any objections by either side shows that law is biased does not represent all sides beliefs equally and is technically establishing an unconstitutional bias by belief.

Do you agree that laws involving beliefs should be resolved by consensus to protect all citizens equally instead of pushing one sides beliefs over the other thru govt?

Which is what I have been shouting for years. look. I don't want to tell the moralists what they have to believe, or how they have to behave, in regards to a fetus, life, personhood, etc., in their personal lives However, I also don't want them trying to use the law to tell anyone else, either.

Here's the irony. I am anti-abortion. I am a pagan, and therefore do have my personal believes about the soul, spiritual migration, and reincarnation. I believe that every soul migrates to a new life at conception. But did you notice the phrase I used? My. Personal. Believes. The last thing I ever want to do is to use the government to legislate that other people be required to behave in accordance with my. Personal. Beliefs. So, I am politically Pro-Choice. Why? Because my personal beliefs should never interfere with the individual decisions of another person.

You're anti abortion? That's a laugh. If the choice for which you are a proponent of involves someone being able to have an abortion, you're a liar to say you're opposed to it. That would be like me saying I oppose stealing then saying who am I to tell someone else they can't do it.

Yeah. We already know that you are a retard incapable of reasoning beyond that of a 5-year-old, and are thus incapable of understanding the difference between a personal moral view, and a political position.

Apparently you're incapable of understanding that when you support the concept of something existing you can't claim the moral view of opposing that very thing.

Your lack of understanding the difference between personal, and public really is pathetic. But, then that's the problem isn't it? Since you are personally against it, you expect everyone else to behave as if they agree with you.

Your lack of understanding that you can't oppose something privately and support its existence publicly is a sign of a retard.

 

[theHawk]

Calm down. Take a deep breath there Imp-boy. You still can't address the fact that viability has nothing to do with the OP. The proposed law speaks nothing about viability. The proposed law says nothing about "forced funerals", it merely says that abortion clinics either bury the remains or cremate them. No one is talking about having an expensive funeral at a church or funeral home. As for the cost of cremations, that would be incorporated into the cost of having the abortion, just as the current method of disposal as "medical waste" is already incorporated into the cost. If they can't afford it, then they don't have to get an abortion.

So, check your emotions.

Okay. Try to follow. I'll go slowly.

You want the fetal material treated as if it were the remains of a person? Correct? You are saying treat it like a PERSON? Yes. or no?

No. I am saying it is understandable to want to treat them as human remains, since they are. Or are you still denying scientific facts?

Are they human remains? Yes or no?

No, they are not. What are remains?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

They are all that remains of a human.

Wrong. Human Remains: The body of a deceased person, in whole or in parts, regardless of its stage of decomposition. As such, fetal material are not "human remains".

You're now just playing with words from a dictionary.
A deceased person is a dead human body. Nothing in the dictionary states it only pertains to a particular stage of development. According to Webster's, a person is the body of a human being. And a human being is simply defined as a person. Obviously people have differing opinions, so the definitions can get rather subjective. Both sides can argue that a fetus is either a "person" or not all day. I am saying it is a dead human, period. And that alone could warrant "that which remains of it"(whether you or the dictionary of your choice consider it a "deceased person" or not is irrelevant) to be treated with some respect and not just discarded like normal trash.

 

[Czernobog]

Okay. Try to follow. I'll go slowly.

You want the fetal material treated as if it were the remains of a person? Correct? You are saying treat it like a PERSON? Yes. or no?

No. I am saying it is understandable to want to treat them as human remains, since they are. Or are you still denying scientific facts?

Are they human remains? Yes or no?

No, they are not. What are remains?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

They are all that remains of a human.

Wrong. Human Remains: The body of a deceased person, in whole or in parts, regardless of its stage of decomposition. As such, fetal material are not "human remains".

You're now just playing with words from a dictionary.
A deceased person is a dead human body.

And that is the problem. No, it's not. This is where viability comes in. A non-viable fetus in vitro is not a person. Why would you suppose that it magically becomes a person by virtue of being aborted?

 

[theHawk]

No. I am saying it is understandable to want to treat them as human remains, since they are. Or are you still denying scientific facts?

Are they human remains? Yes or no?

No, they are not. What are remains?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

They are all that remains of a human.

Wrong. Human Remains: The body of a deceased person, in whole or in parts, regardless of its stage of decomposition. As such, fetal material are not "human remains".

You're now just playing with words from a dictionary.
A deceased person is a dead human body.

And that is the problem. No, it's not. This is where viability comes in. A non-viable fetus in vitro is not a person. Why would you suppose that it magically becomes a person by virtue of being aborted?

Oh boy, like a broken record, back to "viability" again. The law says nothing about its viability, and the dictionary doesn't either when it comes to "person" and "remains".

Thanks for conceding you have no arguement.

 

[Czernobog]

No, they are not. What are remains?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

They are all that remains of a human.

Wrong. Human Remains: The body of a deceased person, in whole or in parts, regardless of its stage of decomposition. As such, fetal material are not "human remains".

You're now just playing with words from a dictionary.
A deceased person is a dead human body.

And that is the problem. No, it's not. This is where viability comes in. A non-viable fetus in vitro is not a person. Why would you suppose that it magically becomes a person by virtue of being aborted?

Oh boy, like a broken record, back to "viability" again. The law says nothing about its viability, and the dictionary doesn't either when it comes to "person" and "remains".

Thanks for conceding you have no arguement.

This particular law does not. But "The" Law certainly does, vis a vis Roe v Wade, which, to my knowledge, has never been overturned. This law wishes everyone to treat an aborted fetus as something it is not - a person.

 

[Conservative65]

They are all that remains of a human.

Wrong. Human Remains: The body of a deceased person, in whole or in parts, regardless of its stage of decomposition. As such, fetal material are not "human remains".

You're now just playing with words from a dictionary.
A deceased person is a dead human body.

And that is the problem. No, it's not. This is where viability comes in. A non-viable fetus in vitro is not a person. Why would you suppose that it magically becomes a person by virtue of being aborted?

Oh boy, like a broken record, back to "viability" again. The law says nothing about its viability, and the dictionary doesn't either when it comes to "person" and "remains".

Thanks for conceding you have no arguement.

This particular law does not. But "The" Law certainly does, vis a vis Roe v Wade, which, to my knowledge, has never been overturned. This law wishes everyone to treat an aborted fetus as something it is not - a person.

Yet you still claim you oppose abortion. For something you personally oppose you damn sure fight hard to support.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Anti-choicers get even weirder: After losing in the Supreme Court, abortion foes turn to desperate distortion


Conservatives want to outright own women's bodies and their lives. This is a doomed movement but it will continue to wreak financial ruin on poor women, as is generally the target for conservatives because the poor can't fight back, and conservatives are too cowardly to take on people that cram their bullshit back down their throats.

Some of the backwards red states want to force women to have funerals for every single instance of non birth. Even something like a fertilized egg embedding outside the uterus, called an ectopic pregnancy.

Poor and can't afford a funeral via a funeral home? Tough, suffer.

Conservatives salivate at the prospect of having the government force women into submission on a long list of issues. This is just one of them.

 

[pwjohn]

Apparently, since Texas can't just shut abortion clinics down, they want to do everything they can to shame, and humiliate women who have abortions. The newest effort? Forced funerals for abortions. That's right. You read that correctly. Forced. Funerals. For. Abortions.

In a new effort to regulate abortion providers, Texas health officials are proposing rules that would require abortion providers to cremate or bury fetal remains.

The new rules, proposed by the Health and Human Services Commission, would no longer allow abortion providers to dispose of fetal remains in sanitary landfills, instead allowing only cremation or interment of all remains — regardless of the period of gestation. Abortion providers currently use third-party special waste disposal services.​

Now, the Texas Health and Human Services Commission says, "Ms. Clack has determined that for each year of the first five years the sections are in effect, the public benefit anticipated as a result of adopting and enforcing these rules will be enhanced protection of the health and safety of the public."

But, that's it. not even a little explanation of how it benefits public safety; just that it does. "Trust us..." Uh huh.

You wanna know the real "benefit" to this? Just ask the office of the Governor:

Governor Abbott believes human and fetal remains should not be treated like medical waste, and the proposed rule changes affirms the value and dignity of all life,​

In other words, he wants to insist that women who have abortions treat the abortions as if they were the children of these women, whether they consider them to be so, or not.

Now, I know how this goes. As quickly as possible, this is going to become yet another debate on the morality of abortion. I, for one, refuse to engage in that. Regardless of your personal opinion about abortion, this is clearly a case of the government trying to shame women into behaving the way they want them to.

I'm thinking the state of Texas is fixing to become the next Islamic state. Five years or less, I'd say.

 

[aris2chat]

Anti-choicers get even weirder: After losing in the Supreme Court, abortion foes turn to desperate distortion


Conservatives want to outright own women's bodies and their lives. This is a doomed movement but it will continue to wreak financial ruin on poor women, as is generally the target for conservatives because the poor can't fight back, and conservatives are too cowardly to take on people that cram their bullshit back down their throats.

Some of the backwards red states want to force women to have funerals for every single instance of non birth. Even something like a fertilized egg embedding outside the uterus, called an ectopic pregnancy.

Poor and can't afford a funeral via a funeral home? Tough, suffer.

Conservatives salivate at the prospect of having the government force women into submission on a long list of issues. This is just one of them.

What next funerals for the tampons and pads from the menses each month?
What of reusable cups? What of moss or sponges?

People get to donate their body to science or are cremated and ashes scattered in the sea or buried under a bush.

They need a double shot of common sense or a kick in the butt and a STFU

 

[irosie91]

Anti-choicers get even weirder: After losing in the Supreme Court, abortion foes turn to desperate distortion


Conservatives want to outright own women's bodies and their lives. This is a doomed movement but it will continue to wreak financial ruin on poor women, as is generally the target for conservatives because the poor can't fight back, and conservatives are too cowardly to take on people that cram their bullshit back down their throats.

Some of the backwards red states want to force women to have funerals for every single instance of non birth. Even something like a fertilized egg embedding outside the uterus, called an ectopic pregnancy.

Poor and can't afford a funeral via a funeral home? Tough, suffer.

Conservatives salivate at the prospect of having the government force women into submission on a long list of issues. This is just one of them.

What next funerals for the tampons and pads from the menses each month?
What of reusable cups? What of moss or sponges?

People get to donate their body to science or are cremated and ashes scattered in the sea or buried under a bush.

They need a double shot of common sense or a kick in the butt and a STFU

think of the BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES-----a funeral is no
trivial event. ------the clergy wins, the casket makers win,
the cemetaries win, the monument makers win, ----and depending on local and religious and ethnic custom---even
the caterers win.-----FLORISTS win. ----houses of worship win. In my youth a euphemism for abortion was "D & C" for "delayed menses" Does that get a funeral too? opened casket?. When I was very young-----my mom described menses with the flow of blood as "DISAPPOINTED WOMB"----
poetically----it means if the little egg does not get some sperm and----thus dies-----the uterus weeps blood... Is that not poetic?------of course the dead ovum is ENTITLED to a funeral

 

[HenryBHough]

And miscarriages are entitled to wheels! Government-paid wheels!

Get with the program, liberals....there's money to be made in this.

 

[Katzndogz]

Even though liberals and poor minorities should be encouraged to abort their children, it doesn't mean that the remains. Should go to landfills. High kill shelters don't send the bodies of animals to land fills.

No one is requiring a funeral, a casket or a withered daisy.

 

[irosie91]

And miscarriages are entitled to wheels! Government-paid wheels!

Get with the program, liberals....there's money to be made in this.

brilliant-----the MOBILE MIScarriage------a new kind of hearse
and -------and multiple 'miscarriagevehicles' for the family
members

 

[Nia88]

It's funny conservatives are quick to say that government should stay out of our lives but when it comes to things like abortion they want government to be proactive in stopping women from getting one. Lol.