Opinions and musings on religion, philosophy, science, politics, and life from a conservative Catholic neurosurgeon.
Planned Parenthood Closing Down 3 Abortion Clinics Following New Texas Law
Certainly good news for Texas. They seem to be leading the way in the fight against this horror. Let's all hope this precedent is followed by the other civilized regions about the world.
Mandating unnecessary regulation to intentionally harm private institutions is something the Republicans accuse the Democrats of all the time, as they blatantly and unapologetically do it themselves. Government intrusiveness is maximized when Republicans force women to have their vaginas probed unnecessarily as a condition to get an abortion. Using the government’s monopoly on violence to force pregnant women to have babies betrays the entire notion of freedom, liberty, and limited government. Hypocrites-KW
@KW:Laws against abortion don't "force women to have babies." It prevents women from killing the babies they have. The most basic job of government is to protect innocent life.
Having a baby and getting pregnant is not the same thing. When a woman gets pregnant nobody has ever said “you had a baby”. Moron.-KW
Popeye, that's a pretty amazing. I see you now understand how the past tense works. And you've really cleaned up your spelling. I'm quite pleased with your.... dare I say it?... progress.But you're right. Being pregnant in the present tense is being "with child" (dictionary.com).Getting pregnant is.... well, I'm sure you know the word for that, sailor.
@KW:I see. When you put it that way , the Texas law that "forces women to have babies" is pretty intrusive. It will force elderly women to have babies, virgins to have babies, women who use contraception to have babies. It's terrible for a law to force women to have babies.I was so naive to think that a law against abortion merely protected babies from being killed in the womb.
Next thing you know, they'll be forcing men to have babies.
Maybe this guy will reveal in his new book that the government forced him to have a baby. I wonder if he lives in Texas...http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/22/pregnant-man-thomas-beati_n_103157.html
KW, "Government intrusiveness is maximized when Republicans force women to have their vaginas probed unnecessarily as a condition to get an abortion."Kw, are you aware of what abortionists do in order to rip out the tiny baby from the woman's womb? Do you realize that results in 'vaginas [being] probed'?"Using the government’s monopoly on violence to force pregnant women to have babies betrays the entire notion of freedom, liberty, and limited government. "Violence? You mean against the unborn child? You have also seemed to massacred the whole constitutional bit. It goes like this 'Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.." They are in order for a reason. Your right to happiness, for example, does not TRUMP your unborn child's right to life. You're such a dolt, it is unreal.
Popeye brings up an interesting point about ultrasounds.If you watch a few of the anti-abortion videos that capture abortionists in candid moments, they never discuss the reality of what they do in plain terms. It's always cloaked in euphemisms or medical jargon.And Planned Parenthood despises ultrasounds, and is on record as saying:The Center [for REproductive Rights] argues that the ultrasound requirements violate the First Amendment rights of both the doctor and the patient by forcing physicians to deliver "politically-motivated communications to women." That's a pretty weird take on medical imaging, since many (if not most) Progdolytes would support the mandatory printing of disgusting medical images on packages of cigarettes. Personally, I support medical imaging in general, and the better we get at it, the better off we will be. As part of a routine stress test, I've watched my own heart beat on an ultrasound machine, and it was a fantastic experience.Given the tendency to euphemism and the sales pitches that are common in abortion mills, it seems to me that an ultrasound is simply good informed consent practice. Why should a woman be shielded from the truth about what's going on in her body?That's a rhetorical question, obviously, because seeing an ultrasound of that baby sometimes changes the mother's mind about the moral dimensions of abortion. Everybody knows that. The tiny hands and feet are clearly not a "clump of cells". Some women change their minds, and some go on to have the abortion. People argue about the relative percentages, but to the abortion mills it's a profit-loss problem.But if abortion is really "health care", as the Proglodytes claim, why not give women as much information as possible? It's still going to be their decision, just a better-informed one.
It's interesting how holding abortion "clinics" to the same medical standards as other surgical health care facilities starts shutting them down. Moving the maximum age to 20 weeks is a good start, though still considered barbaric in places like France. And ultrasounds? Again, requiring informed consent seems like a no-brainer in any field except abortion.
Another 'Hail, Satan!' moment of which the pro-aborts can be so proud.