• 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

Junebug said:
I strongly disagree. Mutilation of a dead body and display in the public square, for example, denigrates the life it used to be.
Click to expand...

Personally, I would be less concerned about denigrating "the life that used to be" and far more concerned with the traumatizing effects on the living. I suppose you could be troubled by both, but one is clearly more connected to religion.
 
Last edited:
Junebug said:
I strongly disagree. Mutilation of a dead body and display in the public square, for example, denigrates the life it used to be.
Click to expand...

Ruling please on my choice of disposal:

195901-139906.JPG
 
Junebug said:
I strongly disagree. Mutilation of a dead body and display in the public square, for example, denigrates the life it used to be.
Click to expand...

obviously rooted in a religious take on the body and it's "purpose"
 
Junebug said:
I strongly disagree. Mutilation of a dead body and display in the public square, for example, denigrates the life it used to be.
Click to expand...

and it's a public health issue also somehow
 
Junebug said:
Maybe I'm not being clear. I'm talking about denegration as a matter of perspective. In other words, I'm saying the life that used to be is denegrated in the eyes of those who are viewing the mutilated and displayed body. Phrased this way, the psychological effect on the viewers is the denigration, and it is something that the state has a valid interest in preventing. None of this has anything to do with religion.
Click to expand...

lol come on man.

I disagree with it strongly, but just say it this is being pushed by the Texas governor because he feels it's in his religion. You don't have to defend everything. We can amicably disagree.
 
Junebug said:
Maybe I'm not being clear. I'm talking about denegration as a matter of perspective. In other words, I'm saying the life that used to be is denegrated in the eyes of those who are viewing the mutilated and displayed body. Phrased this way, the psychological effect on the viewers is the denigration, and it is something that the state has a valid interest in preventing. None of this has anything to do with religion.
Click to expand...

follow up question: what is the State's interest in the psychological 'effect' of said denigration and how would that be determined?
 
Junebug said:
Maybe I'm not being clear. I'm talking about denegration as a matter of perspective. In other words, I'm saying the life that used to be is denegrated in the eyes of those who are viewing the mutilated and displayed body. Phrased this way, the psychological effect on the viewers is the denigration, and it is something that the state has a valid interest in preventing. None of this has anything to do with religion.
Click to expand...

#lawyerd
 
Also does the state have a valid interest in preventing the psychological effects caused by having to bury a mother's fetus?
 
Dualism had become unpopular among modern theologians and Christian philosophers mainly because dualism has become unpopular among philosophers in general.
 
Junebug said:
Maybe I'm not being clear. I'm talking about denegration as a matter of perspective. In other words, I'm saying the life that used to be is denegrated in the eyes of those who are viewing the mutilated and displayed body. Phrased this way, the psychological effect on the viewers is the denigration, and it is something that the state has a valid interest in preventing. None of this has anything to do with religion.
Click to expand...

#safespaces
 
Junebug said:
I don't really care about his motivations. I'm talking through why I, a person who doesn't believe laws should be passed for purely religious reasons, might support such a law.
Click to expand...

"Purely" is very different from being "religiously motivated", which this law was clearly driven by.
 
Junebug said:
Again, I don't give a rat's ass what the Texas governor had in mind. I'm evaluating the law on its merits.

As an aside, I think it is entirely improper, from a legal standpoint, to attempt to figure out what a lawmaker had in mind. In my view, we should evaluate laws exclusively based on what they say.
Click to expand...

What?

We elect people to office entirely based on what we think they have on their mind. Why the hell would we not at least consider their intent when evaluating what the law is attempting to do?

That's batshit insane. I'm guessing you're going to rely heavily on the "from a legal standpoint" part of that sentence, but that's a strange sentence.
 
Junebug said:
The law does not require the mother to bury the fetus. That's the same fiction RJ tried to foist on the discussion when the Indiana law came up a few weeks back.
Click to expand...

That's not what I asked or insinuated at all. The fetus is still the mother's and still getting buried.
 
Junebug said:
The law does not require the mother to bury the fetus. That's the same fiction RJ tried to foist on the discussion when the Indiana law came up a few weeks back.
Click to expand...

Does it require IVF labs to bury or cremate and properly dispose of un-inplanted eggs?
 
Junebug said:
As an aside, I think it is entirely improper, from a legal standpoint, to attempt to figure out what a lawmaker had in mind. In my view, we should evaluate laws exclusively based on what they say.
Click to expand...

there's no way you honestly believe this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top