• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Texas will require burial of aborted fetuses

That's not even in the ballpark of plausibility.

Also, please don't use the phrase "slippery slope" when talking about the contents of a used condom.

I mean I thought requiring aborted fetuses at any point of gestation to be buried was outside the ballpark of plausibility too, but clearly it's not.
 
That's not even in the ballpark of plausibility.

Also, please don't use the phrase "slippery slope" when talking about the contents of a used condom.

I'm going to wait for Creamy Goodness to weigh in here.
 
That's not even in the ballpark of plausibility.

Also, please don't use the phrase "slippery slope" when talking about the contents of a used condom.

I'm just immature enough to find this funny.

I'm going to wait for Creamy Goodness to weigh in here.

Moar Sex ! Less babies! Mind is fried for the day. That's all I got.
 
For those joking about this subject, do you think abortion should be rare as well as safe and legal?
 
The "life begins at conception" idea is going to be thrown out the window within our lifetime or at the very least the idea of conception will change.
 
So if life starts at conception, does that mean IVF labs will have to bury all the eggs that it doesn't implant into its patients?
 
Without commenting on the wisdom of this law from a policy standpoint, I can't see how it would be unconstitutional. It doesn't impose any burden on the mother, much less an undue burden. Presumably, opponents will focus on increased costs to the provider, but it isn't like the landfill is free. In any event, the legislature should have the ability to enact laws that it views as designed to uphold what it views as the sanctity of life (not mention the santitation of the process) even if those laws result in marginal increased costs.

The courts already turned this down in Indiana.

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/...ary-injunction-indiana-abortion-law/86556662/

The law also called for abortion providers to bury or cremate fetal tissue. The state contended that this maintained dignity for the potential life represented by the fetus.

Planned Parenthood argued that a patient who chooses to take possession of the fetal tissue is not held to the same standard under the law and can dispose of it as she sees fit. Planned Parenthood also noted that the burial or cremation requirement could increase its expenses between two- and four-fold.

This was, Pratt wrote, "a much closer call." But she said the court would likely still be to rule in favor of Planned Parenthood, because the law does not recognize a fetus as a person. As such, she said there was "no legal basis for the state to treat fetal remains with 'the same' dignity as human remains."

"To be clear," Pratt wrote, "whether or not an individual views fetal tissue as essentially the same as human remains is each person’s own personal and moral decision. ... The Court cannot resolve this moral question. But as a legal question, there is currently no basis which would allow this Court to recognize fetal tissue as such."
 
Did someone say new hair?????????

Exactly, let's not lose sight of what's important here. There are 2 main drivers of scientific progress - helping aging men with boners and hair.
 
No one is required to bury anything. That's what happens when you stop reading after the headline.

So will the clinics have to bury OR cremate and legally spread the ashes of its un-inplanted eggs?
 
My wife gave birth to stillborn twins in 1996. Texas, and the people behind this bill, can suck the largest bag of dicks Texas has to offer.

This is every fucking thing I hate about politics. Keep your bullshit religious fairytale weirdness out of my life.
 
Back
Top