Texas bans abortion.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Warp12 said:
"Non-viable". Exactly what is your definition of that? Do you feel that the majority of abortions are because a fetus could not be carried successfully to term? Or that viability is a personal decision?
Click to expand...

Have you never heard the term before? It ain't that complicated a concept- here's a Wikipedia article to get you started:
For purposes of abortion regulation, viability is reached when, in the judgement of the attending physician on the particular facts of the case before him, there is a reasonable likelihood of the fetuses' sustained survival outside the womb, with or without artificial support.
Click to expand...
Get it? Now that you know what "viable" means, all you need is to know that "non" means "the opposite of that," and you're off.

And, from that, we can see that it's a woman's personal decision to want an abortion, but a right when that viability standard is met in consultation with a physician. I've already said that I don't' think that any right, including abortion, can be an illimitable one, and that I think the Supreme Court's standard of viability, as set forth in Roe and modified in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, is a reasonable one to limit the right.

See, here's the thing- I am pro-choice, not pro-abortion. That's an important distinction that I think a lot of pro-lifers either don't get or just can't afford to acknowledge. What it means is that the choice is not a coercion either way- by my stance, if a woman feels abortion is murder, she has as much right to abide by her feeling so and not get an abortion as the woman who has an opposite opinion has to make her own opposite choice.
 
turingtest said:
Have you never heard the term before? It ain't that complicated a concept- here's a Wikipedia article to get you started:

Get it? Now that you know what "viable" means, all you need is to know that "non" means "the opposite of that," and you're off.

And, from that, we can see that it's a woman's personal decision to want an abortion, but a right when that viability standard is met in consultation with a physician. I've already said that I don't' think that any right, including abortion, can be an illimitable one, and that I think the Supreme Court's standard of viability, as set forth in Roe and modified in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, is a reasonable one to limit the right.

See, here's the thing- I am pro-choice, not pro-abortion. That's an important distinction that I think a lot of pro-lifers either don't get or just can't afford to acknowledge. What it means is that the choice is not a coercion either way- by my stance, if a woman feels abortion is murder, she has as much right to abide by her feeling so and not get an abortion as the woman who has an opposite opinion has to make her own opposite choice.
Click to expand...

Edgy. Often, when I am determining my definition of abortion morality, I look to Wikipedia for guidance. Unless I am living in Colorado, that is....then, I look to the law. But that is too hard to do in Texas, I imagine. Freedom!
 
Armitage72 said:
Back in 2018 CNN correspondent Brian Stelter Tweeted "We are not 'a few steps from The Handmaid's Tale.' I don't think this kind of fear-mongering helps anybody."
The Tweet was deleted within hours of the Texas law going into effect.
Click to expand...

I would have preferred it if he had retweeted it (or whatever the kids do these days) with the caption, "I was wrong!".
 
There is a great episode of Opening Arguments up, although very depressing at the same time, which they title Roe vs Wade is Dead.

Link
 
Warp12 said:
Edgy. Often, when I am determining my definition of abortion morality, I look to Wikipedia for guidance. Unless I am living in Colorado, that is....then, I look to the law. But that is too hard to do in Texas, I imagine. Freedom!
Click to expand...

Well, yeah- I guess if "non-viable" is a term that confuses you, then you would also be confused by the difference between using Wikipedia as a reference (that quoted law) and needing it for guidance.
 
uke2se said:
You seem to be operating under the delusion that you have a functioning system as it is. You don't. The system is broken, and right now one side of American politics is doing everything they can to abuse the broken system, while the other sits on it's thumbs insisting that you can't break the system.
Click to expand...
:up:⇈:up:⇈:up:⇈:up:⇈:up:

This.

The Democrats are treating the current political situation as business as usual rather than as a crisis. They think that their political success hinges on whether they can bring a handful of Republicans to their side or not; and they think that if they fail on this election cycle they'll be able to fix it by just trying a little bit harder during the next election cycle. Their strategy is to figure out how they can get elected by convincing more people to vote for them (organize to get out the vote!). Hint: it won't work.

The Republicans are treating the current political situation as a failure of imagination. They weren't ready for the things that Trump wanted to do and they want to be ready to do things along those lines when the next time comes around. They think whatever anti-democratic tactics they can get away with this during the next election cycle will be able to serve as a foundation to be built upon for tactics to be used in the election cycle following that one —tactics to give them one party rule in the next presidential run. Their strategy is to figure out ways of gaining power despite fewer people wanting to vote for them.
 
Stacyhs said:
Chamberlain believed appeasing Hitler by giving him the Sudetenland and not opposing the Anschluss would prevent war. The Dems are not appeasing the GOP. It's a false equivalency.

I agree that the Dems need to get tougher, but stacking the SC is an absolutely horrible idea.
Click to expand...

I has already been stacked. Nothing in the realm of "business as usual" will even begin to undo this.

There certainly exists no magical date such that were Breyer to die or retire before such a date McConnell might be appeased with a sufficiently conservative SCOTUS nominee from Biden & not block the appointment. Can he do it or not is the only determinant.
 
I'm not anti abortion per se its just that I think a woman who gets pregnant via consentual sex should be moral enough not to terminate a baby she is responsible for creating in the first place.

In cases of rape or if the baby will be born profoundly deformed aka Tay Sachs disease for example or if the womans life is in danger if she continues with the pregnancy then she has the right to an abortion. Why destroy a fetus if you are responsible for it being there in the first place?

If you don't want the baby then have it adopted. In most cases, not all I admit its healthier to have the child anyway.

Having said that. If a woman wants to terminate her pregnancy then thats her right. Not her moral right but in keeping with a womans right to control her own body then shes also free to do the immoral thing and kill her baby.
 
Stacyhs said:
He said the law violated the landmark Roe v Wade case in 1973, in which the Supreme Court legalised abortion across the US. White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki told reporters that the president had long wanted to see the "codification" of Roe v Wade - which would mean Congress voting to make the precedent federal law.
Click to expand...
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-58424249
Click to expand...

As an aside, he's wrong. In our little fiction about what is and isn't Constitutional, this is determined by the SCOTUS. The majority of the SCOTUS did not see potential difficulties with this as being salient enough to even potentially want to take a second look.
 
I don't know if anyone's mentioned it but a rapist could not actually sue his victim under this law. It only allows suing providers.

It was basically written to get exactly this result. It doesn't allow the state to enforce but allows individuals in order to prevent a court injunction from preventing it from going into effect. It was not in any way a ruling on the constitutionality of the law, that will happen later.
 
cosmicaug said:
As an aside, he's wrong. In our little fiction about what is and isn't Constitutional, this is determined by the SCOTUS. The majority of the SCOTUS did not see potential difficulties with this as being salient enough to even potentially want to take a second look looked the other way, turned a blind eye, did what they were put there for, etc.
Click to expand...
It was never a question of the constitutionality of the law. It was a question of how much they could get away with by not doing their job, properly or even at all in this case.
 
Stacyhs said:
Absolutely not. So what do you think would happen the next time, and there will be a next time, that the GOP controls all three branches if Biden were to do that?
Click to expand...

I find the premise of the sky falling if this were to happen unsupported. The number of seats historically has been 6, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 9 (hopefully I haven't missed any) and the changes have always been political. Disaster has not followed despite these changes.

And, of course, it misses what someone else pointed out: whether Republicans add seats to the SCOTUS is unlikely to be premised on what Democrats do.
 
My favorite part of this is the International Experts On American Culture And Law.
 
Aridas said:
FWIW, they don't need to be evil closeted jackbooted fascists if they can be cowed into submission by the darker side of the Right. Which, by the evidence at hand... most of them can be cowed into submission as a matter of course.
Click to expand...

When one's job is more important than one's conscience...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom