Planned Parenthood objects to upgrade requirements now legally placed on their “women’s health care” abbatoirs. Incorporating modern health practices is not in the cards for many of the human abbatoirs, and so they close down.
“Some 22 states enacted 70 new provisions to target abortion last year, the second most ever, prompting an outcry from Planned Parenthood, which accused “out-of-touch Tea Party politicians” with using “every underhanded trick in the book to get these laws passed.”There must be NO parent involved in a child's abortion; there must be NO waiting period to think it over; there must be NO ultrasound to show a moving, living unborn child; there must be NO oversight of abortion clinics by anyone, ever; on and on. This is "women's health care", and/or "privacy?", and/or CHOICE to kill one's progeny without any moral qualms, and/or all of the above... IFF you are a human female-supremicist and a moral arbiter who is morally qualified to kill other humans at any stage of human development and life.
A new report from the Guttmacher Institute said that the 70 provisions were second in number to the nearly 90 approved in 2011. The group said that 205 abortion restrictions were approved over the past three years, more than the 189 enacted during the previous decade.
The report also noted that many states increased access to abortion, such as California, but it was mostly critical of the more conservative states and efforts to reduce abortion.
Among the examples of “abortion restrictions” cited by the report were provisions by states to involve parents in the decision by a child to get an abortion, waiting periods, public funding and counseling.”
7 comments:
Some sort of leftist government wins your state. You own a gun store.
The government knows gun sales are legal but restricts the sale to gun stores only.
The government imposes restrictions on the size of the closets in gun stores. No gun stores have closets this size.
Some shut down, some do expensive renovations.
The government mandates the material and size of the doors in the gun store. Ever gun store with different doors will be forcibly shut down.
Some shut down, some do expensive renovations.
The government mandates that everyone buying a gun must be forced to have an ultrasound wand inserted into their body. The wand has no medical benefit.
The government makes laws on the size of the parking lot, the water fountains, the air conditioning, the size of the hallways... all designed to be impossible to meet. They call them "upgrade requirements".
Still a good idea, Stan?
You want to deal in analogies, rather than to defend the position being discussed. All analogies fail, some just sooner than others. your analogies fail at the starting gate. Here's why:
Abortion abbatoirs guarantee the death of 50% of the individuals who enter the establishment, at the hand of the operators of that establishment. Half who enter will be killed inside by personal attack on the defenseless.
So the businesses are entirely different, since the patrons of gun establishments leave intact and with the ability to defend themselves from personal attack.
So the analogy fails at the gate. However, it is plain to the casual observer that the killing abbatoir has the singular intent of performing an invasive operation on human females, and they intend to keep all information secret in order to protect themselves from external scrutiny. Further they have no intention of proving either the sanitation or the efficacy of their operations, unlike REAL health care centers which perform invasive operations.
If women had to register for permission to obtain an abortion, the same as a person must register for permission to purchase a self defense mechanism, the Left would come completely unglued; however, the restrictions on owning a self defense mechanism seem OK to the Left, but there should be no restrictions on the killing of one's progeny so long as it is a Leftist approved killing... even those restrictions which might result in changing inevitability of the killing into the production of a living human.
For the Left, any woman considering an abortion must be aborted quickly and never given any chance at either education or reflection regarding the consequences of her selfish impulse.
Don't bother arguing that abortion is not selfish: 55,000,000 dead humans cannot have been created due to the "health" of the mother: that is an obvious Leftist lie.
Leftist killing of progeny has created a holocaust beyond that of WWII and approaching that of the Atheist-Leftist massacres of the 20th century "humanist" experiments.
I should add this: pretending to be a libertarian when attempting to defend the killing of humans is transparently a failure, as well. Not only that, it is a disgustingly transparent affectation adopted purely as a feeble rhetorical device. The defense of killing under the banner of liberal moral authority is always obvious, because there is no other way to defend it. So there is no rational defense for it, period.
All defenses are blatantly false appeals to emotions: Women's Right (to kill her progeny); Women's health care (only by killing her progeny); Women's Right to privacy (to kill whoever she wants so long as it's private); Women's Right to her own sexual decisions (so long as it includes killing her progeny); Women's right to her own body (so long as it includes the right to kill her own progeny).
It is all about killing. And the moral authority to decide who gets killed under the banner of Leftism.
Do you even understand what the analogy is about?
This is not meant as an insult.
Stan, you seem to have a problem with understanding analogies. You've worked as an engineer. You were upset with the redefinition of autism. You are extremely obsessed with a few topics. And other people's emotions don't seem to exist in your world.
You are the mirror image of my brother in law who in on the spectrum too.
Anne,
If you want to argue a subject directly, on its merits, then kindly do so. That is exactly what is not being done here. The argument is compared incorrectly with a completely unrelated issue, one which is used specifically to obscure the particular subject. The subject is the killing parlors used by abortionists who claim to be concerned with women's health care, yet cannot be coerced into providing actual health care rather than targeted killing.
If you wish to discuss this, then do so head-on. No phony analogies, fallacies, changing definitions, implications of Messiahist moral supremacy or any of the other rhetorical escape routes which the Left loves. Discuss why a juvenile must be aborted without parental notification. That's a good primary indicator of the Leftist program: to kill immediately without interference. Certainly without oversight for what they actually do in secrecy (which is to kill).
Address the actual issues, then, and we can discuss it.
If I understand the gun store analogy correctly, the basis of the question is this:
how would you like it if the government stepped in and (over?)-regulated an industry that you perceived to be valuable/necessary and/or functioning adequately without the government's interference?
Do I have that right?
If so, then Stan's answer is perhaps only lacking in one way. He didn't say, "I wouldn't like it."
Of course, I'm almost willing to bet (even though I'm only a recent reader of this blog) that Stan would simply begin with such a statement, and would then continue as follows:
"I wouldn't like it, HOWEVER..."
At which point everything else he typed would supply the functional counter-argument to the analogy, which attempted to corner Stan on some kind of emotional level, while at the same time obfuscating the glaring and appalling differences between the analogies.
What he attempted was to equate the abridgement of a Constitutional right with the enforcement of health procedures on a secretive, recalcitrant faux "health" service which actually provides killing humans as a service.
There is no comparison to be made whatsoever, except that the author of that comparison considers services to kill humans to be comparable to a human right. Killing other humans is not a human right; only the morally disturbed would consider such a comparison.
Post a Comment