• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Texas bans abortion.

Status
Not open for further replies.

thaiboxerken

Penultimate Amazing
Joined
Sep 17, 2001
Messages
34,530
Well the conservatives won in Texas. Abortion is now banned in the state.
 
What has become of this ruling?
AUG. 29, 2014

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/30/us...-law.html?_r=0

A federal judge in Austin, Tex., blocked a stringent new rule on Friday that would have forced more than half of the state’s remaining abortion clinics to close, the latest in a string of court decisions that have at least temporarily kept abortion clinics across the South from being shuttered.
 
Yes, it's only banned for those who can't get to the remaining 7 clinics that are not anywhere near them.

This is a major step towards a complete prohibition of abortion.
 
Texas bans abortion for the rural poor. Because you can't tell women what to do with their bodies, but you can tell poor people what to do as much as you want.
 
And there it is.

Elective abortions are legal in Texas, and there are several clinics in the state that offer the service.

So much for "Texas bans abortion".

So, if Texas only allowed guns to be purchased in 7 locations, that would be okay? After all, it wouldn't be a ban, so it should be fine, right?
 
The dishonesty of the anti-woman crowd in this thread is equivalent to open, direct, public lying.

Just like other evidence, the anti-woman, anti-rights, pro-slavery crowd now feels like it's safe to come out of the woodwork.

And yes, compelling any woman to carry a child to term, regardless of how it's done, is an act of slavery. The so-called pro-life movement is simply a slavery movement. A pro-life movement would care about the woman and the child, not just the fetus.
 
For certain values of "practically". And "Texas".

I do not understand your objection. I get the objection to saying 'banned' outright, but the further qualifiers are spot on. If you think any of the qualifiers are wrong or misleading, please explain how. I'd say that the common use of 'practically' and 'Texas' are closer to the use in the post you're complaining about than the use you seem to be saying.

When someone says 'for certain values', they're usually saying that what was said could technically be true, but as they are generally understood what was said was not accurate.

___________________________________________________


For those more interested in addressing the exact accuracy of description of what is happening than in discussing what is happening (as evidenced by saying nothing else), what do you all think of these rules? Do you think they are being put forth honestly (that the claimed reason for them is the actual reason)? Do you think they are not overly burdensome? Do you think they are a bad end-around? Apart from 'it's not technically a ban', what do you all have to say about it? How do you think similar restrictions on gun ownership/purchases wouldn't be overly burdensome either, or that they'd pass muster?

For me this is blatantly bad end around trying to regulate legal abortion out of existence, a de facto attempt at bans. It's effect will be deaths from illegal abortions in rural areas and won't have any of the benefits proponents claim. Further I believe the proponents are not making these claims in good faith. They know what they're doing, why they're doing it, and how they're lying about it.

EDIT: Ninja by crescent on that point.
 
So, if Texas only allowed guns to be purchased in 7 locations, that would be okay? After all, it wouldn't be a ban, so it should be fine, right?

Ask thaiboxerken. He's the one who seems to think that the only possible options are "okay" and "ban". Well, he and you. Not really a conversation I need to be a part of, don't you think?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom