(07-15-2013 01:06 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 01:00 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 12:50 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 12:45 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 12:40 PM)john01992 Wrote:  ive already mentioned this multiple times on the other thread. the texas bill has 4 main parts......you only mentioned 3......

the 4th part practically bans all forms of abortion inducing medication........

but yeah....this bill is all about safety & womens rights

So it's the drugs you have a problem with? Why?

anytime politics/religion dictates the direction of science or medicine.....the general public losses every single time

Which part of this bill is religious?

oh i dunno....the part where the anti abortion movement is fueled by religion. (not the entire movement, but the vast majority)

There are pleanty of atheist libertarians who think killing a baby in the womb at 5 months is barbaric..

So when you can not find anything wrong with this law as it stands you attack groups who might support it.

Not exactly a logical or scientific approach..

(07-15-2013 01:11 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 01:06 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 01:00 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 12:50 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 12:45 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  So it's the drugs you have a problem with? Why?

anytime politics/religion dictates the direction of science or medicine.....the general public losses every single time

Which part of this bill is religious?

oh i dunno....the part where the anti abortion movement is fueled by religion. (not the entire movement, but the vast majority)

There are pleanty of atheist libertarians who think killing a baby in the womb at 5 months is barbaric..

So when you can not find anything wrong with this law as it stands you attack groups who might support it.

Not exactly a logical or scientific approach..

what you call "plenty" = nowhere near a sizable fraction of the anti abortion movement

(07-15-2013 01:09 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 12:58 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  well since "ambulatory" has absolutely zero to do with an ambulance in this context of the word, I'm going to ignore this thread because you are an idiot.

Funny I thought I posted the Texas standards. Run away little lamb you can't admit this is a reasonable bill..

Yeah, did you actually read it? The word ambulance is in there exactly twice. Ambulatory does not mean ambulance in this context you nonce. Maybe you should learn about medicine before you start trying to pass laws regulating it

(07-15-2013 12:59 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 12:52 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 12:50 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 12:48 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  And when the hospital in the area refuses to give the doctor priviledges? That is the main issue.

Then the hospital can lose it's accreditation.. You do know thay are answerable for whom the grant/deny access to..

are all hospitals in texas legally required to give abortion doctors privileges of they ask for it?

Hospitals in Texas are accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care. If you want your doctors to be able to have malpractice, if you want loans for new equipment, if you want to function as a hospital you need to be accredited.

All of these agencies look at both the rights granted and denied by hospitals.

it wouldnt surprise me if they have exceptions to abortions, plus a lot of these hospitals are secular

(07-15-2013 01:15 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 01:11 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 01:06 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 01:00 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 12:50 PM)john01992 Wrote:  anytime politics/religion dictates the direction of science or medicine.....the general public losses every single time

Which part of this bill is religious?

oh i dunno....the part where the anti abortion movement is fueled by religion. (not the entire movement, but the vast majority)

There are pleanty of atheist libertarians who think killing a baby in the womb at 5 months is barbaric..

So when you can not find anything wrong with this law as it stands you attack groups who might support it.

Not exactly a logical or scientific approach..

what you call "plenty" = nowhere near a sizable fraction of the anti abortion movement

I think I told you several times here and on the old board that my view, my pro life stance has nothing to do with religion. The words of Jesus have no bearing on how I feel about killing an unborn baby.

(07-15-2013 12:50 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 12:45 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 12:40 PM)john01992 Wrote:  ive already mentioned this multiple times on the other thread. the texas bill has 4 main parts......you only mentioned 3......

the 4th part practically bans all forms of abortion inducing medication........

but yeah....this bill is all about safety & womens rights

So it's the drugs you have a problem with? Why?

anytime politics/religion dictates the direction of science or medicine.....the general public losses every single time

So science and medicine should not be constrained by ethics?

It's amusing that every lib comes in with the same willful ignorance of history and philosophy, in addition to their ignorance of science, math and reason.

saying the anti abortion movement is not fueled by religion is like saying amy whinehouse's never used drugs

(07-15-2013 01:21 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 12:50 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 12:45 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 12:40 PM)john01992 Wrote:  ive already mentioned this multiple times on the other thread. the texas bill has 4 main parts......you only mentioned 3......

the 4th part practically bans all forms of abortion inducing medication........

but yeah....this bill is all about safety & womens rights

So it's the drugs you have a problem with? Why?

anytime politics/religion dictates the direction of science or medicine.....the general public losses every single time

So science and medicine should not be constrained by ethics?

It's amusing that every lib comes in with the same willful ignorance of history and philosophy, in addition to their ignorance of science, math and reason.

but whose ethics?

the ethics saying that killing a fetus is wrong? or the logic that no law can account for every medical event, or the ethics that govt shouldnt tell a women what she can do with her body, or the philosophy that religion shouldnt influence legislation

(07-15-2013 01:22 PM)john01992 Wrote:  saying the anti abortion movement is not fueled by religion is like saying amy whinehouse's never used drugs

what part of the bill are you against. Why? Be specific please.

(07-15-2013 01:22 PM)john01992 Wrote:  saying the anti abortion movement is not fueled by religion is like saying amy whinehouse's never used drugs

You are wrong, but inadvertently making a case that only religious people have regard for the lives of unborn babies.

Religion does not create human nature. It only gives explanation to it and gives it a parameter.

(07-15-2013 01:25 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 01:22 PM)john01992 Wrote:  saying the anti abortion movement is not fueled by religion is like saying amy whinehouse's never used drugs

what part of the bill are you against. Why? Be specific please.

Funny I thought I posted the Texas standards. Run away little lamb you can't admit this is a reasonable bill..

imma answer both of you guys in one post

i compare this bill to the voter ID issue, a sensible reasonable argument from the conservative side. but they.......

1. try to push this type of legislation through state senates very fast and not using normal procedures. they say "oh its not political....its in the general intrest of the public". but if that was the truth they would let this legislation be passed bi partisan, allowing months of debate, amendments be added and let it be implemented over a long period of time so that this can be implemented without disenfranchising voters, or putting an unnecessary burden on abortion clinics

2. voter fraud is not coming close to affecting elections, & the vast majority of abortion clinics are not coming close to having high percentages of death rates, complications, abuse etc.

these are two made up problems with reasonable "fixes" being implemented in a way to allow a hidden agenda affect voters/abortion clinics

(07-15-2013 01:40 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 01:25 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 01:22 PM)john01992 Wrote:  saying the anti abortion movement is not fueled by religion is like saying amy whinehouse's never used drugs

what part of the bill are you against. Why? Be specific please.

Funny I thought I posted the Texas standards. Run away little lamb you can't admit this is a reasonable bill..

imma answer both of you guys in one post

i compare this bill to the voter ID issue, a sensible reasonable argument from the conservative side. but they.......

1. try to push this type of legislation through state senates very fast and not using normal procedures. they say "oh its not political....its in the general intrest of the public". but if that was the truth they would let this legislation be passed bi partisan, allowing months of debate, amendments be added and let it be implemented over a long period of time so that this can be implemented without disenfranchising voters, or putting an unnecessary burden on abortion clinics

2. voter fraud is not coming close to affecting elections, & the vast majority of abortion clinics are not coming close to having high percentages of death rates, complications, abuse etc.

these are two made up problems with reasonable "fixes" being implemented in a way to allow a hidden agenda affect voters/abortion clinics

#FAIL


Answer the question. You know...the one I asked.

(07-15-2013 01:18 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 01:15 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 01:11 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 01:06 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 01:00 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Which part of this bill is religious?

oh i dunno....the part where the anti abortion movement is fueled by religion. (not the entire movement, but the vast majority)

There are pleanty of atheist libertarians who think killing a baby in the womb at 5 months is barbaric..

So when you can not find anything wrong with this law as it stands you attack groups who might support it.

Not exactly a logical or scientific approach..

what you call "plenty" = nowhere near a sizable fraction of the anti abortion movement

I think I told you several times here and on the old board that my view, my pro life stance has nothing to do with religion. The words of Jesus have no bearing on how I feel about killing an unborn baby.

yeah and were supposed to think your view is the only one lawmakers are hearing, not the churches or religious nuts who have "by far" the biggest affect on lawmakers. or the obvious trend that countries with the tougest abortion laws are generally secular or catholic

(07-15-2013 01:41 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 01:40 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 01:25 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 01:22 PM)john01992 Wrote:  saying the anti abortion movement is not fueled by religion is like saying amy whinehouse's never used drugs

what part of the bill are you against. Why? Be specific please.

Funny I thought I posted the Texas standards. Run away little lamb you can't admit this is a reasonable bill..

imma answer both of you guys in one post

i compare this bill to the voter ID issue, a sensible reasonable argument from the conservative side. but they.......

1. try to push this type of legislation through state senates very fast and not using normal procedures. they say "oh its not political....its in the general intrest of the public". but if that was the truth they would let this legislation be passed bi partisan, allowing months of debate, amendments be added and let it be implemented over a long period of time so that this can be implemented without disenfranchising voters, or putting an unnecessary burden on abortion clinics

2. voter fraud is not coming close to affecting elections, & the vast majority of abortion clinics are not coming close to having high percentages of death rates, complications, abuse etc.

these are two made up problems with reasonable "fixes" being implemented in a way to allow a hidden agenda affect voters/abortion clinics

#FAIL


Answer the question. You know...the one I asked.

oh i see, cant make a counter argument so you just add a #FAIL

and FYI i answered your question perfectly.

(07-15-2013 01:46 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 01:41 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 01:40 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 01:25 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 01:22 PM)john01992 Wrote:  saying the anti abortion movement is not fueled by religion is like saying amy whinehouse's never used drugs

what part of the bill are you against. Why? Be specific please.

Funny I thought I posted the Texas standards. Run away little lamb you can't admit this is a reasonable bill..

imma answer both of you guys in one post

i compare this bill to the voter ID issue, a sensible reasonable argument from the conservative side. but they.......

1. try to push this type of legislation through state senates very fast and not using normal procedures. they say "oh its not political....its in the general intrest of the public". but if that was the truth they would let this legislation be passed bi partisan, allowing months of debate, amendments be added and let it be implemented over a long period of time so that this can be implemented without disenfranchising voters, or putting an unnecessary burden on abortion clinics

2. voter fraud is not coming close to affecting elections, & the vast majority of abortion clinics are not coming close to having high percentages of death rates, complications, abuse etc.

these are two made up problems with reasonable "fixes" being implemented in a way to allow a hidden agenda affect voters/abortion clinics

#FAIL


Answer the question. You know...the one I asked.

oh i see, cant make a counter argument so you just add a #FAIL

and FYI i answered your question perfectly.

#FAIL

What part of the bill do you disagree with. Why?

Lets try this again.

(07-15-2013 01:47 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 01:46 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 01:41 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 01:40 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 01:25 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  what part of the bill are you against. Why? Be specific please.

Funny I thought I posted the Texas standards. Run away little lamb you can't admit this is a reasonable bill..

imma answer both of you guys in one post

i compare this bill to the voter ID issue, a sensible reasonable argument from the conservative side. but they.......

1. try to push this type of legislation through state senates very fast and not using normal procedures. they say "oh its not political....its in the general intrest of the public". but if that was the truth they would let this legislation be passed bi partisan, allowing months of debate, amendments be added and let it be implemented over a long period of time so that this can be implemented without disenfranchising voters, or putting an unnecessary burden on abortion clinics

2. voter fraud is not coming close to affecting elections, & the vast majority of abortion clinics are not coming close to having high percentages of death rates, complications, abuse etc.

these are two made up problems with reasonable "fixes" being implemented in a way to allow a hidden agenda affect voters/abortion clinics

#FAIL


Answer the question. You know...the one I asked.

oh i see, cant make a counter argument so you just add a #FAIL

and FYI i answered your question perfectly.

#FAIL

What part of the bill do you disagree with. Why?

Lets try this again.

i disagree with the 4th part of the bil (abortion inducing medication ban) but the biggest reason i disagree with this bill was the way it was implemented

saying "why do you disagree with this bill?....but you can only refer to the bill itself and not how it was implemented."

is like a restaurant owner........

saying "why is my restaurant terrible?...but you can only cite the (tasty) food as an example and not the (******) service.

get a freaking clue dude....

(07-15-2013 12:40 PM)john01992 Wrote:  ive already mentioned this multiple times on the other thread. the texas bill has 4 main parts......you only mentioned 3......

the 4th part practically bans all forms of abortion inducing medication........

but yeah....this bill is all about safety & womens rights

Exactly how does a requirement that they follow FDA protocol "ban" abortion drugs? If you don't like the protocol, the FDA can change it.

The law basically says you must use drugs approved by the FDA for inducing an abortion, as opposed to some other drug that has an "off label" use as an abortion drug. Does it not make sense to you that something the FDA has approved for use as an abortion drug is safer than something they have not? I'll join with you 100% that the FDA is slow and often a problem... but the state is not the problem here.

Using drugs for their approved purpose.

Making sure that facilities are equipped to deal with reasonable complications

Making sure that the doctors can't practice bad/unqualified/unregulated medicine and then let the patients die or dump their mistakes on an ER without recourse and review

Yes, these stop you from getting an abortion from an unqualified person at an unsanitary or unregulated place... but it doesn't stop you from getting one.

These aren't in ANY way a "war on women". It MIGHT be a war on bad doctors with dirty clinics, but MOST people would consider that a good thing.

(07-15-2013 12:59 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 12:52 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 12:50 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 12:48 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  And when the hospital in the area refuses to give the doctor priviledges? That is the main issue.

Then the hospital can lose it's accreditation.. You do know thay are answerable for whom the grant/deny access to..

are all hospitals in texas legally required to give abortion doctors privileges of they ask for it?

Hospitals in Texas are accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care. If you want your doctors to be able to have malpractice, if you want loans for new equipment, if you want to function as a hospital you need to be accredited.

All of these agencies look at both the rights granted and denied by hospitals.

Yep, BIE.

Johns... There's no such thing as an abortion doctor. Doctors who perform abortions are usually OB/GYNs. They have specialized training to deal with incomplete abortions, D&C and other complications of abortions. GPs would not generally have this training or competency. Hospitals would deny privileges to unqualified doctors or doctors with poor histories on outcomes.

Absolutely, these measures are designed to eliminate unqualified and unskilled doctors from practicing the sort of medicine they are unqualified for or have shown unusually poor outcomes.

I fail to see the problem with that and other than because they hate women who want abortions and want them to die, I don't know why Democrats are against their safety.

(07-15-2013 01:54 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 01:47 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 01:46 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 01:41 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 01:40 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Funny I thought I posted the Texas standards. Run away little lamb you can't admit this is a reasonable bill..

imma answer both of you guys in one post

i compare this bill to the voter ID issue, a sensible reasonable argument from the conservative side. but they.......

1. try to push this type of legislation through state senates very fast and not using normal procedures. they say "oh its not political....its in the general intrest of the public". but if that was the truth they would let this legislation be passed bi partisan, allowing months of debate, amendments be added and let it be implemented over a long period of time so that this can be implemented without disenfranchising voters, or putting an unnecessary burden on abortion clinics

2. voter fraud is not coming close to affecting elections, & the vast majority of abortion clinics are not coming close to having high percentages of death rates, complications, abuse etc.

these are two made up problems with reasonable "fixes" being implemented in a way to allow a hidden agenda affect voters/abortion clinics

#FAIL


Answer the question. You know...the one I asked.

oh i see, cant make a counter argument so you just add a #FAIL

and FYI i answered your question perfectly.

#FAIL

What part of the bill do you disagree with. Why?

Lets try this again.

i disagree with the 4th part of the bil (abortion inducing medication ban) but the biggest reason i disagree with this bill was the way it was implemented

saying "why do you disagree with this bill?....but you can only refer to the bill itself and not how it was implemented."

is like a restaurant owner........

saying "why is my restaurant terrible?...but you can only cite the (tasty) food as an example and not the (******) service.

get a freaking clue dude....

read the thread again. Bull mentioned that part of the bill was removed.

(07-15-2013 12:48 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  No it did not the Democrats attempted to amend the Bill to expand current options. That amendment was rejected.

(07-15-2013 01:59 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 01:54 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 01:47 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 01:46 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 01:41 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  #FAIL


Answer the question. You know...the one I asked.

oh i see, cant make a counter argument so you just add a #FAIL

and FYI i answered your question perfectly.

#FAIL

What part of the bill do you disagree with. Why?

Lets try this again.

i disagree with the 4th part of the bil (abortion inducing medication ban) but the biggest reason i disagree with this bill was the way it was implemented

saying "why do you disagree with this bill?....but you can only refer to the bill itself and not how it was implemented."

is like a restaurant owner........

saying "why is my restaurant terrible?...but you can only cite the (tasty) food as an example and not the (******) service.

get a freaking clue dude....

read the thread again. Bull mentioned that part of the bill was removed.

(07-15-2013 12:48 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  No it did not the Democrats attempted to amend the Bill to expand current options. That amendment was rejected.

bull is right.....
that part of the bill was included

awesome-

whats your response to this? cuz so far you have none.....

i compare this bill to the voter ID issue, a sensible reasonable argument from the conservative side. but they.......

1. try to push this type of legislation through state senates very fast and not using normal procedures. they say "oh its not political....its in the general intrest of the public". but if that was the truth they would let this legislation be passed bi partisan, allowing months of debate, amendments be added and let it be implemented over a long period of time so that this can be implemented without disenfranchising voters, or putting an unnecessary burden on abortion clinics

2. voter fraud is not coming close to affecting elections, & the vast majority of abortion clinics are not coming close to having high percentages of death rates, complications, abuse etc.

these are two made up problems with reasonable "fixes" being implemented in a way to allow a hidden agenda affect voters/abortion clinics