Texas bans abortion.

Status
Not open for further replies.
ZiprHead said:
Texas: Where a virus has reproductive rights but a woman does not.
Click to expand...

Careful, there. Someone might come along and mention how some people squawk about "her body, her choice", while they are also pushing for mandatory vaccines. "Choice" and "Rights" are murky moral areas, it would seem.
 
Last edited:
Bob001 said:
Do you really think a rapist would try to sue under this law? And without reading the whole law, I suspect that it finds a way to exclude only rapists who have been prosecuted, not cases where rape victims chose not to press charges. Those can be written off as "he said/she said." What's much more significant is that the law makes no exceptions for pregnancy resulting from rape or incest.
Click to expand...

As opposed to those who we deem to be rapists, without the need for prosecution? :confused:

There is a difference between what is strictly written into law and what is actually commonly observed, thankfully. For example, the abortion laws in Colorado are more terrifying than anything in Texas, from what I can tell. In fact, with so many states without abortion term restrictions (7), some might consider this new Texas legislation as bringing balance to the force. However, these “worst case” scenarios seem to be the exception and not the rule. But that won’t stop the screeching.
 
Last edited:
Warp12 said:
Careful, there. Someone might come along and mention how some people squawk about "her body, her choice", while they are also pushing for mandatory vaccines. "Choice" and "Rights" are murky moral areas, it would seem.
Click to expand...

Obvious difference is obvious.
 
Warp12 said:
Careful, there. Someone might come along and mention how some people squawk about "her body, her choice", while they are also pushing for mandatory vaccines. "Choice" and "Rights" are murky moral areas, it would seem.
Click to expand...


False equivalence as Susheel says

Pregnant women are not going to endanger the lives of others around them by coughing or sneezing the way unvaccinated idiots do.
 
smartcooky said:
Pregnant women are not going to endanger the lives of others around them by coughing or sneezing the way unvaccinated idiots do.
Click to expand...

Some might say, they are simply committing an instant murder. And that if you have been vaccinated, you generally don't have to worry that much about the unvaccinated.

At any rate, I am not going to debate it. I am not in favor of the Texas law. But when I see people celebrating mundane quips relating covid to abortion (is there a larger false equivalency?), I feel inclined to insert some realities of perspective.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
and those who say that are idiots.

not religious, just idiots.

there is nothing in the bible prohibiting abortion.
Click to expand...

There seems to be a common misconception that all of those who support limits on abortion are religious. I see this lobbed out frequently, around here.
 
Stacyhs said:
Stacking the Supreme Court just because one party doesn't like what it did and changing its members to fit that party's own agenda is about as short-sighted and flagrantly partisan as it gets. Which is what some of you are moaning about.

If you want to destabilize and undermine the SC's position in this country, then just start playing musical chairs with its justices every time something doesn't go your way.

I'm not happy at all with what happened with Garland and then with Coney Barrett, but that needs to be prevented from happening again by Congress, not by undermining the SC.
Click to expand...

"Partisanship" isn't the problem, the problem is that the things the Republicans want are on their face evil.

It's well past time we stopped pretending that respecting norms and traditions is anywhere near as important of actually wielding political power to good ends.
 
Warp12 said:
There seems to be a common misconception that all of those who support limits on abortion are religious. I see this lobbed out frequently, around here.
Click to expand...

These people do not support "limits to abortion". They have clearly stated time and again, it is about "No abortion, in any case," even justifying it by saying stupid things like raped women do not get pregnant. They want a fertilized egg to be recognised as a legally living being. There was one congress critter who even suggested that ectopic prenancies should be allowed to gestate full term even if it would mean the inevitable death of the mother and the child.

Most people here are perfectly happy with a first trimester limit for optional termination, and a few more months for pregnancies resulting from abuse, incest, or even life-threatening medical conditions etc.

So you can pack away the self-righteous concern right there.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
"Partisanship" isn't the problem, the problem is that the things the Republicans want are on their face evil.

It's well past time we stopped pretending that respecting norms and traditions is anywhere near as important of actually wielding political power to good ends.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

Hitler couldn't have said it better.
 
Stacyhs said:
Jesus H. Christ...I can't believe you actually have to have this explained:



Shall we just start adding or subtracting the number of justices every time a party doesn't get i's way with the Court slant they prefer?

Sure, McConnell pulled crap and got his way but that needs to be handled in a different way to prevent in the future. For example: making it law that a Senate Majority Leader cannot refuse to bring a Constitutionally given right for the sitting POTUS to nominate a SC justice up for a confirmation vote. Playing musical chairs with the number of justices isn't the answer.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't retaliatory court-packing actually discourage this crap in the long run? If we add seats to the Court, yes the GOP might engage in more shenanigans next time they are in power, but the Dems could retaliate the next time they are in power, etc. Make it clear that Democrats are willing to play games with the courts as well, and Republicans playing games with the courts loses some of its appeal.

Your argument amounts to, "If a bully hits me in the face once a day, every day, I should not hit back because that might start a fight."
 
Random said:
Wouldn't retaliatory court-packing actually discourage this crap in the long run? If we add seats to the Court, yes the GOP might engage in more shenanigans next time they are in power, but the Dems could retaliate the next time they are in power, etc. Make it clear that Democrats are willing to play games with the courts as well, and Republicans playing games with the courts loses some of its appeal.
Click to expand...

Nothing better than an arms race, right? Democracy at work. :rolleyes:
 
Warp12 said:
Nothing better than an arms race, right? Democracy at work. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

No...it is not an arms race. And yes...it IS democracy at work. There seems to be this misconception that Democracy is some gorgeous utopian artefact...ultimately it is the best form available. It all depends on the quality of players.
 
Warp12 said:
Nothing better than an arms race, right? Democracy at work. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Mutually assured destruction worked against the Soviets. It kept everything from blowing up while the natural rot of the USSR led to their collapse. It can work to keep the GOP in check while they finish imploding.
 
Warp12 said:
There seems to be a common misconception that all of those who support limits on abortion are religious. I see this lobbed out frequently, around here.
Click to expand...

I agree. There are many non-religious people who are also upset that women are having sex.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom