Support NeoGAF

[Jimothy]

When a woman gets an abortion, she is basically saying, ” I am unfit to be a mother in this current situation.” The reasons could be medical, social, economics, domestic abuse, a failure of contraception or a myriad of valid reasons. Why force that woman to carry to term?

Because she sinned by having hedonistic premarital sex and must be punished. Duh.

 

[Sub_Level]

I think a good compromise for both sides would've been enforcing the 20 weeks thing but backing off on the "clinics must become surgical centers" thing. This would have led to fewer abortions while also still ensuring Texas women would be able to reasonably find a clinic.

 

[BertramCooper]

Not that I am against safety nets but those strike me as two mostly unrelated matters.

Not really, considering the financial state of many women who seek abortions.

 

[Qazaq]

A lot of factors actually. Korean students just don't have a lot of time for one. They are always out doing something and it's hard to maintain even just a relationship sometimes as a result. You have school in the morning, then you have after extra-curricular activities which aren't mandatory but might as well be and if you're not doing that you're studying. You're constantly busy so it's hard to get... busy.

This honestly reads like a teenage boy analysis.

 

[liquidtmd]

I think a good compromise for both sides would've been enforcing the 20 weeks thing but backing off on the "clinics must become surgical centers" thing. This would have led to fewer abortions while also still ensuring Texas women would be able to reasonably find a clinic.

Compromise, why compromise and be reasonable when you can get mental standoffs like this!

 

[Zoe]

I think a good compromise for both sides would've been enforcing the 20 weeks thing but backing off on the "clinics must become surgical centers" thing. This would have led to fewer abortions while also still ensuring Texas women would be able to reasonably find a clinic.

They tried to get a rural exemption added in the House, but of course it got tabled.

 

[Slacker]

I think a good compromise for both sides would've been enforcing the 20 weeks thing but backing off on the "clinics must become surgical centers" thing. This would have led to fewer abortions while also still ensuring Texas women would be able to reasonably find a clinic.

The 20 weeks thing does more harm than good. The vast majority of abortions happen before that deadline already (over 99% if I heard correctly last night), so we're talking about preventing a tiny number of abortions to begine with. Women aren't waiting around pregnant for five months then suddenly deciding they don't want the kid any more. I don't know the numbers, but it's a reasonable assumption that a lot of (if not most) abortions that take place after 20 weeks are done so for reasons of medical emergency, which as far as I know would still have been permitted under the new regulations.

 

[Sub_Level]

The 20 weeks thing does more harm than good. The vast majority of abortions happen before that deadline already (over 99% if I heard correctly last night). Women aren't waiting around for five months then suddenly deciding they don't want the kid any more. I don't know the numbers, but it's a reasonable assumption that a lot of (if not most) abortions that take place after 20 weeks are done so for reasons of medical emergency, which as far as I know would still have been permitted under the new regulations.

Well nevermind then, that makes sense.

 

[PogiJones]

So when a women miscarried or naturally abort or the zygote fails to bind to the uterine wall, is that morally reprehensible?

Also the Romanian communist dictator banned abortions and fucked up the country for generations.

No, it's not. It's a natural death, not willfully and consciously killed through no fault of its own. It's also not morally reprehensible to die from cancer, or from old age, or all sorts of ways that people die. But that does not mean that willfully killing someone is therefore morally fine, just because not every death is morally wrong.

Re: Romania: Citation needed. (Really, though, I'm not being snide. I want to hear about it, if you could summarize and link a scholarly source. I love me some economics talk.)

Well, I would say that (apart from your emergency in case of rape/cost of women's health thing) that pro-restriction advocates tend to ignore/marginalise the existence of the mother and her family etc. Obviously we end up fundamentally in a 'when does life begin' issue etc but as a general observation it seems that pro-restriction advocates are very enthusiastic about protecting life inside the womb up until the point the baby is actually born and then social responsibility appears to end.

Citation needed. This time I am being snide. I hear this all the time from opponents [I would categorize it as demonizing propaganda], and have never seen anything to back it up. The claims that pro-lifers don't care about kids after birth is just as tenable as saying pro-choicers don't care about babies. It's just an inflammatory accusation because you don't agree with some of their policies. The easiest way to avoid having to address an opposing view is to paint the viewpoint itself with malicious motive. Then, you don't actually have to discuss the issue, because if anyone believes that viewpoint, they're clearly evil.

Re: marginalizing the woman, I only do not mention her interests when I enter a discussion where her interests have been repeatedly shouted from the rooftops. Even then, I usually try to break down the issue of abortion to the actual disagreement: At what point does a future-human's right to live outweigh the woman's right to control her own body?

[Okay, tangent to clarify that that's the point we all argue about. You dragged me into this. No one argues that the woman has no right to choose pre-and-during-sex, and no one argues that her body is dictated by the gov't post birth to keep the child alive. So at some point between those two, society at large has agreed that her choice has been made and the life of the zygote/fetus/baby/whathaveyou outweighs her freedoms. She and the father are both legally obligated to use their bodies in such a way as to keep the child alive and give him/her a healthy environment to develop. And if you don't have kids of your own, trust me, post-birth the wife's lifestyle and control over her own body are FAR more intruded upon than during (a healthy [unhealthy pregnancies are universally excepted for in abortion laws as per SCOTUS rulings]) pregnancy. Yet, we're okay with that, because we acknowledge that there is a significant interest in protecting children, even though they can't vote or talk or walk or really do anything besides poop and cry. Anyway, so that's what people argue about: WHEN does the child's right outweigh the woman's right to choose?
/tangent]​

My point is, I very, very heavily consider the woman's interests, but unless the pregnancy is rapeincestlifethreatening, I've determined that the woman's right to choose whether to raise a child should end at the same time the man's right to choose whether to raise a child ends: at conception. But that does not mean that I don't consider the woman, and I do usually bring up the difficulty of balancing the two interests. You can check my post history, if you're so inclined.

[Paraphrased]: 48% is not "most"

Most definition:

1: greatest in quantity, extent, or degree
2: : the majority of <most people>​

Majority definition

1: : obsolete : the quality or state of being greater
2

a : the age at which full civil rights are accorded
b : the status of one who has attained this age​

3
a : a number or percentage equaling more than half of a total​

And beyond arguing pure semantics, here's (scroll down a bit) an NBC/WSJ poll that breaks down the specific numbers, because as you said, the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are understood differently by different people. In relevant part, those polled thought abortion should be:

Illegal except rape, incest, mother's life: 42%
Always illegal: 10% (So 52% total opposing at-will abortions)
Always legal: 26%
Legal most of the time: 19% (So 45% total supporting some form of at-will abortions)
Unsure: 5%​

And finally, to answer your "Because you saw how well outlawing alcohol or marijuana worked?", do you believe in outlawing any behavior? Because if outlawing alcohol or marijuana produced unsavory results, that must mean outlawing any behavior (and thus abortion) will produce unsavory results. Except we're pretty happy with outlawing burglary, murder, fraud, racism, etc., and those things are all on the decline. So no, your logic does not hold.

You're forgetting there's a reason this was attempted to be jammed through last minute in the dead of night.

No I'm not. I'm ignorant of the current situation in Texas's congress. I've said nothing about the merits of this legislation. I just finally saw another person who shares my similar views, and decided to give him support while he was being dogpiled. Then, I was asked questions about my thoughts on abortion generally, so I've been answering them.

 

[kayos90]

This honestly reads like a teenage boy analysis.

Sorry if you don't think it's true. I've lived in Korea for a good chunk of my life and visit frequently to see the lifestyles of my relatives. If you don't believe me that's fine by me. =D

 

[Qazaq]

I've determined that the woman's right to choose whether to raise a child should end at the same time the man's right to choose whether to raise a child ends: at conception

Yup, you have.

And it's inherently, fundamentally sexist.

Which is why these fights are always an attack on women, ultimately.

Most definition:
1: greatest in quantity, extent, or degree
2: : the majority of <most people>
Majority definition

But again you're missing the fundamental part of the bill. This bill is not about whether you think abortion should be legal or not. Abortion is legal in the US. What it does is prevent people from exercising their constitutional right, and it discriminating against those in rural and poor areas.

That's not a matter of a pro-choice/pro-life question, and you're going to almost certainly find more support for those clinics to stay open than against. Even, I suspect, in Texas.

 

[Qazaq]

Sorry if you don't think it's true. I've lived in Korea for a good chunk of my life and visit frequently to see the lifestyles of my relatives. If you don't believe me that's fine by me. =D

That's like me explaining that I don't live in a city and find it hard to meet gay people if I was commenting on why marriage rates for gay couples in the US are lower than marriage rates for straight people.

 

[phaze]

Not really, considering the financial state of many women who seek abortions.

Not sure if that's the point you're making but US is not Ethiopia. Few if any people die of starvation in US.

Being against abortion bores no relation to one's opinion on what set of government services should be provided for population.

 

[PogiJones]

Yup, you have.

And it's inherently, fundamentally sexist.

Which is why these fights are always an attack on women, ultimately.

This is why I should not try to engage in long dialogue. No one actually cares to discuss at length, and instead chooses to lob unfounded accusations to avoid real discussion.

Regardless, against my better judgment, I will respond:

: prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women​

So saying women are capable of making a final decision at the same time as men is discrimination against them because of their sex? So, "Your decision should be final at the same time as my decision is final, because you're a woman. Were you a man, you would not need to make a final decision at the same time as a man does." That makes literally zero sense.

But again you're missing the fundamental part of the bill.

I wasn't addressing the bill, as I stated at the end of my giant post. (I don't blame you if you don't get to it). In fact, the portion you quoted and dismissed as me "missing" the point was a direct response to your contention that my claim that "most" American's support a similar policy to what that other guy was saying. It's like if I said to him, "I think you might be sick, you're green, like a frog," and then you jumped in and said, "Frogs aren't green," and then I replied with statistics, "Yes they are." Then you respond, "You're missing the point, it's not about greenness, it's about sickness." To that, I just have to say, well why did you try and make a point out of it if it wasn't the point?

 

[Qazaq]

This is why I should try to engage in long dialogue.

Well part of the problem, for me, is how you remind me of all the stodgy old white men on these legislatures in your assessment of the situation.

Clinical. Strict.


This topic is the opposite of that. And granted I don't know if you're a man or a woman, but you come across as someone that literally has not put themselves in the shoes of a woman. For example:

So saying women are capable of making a final decision at the same time as men is discrimination against them because of their sex? So, "Your decision should be final at the same time as my decision is final, because you're a woman. Were you a man, you would not need to make a final decision at the same time as a man does." That makes literally zero sense.

It's just such a strange way of ignoring, oh, how one gender has to carry the entire pregnancy and is thus saddled with the baby, and one gender is not.

 

[Slacker]

So when a women miscarried or naturally abort or the zygote fails to bind to the uterine wall, is that morally reprehensible?

No, it's not. It's a natural death, not willfully and consciously killed through no fault of its own. It's also not morally reprehensible to die from cancer, or from old age, or all sorts of ways that people die. But that does not mean that willfully killing someone is therefore morally fine, just because not every death is morally wrong.

I think I can clarify Classy's point. Somewhere around 15% to 20% of pregnancies end in miscarriage (medically referred to as 'spontaneous abortion'). Does the fact that thousands of potential babies die this way naturally affect your view on induced abortion?

 

[kayos90]

That's like me explaining that I don't live in a city and find it hard to meet gay people if I was commenting on why marriage rates for gay couples in the US are lower than marriage rates for straight people.

That's a poor analogy at best. I was describing actual common behavior and actions found amongst Korean teenagers. Your analogy describes a situation within an extremely limited and and confined bubble that's applied on a much grander and broader scale. Mine is not. I have families that live in both urban and rural areas. In both of these cases, the students act in the way I described earlier. This doesn't go just for my family. I have friends there and they also act in the way I described. If you think I'm making a conclusion off of some bubble or vacuum you're extremely mistaken. Also, I never said the student's lack of time the primary factor. I said it's one of many.

 

[FyreWulff]

Not that I am against safety nets but those strike me as two mostly unrelated matters.

How are they unrelated?

Forcing women to have a kid and then denying healthcare and food coverage to the kid you just forced the woman to birth are directly related.

"Here woman. You feel this child would be unsafe due to your current situation, we're gonna force you to have it anyway, then this kid is going to have a shit life because it's not going to be able to get a minimum level of prenatal and childhood healthcare and will be malnourished because fuck you. By the way, we don't have to do any of the work nor risk our bodies to bring the kid to term. Seeya."

 

[Penguin]

If Perry calls another emergency session.. would this law have to go back through all the channels or would it restart here?

 

[Enron]

If Perry calls another emergency session.. would this law have to go back through all the channels or would it restart here?

Starts all over as far as I know.

 

[PogiJones]

I think I can clarify Classy's point. Somewhere around 15% to 20% of pregnancies end in miscarriage (medically referred to as 'spontaneous abortion'). Does the fact that thousands of potential babies die this way naturally affect your view on induced abortion?

Yes, I understood. Perhaps my response wasn't clear. No, natural miscarriages and natural deaths have no bearing on the morality of willfully creating more of them. Miscarriages happen, just like deaths happen. And there's not a lot we can do about them. But the existence of those miscarriages and deaths do not justify willfully killing or aborting. There are times to kill, and there are times to abort. But neither, in my mind, should be legalized as a rule of thumb. They should only be exceptions.

 

[Kazerei]

My point is, I very, very heavily consider the woman's interests, but unless the pregnancy is rapeincestlifethreatening, I've determined that the woman's right to choose whether to raise a child should end at the same time the man's right to choose whether to raise a child ends: at conception. But that does not mean that I don't consider the woman, and I do usually bring up the difficulty of balancing the two interests. You can check my post history, if you're so inclined.

This just sounds petty. You don't want women to have abortion rights because men don't? Pregnancy is inherently unjust; it's something women are responsible for, it's their bodies. How about just giving people as much freedom as possible, for the greater good of the world.

 

[SolarPowered]

Any recap of the events gone up yet? I figured it would be in the OP. I went to sleep out of frustration sometime around 3AM EST.

 

[Qazaq]

They should only be exceptions.

Again, pardon if I'm misunderstanding you, but you read like someone that has never put themselves in a woman's shoes.

Do you not think that any time a woman gets an abortion, it is an "exception"? It's never just a "rule of thumb" in practice.

So then basically you're imposing your literal, personal definition of what is an appropriate "exception", and what isn't.

And that is what is fundamentally unfair, and usually sexist about this debate: Men imposing their own judgment and morality on a situation where they never have to deal with the consequences.

 

[Slacker]

I'm really curious what the Republicans will do at this point. I think they come out of this fiasco looking terrible and can't imagine they want to go through it again. And I'm certain Senator Davis will be ready to filibuster again if need be, and this time, prepare yourselves for 12 hours of her reading the bill over and over to avoid bullshit allegations of non-germaneness.

Their best bet is to promise to continue the fight, then quietly abandon it and distract their supporters with gay marriage legislation or something.

 

[PogiJones]

It's just such a strange way of ignoring, oh, how one gender has to carry the entire pregnancy and is thus saddled with the baby, and one gender is not.

If you want to say that egalitarianism is not ideal in all situations, including this one, then make that argument. But choosing a point at which all people make their final decisions, regardless of sex, is by its very definition NOT sexist. Argue I'm wrong, keep arguing I'm stodgy and strict despite all the time I've spent explaining why I believe in exceptions. If you can back up those arguments, that's fine. But calling a gender-blind legal policy sexist is distorting that word in a full 180 to be its exact opposite.

 

[Qazaq]

If you want to say that egalitarianism is not ideal in all situations, including this one, then make that argument. But choosing a point at which all people make their final decisions, regardless of sex, is by its very definition NOT sexist. Argue I'm wrong, keep arguing I'm stodgy and strict despite all the time I've spent explaining why I believe in exceptions. If you can back up those arguments, that's fine. But calling a gender-blind legal policy sexist is distorting that word in a full 180 to be its exact opposite.

This makes no sense. How can you have a gender-blind "legal policy" when one sex has to go through the pregnancy and bare the child and the other doesn't? I'm confounded by your logic. You didn't address what I said, you're hiding behind terms and confident wording.

 

[Squirrel Killer]

Most definition:

1: greatest in quantity, extent, or degree
2: : the majority of <most people>​

Majority definition

1: : obsolete : the quality or state of being greater
2

a : the age at which full civil rights are accorded
b : the status of one who has attained this age​

3
a : a number or percentage equaling more than half of a total​

And beyond arguing pure semantics, here's (scroll down a bit) an NBC/WSJ poll that breaks down the specific numbers, because as you said, the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are understood differently by different people. In relevant part, those polled thought abortion should be:

Illegal except rape, incest, mother's life: 42%
Always illegal: 10% (So 52% total opposing at-will abortions)
Always legal: 26%
Legal most of the time: 19% (So 45% total supporting some form of at-will abortions)
Unsure: 5%​

The first poll you cited put pro-life at 48%. Not most. The poll you're bringing up now just shows the volatility of polling on abortion, in January, the 52% calculation you're trumpeting was just 44% vs. 54% for "some form of at-will abortions." Around the same time frame, Public Religion Research Institute/Brookings Institution found it was 56% that supported "some form of at-will abortions." Gallup doesn't break it down the same way as NBC/WSJ, but their May result was 78% for legal abortions (although that does include rape/incest/health only supporters.)

And finally, to answer your "Because you saw how well outlawing alcohol or marijuana worked?", do you believe in outlawing any behavior? Because if outlawing alcohol or marijuana produced unsavory results, that must mean outlawing any behavior (and thus abortion) will produce unsavory results. Except we're pretty happy with outlawing burglary, murder, fraud, racism, etc., and those things are all on the decline. So no, your logic does not hold.

Of course I believe in outlawing certain behavior. I'm under no illusions, however, that outlawing a particular behavior will end it. If you want to end abortion, outlawing it is a waste of time. You'll only reduce the number of abortions while increasing the number of women killed in back alley abortions. Women will still get abortions, those that perform the abortions will just make Dr. Kermit Gosnell look like Louis Pasteur.

 

[Kazerei]

If you want to say that egalitarianism is not ideal in all situations, including this one, then make that argument. But choosing a point at which all people make their final decisions, regardless of sex, is by its very definition NOT sexist. Argue I'm wrong, keep arguing I'm stodgy and strict despite all the time I've spent explaining why I believe in exceptions. If you can back up those arguments, that's fine. But calling a gender-blind legal policy sexist is distorting that word in a full 180 to be its exact opposite.

Pregnancy isn't gender-blind. Anti-abortion isn't gender-blind. Anti-abortion is sexist.

 

[phaze]

How are they unrelated?

Forcing women to have a kid and then denying healthcare and food coverage to the kid you just forced the woman to birth are directly related.

"Here woman. You feel this child would be unsafe due to your current situation, we're gonna force you to have it anyway, then this kid is going to have a shit life because it's not going to be able to get a minimum level of prenatal and childhood healthcare and will be malnourished because fuck you. By the way, we don't have to do any of the work nor risk our bodies to bring the kid to term. Seeya."

One is a decision to end a life the other one isn't. It's as simple as that.

 

[Mgoblue201]

No, it's not. It's a natural death, not willfully and consciously killed through no fault of its own. It's also not morally reprehensible to die from cancer, or from old age, or all sorts of ways that people die. But that does not mean that willfully killing someone is therefore morally fine, just because not every death is morally wrong.

ClassyPenguin's first point is absolutely germane to the discussion. According to Wikipedia, some 50 to 70 percent of fertilized eggs never results in an established pregnancy. If accurate, that is a horrendous death rate, one that should illicit the same kind of reaction from the anti-abortion movement as if 50 to 70% of the world population died spontaneously. That is the logical extension of the argument that life, beginning from conception, is equal to any other human life. But of course no one reacts in that way. I think most people understand that it's just the natural destruction of cells.

 

[Alexlf]

One is a decision to end a life the other one isn't. It's as simple as that.

Not saying abortion is ending a life, but you should probably realize that sometimes ending a life can be infinitely more moral than letting it continue.

 

[Qazaq]

Of course I believe in outlawing certain behavior. I'm under no illusions, however, that outlawing a particular behavior will end it. If you want to end abortion, outlawing it is a waste of time. You'll only reduce the number of abortions while increasing the number of women killed in back alley abortions. Women will still get abortions, those that perform the abortions will just make Dr. Kermit Gosnell look like Louis Pasteur.

To couple that, with how fervent anti-abortion supporters also tend to be against comprehensive sex education, which has always shown to reduce unwanted pregnancy rates.

The lack of compatible logic again demonstrates why it's often this mix of religious patriarchal authoritarianism mixed in with inherent sexism that is underpinning this debate.

Personally, I call an attack on an unborn fetus snapping their spines after being taken out of the womb. Were that more of a widespread problem, I'd absolutely love to see more protection for unborn fetuses. But that's not the kind of terms these discussions on "protecting unborn fetuses" usually center around -- because many of the fundamentals surrounding that debate have nothing to do with the unborn fetuses at all.

 

[Mumei]

Pregnancy isn't gender-blind. Anti-abortion isn't gender-blind. Anti-abortion is sexist.

Right. Choosing a sex-blind position on an issue where one sex is disproportionately affected is inherently sexist.

 

[ClassyPenguin]

Yes, I understood. Perhaps my response wasn't clear. No, natural miscarriages and natural deaths have no bearing on the morality of willfully creating more of them. Miscarriages happen, just like deaths happen. And there's not a lot we can do about them. But the existence of those miscarriages and deaths do not justify willfully killing or aborting. There are times to kill, and there are times to abort. But neither, in my mind, should be legalized as a rule of thumb. They should only be exceptions.

naturalistic fallacy. Following your logic, there is no need to morally interfere with natural causes of death or natural forces ie cancers and other forms of illness.

 

[Slacker]

Any recap of the events gone up yet? I figured it would be in the OP. I went to sleep out of frustration sometime around 3AM EST.

You almost made it! It ended around 4AM your time. And it's EDT at the moment by the way (go go annoying time guy)! I'll attempt a rough recap of what basically happened from 10PM (central time) on. I can't believe I watched/listened to this for almost 12 hours yesterday.

Around 10pm (I think) someone objected to Senator Davis's line of discussion, saying it was not germane to the topic at hand. She was talking about the horrible sonogram bill passed in the state last year. Apparently an abortion bill is off topic when debating an abortion bill. What followed was absolute chaos from my perspective. The President of the Senate looked like he had no idea what he was doing, mostly evidenced by the fact that he had to consult the parliamentarian next to him literally after every single sentence he spoke. Before last night I would have assumed the President of the Senate knew how to run the Senate, but that apparently is not the case.

After competing motions and a nearly endless parade of parliamentary inquiries, it became apparent that the filibuster was considered to be over and the members were going to vote. Oh, and I should mention that the last few hours were broken up by several lenghty off-microphone discussions as the leadership tried to sort it all out. I don't understand why we aren't allowed to here that deliberation, but whatever.

When it became clear that the filibuster had been declared over the crowd erupted in outrage. Between the fact that most people on Sen Davis's side thought the non-germane thing was bullsh to begin with, there was some question as to whether that should count as her third stike anyway, as the rules apparently state that you get three strikes for non-germaneness. There may have been a good way to explain this to the crowd there and to those of us watching online, but the clueless leadership didn't bother doing it.

People who were there said it was lounder than even sporting event they've been to. The members stood around flustered as time expired, then huddled around the dais at the last moment. We began hearing the law was passed on Twitter. We then heard that no it hadn't as it was after the deadline. Major confusion started as the Republicans apparently tried to change the paperwork on the bill to make it appear the vote had happened before the midnight deadline. I would say it was unblievably scummy behavoir, but sadly it was indeed quite believable.

The youtube feed was cut off and hours of closed-door meetings commenced to sort it all out (again, what's up with the closed doors). Reps from the Texas House addressed the huge crowd still waiting in the building for the final word. Eventually, Senator Davis texted Cecile Richards (daughter of the awesome Ann Richards) saying the bill was dead. The crowd went nuts, and Wendy Davis became every liberal's favorite politician forever. An obviously pissed off Lt Gov Dewhurst finally came back out at 3AM central to say the bill was dead, see ya.

What happens next is anyone's guess. Whatever it is, Senator Davis got the issue out there in a huge way, and hopefully some real progress will come from her efforts.

 

[mackaveli]

Anyway to re-watch this event on youtube?

 

[FLEABttn]

but sadly it was indeed quite believable.

It wasn't just believable, it was predictable.

 

[speculawyer]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/162548/americans-misjudge-abortion-views.aspx
This shows not only that most Americans support restricting abortion, but also that most Americans incorrectly believe that the pro-choice viewpoint is more popular. Thus corroborating my assertion that much of the pro-choice rhetoric has been extremely effective propaganda in altering people's perceptions of the country's opinion, but has been less effective at altering their actual viewpoints.

No, it does not show that. It only shows that 48% of people use the vague term 'pro-life' to describe themselves. A lot of people will support abortion rights but still label themselves 'pro-life' due to social pressure.

A majority also says that they oppose 'Obamacare' but if you ask them whether people should be rejected for pre-existing conditions they say no, if you ask them whether kids in their young 20s should be allowed on their parents policies they say yes, etc. until it shows that they actually agree with most of obamacare.

Abortion is a tricky issue with a lot of gray area . . . just like abortion itself. And that is why the GOP gets itself in trouble all the time when they try their draconian bans like this.


And it is a strange issue because it causes an inherent conflict between the theocrats and fiscal conservatives in the GOP. If you totally ban abortion then you are going to have the government paying much more for healthcare and welfare due to increased unplanned births among poor people . . . unless you want poor mothers and children living on the street (something that some GOPers seem fine with but I doubt most of them). There are a lot of fiscal conservative GOPers that merely lead the theocrat base around as little pawns. They forever dangle that 'ban abortion' carrot in front of the theocratic base just out of reach. It's been 40 years now since Roe v. Wade . . . and they are still trying to grab that carrot just out of reach.

 

[ClassyPenguin]

ClassyPenguin's first point is absolutely germane to the discussion. According to Wikipedia, some 50 to 70 percent of fertilized eggs never results in an established pregnancy. If accurate, that is a horrendous death rate, one that should illicit the same kind of reaction from the anti-abortion movement as if 50 to 70% of the world population died spontaneously. That is the logical extension of the argument that life, beginning from conception, is equal to any other human life. But of course no one reacts in that way. I think most people understand that it's just the natural destruction of cells.

Yup. If you believe in life at conception, then women are murders. It doesn't matter if it is induced or not by that definition. It's moot because of the binary life/no life of that stance.

 

[Fugu]

If you want to say that egalitarianism is not ideal in all situations, including this one, then make that argument. But choosing a point at which all people make their final decisions, regardless of sex, is by its very definition NOT sexist. Argue I'm wrong, keep arguing I'm stodgy and strict despite all the time I've spent explaining why I believe in exceptions. If you can back up those arguments, that's fine. But calling a gender-blind legal policy sexist is distorting that word in a full 180 to be its exact opposite.

Men bear no relevance to abortion laws simply because men do not get pregnant. This isn't about an equal level of control over conception -- sex, by definition, gives us that -- it's about women having control over a process that affects only them. This would be like legislating equality considerations for men into legislation about the pill.

Both men and women have an equal capacity to limit conception by not having sex or through use of contraception. When contraception fails, men may be saddled with legal and/or moral obligations; women have legal/moral obligations as well as nine months of body transformation and lifestyle changes which may or may not jeopardize their way of living. And then there's the fact that after all that time it's the woman burdened with the actual, literal kid and all of the extra responsibility that comes with it. You can't even use the word "egalitarianism" to describe the situation because the consequences of conception are about a million times greater for a woman than they are for a man. Abortion laws exist to attempt to ameliorate that gap.

 

[BertramCooper]

Not sure if that's the point you're making but US is not Ethiopia. Few if any people die of starvation in US.

Being against abortion bores no relation to one's opinion on what set of government services should be provided for population.

That's a pretty ignorant view. One doesn't need to starve to death to suffer the effects of poverty.

If you want to outlaw abortion, at the very least you should support programs that help children from disadvantaged households live a decent life. Otherwise you're a callous hypocrite.

 

[Zoe]

Around 10pm (I think) someone objected to Senator Davis's line of discussion, saying it was not germane to the topic at hand. She was talking about the horrible sonogram bill passed in the state last year. Apparently an abortion bill is off topic when debating an abortion bill.

This is the part that confused me when I read about it after the fact. Didn't Dewhurst rule earlier in the day that any topic regarding abortion would be considered germane?

 

[Qazaq]

I have to admit I have never before heard that abortion should be illegal because men and women deal with the effects of the issue equally.

This is the part that confused me. Didn't Dewhurst rule earlier in the day that any topic regarding abortion would be considered germane?

You're not confused. You're right.

"But then why..."


Yup. Exactly.

 

[ClassyPenguin]

Re: Romania: Citation needed. (Really, though, I'm not being snide. I want to hear about it, if you could summarize and link a scholarly source. I love me some economics talk.)

http://www.ceausescu.org/ceausescu_texts/overplanned_parenthood.htm

Especially this part since it is EXACTLY the stance of the pro-life movement

Ceausescu made mockery of family planning. He forbade sex education. Books on human sexuality and reproduction were classified as "state secrets," to be used only as medical textbooks. With contraception banned, Romanians had to smuggle in condoms and birth-control pills. Though strictly illegal, abortions remained a widespread birth-control measure of last resort. Nationwide, Western sources estimate, 60 percent of all pregnancies ended in abortion or miscarriage.

Also, liberal abortion and contraception actually LOWERS the abortion rate. The WHO published a study on that.

 

[soco]

good god, this thread went to shit. yay to general abortion arguments that are sooooo tired.

 

[SolarPowered]

You almost made it! It ended around 4AM your time. And it's EDT at the moment by the way (go go annoying time guy)! I'll attempt a rough recap of what basically happened from 10PM (central time) on. I can't believe I watched/listened to this for almost 12 hours yesterday.

Around 10pm (I think) someone objected to Senator Davis's line of discussion, saying it was not germane to the topic at hand. She was talking about the horrible sonogram bill passed in the state last year. Apparently an abortion bill is off topic when debating an abortion bill. What followed was absolute chaos from my perspective. The President of the Senate looked like he had no idea what he was doing, mostly evidenced by the fact that he had to consult the parliamentarian next to him literally after every single sentence he spoke. Before last night I would have assumed the President of the Senate knew how to run the Senate, but that apparently is not the case.

After competing motions and a nearly endless parade of parliamentary inquiries, it became apparent that the filibuster was considered to be over and the members were going to vote. Oh, and I should mention that the last few hours were broken up by several lenghty off-microphone discussions as the leadership tried to sort it all out. I don't understand why we aren't allowed to here that deliberation, but whatever.

When it became clear that the filibuster had been declared over the crowd erupted in outrage. Between the fact that most people on Sen Davis's side thought the non-germane thing was bullsh to begin with, there was some question as to whether that should count as her third stike anyway, as the rules apparently state that you get three strikes for non-germaneness. There may have been a good way to explain this to the crowd there and to those of us watching online, but the clueless leadership didn't bother doing it.

People who were there said it was lounder than even sporting event they've been to. The members stood around flustered as time expired, then huddled around the dais at the last moment. We began hearing the law was passed on Twitter. We then heard that no it hadn't as it was after the deadline. Major confusion started as the Republicans apparently tried to change the paperwork on the bill to make it appear the vote had happened before the midnight deadline. I would say it was unblievably scummy behavoir, but sadly it was indeed quite believable.

The youtube feed was cut off and hours of closed-door meetings commenced to sort it all out (again, what's up with the closed doors). Reps from the Texas House addressed the huge crowd still waiting in the building for the final word. Eventually, Senator Davis texted Cecile Richards (daughter of the awesome Ann Richards) saying the bill was dead. The crowd went nuts, and Wendy Davis became every liberal's favorite politician forever. An obviously pissed off Lt Gov Dewhurst finally came back out at 3AM central to say the bill was dead, see ya.

What happens next is anyone's guess. Whatever it is, Senator Davis got the issue out there in a huge way, and hopefully some real progress will come from her efforts.

Easily the most confusing part of last night's proceedings. I'd say it was the actual vote, but everyone already saw them trying to count it up around 12:02 so...

Thanks for the write up.

 

[Slacker]

This is the part that confused me when I read about it after the fact. Didn't Dewhurst rule earlier in the day that any topic regarding abortion would be considered germane?

Yes he absolutely did. Dewhurst and the other leadership acted like they did nothing wrong and that "occupt wall street" tactics derailed the proceedings, but they had a major hand in that outrage by not explaining themselves thoroughly and not ensuring fair treatment of Senator Davis's filibuster.

 

[showx]

If you want to say that egalitarianism is not ideal in all situations, including this one, then make that argument. But choosing a point at which all people make their final decisions, regardless of sex, is by its very definition NOT sexist. Argue I'm wrong, keep arguing I'm stodgy and strict despite all the time I've spent explaining why I believe in exceptions. If you can back up those arguments, that's fine. But calling a gender-blind legal policy sexist is distorting that word in a full 180 to be its exact opposite.

You're not sexist. You're just stupid. It is the woman's body. Neither you, nor any man, have any right to decide wether she has the baby or not. This is something obvious.

If you want to have a say in the matter, pick partners who will let you. But dont try to impose your will on every women.

 

[onadesertedisland]

I love how the media is reporting what Dewhurst said as fact when there is proof of an attempt to fraudulently pass this bill.

I don't think the media is lock in step, but I think they're lazy fucks who don't investigate things anymore.