Funerals for abortions?!?!

[Czernobog]

Apparently, since Texas can't just shut abortion clinics down, they want to do everything they can to shame, and humiliate women who have abortions. The newest effort? Forced funerals for abortions. That's right. You read that correctly. Forced. Funerals. For. Abortions.

In a new effort to regulate abortion providers, Texas health officials are proposing rules that would require abortion providers to cremate or bury fetal remains.

The new rules, proposed by the Health and Human Services Commission, would no longer allow abortion providers to dispose of fetal remains in sanitary landfills, instead allowing only cremation or interment of all remains — regardless of the period of gestation. Abortion providers currently use third-party special waste disposal services.​

Now, the Texas Health and Human Services Commission says, "Ms. Clack has determined that for each year of the first five years the sections are in effect, the public benefit anticipated as a result of adopting and enforcing these rules will be enhanced protection of the health and safety of the public."

But, that's it. not even a little explanation of how it benefits public safety; just that it does. "Trust us..." Uh huh.

You wanna know the real "benefit" to this? Just ask the office of the Governor:

Governor Abbott believes human and fetal remains should not be treated like medical waste, and the proposed rule changes affirms the value and dignity of all life,​

In other words, he wants to insist that women who have abortions treat the abortions as if they were the children of these women, whether they consider them to be so, or not.

Now, I know how this goes. As quickly as possible, this is going to become yet another debate on the morality of abortion. I, for one, refuse to engage in that. Regardless of your personal opinion about abortion, this is clearly a case of the government trying to shame women into behaving the way they want them to.

Makes sense to dispose of human remain properly, or are you one of those people that refuses to acknowledge that a fetus is human?

You make it sound lime the medical waste, because that's all it is, no matter how much emotional weight you want to assign it to further your agenda, wasn't being properly disposed of. It was.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

So you do refuse to acknowledge that they are indeed human remains.

It's a scientific fact, not emotional weight.

They are human. They are not remains. Remains is the deceased body of a person. Since a human fetus was not a person, calling the human waste remains is inaccurate, at best.

 

[Vigilante]

Apparently, since Texas can't just shut abortion clinics down, they want to do everything they can to shame, and humiliate women who have abortions. The newest effort? Forced funerals for abortions. That's right. You read that correctly. Forced. Funerals. For. Abortions.

In a new effort to regulate abortion providers, Texas health officials are proposing rules that would require abortion providers to cremate or bury fetal remains.

The new rules, proposed by the Health and Human Services Commission, would no longer allow abortion providers to dispose of fetal remains in sanitary landfills, instead allowing only cremation or interment of all remains — regardless of the period of gestation. Abortion providers currently use third-party special waste disposal services.​

Now, the Texas Health and Human Services Commission says, "Ms. Clack has determined that for each year of the first five years the sections are in effect, the public benefit anticipated as a result of adopting and enforcing these rules will be enhanced protection of the health and safety of the public."

But, that's it. not even a little explanation of how it benefits public safety; just that it does. "Trust us..." Uh huh.

You wanna know the real "benefit" to this? Just ask the office of the Governor:

Governor Abbott believes human and fetal remains should not be treated like medical waste, and the proposed rule changes affirms the value and dignity of all life,​

In other words, he wants to insist that women who have abortions treat the abortions as if they were the children of these women, whether they consider them to be so, or not.

Now, I know how this goes. As quickly as possible, this is going to become yet another debate on the morality of abortion. I, for one, refuse to engage in that. Regardless of your personal opinion about abortion, this is clearly a case of the government trying to shame women into behaving the way they want them to.

Makes sense to dispose of human remain properly, or are you one of those people that refuses to acknowledge that a fetus is human?

You make it sound lime the medical waste, because that's all it is, no matter how much emotional weight you want to assign it to further your agenda, wasn't being properly disposed of. It was.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

So you do refuse to acknowledge that they are indeed human remains.

It's a scientific fact, not emotional weight.

They are human. They are not remains. Remains is the deceased body of a person. Since a human fetus was not a person, calling the human waste remains is inaccurate, at best.

I believe I've been giving liberals TOO MUCH credit for having an IQ LOWER than a lawn mower....

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb"

 

[theHawk]

Apparently, since Texas can't just shut abortion clinics down, they want to do everything they can to shame, and humiliate women who have abortions. The newest effort? Forced funerals for abortions. That's right. You read that correctly. Forced. Funerals. For. Abortions.

In a new effort to regulate abortion providers, Texas health officials are proposing rules that would require abortion providers to cremate or bury fetal remains.

The new rules, proposed by the Health and Human Services Commission, would no longer allow abortion providers to dispose of fetal remains in sanitary landfills, instead allowing only cremation or interment of all remains — regardless of the period of gestation. Abortion providers currently use third-party special waste disposal services.​

Now, the Texas Health and Human Services Commission says, "Ms. Clack has determined that for each year of the first five years the sections are in effect, the public benefit anticipated as a result of adopting and enforcing these rules will be enhanced protection of the health and safety of the public."

But, that's it. not even a little explanation of how it benefits public safety; just that it does. "Trust us..." Uh huh.

You wanna know the real "benefit" to this? Just ask the office of the Governor:

Governor Abbott believes human and fetal remains should not be treated like medical waste, and the proposed rule changes affirms the value and dignity of all life,​

In other words, he wants to insist that women who have abortions treat the abortions as if they were the children of these women, whether they consider them to be so, or not.

Now, I know how this goes. As quickly as possible, this is going to become yet another debate on the morality of abortion. I, for one, refuse to engage in that. Regardless of your personal opinion about abortion, this is clearly a case of the government trying to shame women into behaving the way they want them to.

Makes sense to dispose of human remain properly, or are you one of those people that refuses to acknowledge that a fetus is human?

You make it sound lime the medical waste, because that's all it is, no matter how much emotional weight you want to assign it to further your agenda, wasn't being properly disposed of. It was.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

So you do refuse to acknowledge that they are indeed human remains.

It's a scientific fact, not emotional weight.

They are human. They are not remains. Remains is the deceased body of a person. Since a human fetus was not a person, calling the human waste remains is inaccurate, at best.

It is human life with its own unique DNA that is ended. Whether or not you consider it a 'person' is irrelevant and doesn't change scientific fact.

 

[Czernobog]

Apparently, since Texas can't just shut abortion clinics down, they want to do everything they can to shame, and humiliate women who have abortions. The newest effort? Forced funerals for abortions. That's right. You read that correctly. Forced. Funerals. For. Abortions.

In a new effort to regulate abortion providers, Texas health officials are proposing rules that would require abortion providers to cremate or bury fetal remains.

The new rules, proposed by the Health and Human Services Commission, would no longer allow abortion providers to dispose of fetal remains in sanitary landfills, instead allowing only cremation or interment of all remains — regardless of the period of gestation. Abortion providers currently use third-party special waste disposal services.​

Now, the Texas Health and Human Services Commission says, "Ms. Clack has determined that for each year of the first five years the sections are in effect, the public benefit anticipated as a result of adopting and enforcing these rules will be enhanced protection of the health and safety of the public."

But, that's it. not even a little explanation of how it benefits public safety; just that it does. "Trust us..." Uh huh.

You wanna know the real "benefit" to this? Just ask the office of the Governor:

Governor Abbott believes human and fetal remains should not be treated like medical waste, and the proposed rule changes affirms the value and dignity of all life,​

In other words, he wants to insist that women who have abortions treat the abortions as if they were the children of these women, whether they consider them to be so, or not.

Now, I know how this goes. As quickly as possible, this is going to become yet another debate on the morality of abortion. I, for one, refuse to engage in that. Regardless of your personal opinion about abortion, this is clearly a case of the government trying to shame women into behaving the way they want them to.

Makes sense to dispose of human remain properly, or are you one of those people that refuses to acknowledge that a fetus is human?

You make it sound lime the medical waste, because that's all it is, no matter how much emotional weight you want to assign it to further your agenda, wasn't being properly disposed of. It was.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

So you do refuse to acknowledge that they are indeed human remains.

It's a scientific fact, not emotional weight.

They are human. They are not remains. Remains is the deceased body of a person. Since a human fetus was not a person, calling the human waste remains is inaccurate, at best.

I believe I've been giving liberals TOO MUCH credit for having an IQ LOWER than a lawn mower....

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb"

Using a badly written, irrational law to defend an irrational position does Nat make that position any less irrational.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Czernobog]

Apparently, since Texas can't just shut abortion clinics down, they want to do everything they can to shame, and humiliate women who have abortions. The newest effort? Forced funerals for abortions. That's right. You read that correctly. Forced. Funerals. For. Abortions.

In a new effort to regulate abortion providers, Texas health officials are proposing rules that would require abortion providers to cremate or bury fetal remains.

The new rules, proposed by the Health and Human Services Commission, would no longer allow abortion providers to dispose of fetal remains in sanitary landfills, instead allowing only cremation or interment of all remains — regardless of the period of gestation. Abortion providers currently use third-party special waste disposal services.​

Now, the Texas Health and Human Services Commission says, "Ms. Clack has determined that for each year of the first five years the sections are in effect, the public benefit anticipated as a result of adopting and enforcing these rules will be enhanced protection of the health and safety of the public."

But, that's it. not even a little explanation of how it benefits public safety; just that it does. "Trust us..." Uh huh.

You wanna know the real "benefit" to this? Just ask the office of the Governor:

Governor Abbott believes human and fetal remains should not be treated like medical waste, and the proposed rule changes affirms the value and dignity of all life,​

In other words, he wants to insist that women who have abortions treat the abortions as if they were the children of these women, whether they consider them to be so, or not.

Now, I know how this goes. As quickly as possible, this is going to become yet another debate on the morality of abortion. I, for one, refuse to engage in that. Regardless of your personal opinion about abortion, this is clearly a case of the government trying to shame women into behaving the way they want them to.

Makes sense to dispose of human remain properly, or are you one of those people that refuses to acknowledge that a fetus is human?

You make it sound lime the medical waste, because that's all it is, no matter how much emotional weight you want to assign it to further your agenda, wasn't being properly disposed of. It was.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

So you do refuse to acknowledge that they are indeed human remains.

It's a scientific fact, not emotional weight.

They are human. They are not remains. Remains is the deceased body of a person. Since a human fetus was not a person, calling the human waste remains is inaccurate, at best.

It is human life with its own unique DNA that is ended. Whether or not you consider it a 'person' is irrelevant and doesn't change scientific fact.

So is a cancer cluster, including it's own unique DNA. No one would be stupid enough to call that a person, either.

But, hey. Here's the thing. You feel so bad for the aborted fetus that you want to see it has a "proper burial", that's fine. You pay for it.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Vigilante]

Makes sense to dispose of human remain properly, or are you one of those people that refuses to acknowledge that a fetus is human?

You make it sound lime the medical waste, because that's all it is, no matter how much emotional weight you want to assign it to further your agenda, wasn't being properly disposed of. It was.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

So you do refuse to acknowledge that they are indeed human remains.

It's a scientific fact, not emotional weight.

They are human. They are not remains. Remains is the deceased body of a person. Since a human fetus was not a person, calling the human waste remains is inaccurate, at best.

I believe I've been giving liberals TOO MUCH credit for having an IQ LOWER than a lawn mower....

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb"

Using a badly written, irrational law to defend an irrational position does Nat make that position any less irrational.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Thank you for agreeing Roe V Wade is such an immoral, unethical, and irrational piece of shit, I can't wait for President Trump to appoint a FEW good judges that will FIX it!

 

[Vigilante]

Makes sense to dispose of human remain properly, or are you one of those people that refuses to acknowledge that a fetus is human?

You make it sound lime the medical waste, because that's all it is, no matter how much emotional weight you want to assign it to further your agenda, wasn't being properly disposed of. It was.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

So you do refuse to acknowledge that they are indeed human remains.

It's a scientific fact, not emotional weight.

They are human. They are not remains. Remains is the deceased body of a person. Since a human fetus was not a person, calling the human waste remains is inaccurate, at best.

It is human life with its own unique DNA that is ended. Whether or not you consider it a 'person' is irrelevant and doesn't change scientific fact.

So is a cancer cluster, including it's own unique DNA. No one would be stupid enough to call that a person, either.

But, hey. Here's the thing. You feel so bad for the aborted fetus that you want to see it has a "proper burial", that's fine. You pay for it.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

You mean a CANCER CLUSTER left to reach a 9 month cycle turns into a DemoRAT????....Damn, I learned something new today, from a Prog!

BUT YOU want us to pay for the ABORTION, stupid fucking liberal!

 

[Czernobog]

You make it sound lime the medical waste, because that's all it is, no matter how much emotional weight you want to assign it to further your agenda, wasn't being properly disposed of. It was.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

So you do refuse to acknowledge that they are indeed human remains.

It's a scientific fact, not emotional weight.

They are human. They are not remains. Remains is the deceased body of a person. Since a human fetus was not a person, calling the human waste remains is inaccurate, at best.

It is human life with its own unique DNA that is ended. Whether or not you consider it a 'person' is irrelevant and doesn't change scientific fact.

So is a cancer cluster, including it's own unique DNA. No one would be stupid enough to call that a person, either.

But, hey. Here's the thing. You feel so bad for the aborted fetus that you want to see it has a "proper burial", that's fine. You pay for it.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

You mean a CANCER CLUSTER left to reach a 9 month cycle turns into a DemoRAT????....Damn, I learned something new today, from a Prog!

BUT YOU want us to pay for the ABORTION, stupid fucking liberal!

Nice red herring. Every state has regulations against late term abortions, except for emergencies. So, when we are talking about abortions, we are talking about non-viable fetuses.

But, moralists like you need to add emotional weight to your arguments, so you invariably talk about, and show images of the very abortions that are already regulated, and act like that is the common abortion practice.

Typical fake conservative retard ploy.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Vigilante]

So you do refuse to acknowledge that they are indeed human remains.

It's a scientific fact, not emotional weight.

They are human. They are not remains. Remains is the deceased body of a person. Since a human fetus was not a person, calling the human waste remains is inaccurate, at best.

It is human life with its own unique DNA that is ended. Whether or not you consider it a 'person' is irrelevant and doesn't change scientific fact.

So is a cancer cluster, including it's own unique DNA. No one would be stupid enough to call that a person, either.

But, hey. Here's the thing. You feel so bad for the aborted fetus that you want to see it has a "proper burial", that's fine. You pay for it.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

You mean a CANCER CLUSTER left to reach a 9 month cycle turns into a DemoRAT????....Damn, I learned something new today, from a Prog!

BUT YOU want us to pay for the ABORTION, stupid fucking liberal!

Nice red herring. Every state has regulations against late term abortions, except for emergencies. So, when we are talking about abortions, we are talking about non-viable fetuses.

But, moralists like you need to add emotional weight to your arguments, so you invariably talk about, and show images of the very abortions that are already regulated, and act like that is the common abortion practice.

Typical fake conservative retard ploy.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

What is NON VIABLE...A WOMANS DESIRE TO GET RID OF HER BABY because she was IRRESPONSIBLE and DIDN"T use birth control?

Typical murdering liberal fucktard!

 

[Czernobog]

They are human. They are not remains. Remains is the deceased body of a person. Since a human fetus was not a person, calling the human waste remains is inaccurate, at best.

It is human life with its own unique DNA that is ended. Whether or not you consider it a 'person' is irrelevant and doesn't change scientific fact.

So is a cancer cluster, including it's own unique DNA. No one would be stupid enough to call that a person, either.

But, hey. Here's the thing. You feel so bad for the aborted fetus that you want to see it has a "proper burial", that's fine. You pay for it.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

You mean a CANCER CLUSTER left to reach a 9 month cycle turns into a DemoRAT????....Damn, I learned something new today, from a Prog!

BUT YOU want us to pay for the ABORTION, stupid fucking liberal!

Nice red herring. Every state has regulations against late term abortions, except for emergencies. So, when we are talking about abortions, we are talking about non-viable fetuses.

But, moralists like you need to add emotional weight to your arguments, so you invariably talk about, and show images of the very abortions that are already regulated, and act like that is the common abortion practice.

Typical fake conservative retard ploy.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

What is NON VIABLE...A WOMANS DESIRE TO GET RID OF HER BABY because she was IRRESPONSIBLE and DIDN"T use birth control?

Typical murdering liberal fucktard!

Lol! You keep trying. You might actually manage a rational post, one of these days.

By the way, why do you hate women so much?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Vigilante]

I have already, and I see you wimping away from the murders you agree with! Typical coward when confronted with FACT.....

 

[Czernobog]

I have already, and I see you wimping away from the murders you agree with! Typical coward when confronted with FACT.....

LOL! It's adorable how you actually think your irrational rants carry the weight of fact.

So, why do you hate women so much?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[theHawk]

Makes sense to dispose of human remain properly, or are you one of those people that refuses to acknowledge that a fetus is human?

You make it sound lime the medical waste, because that's all it is, no matter how much emotional weight you want to assign it to further your agenda, wasn't being properly disposed of. It was.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

So you do refuse to acknowledge that they are indeed human remains.

It's a scientific fact, not emotional weight.

They are human. They are not remains. Remains is the deceased body of a person. Since a human fetus was not a person, calling the human waste remains is inaccurate, at best.

It is human life with its own unique DNA that is ended. Whether or not you consider it a 'person' is irrelevant and doesn't change scientific fact.

So is a cancer cluster, including it's own unique DNA. No one would be stupid enough to call that a person, either.

But, hey. Here's the thing. You feel so bad for the aborted fetus that you want to see it has a "proper burial", that's fine. You pay for it.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Killing a cancer cluster doesn't end a human life. Killing an entire human, no matter the stage of development, does. Obviously you don't have the IQ to be able to tell the difference, so you should leave that for the adults.

 

[Czernobog]

You make it sound lime the medical waste, because that's all it is, no matter how much emotional weight you want to assign it to further your agenda, wasn't being properly disposed of. It was.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

So you do refuse to acknowledge that they are indeed human remains.

It's a scientific fact, not emotional weight.

They are human. They are not remains. Remains is the deceased body of a person. Since a human fetus was not a person, calling the human waste remains is inaccurate, at best.

It is human life with its own unique DNA that is ended. Whether or not you consider it a 'person' is irrelevant and doesn't change scientific fact.

So is a cancer cluster, including it's own unique DNA. No one would be stupid enough to call that a person, either.

But, hey. Here's the thing. You feel so bad for the aborted fetus that you want to see it has a "proper burial", that's fine. You pay for it.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Killing a cancer cluster doesn't end a human life. Killing an entire human, no matter the stage of development, does. Obviously you don't have the IQ to be able to tell the difference, so you should leave that for the adults.

The adults say that viability is the factor that determines personhood. So, maybe you should leave medical ethics to the adults. Off you go...

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Katzndogz]

Liberals say that viability determines personhood. That's hardly adults. More like defective morlocks.

 

[Conservative65]

My statement wasn't about what was and wasn't an appropriate reason. My statement was that people should take responsibility for pregnancy occurring regardless of the reason they had sex. If you don't like that or agree with that, tough shit. You're not man enough to enforce your demand I shut the fuck up. If you think you are, step up.

Your choice and I know which one you'll make, pussy.

Oh yes, because it is so easy to be a big tough guy sitting anonymously pecking away furiously with your little fingers. I'm so afraid.

Meanwhile getting an abortion when you know you are in no position financially, or emotionally, to have a kid is taking responsibility. It's just not taking responsibility in the way you think is appropriate.

Well, as you said tough shit. You don't get to make that determination for other people.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Having an abortion after doing an act you know can produce pregnancy whether that was your intention or not isn't responsible.

Except that it is. Is is responsibly ensuring that another child is not brought into the world to be a burden on society.

I offered you the chance to step up from the anonymity. Your choice.

I'm perfectly comfortable with my manhood, and have nothing to prove. I'm sorry your little penis makes you so angry, and insecure that you constantly feel the need to price what a big, tough man you are. Perhaps you should talk to someone about that.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Responsibility involves accepting the results not killing them when the choice one makes produces a result even if that result isn't the one that was intended.

Says you. Fortunately, you don't get to make that determination for anyone but yourself.

You seem perfectly comfortable with being a pussy. Sad how the first thing you speculate on is another man's penis. You must be one of those faggots. Perhaps you should take to someone about that.

It's on here for all to see. You were offered a chance to step up and refused.

Oh noes! The Anonymous Dickless Wonder called me a pussy. Whatever will I do? Oh! I know:

You'll do two things: Hide and continue to be a faggot.

 

[Czernobog]

You'll do two things: Hide and continue to be a faggot.

You get that all you're doing is making me laugh right? When I have reduced Right Wing Fucktards to nothing but spitting, and hurling insults, I win, because they have run out of rational arguments. Off you go...

 

[Czernobog]

Liberals say that viability determines personhood. That's hardly adults. More like defective morlocks.

Well, the law of the land says viability, so there's also that. The only thing you have that says otherwise is an irrational, badly written law that contradicts itself within the language of the very law you want to use as evidence of the rationality of your position, and should not exist. It's kind of like fake conservative moralists - should not exist, but we have to tolerate.

 

[emilynghiem]

There is nothing about forced funerals.

You're right. They don't have to have a preacher speaking - they just have to bury, or cremate the remains...

It is a distinction without substance.

What exactly is your objection to the woman paying to dispose of the remains resulting from her choice?

What about the men involved in the decision to have sex but not raise a child?
Are you putting all the responsibility on the woman as if she got pregnant by herself?
Compost

I'm responding to the OP topic. If you want to discuss all those responsible for abortion, start another thread.

Dear Compost don't you think if we discussed and AGREED who is responsible for abortions this would ANSWER the question of who should pay for the disposal after abortions?

 

[emilynghiem]

Liberals say that viability determines personhood. That's hardly adults. More like defective morlocks.

Well, the law of the land says viability, so there's also that. The only thing you have that says otherwise is an irrational, badly written law that contradicts itself within the language of the very law you want to use as evidence of the rationality of your position, and should not exist. It's kind of like fake conservative moralists - should not exist, but we have to tolerate.

Dear Czernobog where the contradiction in law begins is pushing laws biased by beliefs into govt. Both sides have beliefs about abortion life and govt authority. If both sides don't agree, as you yourself don't agree here, that means lines were crossed between beliefs and public policy or church and state. That's where the contradiction is. Technically no laws should be passed or enforced at all that touch on beliefs unless there is a public consensus. Or else you are right there is a contradiction with laws, on religious freedom and equal protection of laws from discrimination by creed.

It goes both ways though, for laws to be fully constitutional they could not be biased toward or against either for or against legalized abortion. Prochoice seeks to allow free choice of either, but as long as prolife advocates don't agree but argue that laws are still biased then that's still infringing. Same with the laws you are contesting as infringing. Until and unless there is consensus then any objections by either side shows that law is biased does not represent all sides beliefs equally and is technically establishing an unconstitutional bias by belief.

Do you agree that laws involving beliefs should be resolved by consensus to protect all citizens equally instead of pushing one sides beliefs over the other thru govt?