Texas abortion law: Judge blocks sonogram provisions

**N-Ur-Face** · 09-04-11, 08:58 PM

Okay so I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you should probably go about getting what's written above published.

**Pint** · 09-04-11, 10:11 PM

Originally Posted by N-Ur-Face

Okay so I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you should probably go about getting what's written above published.

Thanks.

I have been considering looking into publishing a blog, at one time I had an invite for a bloggers group that dealt with military concerns and associated topics, but being able to put up something weekly that kept with in those lines was not something that seemed doable for me. I can boast that I am technically a published essayist since two of mine have been printed, one in a college rag and another in a now defunct atheist newsletter that was based in San Antonio (there were plans to have it move to a digital format, but I have not looked to see if they did so) It would be nice to turn my hobby of writing into a small income source though. If I end up doing it I'll look into how I can let people know here according to the forum rules.

**Morningfrost** · 09-04-11, 10:36 PM

Originally Posted by SOPEK

Funny you say people’s choice should be respected but yet you don’t. And somehow expressing General Logic {or what you would say my side would say is logic} which I go by and thus equates to my logic and my belief somehow infringes or is force upon your beliefs. how does that work?

Ohh but I’m subjecting you to and “emotional heartstrings”.

Umm can you show me where I have pulled an emotional card or where I have played dirty or where I’m forcing you to believe?

You guys talk about other type of statistics as if you were to believe those But yet when it come to a statistic/s of the subject of what you disagree in you completely ‘crapped on’ and discredited.

but hey! The way I see it is you saw my logic and unconsciously you couldn’t hald it and lash out at me. But hey no hard feeling I know the subject is hard to take in, and when ethics and opinions are to be disregarded. But please allow me to express my logic without the disrespect.

Comments like those are pretty weak and disrespectful I hope you can refrain from such remarks. I guess I should too. sorry.

Sopek, you need to work on your reading skills. What I was referencing when talking about people's beliefs being pushed on others, is the law in it's original form, where the law was used as a tool by pro-life agendas to try and force their belief that abortion is bad upon others, specifically the pregnant patient. I don't know any other way to talk about something that tries to force a maternal bond other than referring to it as belief pressure. Also, my respecting people's choices is directly related to being pro-choice. It is your pro-life crowd that chooses not to respect people's choices, doing everything imaginable to prevent people from getting abortions even if they have to resort to underhanded means (such as fake abortion clinics). Because the pro-life groups choose not to respect the choices of others, it is hard to respect their choices because they are made by a book that also happens to state that I am allowed to own slaves as long as they are from another nation.

My comments can be interpreted as weak and disrespectful, but so is spouting that women who choose abortions do not possess compassion, or that a prostitute that gets raped deserves it because of her profession (btw, the majority of women in that profession are not there by choice). Judge not, Sopek, lest ye also be judged.

Originally Posted by SOPEK

As to my logic and/or my opinion about their quality of life the blame falls on society (Parents are a Given) Their success and or quality of life is depended on us (Society) not the state.

This sentence is hard to interpret, but it appears to me that you're saying it's the fault of society that the quality of life for unwanted children is poor....and while in a way that is a valid assumption, the blame falls more on individuals. Foster care does not provide a relatively poor quality of life because of society, it does so through poor foster parents being allowed into the program. It does so because few qualified parents choose to be foster parents. Society does not create those problems, individuals do for the most part. The quality of life for unwanted children who keep them is also not the fault of society. It is the fault of the parent who keeps a child they view as a burden, as an anchor weighing them down. The line for adoption is long because of beurocratic red tape, and the fact that most people would rather have a child of their own loins. Maybe with a few forms of population control, we'd be able to take better care of the people that are already here, rather than just continuing to pop them out like a Pez dispenser.

Also, as Pint pointed out....abstinence-only education is a joke, and doesn't work. The highest rates of teen pregnancies are amongst those who were taught abstinence-only sex-ed, because they weren't taught anything actually useful. People are going to have sex. It's been going on for a looooong time, and it's not going to stop happening before marriage just because you want it to. It's far better to teach teenagers the truth about sex, as well as effective measures of protection (such as the pill and condoms) rather than just say "Don't do that" and hope they listen....cause if there's one thing teenagers are known for, it's listening to their parents lol.

And quite honestly, the Catholic church shoulders a LOT of blame for this with their ban on condoms. If I recall an article I read a few months back correctly, the Pope was in Africa awhile back, and basically ended up telling the most AIDS-ridden continent on the planet that even though he felt sorry for their plight, Catholics still weren't allowed to use condoms due to their religion. Nice to know there's a product that can prevent the spread of a deadly disease, and the largest organized religious group in the world is still working with a rigid belief code set in the Dark Ages.

**SOPEK** · 09-05-11, 12:57 AM

Originally Posted by pint

About the law that forces women to be shown sonogram shots of the fetus is nothing more then emotional blackmail.

Exactly how is it an emotional blackmail I missed that part in you whole post. Care to elaborate?

Originally Posted by pint

A little back story on this tactic comes from the pro-life groups that set up shop in the same office parks as abortion clinics, they would deceptively make their “clinic” look like the abortion clinic a woman was looking for, nurses uniforms and the whole bit, they would play the part of being the abortion clinic the woman thought she was at to the point of lying when asked outright and would do a sonogram, and print it out with a “hello mommy” on the margin. I went to one in California quite a few years ago, I did not believe the article I read about how they conducted themselves, how they would lie, the place I went too actually had someone in the lobby of this office building asking women who went by if they wanted to “be escorted to 'the' clinic”, only to be shown to the fake one. Had an entertaining exchange while I was “waiting for my girlfriend” by a woman who walked in yelling at the receptionist for lying to her previously. The truly sad thing about this particular 'clinic' is that the clinic they were pretending to be was mostly prenatal care but also scheduled first trimester abortions.

What they did was wrong! so are you Generalizing

Originally Posted by pint

Arguments derived from popularity are generally weak, so linking figures that say X% of people agree with me is only useful for convincing or arguing against the ignorant

I only requested figures or statistics to be acknowledge too see the reasons of why abortion happen in the first place And to have an idea of the numbers per year. It wasn’t to show abortion is wrong and/or I’m right! It wasn’t for that purpose.

Originally Posted by pint

abortion is certainly not a debate at the level of chocolate or vanilla preference.

I don’t know what you are referring too?

Originally Posted by pint

Even in countries where abortion is absolutely illegal, and the mothers are subject to prison sentences if found out, they are still performed; more often than not by people who do not have the training/education to perform the procedure safely. That is a reason to have abortion be legal whether or not it is a good one is completely subjective, but I would submit that if your argument against abortion does not address that then it can be dismissed without apology. There are more examples including how much the timing of a pregnancy has on a woman’s ability to peruse career/social goals, how the number of children in a family effects the upbringing of existing children, splitting resources for college/vocational funds and attention being split by parents.

So what is you point there? All you’re saying is that in countries that have abortion illegal it’s still perform it in the prison if you are pregnant. In this country as you may obvious know it’s its own nation and has a completely different set of VALUES and laws from those that you speak of.

But again my purpose to look for figures is for people to acknowledge them.

Originally Posted by pint

You have also mentioned that if a woman wants to avoid unwanted pregnancy then she should practice abstinence. No study using broadly accepted information gathering techniques has shown abstinence to be superior to a comprehensive approach to human sexuality. If your main stick was with abortion then, since whether or not it is legal or not has little affect on them being practiced, then you would not cite abstinence as the best way to limit or lower abortion since the instance of unwanted pregnancy is higher among teens not educated along these lines. Its not a small difference, abstinence only education or preachment leads to a much higher instance of unwanted pregnancy, teen and otherwise, which leads to a higher instance of abortion.

What are you talking about? There’s no need for preaching or educating the kids.( Even though that wouldn’t hurt) but you don’t need to preach to them to understand abstinence.

IT’s pretty simple practice abstinence which means no sex = no chance or pregnancy. pretty logical no need to use much brain power.

But again education them where in school.(shoot I would like) but as soon as some tries to educate you child about certain ethics such as when to have sex people start crying about imposing their belief or their child.

Originally Posted by pint

but after reading your posts makes me think you might think of STD's as a punishment.

I do not seek physical o physiological punishment Just a point of reflection.*

Originally Posted by pint

So...wow. And I was like “I can't do character assassination since your character just swallowed the shotgun barrel” So a girl, likely homeless, is a bitch for the circumstances she is in? Not even going to comment on citing an episode of cops after you asked people to cite sources in favor of abortion. Really? An episode of cops as a reference for a pro-life stance? The only thing I can say is GTFO.

As to this ONE…YEAH I know I’ll take it. Believe or not The point I thought of this I knew I was and will hurt my character and my credibility.

I’ll say this rape is rape and even though I didn’t show it compassion and loosely used it I was wrong of me to use it and express myself in that matter.

But on the other had your assumption is wrong and it’s really not that hard to assume or actually believe there are escort in it for the that life money etc..

But yea I’ll take.

Originally Posted by pint

Faith driven people don't care about “life” they care about sin as defined by their flavor of religion. That is why despite huge amounts of evidence about the effectiveness of comprehensive sex education they are against it while also being against abortion, if life was the concern then this nonsensical correlation would not be. If the main concern was a vague valuing of life then you would think political points like war and the death penalty would be disfavored by the “faith driven” people as you define it, but that is not the case. This “I care about life” is nothing but dishonest ignorant empty piety. You mentioned compassion for the unborn but show a complete disregard for the women who finds herself in an unwanted pregnancy situation let alone thinking her body to be the only resource for income, wheres that Christian love folks like you are apt to thump about. One of the most articulately put observations of this contradiction is Gregory A. Boyd a protestant preacher, it has to sting when a preacher quotes the bible and shows how most American protestants are some of the worst people around.

Well ultimately I cannot comment and/or represent for (1) religious people (1)a particual religion (flavor of religion as you put it) or (3) religion itself but

My understand of the IDEA of what most religion or more so of Christianity that being the most common and expose in this nation to preach is 1.creationism and 2. Life As I said what Life entails I ASSUME is protect life itself and everything life relate.

Whether or not that fight is right is only bound by that who see’s it and is a matter of opinion.

So your justification of religious folk are a contradiction because

Originally Posted by pint

“if life was the concern then this nonsensical correlation would not be. If the main concern was a vague valuing of life then you would think political points like war and the death penalty would be disfavored by the “faith driven” people as you define it, but that is not the case.”

Is just an opinion. Your opinion.

Originally Posted by pint

You mentioned compassion for the unborn but show a complete disregard for the women who finds her self in an unwanted pregnancy situation let alone thinking her body.

I see it and take note of it. I should show more compassion. But in all you post I have yet to see your justification of irresponsibility.

Originally Posted by pint

wheres that Christian love folks like you are apt to thump about. One of the most articulately put observations of this contradiction is Gregory A. Boyd a protestant preacher, it has to sting when a preacher quotes the bible and shows how most American protestants are some of the worst people around.

This I consider a rant and expected from you.

Originally Posted by pint

From your cops episode post it boils down to “It's that sluts fault”, that Bitch should of known better, and then you attempt to give your argument some moral strength?

Again.Like I said thought of it I knew it was going to happen. *But speaking directly to you in your eyes.* if that’s how you wish to see me discredited me (not that I think that is your intention) but if that is how you wish to discredited or think low of me, from me to you. I have no problem it was predictied.

Originally Posted by pint

Your wrong that the question is not when a human life is a life, the question is what position do you want women to hold in our society?

The Question is: When a you consider human life to be life. Especially in the topic of abortion. Because Once you have define that question you are able to choice a side (not a position A side).

Abortion is not about equality or equality. You should know that. It’s ultimately what about what patient wants and her DECISION. how exactly does her position in society has to do with her decision or how is it unequal for her to be subject to description on last time inequality?

**SOPEK** · 09-05-11, 02:16 AM

MorningFrost I am no longer going to acknowledge you in this particular thread.

Originally Posted by MorningFrost

Sopek, you need to work on your reading skills…My comments can be interpreted as weak and disrespectful, but so is spouting that women who choose abortions do not possess compassion, or that a prostitute that gets raped deserves it because of her profession (btw, the majority of women in that profession are not there by choice). Judge not, Sopek, lest ye also be judged.

I mean really what load of contradiction and hypocracy you are saying I shouldn’t judge but yet your judging me…I mean come on!

But look Morning frost and others.

Originally Posted by MorningFrost

people's beliefs being pushed on others, is the law in it's original form, where the law was used as a tool by pro-life agendas to try and force their belief that abortion is bad upon others

dude we are going in circles.

(1) Any LAW,ACT, PROVISION etc… is always pushed/brought up by a particular group.(democrats, republicans. Pro-life,pro-choice, vegetarians,meaters,on,off etc) and they are all pushing forward their agendas. It just so happens this topic your opponent happens to be your worst enemy.

(2) What is really being ask too do? For the patient to be subjected to the sonogram ONE last time. *which btw Morningfrost you answer and saw my logic*

Where are they pushing their religious belief? And by religious I mean “Believe in GOD you heathen”, “YOU sinner” etc… where?

--NOW if you where to answer “the sonogram is not necessary”. well then Welcome to the case discussion and welcome to COURT.

Because it’s you right to appeal any law just because.

**CivilWars** · 09-05-11, 08:57 AM

Pint, et al,

Yes, you are correct, when abortion was illegal here people still did it, and in shady ways and places. Where it is illegal now people still do it in shady ways and places. You are all correct, we should be proud that we have such an advanced society that we don't require such stupid laws.

But wait, don't people still do drugs in our society? Don't 16 year old girls fall in love with 22 year old men? Why do we still have these archaic laws in place to prevent such things. America needs to progress to the 21 century and give rights to drug addicts and minors, or else we risk being the social outcast of the new world.

If you want to ignore the argument of "other people agree with me" then why can't others ignore the argument of "they are going to do it anyway," since it is just the same argument?

Sent from my UrMoms using Tapatalk

**Morningfrost** · 09-05-11, 10:52 AM

Originally Posted by SOPEK

MorningFrost I am no longer going to acknowledge you in this particular thread.

I mean really what load of contradiction and hypocracy you are saying I shouldn’t judge but yet your judging me…I mean come on!

I did not say that you shouldn't judge. "Judge not, lest ye also be judged" basically means that if you judge others you should expect to be judged yourself. I can live with people judging me, you seem to have an issue with that.

Originally Posted by SOPEK

But look Morning frost and others.

dude we are going in circles.

(1) Any LAW,ACT, PROVISION etc… is always pushed/brought up by a particular group.(democrats, republicans. Pro-life,pro-choice, vegetarians,meaters,on,off etc) and they are all pushing forward their agendas. It just so happens this topic your opponent happens to be your worst enemy.

(2) What is really being ask too do? For the patient to be subjected to the sonogram ONE last time. *which btw Morningfrost you answer and saw my logic*

Where are they pushing their religious belief? And by religious I mean “Believe in GOD you heathen”, “YOU sinner” etc… where?

--NOW if you where to answer “the sonogram is not necessary”. well then Welcome to the case discussion and welcome to COURT.

Because it’s you right to appeal any law just because.

Your point #1 is actually correct, but most laws that are actually passed at least have that agenda hidden somewhat. The original version of this law had a pretty blatant agenda, to be honest. Point #2 however, is a bit off base. It's not that the patient is being subjected to a sonogram (I actually have no problem with the law requiring one done), it's that they would have been forced to SEE the sonogram, or to have it described to them. That part of the law served no valid purpose, medical or otherwise, which is why it was tossed out. As for the pushing of religious beliefs....I said pro-life, not religious. Pro-life beliefs were being pushed on others.

Now is the sonogram necessary? No, it's really not in the grand scheme of things. However, the potential benefits of a relatively inexpensive test mean that it's not really an inconvenience either.

Btw, having read your response to Pint....Sex-ed in schools doesn't teach kids when to have sex. It teaches ABOUT sex, such as what the likely consequences of unprotected sex are (STDs, pregnancy, etc.). Abstinence-only education, however, basically teaches nothing other than that it's bad to have sex before marriage. Personally, I would prefer my child being able to make an informed decision about sex, and if they chose that route (which many do) I wouldn't agree with it, but I would hope they did so in a safe manner....which is more likely to happen if they're taught about things like protection and consequences.