Texas bans abortion.

[Warp12]

S now a Trumper is trying to explain why non consenual sex is not rape.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to match quoted post

Who said that? I missed it.

 

[Bob001]

Who said that? I missed it.

You did.

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

 

[JoeMorgue]

And deeper into the hole we go.

"Were did I say that? Stop the conversation and show me where I say it."

 

[Warp12]

You did.

Generally we don't deem people "rapists" without prosecution.

But, I guess in a dystopian world anything is possible.

 

[plague311]

Generally we don't deem people "rapists" without prosecution.

But, I guess in a dystopian world anything is possible.

Yet there seems to be no issue in calling women who have an abortion "murderers", or controlling their bodies, or (now at least) being able to hunt them down, track their movements, and then sue them for decisions that are theirs, and theirs alone.

Talk about a dystopian world.

 

[Upchurch]

Amazingly, though, there are no limits on it in some states. People are whining about this law in Texas, but are ok with law allowing for abortion at 8.9 months without restriction.

It would be comical if it weren't so sick.

Ah. You're not being serious. Got it. My mistake.

 

[cosmicaug]

This isn't any Scopes Monkey Case. This involves real patients and doctors. The best, most American way to deal with an unjust law is to break it and then take the consequences. But this law? Who will defy it with her flesh and blood?

Probably a Satanic Temple member.

 

[kookbreaker]

And he met his match.

No, you just got wooshed.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Republicans are always accusing Democrats of waging a Culture War.
But this law is literally pitting citizens against each other.
Given their nostalgia for the Civil War, this seems to be by design.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Because when your sole goal is to troll the other side it's not just that all the established ways of solving problems and reaching solution don't work anymore, it's that they that delibertaly make things worse.

We'll be stuck in "Come back here and have a Civil Debate about this you cowards!" forever while they keep making things worse and worse.

 

[kookbreaker]

Amazingly, though, there are no limits on it in some states. People are whining about this law in Texas, but are ok with law allowing for abortion at 8.9 months without restriction.

It would be comical if it weren't so sick.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove reference to ignore list

No point in arguing with deliberate dishonesty.

 

[Warp12]

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to match quoted post

No point in arguing with deliberate dishonesty.

Dishonesty is when when you refuse to accept the truth.

Disappointing, tbh.

 

[plague311]

Dishonesty is when when you refuse to accept the truth.

Disappointing, tbh.

There is no truth in what you're saying. Outside of medical emergencies absolutely no one is having abortions at 8.9 months. You've been asked to prove that anyone, anywhere is having a voluntary abortion at >8 months, and you can't.

So what I'm saying is your argument is ********, it's based on ********, and it's a red herring, as has been pointed out by Joe multiple times.

 

[Stacyhs]

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.

I never said the sky would fall or be followed by disaster. I would appreciate you not misrepresenting what I said. What I did say is it would "destabilize and undermine the SC's position" which it would do. Justice Breyer agrees:

Adding more members to the Supreme Court risks undermining public confidence in the court’s decisions, Justice Stephen Breyer warned this week.

In a speech at Harvard Law School released Wednesday, Breyer said the court’s authority depends on trust that it is guided by legal principles, not politics.

“Structural alteration motivated by the perception of political influence” would erode that trust, he said.

So did Ruth Bader Ginsburg:

It would be that — one side saying, ‘When we’re in power, we’re going to enlarge the number of judges, so we would have more people who would vote the way we want them to.

Nine seems to be a good number. It’s been that way for a long time.

But the whole notion of the country's independent judiciary hinges on public trust, she noted.

"The court has no troops at its command," Ginsburg pointed out, "doesn't have the power of the purse, and yet time and again, when the courts say something, people accept it."

Even a well-intentioned court-packing scheme (like FDR’s arguably was) can set off a cycle of mutual escalation that winds up discrediting and weakening the institution being battled over. The Supreme Court has no army. Its authority rests on the thin reed of public acceptance and political forbearance. If it were to be weaponized in a court-packing scheme, its rulings might suddenly stop being obeyed.

https://www.vox.com/2018/7/2/175135...dr-roosevelt-new-deal-democrats-supreme-court

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.

Hmm...really? Because that is not what the Republicans said:

If Democrats succeeded in increasing the number of justices, how would Republicans react?

They say they would do the same as soon as they regained full control of Congress and the White House, and change the number of seats to either add justices or reduce the number if a Democratic appointee retired or died.

As the saying goes "The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. In 2016, Gov. Ducey stacked the AZ Supreme Court by adding two new conservative judges. This power was given to him by the GOP controlled AZ legislature.

Democrats called the bill a move by Ducey and Republicans to stack the Supreme Court. Democratic Sen. Katie Hobbs, of Phoenix, said court caseloads were not a problem, and "the only reason to do it is so the governor can stack the Supreme Court with his picks."

https://www.azcentral.com/story/new...lation-expand-arizona-supreme-court/84544008/

As Eugene Volokh, a law professor at the University of California-Los Angeles, said:

If the Democrats succeed here, then the next time the Republicans take control, it’s a sure bet they’ll likewise play tit-for-tat and expand the Court so that they take it over again. It doesn’t seem like a good long-term solution."

 

[Warp12]

There is no truth in what you're saying. Outside of medical emergencies absolutely no one is having abortions at 8.9 months. You've been asked to prove that anyone, anywhere is having a voluntary abortion at >8 months, and you can't.

So what I'm saying is your argument is ********, it's based on ********, and it's a red herring, as has been pointed out by Joe multiple times.

It is allowable under law. And people are here bitching about law, and hypotheticals.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Republicans are always accusing Democrats of waging a Culture War.
But this law is literally pitting citizens against each other.
Given their nostalgia for the Civil War, this seems to be by design.

Every accusation is a confession.

 

[Stacyhs]

This is so goddamn pathetic.

Why in discourse do we let someone who literally making stuff up dictate the course of the discussion to us?

Now we have to sit here and jump through hoops proving to him that something that he already damn well knows doesn't happen doesn't happen just to get us back to the original discussion, which he was already totally wrong about.

We spend so much time dragging discussions back to "Okay here's the original wrong point you were already proven wrong on before you went of running drunk and naked through a dozen unrelated hijacks you made us walk you back from" just to get back to the original stupidity we were arguing about in the first place.

Weaponized fractal wrongness. The one man Gish gallop. The word can't say on this board because it doesn't exist because we have to pretend we can't define it.

 

[Stacyhs]

I mean, look at other countries.

Here in the Netherlands where abortion is legal women are lining up to have sex, carry a baby till 3d term and then have abortions. After all, it's more convenient than doing so early in case birth control failed.

But, that's just the way of your people. I guess.

This thread is about the US, and Texas law.

Pretty sure he was being facetious.

And he met his match.

If you think that, there are words to accurately describe just how wrong you are.

 

[cosmicaug]

Hmm...really? Because that is not what the Republicans said:



As the saying goes "The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. In 2016, Gov. Ducey stacked the AZ Supreme Court by adding two new conservative judges. This power was given to him by the GOP controlled AZ legislature.


https://www.azcentral.com/story/new...lation-expand-arizona-supreme-court/84544008/

As Eugene Volokh, a law professor at the University of California-Los Angeles, said:

You missed the point made. It's not that Republicans won't retaliate; it's that republicans will continue packing the courts by any means necessary, including by adding seats to the SCOTUS, regardless of whether Democrats do it first.

They are not currently being held back by some notion of preserving norms. IfWhen Republicans gain power and they feel like having extra judges might be nice, they are going to put them on there regardless of what Democrats have done. All it will take is Roberts siding with the wrong side on some issue for them to feel this way.

 

[Stacyhs]

There is no truth in what you're saying. Outside of medical emergencies absolutely no one is having abortions at 8.9 months. You've been asked to prove that anyone, anywhere is having a voluntary abortion at >8 months, and you can't.

So what I'm saying is your argument is ********, it's based on ********, and it's a red herring, as has been pointed out by Joe multiple times.

Not only are women not getting abortions after 8 months just because they changed their minds /using it as birth control, no ethical pro-choice doctor would perform it.