Is Planned Hamburger more important than the entire good of America?

[catastrophe]

RGB just performed a partial birth abortion on Texas's law.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/02/ruth_bader_ginsburg_asks_the_most_important_question_of_oral_arguments_in.html

That was a pretty boss takedown. RBG is a complete stud.

But did the New Mexico clinic meet the Texas standards? Why not ask that question?

Doesn't really matter because Texas would have no way to check the standards of the New Mexico clinic.

The point is that it does not meet Texas standards.

Well the point was that New Mexico did not mandate the same standard. Doesn't mean the clinic did not meet the Texas standard. I see the point about Texas having no way to monitor the clinic though.

[ednksu]

RGB just performed a partial birth abortion on Texas's law.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/02/ruth_bader_ginsburg_asks_the_most_important_question_of_oral_arguments_in.html

That was a pretty boss takedown. RBG is a complete stud.

But did the New Mexico clinic meet the Texas standards? Why not ask that question?

Doesn't really matter because Texas would have no way to check the standards of the New Mexico clinic.

The point is that it does not meet Texas standards.

Well the point was that New Mexico did not mandate the same standard. Doesn't mean the clinic did not meet the Texas standard. I see the point about Texas having no way to monitor the clinic though.

Whether or not they meet those standards is nearly immaterial to the case at hand and its defense.  The state says those standards are there solely to protect women.  If the state than officially recommends that you go to a state without those standards because of easy of practice than your state's standards don't mean a damn thing.

But we know to a very high degree clinics don't meet those standards because they are preposterous for their level of care.

[CNS]

How does a guy that would be someone that would find themselves arguing a case in front of the Supreme Court not have prepared to answer that?  That seems basic. 

[michigancat]

How does a guy that would be someone that would find themselves arguing a case in front of the Supreme Court not have prepared to answer that?  That seems basic. 

Additionally, how did no one ask that question before it got to the supreme court?

[catastrophe]

How does a guy that would be someone that would find themselves arguing a case in front of the Supreme Court not have prepared to answer that?  That seems basic.

I mean, it's basically a rhetorical question since everyone knows Texas cannot do anything about New Mexico's standards.  In sure he would have liked to say "fair point."

Also, the article above is clearly one-sided, so his answer may have been adequate in the eyes of other non-pitchfork wielding reporters (haven't seen the transcript myself though).

I suppose he could have said something along the lines that Texas is trying to lead the way in improving clinics and the point is to encourage a higher standard, not to shut anything down. If there is a market for abortions in that area, someone will respond and set up a complying clinic in that space. In the meantime the residents in all reality will go to the cheaper nearby clinics in New Mexico. If and when New Mexico follows and implements similar standards then the market will definitely respond with complying clinics.

[ednksu]

How does a guy that would be someone that would find themselves arguing a case in front of the Supreme Court not have prepared to answer that?  That seems basic. 

Additionally, how did no one ask that question before it got to the supreme court?

LOTS did....hence it being appealed and Texas being too silly to change their justification.

[catastrophe]

How does a guy that would be someone that would find themselves arguing a case in front of the Supreme Court not have prepared to answer that?  That seems basic. 

Additionally, how did no one ask that question before it got to the supreme court?

It was a part of the appellate court's opinion, so they actually liked the argument.

[MakeItRain]

 
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-court-louisiana-abortion-20160304-story.html

[The Big Train]

How people like ksuw justify suppressing women's rights in favor of a fetus just baffles me.

[Ptolemy]

WOW!

So you pro-abortion people are trying to argue that we should franchise Planned Hamburger attached to every street corner
McDonald's, so every woman has access to an abortion when she needs one just like all us irresponsible men have ready access to a warm set of fries?

RBG is a 80+ year old flatulent and incontinent recalcitration of Ruth Buzzy that you somehow imagine is the Mother Earth of all things abortion. Kill her, disregard her, but stop using her "logic" as a guide for mankind.

[Tobias]

our guy ptolemy does have a pretty valid comparison here

[Ptolemy]

 (Why single out abortion when other procedures, like colonoscopies, pose an exponentially higher safety risk? Is there any proof that clinics were unsafe before the enactment of the new rules?)

ANSWER: Ummm, colonoscopies normally do not involve the question of whether a sentient being deserves to have their right to life protected.

[The Big Train]

Can they defend that right?

[The Big Train]

Ptolemy, if your gf/wife had an unplanned pregnancy, what would happen?

[Asteriskhead]

Ptolemy, if your gf/wife had an unplanned pregnancy, what would happen?

Don't interact with the poorly executed sock, TBT.

[The Big Train]

[DQ12]

Can they defend that right?

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

How people like ksuw justify suppressing women's rights in favor of a fetus just baffles me.

There is another human life at stake. Go back and read the first 25 pages or so of this thread and if you're still baffled, let me know. I'll be happy to answer any questions, but they have probably already been answered ITT.

[The Big Train]

How people like ksuw justify suppressing women's rights in favor of a fetus just baffles me.

There is another human life at stake. Go back and read the first 25 pages or so of this thread and if you're still baffled, let me know. I'll be happy to answer any questions, but they have probably already been answered ITT.

No thanks, it won't change my stance.  Wanting to control what someone else does with their own body just doesn't jive with me.  It's a pretty selfish stance, especially if they have nothing else to do with the person.

[DQ12]

How people like ksuw justify suppressing women's rights in favor of a fetus just baffles me.

There is another human life at stake. Go back and read the first 25 pages or so of this thread and if you're still baffled, let me know. I'll be happy to answer any questions, but they have probably already been answered ITT.

No thanks, it won't change my stance.  Wanting to control what someone else does with their own body just doesn't jive with me.  It's a pretty selfish stance, especially if they have nothing else to do with the person.

"Wanting to control what someone else does with their own property doesn't jive with me.  It's a pretty selfish stance, especially if they have nothing else to do with the person." - John C. Calhoun probably

[Ptolemy]

Ptolemy, if your gf/wife had an unplanned pregnancy, what would happen?

Same thing that happened to all of my "unplanned pregnancies." I'm getting ready to send one to KState (hopefully).

The notion that I would or should be free to kill another human being simply because I begat it is contrary to nature.

And upon that point, we arrive at the Scott Peterson Inconsistency. Scott Peterson is sitting on Death Row in California for killing his wife AND their unborn son. He was convicted of both crimes. Peterson's wife could have hired him, were he a doctor or whatever qualifies a person to be an abortionist, to kill her baby legally. So she can kill, but he cannot. How is that consistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution?

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

How people like ksuw justify suppressing women's rights in favor of a fetus just baffles me.

There is another human life at stake. Go back and read the first 25 pages or so of this thread and if you're still baffled, let me know. I'll be happy to answer any questions, but they have probably already been answered ITT.

No thanks, it won't change my stance.

Ok then. I'm not going to change my stance either, but the difference is that I've considered all the pro-abortion arguments and found them lacking, as demonstrated ITT. That, and I'm on the side of not killing another human life, so I feel pretty comfortable about my position.

Btw, should a woman be able to kill her baby just prior to birth? How about just after? How about two weeks later? Where do you draw the line and what is the moral basis for that line?

[catastrophe]

I'm sure pro-choicers look at the Peterson (assuming your characterization is accurate) as an issue of whether the mother has the right to terminate the pregnancy vs some other guy.

I think you guys have done a good job of illustrating the fundamental disconnect in the discussion here. Unfortunately I don't really think anyone will change anyone's minds with discussion. I can only think of a few examples in history where opposing sides argued over whether a certain group should be viewed as fully human and having a right to life. In all the instances I can think of, those debates got resolved mostly through war instead of votes.

[The Big Train]

How people like ksuw justify suppressing women's rights in favor of a fetus just baffles me.

There is another human life at stake. Go back and read the first 25 pages or so of this thread and if you're still baffled, let me know. I'll be happy to answer any questions, but they have probably already been answered ITT.

No thanks, it won't change my stance.

Ok then. I'm not going to change my stance either, but the difference is that I've considered all the pro-abortion arguments and found them lacking, as demonstrated ITT. That, and I'm on the side of not killing another human life, so I feel pretty comfortable about my position.

Btw, should a woman be able to kill her baby just prior to birth? How about just after? How about two weeks later? Where do you draw the line and what is the moral basis for that line?

Just because I haven't recognized all the pro-life arguments ITT doesn't mean I haven't heard them. I'm not one to take a stance like I have ITT without knowing a lot about the topic.

Part of being pro-choice and a male means that decision isn't up to me. I'm not forcing my beliefs on someone else. It's their body, and their baby, whatever they choose is their choice. My moral basis is feeling better knowing I'm not forcing someone to do something against their will.

[Ptolemy]

I'm sure pro-choicers look at the Peterson (assuming your characterization is accurate) as an issue of whether the mother has the right to terminate the pregnancy vs some other guy.

I think you guys have done a good job of illustrating the fundamental disconnect in the discussion here. Unfortunately I don't really think anyone will change anyone's minds with discussion. I can only think of a few examples in history where opposing sides argued over whether a certain group should be viewed as fully human and having a right to life. In all the instances I can think of, those debates got resolved mostly through war instead of votes.

I think all I'm interested in seeing from your side is some kind of constitutional basis (or a scientific one) for being able to assign a right to life dependent on the notion of a difference between being "human" vs. being "fully human."