A Trial in Philadelphia - Page 8 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-01-2013, 06:23 PM   #106
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,694
Local Time: 03:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
The bill reads:

SECTION 4. Section 245.010(a), Health and Safety Code, is
amended to read as follows:
(a) The rules must contain minimum standards to protect the
health and safety of a patient of an abortion facility and must
contain provisions requiring compliance with the requirements of
Subchapter B, Chapter 171. On and after September 1, 2014, the
minimum standards for an abortion facility must be equivalent to
the minimum standards adopted under Section 243.010 for ambulatory
surgical centers.

For more info on those standards:
Pdf - Main - Core Measure Solution Exchange
Link not working.

Why would one think that the standards of a clinic and an ambulatory surgical center be the same? That's similar to saying that a pre-school should have the same minimum standards of an Ivy League college since they're both places of education.

I don't mind re-examining the standards of these clinics, but making the standards so high and cost prohibitive is done so with only one motive in mind. Would you think that an OB/ GYN's office standards need to raised to almost that level? How about a dermatologists office, or even a dentists office, they have procedures done in those offices that are much more prone to infection or complications than what's done at a clinic that provides abortions.
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2013, 06:31 PM   #107
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,430
Local Time: 09:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Link not working.

I don't mind re-examining the standards of these clinics, but making the standards so high and cost prohibitive is done so with only one motive in mind.
A safe surgical environment for patients?

Quote:
Would you think that an OB/ GYN's office standards need to raised to almost that level? How about a dermatologists office, or even a dentists office, they have procedures done in those offices that are much more prone to infection or complications than what's done at a clinic that provides abortions.
I don't know...OSHA has some pretty high standards for medical and dental offices. http://www.osha.gov/Publications/OSHA3187/osha3187.html
__________________

__________________
nathan1977 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2013, 07:20 PM   #108
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,886
Local Time: 04:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
A safe surgical environment for patients?
Who said it was unsafe before?
__________________
PhilsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2013, 08:02 PM   #109
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,694
Local Time: 03:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post


I don't know...OSHA has some pretty high standards for medical and dental offices. http://www.osha.gov/Publications/OSHA3187/osha3187.html
But not that of a surgical center, right?
__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2013, 08:26 PM   #110
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 04:44 AM
I think the reason for the disconnect in this discussion is abundantly clear.

Nathan, you may be technically correct in your argument, but your inability (or refusal) to see what is clearly the motive behind this legislation is preventing others from taking your arguments at face value. It comes across as disingenuous. Suddenly, the pro-life legislators that sponsored this bill are primarily concerned with making sure that women are not injured when they go to get an abortion? Really? And the fact that almost all the abortion in clinics would have to shut down under the law is just an unfortunate, unintended consequence? Really?

No one thinks you're that dumb. Which is why no one is buying the plaintive, humble-guy "hey why can't we just talk about this" routine. It's not my intent to be harsh--you know I have mad respect for you--but I don't see much movement on either side of this discussion if there aren't some concessions.
__________________
maycocksean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2013, 10:04 PM   #111
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,430
Local Time: 09:44 AM
We all have to try to meet in the middle somewhere, Sean. Abortions that are safe and legal is a pretty good place to start, regardless of the motives behind the the legislators. If TX is indeed growing blue but still solidly red, why not start there? And why not start with a piece of legislation that actually maybe got some stuff righter than usual, and that makes at least a modicum of sense?

If real reform on a controversial issue is going to be achieved, it's not always going to be on the Left's terms.
__________________
nathan1977 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2013, 10:09 PM   #112
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,498
Local Time: 04:44 AM
Except that for most Americans, this issue isn't all that controversial, and is in fact settled law. What becomes controversial are efforts to chip away at rights in order for some conservatives to avoid being primaried.

It also lets us know what really matters to the conservative base, and it isn't debt or jobs or the Middle East.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2013, 10:20 PM   #113
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,430
Local Time: 09:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
Except that for most Americans, this issue isn't all that controversial, and is in fact settled law.
Oh come now Irvine. You of all people should know the power of speaking out against settled laws.
__________________
nathan1977 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2013, 10:21 PM   #114
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,498
Local Time: 04:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post

Oh come now Irvine. You of all people should know the power of speaking out against settled laws.

Roe is widely considered settled law.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2013, 10:27 PM   #115
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,886
Local Time: 04:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
Abortions that are safe and legal is a pretty good place to start, regardless of the motives behind the the legislators.
But that's not what the issue here is.
__________________
PhilsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2013, 11:04 PM   #116
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,430
Local Time: 09:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post

Roe is widely considered settled law.
So was DOMA. Everyone's drumbeat of justice sounds a little different. And given the number of American citizens who consider themselves pro-life, and given the numbers of people who protest every year at the Right to Life rally in Washington, I'm not convinced that it's as settled as you (seemed to dismissively) suggest that it is.
__________________
nathan1977 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2013, 11:07 PM   #117
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,430
Local Time: 09:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilsFan View Post
But that's not what the issue here is.
What is? The 20 week issue? The desire to bring clinics up to code? The desire to codify RU-486's instructions?

By all means, enlighten me.

Until then, I'd rather be technically right than bloody wrong.
__________________
nathan1977 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2013, 11:24 PM   #118
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,694
Local Time: 03:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
What is? The 20 week issue? The desire to bring clinics up to code? The desire to codify RU-486's instructions?

By all means, enlighten me.

Until then, I'd rather be technically right than bloody wrong.
Except that you are trying to be right on a technicality when the technicality isn't correct.

I mean look at your response to my medical office question, it was disingenuous as best.

You're not concerned that dermatologist and dentist use more scalpels and have more open tissue procedures and have more infections and more complications than clinics that provide abortions? Yet you're OK with OSHA having lesser standards than a surgical center, but somehow these clinics have to come up to the surgical center standards? That doesn't make sense in anyone's logical mind.
__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2013, 11:35 PM   #119
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,498
Local Time: 04:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post

So was DOMA. Everyone's drumbeat of justice sounds a little different. And given the number of American citizens who consider themselves pro-life, and given the numbers of people who protest every year at the Right to Life rally in Washington, I'm not convinced that it's as settled as you (seemed to dismissively) suggest that it is.


Ok, so you're saying Sean was right. You are being disingenuous.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2013, 12:24 AM   #120
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 04:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
We all have to try to meet in the middle somewhere, Sean. Abortions that are safe and legal is a pretty good place to start, regardless of the motives behind the the legislators. If TX is indeed growing blue but still solidly red, why not start there? And why not start with a piece of legislation that actually maybe got some stuff righter than usual, and that makes at least a modicum of sense?

If real reform on a controversial issue is going to be achieved, it's not always going to be on the Left's terms.
Or on the Right's.

If we're going to meet in the middle there at least to be a demonstration of good faith, though: "I'm going to put all my cards on the table and be straight with you. I'm not going to pretend that I'm promoting your agenda when in fact I'm promoting my own." Does that not make sense?

If you were simply to say: "Sure the Texas legislators want to effectively ban abortion in Texas through this legislation, but that doesn't have to be the outcome. This bill has some good stuff in it and that properly applied and funded, could be a win-win for all of us." I bet you'd find your audience immediately more amenable to at least hearing you out. Right now it sounds like the "rare" part for you in safe, legal, and rare, means simply making it more difficult to get an abortion, while for pro-choicers the "rare" comes through reducing the causes of unwanted pregnancy through birth control, education etc etc.

The larger problem with the whole abortion debate in this country is that both sides are arguing from the assumption that their opponents understand and frame the issue the way they do. We argue about all the wrong things; it's even in the names. Pro-life people assume that liberals don't care about innocent baby lives. Pro-choicer people assume that those woman-hating conservatives want to control women's bodies. While the majority of both sides essentially want the same thing.

The actual debate really is over whether abortion is the taking of a human life, and until we can agree on that issue, the rest of the debate won't make much sense at all. If pro-choice people could concede that the start of human life is at the very least fuzzy and that if we start rejoicing at being parents as soon as we find out we are pregnant and mourn a miscarriage like a death, moreso the further along in the pregnancy, than clearly abortion is a very serious thing akin to if not actually the taking of a human life. And if pro-lifers could concede that sometimes ending a human life for the sake of another human life is a necessity. Well then I think we could get somewhere.


I honestly am a little perplexed by the zeal among American Christians over this issue in years since Roe v. Wade. There's really no strong Biblical precedent or emphasis on this topic (indeed all our hand-wringing about the innocent lives is curious, given that in many Biblical stories there seemed to me no special consideration for the "innocent children" when there was an enemy to be slaughtered.) The Catholic church, I get, as it has always had a stringent, but consistent view about when life begins. But the evangelical apoplexy suddenly appearing in the last century seems. . .off to me.
__________________

__________________
maycocksean is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com