• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Texas Senate passes sweeping new abortion restrictions[W:240]

Re: Texas Senate passes sweeping new abortion restrictions

Sorry for the ridiculously long post...

It wasn't "ridiculously" long, and I hope others have read it in its entirely. I think it's the first time at DP that I have read a first-hand account, and I do thank you for sharing your experience.
 
Re: Texas Senate passes sweeping new abortion restrictions

Glad you agree.
I do, which has me wondering why you bothered to post a response to me without posting a response to me?
 
Re: Texas Senate passes sweeping new abortion restrictions

Sorry for the ridiculously long post...

I don't find it to be too long or ridiculous. I simply disagree on your final point, which I point out in the post just before yours.

So now, most of the facilities will close. Okay...but I never saw where the Texas Legislators presented facts that in any way prove that there efforts were indeed creating a reduction in health risks for women who seek abortions.

This will simply force women to seek out probably much more unsafe venues to deal with their abortions...just as they did before Roe v. Wade where access to provider who would be, by far, more safe than the alternative.

Thanks, Tess.
 
Re: Texas Senate passes sweeping new abortion restrictions

Sorry for the ridiculously long post...

It was an awesome post. Thank you for it. You and I may not agree on everything regarding this issue, but there's no question that you approach it with honesty. I'll be honest too, I support the bill because it places limits on a practice I cannot support, but you show that it's possible to be pro-choice (right down to drawing on your own personal experiences) without acting as if the abortion industry is some sacred cow that's above all criticism and accountability.
 
Re: Texas Senate passes sweeping new abortion restrictions

I don't find it to be too long or ridiculous. I simply disagree on your final point, which I point out in the post just before yours.

So now, most of the facilities will close. Okay...but I never saw where the Texas Legislators presented facts that in any way prove that there efforts were indeed creating a reduction in health risks for women who seek abortions.

This will simply force women to seek out probably much more unsafe venues to deal with their abortions...just as they did before Roe v. Wade where access to provider who would be, by far, more safe than the alternative.

Thanks, Tess.

You can't prove something before it happens, so I don't see how they could have presented facts on how the bill would or wouldn't effect the safety of clinics and abortions.

That's what I hate about the "this is going to happen when we pass this bill" conjecture. It's never correct. It either instills unjustified fears or false hopes.

This bill could create havoc. It could lead to better care. It's really up to the antis and pros to decide which.

What's particular sad to me is that the pros would rather sit back and let women pursue riskier options w/o interference to prove their point then take action and help clinics stay open through fundraising, advocacy, and charity relations, 'cause they can't prove their point and win the debate if they interfere positively.

And it's the same with any legislation that requires changes. When those who oppose it sit back and do nothing, then scream about how the worst case scenario has come true...well, to me they're no better than those who had nefarious intentions in DRAFTING the legislation.

"Be the change you want to see in the world."

I want safer, better run, better regulated abortion clinics for women, because I'm not the only woman who had a bad experience. This is a chance for PPH and others to MAKE THAT HAPPEN with the full backing of the law on their side. And instead they pit themselves against it.
 
Re: Texas Senate passes sweeping new abortion restrictions

I think I support a similar law regarding firearms. You can only buy a gun in the first 20 years of your life. After that, you're no longer allowed to purchase them. After all, 20 years is plenty of time to decide. I know many countries have much more limiting criteria than 20 years. Furthermore, I support legislation which says firearms can only be sold at Bass Pro Shops. Sure, there are only a few of them scattered throughout the country, but how else can we make sure guns are being sold responsibly by people following the law?

This is my proposal, and I fully expect the pro-life people in this thread to support my reasoning, even if you don't support my idea.

Really? This means it would be legal for 8, 9 and 10 year olds to buy guns but not 21 year olds? I get what you're trying to do but to call what you posted "reasoning" is a huge stretch.
 
Last edited:
Re: Texas Senate passes sweeping new abortion restrictions

If what I've read is true, Texas simply joins 13 other states who have similar 20 week limits on access to abortion, although in a couple of those states, their courts have stopped implementation while the constitutionality of the laws are adjudicated.

I don't know the medical details related to viability and when it becomes possible to determine if a fetus is developing normally and healthily, etc. but I have to agree with others here who have indicated that 20 weeks should be sufficient time for a woman to make a choice about whether she wants a child or not. Surely, it doesn't take more than 20 weeks to make such a choice.

Can anyone who opposes this change in the law indicate what medically happens between 20 weeks and the former 24 weeks that makes a woman who wants a child to suddenly decide not to want the child?
 
Re: Texas Senate passes sweeping new abortion restrictions

Really? This means it would be legal for 8, 9 and 10 year olds to buy guns but not 21 year olds? I get what you're trying to do but to call what you posted "reasoning" is a huge stretch.
Hmm...are you trying to say there are circumstances early in the decision making process which make it difficult to take an action?

And I am glad you understand what I'm trying to do. While the circumstances surrounding the situations are obviously different, perhaps it can provide some insight to why many in the pro-choice crowd do not care for much of the reasoning of the pro-life crowd in this thread.
 
Re: Texas Senate passes sweeping new abortion restrictions

Hmm...are you trying to say there are circumstances early in the decision making process which make it difficult to take an action?

This comparison you're trying to make is a huge fail.
 
Re: Texas Senate passes sweeping new abortion restrictions

I think I support a similar law regarding firearms. You can only buy a gun in the first 20 years of your life. After that, you're no longer allowed to purchase them. After all, 20 years is plenty of time to decide. I know many countries have much more limiting criteria than 20 years. Furthermore, I support legislation which says firearms can only be sold at Bass Pro Shops. Sure, there are only a few of them scattered throughout the country, but how else can we make sure guns are being sold responsibly by people following the law?

This is my proposal, and I fully expect the pro-life people in this thread to support my reasoning, even if you don't support my idea.

Are you kidding me? A week is not the same as a year, a product (gun) is not the same as a service (abortion) and naming a specific private business is not the same as defining the qualifications required of any business. Other than those obvious differences it is still a rediculous analogy.
 
Re: Texas Senate passes sweeping new abortion restrictions

If what I've read is true, Texas simply joins 13 other states who have similar 20 week limits on access to abortion, although in a couple of those states, their courts have stopped implementation while the constitutionality of the laws are adjudicated.

I don't know the medical details related to viability and when it becomes possible to determine if a fetus is developing normally and healthily, etc. but I have to agree with others here who have indicated that 20 weeks should be sufficient time for a woman to make a choice about whether she wants a child or not. Surely, it doesn't take more than 20 weeks to make such a choice.

Can anyone who opposes this change in the law indicate what medically happens between 20 weeks and the former 24 weeks that makes a woman who wants a child to suddenly decide not to want the child?

Medically, the mother could develop any number of conditions related to pregnancy that make continuing it more risky than ending it. As the fetus develops, it becomes easier to see defects...some issues might not present until later in gestation, though I'm not sure what would specifically be visible at 24 weeks but not 20. Then again, not all women have ultrasounds at the same time, so perhaps something could be present at 20 weeks but not noticed because the ultrasound is done at 24.

But the law allows for exceptions when the mother's health is at risk or the fetus is not capable of survival due to defect or disease.
 
Re: Texas Senate passes sweeping new abortion restrictions

If what I've read is true, Texas simply joins 13 other states who have similar 20 week limits on access to abortion, although in a couple of those states, their courts have stopped implementation while the constitutionality of the laws are adjudicated.

I don't know the medical details related to viability and when it becomes possible to determine if a fetus is developing normally and healthily, etc. but I have to agree with others here who have indicated that 20 weeks should be sufficient time for a woman to make a choice about whether she wants a child or not. Surely, it doesn't take more than 20 weeks to make such a choice.

Can anyone who opposes this change in the law indicate what medically happens between 20 weeks and the former 24 weeks that makes a woman who wants a child to suddenly decide not want the child?

I really am not sure but I think that in the UK if you are going by the NHS you will not find out certain things like Down's Syndrome before the 20 week scan. I may be wrong about that but I know my daughter had private scans at around 14 weeks for all her pregnancies and she said by the NHS she would not know if there were problems before 20 weeks. There may still be other things less common which are not caught until the 20 week scan. I think the NHS provides one at about 3 months and one at 20 weeks.

From the point of view of the mother of course there could be many things. One of them might be deciding to have a termination because treatment for, for instance cancer might harm the baby.
 
Re: Texas Senate passes sweeping new abortion restrictions

This comparison you're trying to make is a huge fail.
I added on after I saw you added on. Here's my post again:

Hmm...are you trying to say there are circumstances early in the decision making process which make it difficult to take an action?

And I am glad you understand what I'm trying to do. While the circumstances surrounding the situations are obviously different, perhaps it can provide some insight to why many in the pro-choice crowd do not care for much of the reasoning of the pro-life crowd in this thread.

Are you kidding me?
Yes, well kind of. I am still trying to make a point.

A week is not the same as a year
That is true, a year is a much longer time. So then would you say I should shorten it to 10 years?

a product (gun) is not the same as a service (abortion)
But both are the means to a right.

and naming a specific private business is not the same as defining the qualifications required of any business.
But it's the reasoning which was the important part.

Other than those obvious differences it is still a rediculous analogy.
Of course it is...the point wasn't to use this as a springboard to gun control, but rather to highlight the absurdity of the logic. Hell, you even helped me out with it by noting just how short of time a week really is.


When you understand why you have trouble with the reasoning behind the position, perhaps you'll gain some insight into the problems pro-choice has with the logic of pro-life in this thread.
 
Re: Texas Senate passes sweeping new abortion restrictions

I added on after I saw you added on. Here's my post again:

Hmm...are you trying to say there are circumstances early in the decision making process which make it difficult to take an action?

And I am glad you understand what I'm trying to do. While the circumstances surrounding the situations are obviously different, perhaps it can provide some insight to why many in the pro-choice crowd do not care for much of the reasoning of the pro-life crowd in this thread.

Yes, well kind of. I am still trying to make a point.

That is true, a year is a much longer time. So then would you say I should shorten it to 10 years?

But both are the means to a right.

But it's the reasoning which was the important part.

Of course it is...the point wasn't to use this as a springboard to gun control, but rather to highlight the absurdity of the logic. Hell, you even helped me out with it by noting just how short of time a week really is.


When you understand why you have trouble with the reasoning behind the position, perhaps you'll gain some insight into the problems pro-choice has with the logic of pro-life in this thread.

I would seriously advise studying the art of debate. Everything you're posting is foolish nonsense that doesn't correlate in any logical way to the abortion debate. Your analogy fails because the logic is asinine. You cannot argue against an opinion until you first learn to understand and respect the basis for that opinion. Your posts clearly show a lack of understanding. That isn't anybody else's problem.
 
Re: Texas Senate passes sweeping new abortion restrictions

You can't prove something before it happens, so I don't see how they could have presented facts on how the bill would or wouldn't effect the safety of clinics and abortions.

That's what I hate about the "this is going to happen when we pass this bill" conjecture. It's never correct. It either instills unjustified fears or false hopes.

This bill could create havoc. It could lead to better care. It's really up to the antis and pros to decide which.

What's particular sad to me is that the pros would rather sit back and let women pursue riskier options w/o interference to prove their point then take action and help clinics stay open through fundraising, advocacy, and charity relations, 'cause they can't prove their point and win the debate if they interfere positively.

And it's the same with any legislation that requires changes. When those who oppose it sit back and do nothing, then scream about how the worst case scenario has come true...well, to me they're no better than those who had nefarious intentions in DRAFTING the legislation.

"Be the change you want to see in the world."

I want safer, better run, better regulated abortion clinics for women, because I'm not the only woman who had a bad experience. This is a chance for PPH and others to MAKE THAT HAPPEN with the full backing of the law on their side. And instead they pit themselves against it.

No, you aren't the only woman who has had a bad experience, and it's important to speak up.
 
Re: Texas Senate passes sweeping new abortion restrictions

You can't prove something before it happens, so I don't see how they could have presented facts on how the bill would or wouldn't effect the safety of clinics and abortions.

That's what I hate about the "this is going to happen when we pass this bill" conjecture. It's never correct. It either instills unjustified fears or false hopes.

This bill could create havoc. It could lead to better care. It's really up to the antis and pros to decide which.

What's particular sad to me is that the pros would rather sit back and let women pursue riskier options w/o interference to prove their point then take action and help clinics stay open through fundraising, advocacy, and charity relations, 'cause they can't prove their point and win the debate if they interfere positively.

And it's the same with any legislation that requires changes. When those who oppose it sit back and do nothing, then scream about how the worst case scenario has come true...well, to me they're no better than those who had nefarious intentions in DRAFTING the legislation.

"Be the change you want to see in the world."

I want safer, better run, better regulated abortion clinics for women, because I'm not the only woman who had a bad experience. This is a chance for PPH and others to MAKE THAT HAPPEN with the full backing of the law on their side. And instead they pit themselves against it.

I do appreciate your concerns for women's health and safety in this matters. And I sincerely feel the same way. I wished it would have been approached in a different way. I think you do have to agree that there were a lot of the Legislators who's motive was to reduce abortion. Maybe not all, but in my opinion...too many.

Again, for just me...I do see the word/term "choice" as crucial because most conceptions are brought to full-term...and that is clearly a "choice" made by all women who do so. I am a huge supporter of all who "choose" to bring their co-conceptions to full-term. But at the same time, there is a social obligation to such children when things go wrong with parents who, for whatever reason, can't provide or fails to provide a safe, caring environment.
 
Re: Texas Senate passes sweeping new abortion restrictions

I think I support a similar law regarding firearms. You can only buy a gun in the first 20 years of your life. After that, you're no longer allowed to purchase them. After all, 20 years is plenty of time to decide. I know many countries have much more limiting criteria than 20 years. Furthermore, I support legislation which says firearms can only be sold at Bass Pro Shops. Sure, there are only a few of them scattered throughout the country, but how else can we make sure guns are being sold responsibly by people following the law?

This is my proposal, and I fully expect the pro-life people in this thread to support my reasoning, even if you don't support my idea.
How about no abortion for any reason until you're 18, no elective abortion until you're 21, and if you want to tell people about your abortion then you have to get a permit just like for carrying a gun, which means FBI fingerprints, background check, a 16 hour class, everything, just to carry an opinion about abortion.

And you can't open-carry that opinion in TX even with a permit, such as a political t-shirt. Your opinion has to be concealed at all times and you must inform a cop that you have an opinion on abortion.

Business owners can post a no-choice sign on their front door and if you then enter their business with an opinion on abortion, or of you've ever had an abortion, than you can be arrested for criminal trespassing, even if you a permit to have an opinion on abortion, are carrying your opinion concealed, and are in all other ways obeying the law and conducting yourself peacefully.
 
Last edited:
Re: Texas Senate passes sweeping new abortion restrictions

I added on after I saw you added on. Here's my post again:

Hmm...are you trying to say there are circumstances early in the decision making process which make it difficult to take an action?

And I am glad you understand what I'm trying to do. While the circumstances surrounding the situations are obviously different, perhaps it can provide some insight to why many in the pro-choice crowd do not care for much of the reasoning of the pro-life crowd in this thread.

Yes, well kind of. I am still trying to make a point.

That is true, a year is a much longer time. So then would you say I should shorten it to 10 years?

But both are the means to a right.

But it's the reasoning which was the important part.

Of course it is...the point wasn't to use this as a springboard to gun control, but rather to highlight the absurdity of the logic. Hell, you even helped me out with it by noting just how short of time a week really is.


When you understand why you have trouble with the reasoning behind the position, perhaps you'll gain some insight into the problems pro-choice has with the logic of pro-life in this thread.

Well then lets try to "equate" a specific constituional right to keep and bear arms to a specific constitutional right to access abortion freely for the first trimester, a limitted abortion right for the second trimester and virtually no abortion right thereafter. To buy a handgun in Texas is easy (unless you had a DWI or some other criminal infraction) and so is getting an abortion within the first 12 weeks, to carry that handgun requires taking a class, passing a test and paying a large fee but to get an abortion after that 12th week through the 20th week is still just as easy. Only very limitted places may sell guns/ammo commercially, they must meet very strict conditions and keep exacting records - so must commercial abortion facilities under the new law. You see, "reasonable restrictions" are all still in the hands of the majority - despite any constituional implications to the contrary.
 
Re: Texas Senate passes sweeping new abortion restrictions

What's interesting is that pro abortion rights advocates say by way of defense of abortion that the vast majority of them occur weeks before 20 weeks, so it's puzzling why 20 weeks is so objectionable. It seems like a little double speak going on.

Because those who don't perform them at 20 weeks usually have reasons such as economic hardship.
 
Re: Texas Senate passes sweeping new abortion restrictions

Because those who don't perform them at 20 weeks usually have reasons such as economic hardship.

And so we should let this kid grow more and more into a human being so that the mother can kill it all because she's poor? Are these super poor women magically going to find the money at week 21?
 
Re: Texas Senate passes sweeping new abortion restrictions

Because those who don't perform them at 20 weeks usually have reasons such as economic hardship.

I thought abortions got more complex (you know, because of that fetus's stubborn and unreasonable insistence on growing and developing) and expensive the later they occurred.
 
Re: Texas Senate passes sweeping new abortion restrictions

The rights of people to control their bodies takes a step back.
 
Re: Texas Senate passes sweeping new abortion restrictions

I thought abortions got more complex (you know, because of that fetus's stubborn and unreasonable insistence on growing and developing) and expensive the later they occurred.

Which justifies why a lot of women aren't able to afford them in the 20 weeks allotted. Even if a woman found out about her pregnancy when it would cost say 400$ there are a lot of factors which should be taken into consideration when affording an abortion. Does she rent or own? How much net income can she afford to put towards an abortion? Is she the sole provider in her household? Can she afford to put 400$ towards an abortion? If she can't do that much when an abortion costs 400$, there is still a possibility she'll be able to after say the 19th week, when it may cost $700 and she's been allotted time to deal with all the other factors needed to consider when trying to pay an abortion.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom