New Texas Abortion Law

The forum for general posting. Come join the madness. :)
Message
Author
User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 20026
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: New Texas Abortion Law

#51 Post by Bob78164 » Thu Sep 02, 2021 5:21 pm

Beebs52 wrote:
Thu Sep 02, 2021 5:03 pm
Bob78164 wrote:
Thu Sep 02, 2021 4:51 pm
BackInTex wrote:
Thu Sep 02, 2021 4:48 pm
I wonder how different Bob's relationship was with his gestation center, what with him conscripting the use of of the womb and most of the nutritional intake, than I had with my mother.
I wonder if you've ever supported a woman who was forced to carry to term a pregnancy she did not want. --Bob
Have you?
Not morally equivalent. I would not force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term if she did not want to be pregnant. So my support would consist of doing what I can to ensure that she's the only person who gets to decide whether she remains pregnant. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Beebs52
Queen of Wack
Posts: 11869
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:38 am
Location: Location.Location.Location

Re: New Texas Abortion Law

#52 Post by Beebs52 » Thu Sep 02, 2021 5:24 pm

Bob78164 wrote:
Thu Sep 02, 2021 5:21 pm
Beebs52 wrote:
Thu Sep 02, 2021 5:03 pm
Bob78164 wrote:
Thu Sep 02, 2021 4:51 pm
I wonder if you've ever supported a woman who was forced to carry to term a pregnancy she did not want. --Bob
Have you?
Not morally equivalent. I would not force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term if she did not want to be pregnant. So my support would consist of doing what I can to ensure that she's the only person who gets to decide whether she remains pregnant. --Bob
So you wouldn't help someone who decided to have the baby. Got it.
Well, then

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 20026
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: New Texas Abortion Law

#53 Post by Bob78164 » Thu Sep 02, 2021 5:29 pm

Beebs52 wrote:
Thu Sep 02, 2021 5:24 pm
Bob78164 wrote:
Thu Sep 02, 2021 5:21 pm
Beebs52 wrote:
Thu Sep 02, 2021 5:03 pm
Have you?
Not morally equivalent. I would not force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term if she did not want to be pregnant. So my support would consist of doing what I can to ensure that she's the only person who gets to decide whether she remains pregnant. --Bob
So you wouldn't help someone who decided to have the baby. Got it.
Not what I said. I was specifically addressing the situation of a woman who does not want to be pregnant. A woman who has decided to carry the pregnancy to term has decided that she does want to be, or at least is willing to be, pregnant. And since that woman, presumably unknown to me, is able to actualize her own decisions, I feel no moral obligation to intervene in her life. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Beebs52
Queen of Wack
Posts: 11869
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:38 am
Location: Location.Location.Location

Re: New Texas Abortion Law

#54 Post by Beebs52 » Thu Sep 02, 2021 5:35 pm

And since that woman, presumably unknown to me, is able to actualize her own decisions, I feel no moral obligation to intervene in her life.
Moral obligation. Hmm. But you would intervene in the others...
Well, then

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 20026
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: New Texas Abortion Law

#55 Post by Bob78164 » Thu Sep 02, 2021 5:37 pm

Beebs52 wrote:
Thu Sep 02, 2021 5:35 pm
And since that woman, presumably unknown to me, is able to actualize her own decisions, I feel no moral obligation to intervene in her life.
Moral obligation. Hmm. But you would intervene in the others...
No, I would intervene in the political system to prevent other people from intervening in her life.

The principle is pretty easy. The woman gets to decide whether or not she wants to remain pregnant. I'll support her right to make that choice, whatever choice she elects. I'll oppose efforts to interfere with her ability to make her own choices. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Bob Juch
Posts: 24203
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:58 am
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
Contact:

Re: New Texas Abortion Law

#56 Post by Bob Juch » Thu Sep 02, 2021 9:12 pm

Image
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.

User avatar
kroxquo
Posts: 2479
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 12:24 pm
Location: On the Road to Kingdom Come
Contact:

Re: New Texas Abortion Law

#57 Post by kroxquo » Fri Sep 03, 2021 3:38 am

Bob78164 wrote:
Thu Sep 02, 2021 4:51 pm
BackInTex wrote:
Thu Sep 02, 2021 4:48 pm
I wonder how different Bob's relationship was with his gestation center, what with him conscripting the use of of the womb and most of the nutritional intake, than I had with my mother.
I wonder if you've ever supported a woman who was forced to carry to term a pregnancy she did not want. --Bob
Not to mention supporting the resulting child.
You live and learn. Or at least you live. - Douglas Adams

User avatar
BackInTex
Posts: 11322
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Location: In Texas of course!

Re: New Texas Abortion Law

#58 Post by BackInTex » Fri Sep 03, 2021 8:14 am

Bob Juch wrote:
Thu Sep 02, 2021 9:12 pm
Image
Translation:
If you don't want a kid to be sick, kill it.
If you don't want to take a kid to the doctor, kill it.
If a kid is going to die anyway, kill it.
If you don't want to teach a kid, kill it.
If you don't want a kid to go hungry, kill it.
- Advice brought to you by Democrats
..what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms.
~~ Thomas Jefferson

Spock
Posts: 3455
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 8:01 pm

Re: New Texas Abortion Law

#59 Post by Spock » Fri Sep 03, 2021 8:51 am

Bob#s>>" So my support would consist of doing what I can to ensure that she's the only person who gets to decide whether she remains pregnant. --Bob"<<<

So you are heading to Texas to work on the modern version of the Underground Railroad?

User avatar
Estonut
Evil Genius
Posts: 10142
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 1:16 am
Location: Garden Grove, CA

Re: New Texas Abortion Law

#60 Post by Estonut » Fri Sep 03, 2021 9:53 am

Bob Juch wrote:
Thu Sep 02, 2021 9:12 pm
Image
Half of these rankings are good things, but you're too dumb to realize that. You just copy & paste without any actual understanding.
A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.
Groucho Marx

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 19412
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: New Texas Abortion Law

#61 Post by silverscreenselect » Fri Sep 03, 2021 10:46 am

Estonut wrote:
Fri Sep 03, 2021 9:53 am
Half of these rankings are good things, but you're too dumb to realize that. You just copy & paste without any actual understanding.
I'm curious which of those you think is a good statistic. By the way, Georgia ranks 50th (ahead of only Louisiana, the stats take DC into account) in maternal mortality rates, so I guess Texas has a bit to brag about in that regard.
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
BackInTex
Posts: 11322
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Location: In Texas of course!

Re: New Texas Abortion Law

#62 Post by BackInTex » Fri Sep 03, 2021 11:34 am

silverscreenselect wrote:
Fri Sep 03, 2021 10:46 am
Estonut wrote:
Fri Sep 03, 2021 9:53 am
Half of these rankings are good things, but you're too dumb to realize that. You just copy & paste without any actual understanding.
I'm curious which of those you think is a good statistic. By the way, Georgia ranks 50th (ahead of only Louisiana, the stats take DC into account) in maternal mortality rates, so I guess Texas has a bit to brag about in that regard.
Texas is ranked 21st (where 1st is best) in infant mortality. Which is the combined result of the need and use of baby wellness checks and clinical care for infants. So knock those two off as irrelevant.

As far as school funding, most of the school funding is wasted money. A dollar doesn't educate any better than 10 when the kids and their parents don't give a crap. The US is well behind Japan and Korea in education yet we spend 25% and 39% more per student respectively.

That's 3 of the 6, or half.
..what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms.
~~ Thomas Jefferson

wbtravis007
Posts: 1013
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:15 pm
Location: Skipperville, Tx.

Re: New Texas Abortion Law

#63 Post by wbtravis007 » Fri Sep 03, 2021 2:16 pm

BackInTex wrote:
Fri Sep 03, 2021 11:34 am
silverscreenselect wrote:
Fri Sep 03, 2021 10:46 am
Estonut wrote:
Fri Sep 03, 2021 9:53 am
Half of these rankings are good things, but you're too dumb to realize that. You just copy & paste without any actual understanding.
I'm curious which of those you think is a good statistic. By the way, Georgia ranks 50th (ahead of only Louisiana, the stats take DC into account) in maternal mortality rates, so I guess Texas has a bit to brag about in that regard.
Texas is ranked 21st (where 1st is best) in infant mortality. Which is the combined result of the need and use of baby wellness checks and clinical care for infants. So knock those two off as irrelevant.

As far as school funding, most of the school funding is wasted money. A dollar doesn't educate any better than 10 when the kids and their parents don't give a crap. The US is well behind Japan and Korea in education yet we spend 25% and 39% more per student respectively.

That's 3 of the 6, or half.
Infant mortality isn't on the list.

SSS asked estonut which of those items on the list he regarded as a good statistic, after he posted this: Half of these rankings are good things, but you're too dumb to realize that. You just copy & paste without any actual understanding.

He hasn't answered that, and you haven't either.

User avatar
Estonut
Evil Genius
Posts: 10142
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 1:16 am
Location: Garden Grove, CA

Re: New Texas Abortion Law

#64 Post by Estonut » Fri Sep 03, 2021 6:23 pm

silverscreenselect wrote:
Fri Sep 03, 2021 10:46 am
Estonut wrote:
Fri Sep 03, 2021 9:53 am
Half of these rankings are good things, but you're too dumb to realize that. You just copy & paste without any actual understanding.
I'm curious which of those you think is a good statistic. By the way, Georgia ranks 50th (ahead of only Louisiana, the stats take DC into account) in maternal mortality rates, so I guess Texas has a bit to brag about in that regard.
I thought this was pretty clear.

As written, the list states the following:
Ranks 50th in uninsured women. That means that all other states have more uninsured women.
Ranks 43rd in maternal mortality. That means that 42 other states have more women dying during pregnancy, childbirth or within 42 days of the end of pregnancy,
Ranks 46th in child hunger. That means that 45 other states have more hungry children.
A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.
Groucho Marx

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 19412
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: New Texas Abortion Law

#65 Post by silverscreenselect » Fri Sep 03, 2021 7:30 pm

Estonut wrote:
Fri Sep 03, 2021 6:23 pm
silverscreenselect wrote:
Fri Sep 03, 2021 10:46 am
Estonut wrote:
Fri Sep 03, 2021 9:53 am
Half of these rankings are good things, but you're too dumb to realize that. You just copy & paste without any actual understanding.
I'm curious which of those you think is a good statistic. By the way, Georgia ranks 50th (ahead of only Louisiana, the stats take DC into account) in maternal mortality rates, so I guess Texas has a bit to brag about in that regard.
I thought this was pretty clear.

As written, the list states the following:
Ranks 50th in uninsured women. That means that all other states have more uninsured women.
Ranks 43rd in maternal mortality. That means that 42 other states have more women dying during pregnancy, childbirth or within 42 days of the end of pregnancy,
Ranks 46th in child hunger. That means that 45 other states have more hungry children.
And you didn't say "as written." You just said those were "good things." And they're not.
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
kroxquo
Posts: 2479
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 12:24 pm
Location: On the Road to Kingdom Come
Contact:

Re: New Texas Abortion Law

#66 Post by kroxquo » Fri Sep 03, 2021 7:56 pm

Estonut wrote:
Fri Sep 03, 2021 6:23 pm
silverscreenselect wrote:
Fri Sep 03, 2021 10:46 am
Estonut wrote:
Fri Sep 03, 2021 9:53 am
Half of these rankings are good things, but you're too dumb to realize that. You just copy & paste without any actual understanding.
I'm curious which of those you think is a good statistic. By the way, Georgia ranks 50th (ahead of only Louisiana, the stats take DC into account) in maternal mortality rates, so I guess Texas has a bit to brag about in that regard.
I thought this was pretty clear.

As written, the list states the following:
Ranks 50th in uninsured women. That means that all other states have more uninsured women.
Ranks 43rd in maternal mortality. That means that 42 other states have more women dying during pregnancy, childbirth or within 42 days of the end of pregnancy,
Ranks 46th in child hunger. That means that 45 other states have more hungry children.
With all due respect, you are misreading these figures.
Uninsured women - In Texas 23% of women are uninsured, the next lowest is Oklahoma at 21%. The lowest is the District of Columbia and Massachusetts with 3%.
https://www.kff.org/womens-health-polic ... -coverage/

Maternal Mortality - Texas - (34.5/1000) just behind Missouri (34.6/1000) and just ahead of South Carolina (27.9/1000). Lowest is Delaware, New Hampshire, and Vermont (0/1000) indicating that the number was so low as to be statistically meaningless
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state ... e-by-state

Child Hunger - Texas - 22.5% of children are in food insecure households, just behind Alabama with 22.3 and just ahead of Mississippi with 22.9%. North Dakota has the lowest rate with 9.8.
https://www.childrensdefense.org/policy ... er-tables/

There is no sane way that these numbers can be regarded as "good."
You live and learn. Or at least you live. - Douglas Adams

User avatar
mrkelley23
Posts: 5984
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:48 pm
Location: Somewhere between Bureaucracy and Despair

Re: New Texas Abortion Law

#67 Post by mrkelley23 » Sat Sep 04, 2021 7:29 am

kroxquo wrote:
Fri Sep 03, 2021 7:56 pm
Estonut wrote:
Fri Sep 03, 2021 6:23 pm
silverscreenselect wrote:
Fri Sep 03, 2021 10:46 am
I'm curious which of those you think is a good statistic. By the way, Georgia ranks 50th (ahead of only Louisiana, the stats take DC into account) in maternal mortality rates, so I guess Texas has a bit to brag about in that regard.
I thought this was pretty clear.

As written, the list states the following:
Ranks 50th in uninsured women. That means that all other states have more uninsured women.
Ranks 43rd in maternal mortality. That means that 42 other states have more women dying during pregnancy, childbirth or within 42 days of the end of pregnancy,
Ranks 46th in child hunger. That means that 45 other states have more hungry children.
With all due respect, you are misreading these figures.
Uninsured women - In Texas 23% of women are uninsured, the next lowest is Oklahoma at 21%. The lowest is the District of Columbia and Massachusetts with 3%.
https://www.kff.org/womens-health-polic ... -coverage/

Maternal Mortality - Texas - (34.5/1000) just behind Missouri (34.6/1000) and just ahead of South Carolina (27.9/1000). Lowest is Delaware, New Hampshire, and Vermont (0/1000) indicating that the number was so low as to be statistically meaningless
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state ... e-by-state

Child Hunger - Texas - 22.5% of children are in food insecure households, just behind Alabama with 22.3 and just ahead of Mississippi with 22.9%. North Dakota has the lowest rate with 9.8.
https://www.childrensdefense.org/policy ... er-tables/

Esto is being deliberately obtuse. He's playing the grammar Nazi card, saying that if Texas ranks 50th in uninsured women, that means they're the best at insuring women. He's saying that what it should say is that Texas ranks last in insured women, etc.

There is no sane way that these numbers can be regarded as "good."
For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled. -- Richard Feynman

User avatar
BackInTex
Posts: 11322
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Location: In Texas of course!

Re: New Texas Abortion Law

#68 Post by BackInTex » Sat Sep 04, 2021 5:49 pm

kroxquo wrote:
Fri Sep 03, 2021 7:56 pm

Child Hunger - Texas - 22.5% of children are in food insecure households, just behind Alabama with 22.3 and just ahead of Mississippi with 22.9%. North Dakota has the lowest rate with 9.8.
https://www.childrensdefense.org/policy ... er-tables/

There is no sane way that these numbers can be regarded as "good."
So what exactly does this Child Hunger metric mean? Texas has one of the lowest costs of living while also having one of the lowest unemployment rates and lots of open high paying jobs.

Over 1 in 5 Texas children live in a home where the responsible adults can't (or won't) properly provide for them? Then to me it means we have a higher rate of adults having made poor life choices that put them in a position where they can't properly, or won't as the case is much of the time, handle their own responsibilities and need the government to fulfill their adult responsibilities for them, i.e., more Democrat voters. This is not the kids' fault of course, but we are not doing what is necessary to the stop the cycle, so we continue the "Great Dependent Society".

Also, it looks like the metric is a percentage that participate in SNAP, not kids actually going hungry (just that might go hungry if they didn't get assistance). If that is he case, Texas IS taking care of them.

Oh, by the way, when you look at the 'under 5' metric, Texas is at 15.6% while California (that great "caring" bastion of compassion) is at 21.6%, 2nd to another bastion of Liberalism, Vermont which is at an astounding 23.1%
..what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms.
~~ Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
kroxquo
Posts: 2479
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 12:24 pm
Location: On the Road to Kingdom Come
Contact:

Re: New Texas Abortion Law

#69 Post by kroxquo » Sun Sep 05, 2021 6:12 am

BackInTex wrote:
Sat Sep 04, 2021 5:49 pm
kroxquo wrote:
Fri Sep 03, 2021 7:56 pm

Child Hunger - Texas - 22.5% of children are in food insecure households, just behind Alabama with 22.3 and just ahead of Mississippi with 22.9%. North Dakota has the lowest rate with 9.8.
https://www.childrensdefense.org/policy ... er-tables/

There is no sane way that these numbers can be regarded as "good."
So what exactly does this Child Hunger metric mean? Texas has one of the lowest costs of living while also having one of the lowest unemployment rates and lots of open high paying jobs.

Over 1 in 5 Texas children live in a home where the responsible adults can't (or won't) properly provide for them? Then to me it means we have a higher rate of adults having made poor life choices that put them in a position where they can't properly, or won't as the case is much of the time, handle their own responsibilities and need the government to fulfill their adult responsibilities for them, i.e., more Democrat voters. This is not the kids' fault of course, but we are not doing what is necessary to the stop the cycle, so we continue the "Great Dependent Society".

Also, it looks like the metric is a percentage that participate in SNAP, not kids actually going hungry (just that might go hungry if they didn't get assistance). If that is he case, Texas IS taking care of them.

Oh, by the way, when you look at the 'under 5' metric, Texas is at 15.6% while California (that great "caring" bastion of compassion) is at 21.6%, 2nd to another bastion of Liberalism, Vermont which is at an astounding 23.1%
This seems appropriate.

Image
You live and learn. Or at least you live. - Douglas Adams

Post Reply