Metal Sludge Gossip Board

I guess all those crazy ass Texas republican kooks have a little more bark than I thought they did. The pre abortion sonogram law looks like it's gonna pass. Basically, women would be subjected to having to have a mandatory sonogram with a doctor's explanation of the fetus' features and a listen to the heartbeat before they can have an abortion. It very well may change some women's minds, but if you ask me, it's just fucking cruel. They're just making what is already a difficult decision a million times harder and adding an extra layer of guilt to the guilt that most women go through anyway. Mission accomplished I guess. Jebus crispies are such assholes sometimes.

Ha, gotta love the Texas G.O.P. Can see how something like this might pass a bit easier than the banning of strip clubs, of course, but it's not something I'd favour.

CrouchingStonerHiddenBong wrote:Pretty soon you'll have to pick out names for your ovarian cysts before you can have them removed.

1. Now you can see why Texas is not only the first three notches of the bible belt but the buckle too.

2. Just asking but can't women just go to one of the other states to have an abortion?

3. Every day you see cars headed to the boardering gambling states.

4. There was a time when Texas required a bloood test for marriage and Oklahoma didn't. Guess what happened? People and their friends would drive to Oklahoma and get get married.

TyrC!

I wonder if the people passing this law also bitch about crime and unwed mothers.

TyrC! wrote:

CrouchingStonerHiddenBong wrote:Pretty soon you'll have to pick out names for your ovarian cysts before you can have them removed.

1. Now you can see why Texas is not only the first three notches of the bible belt but the buckle too.

2. Just asking but can't women just go to one of the other states to have an abortion?

3. Every day you see cars headed to the boardering gambling states.

4. There was a time when Texas required a bloood test for marriage and Oklahoma didn't. Guess what happened? People and their friends would drive to Oklahoma and get get married.

TyrC!

Texas is a REALLY big state. Driving to another state can take a loooong time depending on your starting point. You may see an increase in people driving to Louisiana and Oklahoma from folks that live close to those borders, but I don't think you're gonna see many people from San Antonio or Waco making that trip.

bane wrote:They're just making what is already a difficult decision a million times harder and adding an extra layer of guilt to the guilt that most women go through anyway. Mission accomplished I guess. Jebus crispies are such assholes sometimes.

If someone believes that a fetus is just a mass of cells this shouldn't be an issue for them. So what. It has a fucking heartbeat according to the sonogram. Scrape it Doc. Done.

As for the Jebus crispies being assholes for the guilt trip... I'm guessing the fetus might have a different take on who the asshole is.

tylamonroe wrote:
If someone believes that a fetus is just a mass of cells this shouldn't be an issue for them. So what. It has a fucking heartbeat according to the sonogram. Scrape it Doc. Done.

I don't know a woman that's had an abortion that didn't experience tremendous feelings of guilt over it. This would just exacerbate that situation. Again, it may change a few minds, but it's either legal and none of the government's business, or it isn't. This chickenshit "lets find some loopholes and make it as difficult as possible because we can" is a crock of shit.

bane wrote:

tylamonroe wrote:
If someone believes that a fetus is just a mass of cells this shouldn't be an issue for them. So what. It has a fucking heartbeat according to the sonogram. Scrape it Doc. Done.

I don't know a woman that's had an abortion that didn't experience tremendous feelings of guilt over it.

Why do you think they felt tremendous feelings of guilt over it?

So what are they gonna do if a prenatal test for "sodomite" is developed?

SeminiferousButtNoid wrote:

bane wrote:

tylamonroe wrote:
If someone believes that a fetus is just a mass of cells this shouldn't be an issue for them. So what. It has a fucking heartbeat according to the sonogram. Scrape it Doc. Done.

I don't know a woman that's had an abortion that didn't experience tremendous feelings of guilt over it.

Why do you think they felt tremendous feelings of guilt over it?

Why does it matter? It's either legal and none of the government's business, or it isn't. Period.

bane wrote: Why does it matter? It's either legal and none of the government's business, or it isn't. Period.

It matters because the issue is still being legislated and is still subject to SCOTUS reversal. There is no "period" at the end of the abortion debate, so attempting to be absolutist as a means to avoid answering moral questions serves no purpose. If Scalia asked you that question, and you said, "hai guise, what matter, it nobody's bitness, period," the laughter would fill the room.

Still being debated? Where? In campaign speeches and pulpits maybe. Otherwise it's just a bunch of trying to chip away at it with back door laws like the one I mentioned. It's interesting that you're so quick to slam the door on gun control discussions but claim that this one is still under debate.

EvilMadman wrote:

CrouchingStonerHiddenBong wrote:Abortions build character.

It would be interesting to put that on a bumper sticker and then park the car somewhere and videotape the reactions to it.

bane wrote:Still being debated? Where? In campaign speeches and pulpits maybe.

It is debated every time an abortion bill comes across the desk of a state legislature, state court, Congress or SCOTUS. It is debated in bars and homes across the US. It is being debated in this thread.

Otherwise it's just a bunch of trying to chip away at it with back door laws like the one I mentioned.

This is fallacy of petitio principii. You are assuming the correctness of the original law in order to make the argument that smaller allegedly incorrect laws are used to "chip away" it. You have to, at the very least, make an argument supporting the original law. I am trying to give you an opportunity to do so, but you haven't taken it.

It's interesting that you're so quick to slam the door on gun control discussions but claim that this one is still under debate.

Fallacy of tu quoque: The argument for or against gun control has no bearing on the debate over abortion. But just for the sake of argument, I'll indulge you, because that's how I roll. The first ten amendments are inalienable rights, meaning that they are bestowed upon you by birth and can never be taken away. The second amendment is clearly stated and supported by even a perfunctory glance at early American history and law. Similar rationale can be exhibited defending freedom of speech, the press and illegal search and seizure. Being absolutist about those rights is permissible because their importance is prima facie. To argue against those rights would be arguing against the principles on which the country was founded.

The so-called "right to abortion" is not an enumerated right and is based on a loose interpretation of the 14th amendment. The decision has been criticized by both ends of the political spectrum as having very little legal foundation and zero moral foundation. Even those supporting the legality of abortion preferred to do so at the legislative level.

Un-enumerated rights are prime candidates for argument and dissension and they are more important topics of discussion than enumerated rights.

Now answer my original question.

The gun control issue is relevant because the question of the individual right has always been up for debate because of the inclusion of the phrase "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...". You know this, even if you refuse to admit it because it hurts your argument. With that in mind, how is Roe vs. Wade any different? I'll answer for you. It isn't. I'm not going to argue whether or not I think abortion should be a legal practice. That's an entirely different can of worms. Currently, it is a legal practice, and until it isn't, I think back door legislation like this one is complete bullshit. It's no different than the gun control people chipping away by passing ammunition regulation laws.

bane wrote:The gun control issue is relevant because the question of the individual right has always been up for debate because of the inclusion of the phrase "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...". You know this, even if you refuse to admit it because it hurts your argument.

This doesn't hurt the pro-second amendment position as the majority in Heller demonstrated. The twisting of that clause is a new argument that has crept up in the last 50 years. Even taking the clause out the context of the whole amendment is weak; it has only gained traction because of the rise of critical theory in academia after WWII. In fact, there is an infallible way to know if the founding fathers meant that only state militia's have the right to bear arms; look at state laws in the 50 years after the end of the Revolutionary War. There are no provisions against citizens keeping arms in any state law during that time period, whether they were part of militia or not.

Furthermore there is a mountain of writings by the founding father's on the subject of the individual right to bear arms. Madison, Jefferson, Thomas Paine all wrote of the importance of the individuals right to protect his life, liberty, and property from either another individual or an unjust state. It, among other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, is what differentiated us from European States.

With that in mind, how is Roe vs. Wade any different? I'll answer for you.

I'll assume I'll receive a terse two word answer followed by no explanation.

It isn't.

That's a lotta dimp.

I'm not going to argue whether or not I think abortion should be a legal practice.

Apparently, since I've asked you three times now.

That's an entirely different can of worms.

Actually it isn't. Moral arguments are the basis for all laws. Avoiding it means you are either wrong or you can't articulate it.

Currently, it is a legal practice, and until it isn't,

As I said before, this mentality is nonsense and I've seen you use it before in an argument. It's an embarrassing appeal to law fallacy.

I think back door legislation like this one is complete bullshit.

Yes, you've repeated this before. However, you have failed to explain why it is so.

It's no different than the gun control people chipping away by passing ammunition regulation laws.

As stated before, the second amendment is an enumerated individual right and abortion isn't. Unless you can provide arguments that it is an individual right. I'll even settle for you cutting and pasting the majority opinion in Roe. Actually it would make my job much easier.

SeminiferousButtNoid wrote:Furthermore there is a mountain of writings by the founding father's on the subject of the individual right to bear arms. Madison, Jefferson, Thomas Paine all wrote of the importance of the individuals right to protect his life, liberty, and property from either another individual or an unjust state. It, among other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, is what differentiated us from European States.

Correct.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." - Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria, Criminologist in 1764.

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)

"The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" (George Washington)

"...Arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace." -Thomas Paine

It's very clear that these gentlemen are referring to civilians, and not just "well regulated Militias".

CrouchingStonerHiddenBong wrote:Pretty soon you'll have to pick out names for your ovarian cysts before you can have them removed.

I wouldn't worry about one until the third trimester or so.

Skate4RnR wrote:I wouldn't worry about one until the third trimester or so.

Wow, that's really outrageous. And despicable. Why not just kill the thing upon birth?

SeminiferousButtNoid wrote: I wanted to know what your moral position was on abortion since you brought up the fact that women that you knew felt guilty about it.

I've never made a secret of the fact that I don't believe in legislating morality.

As much as you fucking gun nuts love your guns, I love sucking fetuses (feti?) out of the womb.

Sure, I dress it all up in some bullshit about women controlling their bodies and "free choice" and shit, but I just LOVE the idea that all these little brats are being aborted before they are born.

You ever been to Park Slope, Brooklyn? More fucking kids than you can imagine. Strollers all over the place and shit. Even in BARS.

Abort. ABORT!!!!

Abortions are kinda like cars anyway. I'm pretty sure cars kill way more people than abortions...so maybe we should chip away at cars legislatively, too?

I'm thinking you should be forced to watch one of those 1950s auto safety movies showing all the mangled bodies before you can sign a lease for a new car.

Crazy Levi wrote: I'm thinking you should be forced to watch one of those 1950s auto safety movies showing all the mangled bodies before you can sign a lease for a new car.

You already are. They call it "Driver's Ed".