Appellate Ruling Upholds Texas Abortion Law

[JakeStarkey]

We are not talking about me, Quantum, but about your fail premise or lie or "inference" or whatever it is.

Link where I said that about you. Go on. I am waiting.

 

[Katzndogz]

Why is Planned Parenthood still getting funds to counsel girls on THEIR morality which is to have an abortion. Seems like gags should be in place all the way around.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Why is Planned Parenthood still getting funds to counsel girls on THEIR morality which is to have an abortion. Seems like gags should be in place all the way around.

Some PP folks I have met are that way, their "morality" imposed on others, yes.

Some PP folks I have met want to do everything but an abortion if possible.

Let's stay balanced.

 

[JoeB131]

So should there be no laws concerning abortion? At what stage is it acceptable to the libs to protect life.

there is law concerning abortion. it's called roe v wade.

i love misogynists.

now run along and stop telling grown women what to do with their bodies. contrary to the beliefs of the rabid religious right, we are not incubators.

i've never met anyone wise enough to make those types of moral judgments for other people.

and i know for a fact that you certainly aren't.

Really? Now how would you know that? There has to be a point were life matters, even to a brainwashed lib, and Roe v wade doesn't cover states right to regulate abortion as they see fit. They may not be able to ban abortion, but they can regulate, as a lawyer you should know that.

Just to put a little clarication here, for the uninformed. Roe v. Wade did allow for certain tests to be allowed to ban late trimester abortions while striking down the laws that cover early trimester abortions (which is actually about 99% of the abortions .
performed.) But the companition ruling "Doe v. Bolton" essentially nullified those late by stating the "woman's health" was the paramount issue.

Doe v. Bolton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Incidently, the women in both Roe and Doe have both become anti-abortion fanatics since.

It isn't a matter of whether "life matters", it's a matter of how can one practically enforce a law no one intends to obey. This is why prohibition didn't work back in the 20's, and why this won't work now. If you have enough people willing to break the law and enough people willing to assist them or look the other way, you have a law that is for the most part meaningless and even harmful.

 

[Katzndogz]

Why is Planned Parenthood still getting funds to counsel girls on THEIR morality which is to have an abortion. Seems like gags should be in place all the way around.

Some PP folks I have met are that way, their "morality" imposed on others, yes.

Some PP folks I have met want to do everything but an abortion if possible.

Let's stay balanced.

Having worked with PP as a young liberal, before I got smart, I was a clinic defender navigating women through anti abortion protests. One of the things that changed my mind about their tactics is the intense pressure put on women to have an abortion. The younger the girl the more intense the pressure. It would get to outright intimidation and browbeating. I found their practices reprehensible. I did not see much balance. At no time was having the child ever explored as an option. Clearly some of these women were confused and on the fence. In my years there, I can't recall one that ever received help or counseling on having a baby instead of an abortion. If there are some in PP that feel differently they are not counselors. The counselors are committed and view every decision to have a child a failure.

 

[Katzndogz]

there is law concerning abortion. it's called roe v wade.

i love misogynists.

now run along and stop telling grown women what to do with their bodies. contrary to the beliefs of the rabid religious right, we are not incubators.

i've never met anyone wise enough to make those types of moral judgments for other people.

and i know for a fact that you certainly aren't.

Really? Now how would you know that? There has to be a point were life matters, even to a brainwashed lib, and Roe v wade doesn't cover states right to regulate abortion as they see fit. They may not be able to ban abortion, but they can regulate, as a lawyer you should know that.

Just to put a little clarication here, for the uninformed. Roe v. Wade did allow for certain tests to be allowed to ban late trimester abortions while striking down the laws that cover early trimester abortions (which is actually about 99% of the abortions .
performed.) But the companition ruling "Doe v. Bolton" essentially nullified those late by stating the "woman's health" was the paramount issue.

Doe v. Bolton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Incidently, the women in both Roe and Doe have both become anti-abortion fanatics since.

It isn't a matter of whether "life matters", it's a matter of how can one practically enforce a law no one intends to obey. This is why prohibition didn't work back in the 20's, and why this won't work now. If you have enough people willing to break the law and enough people willing to assist them or look the other way, you have a law that is for the most part meaningless and even harmful.

That goes for each, every and all laws on the books right now. No laws have stopped murder, or robbery or car theft, or shoplifting. No law has ever stopped a rape. We still have all these laws. One would think they would be all meaningless by now.

 

[Photonic]

In other words, you personally support the government interfering in patient decisions as long as it is something you feel is morally justified. That, by your definition, makes you a statist, glad to see you finally admit it.

Ironic, because banning abortion is about as statist as it gets.

It would, if you can find anyplace I said we should ban abortion.

Since you jumped in, do you think the government should regulate prescription medicines to make sure that someone does not prescription shop painkillers?

I'm not really an anarchist so I can't simply say there should be no laws, but at the same time its hard to have an illegal drug trade if nothing is illegal.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There’s no such thing as a ‘statist,’ it’s an inane, made-up word by the right.

Really? You might want to tell Merriam Webster that someone hacked their dictionary.

Statist - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Well, by your site's definition, you or I or almost everybody on the board is not a statist.

Definition of STATISM: concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry

Since the Reagan years, we have witnessed the deregulation of American business by the government.

I am not a statist because I want a government that is limited in power, and one that respects all civil rights. You, on the other hand, pick and choose which civil rights are important, and have no problem with a government that mandates behavior, as long as it agrees with your moral code. That makes you a statist by your definition.

I already knew you were one by mine.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We are not talking about me, Quantum, but about your fail premise or lie or "inference" or whatever it is.

Link where I said that about you. Go on. I am waiting.

If we are not talking about you why do you spend so much time not denying you are a statist?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why is Planned Parenthood still getting funds to counsel girls on THEIR morality which is to have an abortion. Seems like gags should be in place all the way around.

Some PP folks I have met are that way, their "morality" imposed on others, yes.

Some PP folks I have met want to do everything but an abortion if possible.

Let's stay balanced.

Yes, by all means, let us stay balanced. The balance is that you are lying that you know any PP folks.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Ironic, because banning abortion is about as statist as it gets.

It would, if you can find anyplace I said we should ban abortion.

Since you jumped in, do you think the government should regulate prescription medicines to make sure that someone does not prescription shop painkillers?

I'm not really an anarchist so I can't simply say there should be no laws, but at the same time its hard to have an illegal drug trade if nothing is illegal.

Funny how you did not actually answer the question.

 

[Katzndogz]

Ironic, because banning abortion is about as statist as it gets.

It would, if you can find anyplace I said we should ban abortion.

Since you jumped in, do you think the government should regulate prescription medicines to make sure that someone does not prescription shop painkillers?

I'm not really an anarchist so I can't simply say there should be no laws, but at the same time its hard to have an illegal drug trade if nothing is illegal.

It would have to be not only legal but completely unlimited and free or at least very low cost with no restrictions whatsoever. What's happening in mexico is that no one is fighting over whether or not drugs should be legal. They are fighting over market share. Prescription drugs are legal but regulated so that fewer people will kill themselves or someone else. Aside from legal prescription painkillers there is a thriving market for illegal painkillers. Many of these substances are highly addictive so there isn't any fooling around them for a while and then going on with your life.

The crime associated with drug use is phenomenal and I specifically exclude crimes committed to get drugs. These addicts can't or won't work, they have no way of supporting themselves except by public benefits (drug addicts are considered disabled) or crimes.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Why is Planned Parenthood still getting funds to counsel girls on THEIR morality which is to have an abortion. Seems like gags should be in place all the way around.

Some PP folks I have met are that way, their "morality" imposed on others, yes.

Some PP folks I have met want to do everything but an abortion if possible.

Let's stay balanced.

Having worked with PP as a young liberal, before I got smart, I was a clinic defender navigating women through anti abortion protests. One of the things that changed my mind about their tactics is the intense pressure put on women to have an abortion. The younger the girl the more intense the pressure. It would get to outright intimidation and browbeating. I found their practices reprehensible. I did not see much balance. At no time was having the child ever explored as an option. Clearly some of these women were confused and on the fence. In my years there, I can't recall one that ever received help or counseling on having a baby instead of an abortion. If there are some in PP that feel differently they are not counselors. The counselors are committed and view every decision to have a child a failure.

You are discussing your experiences, and I am sure you are correct in that.

However, that is only one clinician's story and, as such, can be taken as anecdotal.. Your conclusion is not valid based on your experience, on than for your clinic and only then in that time frame.

 

[Katzndogz]

Planned Parenthood to this day, doesn't make money off of women having babies. Only having an abortions.

Why would Planned Parenthood want to protect child predators? What is their interest?

Planned Parenthood abortion clinics provide protection for child molesters, sexual predators

Planned Parenthood is not a nice organization nor does it have the best interests of women in mind. If anything, it has not changed since the day racist Margaret Sanger opened the doors.

 

[Jroc]

there is law concerning abortion. it's called roe v wade.

i love misogynists.

now run along and stop telling grown women what to do with their bodies. contrary to the beliefs of the rabid religious right, we are not incubators.

i've never met anyone wise enough to make those types of moral judgments for other people.

and i know for a fact that you certainly aren't.

Really? Now how would you know that? There has to be a point were life matters, even to a brainwashed lib, and Roe v wade doesn't cover states right to regulate abortion as they see fit. They may not be able to ban abortion, but they can regulate, as a lawyer you should know that.

Just to put a little clarication here, for the uninformed. Roe v. Wade did allow for certain tests to be allowed to ban late trimester abortions while striking down the laws that cover early trimester abortions (which is actually about 99% of the abortions .
performed.) But the companition ruling "Doe v. Bolton" essentially nullified those late by stating the "woman's health" was the paramount issue.

Doe v. Bolton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Incidently, the women in both Roe and Doe have both become anti-abortion fanatics since.

It isn't a matter of whether "life matters", it's a matter of how can one practically enforce a law no one intends to obey. This is why prohibition didn't work back in the 20's, and why this won't work now. If you have enough people willing to break the law and enough people willing to assist them or look the other way, you have a law that is for the most part meaningless and even harmful.

What does that have to do with my post? I already said states can't ban abortion but they can regulate it as with any medical procedure some of these libs here think we can simply kill a baby at any stage of pregnancy which is sick, evil practice

 

[JoeB131]

That goes for each, every and all laws on the books right now. No laws have stopped murder, or robbery or car theft, or shoplifting. No law has ever stopped a rape. We still have all these laws. One would think they would be all meaningless by now.

THose laws are enforceable, because people enforce them. When a rapist is running away from the cops, people will point out which way he ran.

An abortionist, they'd hide and lie to protect.

Laws ONLY work if an overwealming majority support them or fear them.

I would point out that before we had Roe, there was a woman named Ruth Barrett who performed (by her own reckoning) 40,000 abortions between 1918 and 1968. She did a few stints in jail, but went right back to performing abortions when she got out. Because people covered for her. She didn't even get on anyone's radar until the 1950's.

 

[JoeB131]

What does that have to do with my post? I already said states can't ban abortion but they can regulate it as with any medical procedure some of these libs here think we can simply kill a baby at any stage of pregnancy which is sick, evil practice

DO I need to explain the big words to you?

They've been trying the banning through regulation shit for years, and the courts usually strike it down because it's obvious that's what they are up to. Bolton makes most of those regulations moot.

Most abortions happen in the first trimester, where it isn't anything vaguely close to being a baby.

The few late trimester abortions that happen usually happen because something has gone horribly wrong in a pregnancy the people involved wanted. The last thing they need at that point is some tiny-brained religious fanatic sticking their noses where they don't belong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Some PP folks I have met are that way, their "morality" imposed on others, yes.

Some PP folks I have met want to do everything but an abortion if possible.

Let's stay balanced.

Having worked with PP as a young liberal, before I got smart, I was a clinic defender navigating women through anti abortion protests. One of the things that changed my mind about their tactics is the intense pressure put on women to have an abortion. The younger the girl the more intense the pressure. It would get to outright intimidation and browbeating. I found their practices reprehensible. I did not see much balance. At no time was having the child ever explored as an option. Clearly some of these women were confused and on the fence. In my years there, I can't recall one that ever received help or counseling on having a baby instead of an abortion. If there are some in PP that feel differently they are not counselors. The counselors are committed and view every decision to have a child a failure.

You are discussing your experiences, and I am sure you are correct in that.

However, that is only one clinician's story and, as such, can be taken as anecdotal.. Your conclusion is not valid based on your experience, on than for your clinic and only then in that time frame.

How is your anecdotal evidence more valid than Katz's? Are you just naturally more brilliant than anyone else? Are you aware that, despite your anecdotal evidence, there is not a planned parenthood facility in the nation that actually gives pre natal care to women?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Planned Parenthood to this day, doesn't make money off of women having babies. Only having an abortions.

Why would Planned Parenthood want to protect child predators? What is their interest?

Planned Parenthood abortion clinics provide protection for child molesters, sexual predators

Planned Parenthood is not a nice organization nor does it have the best interests of women in mind. If anything, it has not changed since the day racist Margaret Sanger opened the doors.

OK, let's get some valid sources, katzndogs. Yours is a loaded, bigoted, one-sided disatribe. That does not contribute to the conversation except as an example how not to do it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Having worked with PP as a young liberal, before I got smart, I was a clinic defender navigating women through anti abortion protests. One of the things that changed my mind about their tactics is the intense pressure put on women to have an abortion. The younger the girl the more intense the pressure. It would get to outright intimidation and browbeating. I found their practices reprehensible. I did not see much balance. At no time was having the child ever explored as an option. Clearly some of these women were confused and on the fence. In my years there, I can't recall one that ever received help or counseling on having a baby instead of an abortion. If there are some in PP that feel differently they are not counselors. The counselors are committed and view every decision to have a child a failure.

You are discussing your experiences, and I am sure you are correct in that.

However, that is only one clinician's story and, as such, can be taken as anecdotal.. Your conclusion is not valid based on your experience, on than for your clinic and only then in that time frame.

How is your anecdotal evidence more valid than Katz's? Are you just naturally more brilliant than anyone else? Are you aware that, despite your anecdotal evidence, there is not a planned parenthood facility in the nation that actually gives pre natal care to women?

You are coming to grips with how to argue, and that is a good thing, QWB.

One can give anectodal evidence, but one has to back it up more fully with more in-depth evidence.

I don't have to contradict anything, merely point that the burden of proof has not been fulfilled.

That has been your problem on a couple of threads where you have failed in doing more than making a simple assertion without sustaining evidence. Assertions are personal. The evidence makes your assertion more tenable.

Give it a try.