• 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

ImTheCaptain said:
when you evaluate a law's existence, it's not important to try to understand why the law exists beyond it's 'merits' within the common law system?
Click to expand...

To determine if a law has a rational basis you need not (and should not) inquire into the actual basis for the law. That's what
junebug meant and it's the correct view IMO.
 
RChildress107 said:
To determine if a law has a rational basis you need not (and should not) inquire into the actual basis for the law. That's what
junebug meant and it's the correct view IMO.
Click to expand...

If we are observing it solely through the lens of the legal basis then yes, that is one view to have.

Laws/bills don't operate in a vacuum like that though. We need to look at the ramifications, repercussions, and what the intent behind a bill is when determining whether or not it will be effective/what it could possible lead to down the road.

While he is clearly propping his stance there ONLY looking at it from a legal standpoint, it's hard to believe anybody would actually think that intent of the lawmaker should not be taken into account when viewing the law as a whole.
 
Who gets to define "dignified" and type of actions denigrate the life that once was?
 
Deacsfan27 said:
If we are observing it solely through the lens of the legal basis then yes, that is one view to have.

Laws/bills don't operate in a vacuum like that though. We need to look at the ramifications, repercussions, and what the intent behind a bill is when determining whether or not it will be effective/what it could possible lead to down the road.

While he is clearly propping his stance there ONLY looking at it from a legal standpoint, it's hard to believe anybody would actually think that intent of the lawmaker should not be taken into account when viewing the law as a whole.
Click to expand...

I think (though I hesitate to speak for Junebug) that you are fighting a straw man here. I agree with everything you said in your first two paragraphs and I imagine Junebug would as well.
 
Deacsfan27 said:
If we are observing it solely through the lens of the legal basis then yes, that is one view to have.

Laws/bills don't operate in a vacuum like that though. We need to look at the ramifications, repercussions, and what the intent behind a bill is when determining whether or not it will be effective/what it could possible lead to down the road.

While he is clearly propping his stance there ONLY looking at it from a legal standpoint, it's hard to believe anybody would actually think that intent of the lawmaker should not be taken into account when viewing the law as a whole.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure this is the greatest choice of words for this thread.
 
Can people donate the fetal tissue to scientific research?
 
RChildress107 said:
To determine if a law has a rational basis you need not (and should not) inquire into the actual basis for the law. That's what junebug meant and it's the correct view IMO.
Click to expand...

You mean to determine if a law has a legally well-reasoned basis, right? Because the law doesn't have the market on reason cornered.
 
Junebug said:
Legislators. The same people who get to define anything in the context of regulation for the general welfare.
Click to expand...

So what happenes when a minority has a different definition of dignified than the majority elected legislature...or even worse a minority elected legislature has a different opinion on what is dignified than the majority of the people.
 
Junebug said:
Legislators. The same people who get to define anything in the context of regulation for the general welfare.
Click to expand...

Also, defining dignity and burying fetuses has nothing to do with "general welfare" unless the rules are mandated because of some public health on environmental risks. Otherwise we are talking about legislating someones morality and imposing it on others who might not subscribe to the same moral code.
 
Junebug said:
The minority gets the shaft, unless the majority breaches some constitutional restraint. That's life in a democratic republic.
Click to expand...

Well, alright, we are talking about is versus what should be. I believe that the state shouldn't be telling me what to do with my aborted fetuses unless I do something with them that will endanger the health of my community. As a religious minority in a very strongly christian conservative state, I get pretty defensive when big brother legislature / governor start mandating what I do and how I do it. Seems to me that the most fair thing would be for the State to stay the fuck out of these kinds of issues and for churches to try and convince people through compelling arguments what the right way to act is.
 
Junebug said:
TRIGGER WARNING

Hypothetically speaking, what if the legislature concluded that putting a third trimester aborted fetus in a blender, hitting puree, and then flushing it down the toilet creates unwanted psychological effects on abortion providers, nurses, and the general public that causes the denigration and devaluation of human life in the mind of the general populace? Why is that conclusion, which pertains to psychological well being, qualitatively different from a conclusion that dead bodies lining the street create an undue risk of physical disease?
Click to expand...

Are there documented cases or complaints from abortion providers informing the need for this legislation?
 
I'll just say as someone who actually buries people, hears Confessions, and counsels people on a regular basis - this is a horrendous idea that will wreak havoc on people's souls and consciences. Of course this is government overreach, but this really is the equivalent of psychological and spiritual torture.
 
Last edited:
Junebug said:
TRIGGER WARNING

Hypothetically speaking, what if the legislature concluded that putting a third trimester aborted fetus in a blender, hitting puree, and then flushing it down the toilet creates unwanted psychological effects on abortion providers, nurses, and the general public that causes the denigration and devaluation of human life in the mind of the general populace? Why is that conclusion, which pertains to psychological well being, qualitatively different from a conclusion that dead bodies lining the street create an undue risk of physical disease?
Click to expand...

How do you devalue the life of something that was never alive?
 
RevDeac06 said:
I'll just say as someone who actually buries people, hears Confessions, and counsels people on a regular basis - this is a horrendous idea that wreak havoc on people's souls and consciences. Of course this is government overreach, but this really is the equivalent of psychological and spiritual torture.
Click to expand...

And oddly enough, Junebug refuses to apply his earlier logic about the state's interest in reducing psychological harm to the above.
 
Junebug said:
TRIGGER WARNING

Hypothetically speaking, what if the legislature concluded that putting a third trimester aborted fetus in a blender, hitting puree, and then flushing it down the toilet creates unwanted psychological effects on abortion providers, nurses, and the general public that causes the denigration and devaluation of human life in the mind of the general populace? Why is that conclusion, which pertains to psychological well being, qualitatively different from a conclusion that dead bodies lining the street create an undue risk of physical disease?
Click to expand...

Maybe, if they can't handle the psychological effects of their profession, they should go and get another profession or find a different job. Do lawyers have to take on divorce cases if they don't want to? No one is forcing abortion providers to continue to be abortion providers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top