Texas Repubs pass abortion bill

[RandFan]

The law should reflect the will of the people -nothing more, nothing less.

America is not a pure democracy. Laws must comply with the Constitution. To avoid tyranny of the majority the founders created 3 branches of government. One of those branches is the legislative branch. Legislators are supposed to weigh the will of the people, their conscience, the constitution and reasonable arguments. That is why congress holds debate. If laws were simply to comply with the will of the people we would have no need for legislators and debates in the first place. If the majority wanted to make it illegal to worship Islam then legislators should have enough knowledge of the intent of the founders, the common sense that god gave a billy goat to understand the Constitution and enough back bone to say "no".

One of the branches of government is the judiciary. Its job is to interpret the constitution and protect the minority from the majority. If the majority wanted to make it illegal to worship Islam and spineless legislators were unable to follow their conscience or if they were too stupid to understand the Constitution and that results in laws that violate the constitution and a law suit results, then the judiciary can overturn the new law.

 

[RandFan]

The law should reflect the will of the people -nothing more, nothing less.

America is not a pure democracy. Laws must comply with the Constitution. To avoid tyranny of the majority the founders created 3 branches of government. One of those branches is the legislative branch. Legislators are supposed to weigh the will of the people, their conscience, the constitution and reasonable arguments. That is why congress holds debate. If laws were simply to comply with the will of the people we would have no need for legislators and debates in the first place. If the majority wanted to make it illegal to worship Islam then legislators should have enough knowledge of the intent of the founders, the common sense that god gave a billy goat to understand the Constitution and enough back bone to say "no".

One of the branches of government is the judiciary. Its job is to interpret the constitution and protect the minority from the majority. If the majority wanted to make it illegal to worship Islam and spineless legislators were unable to follow their conscience or if they were too stupid to understand the Constitution and that results in laws that violate the constitution and a law suit results, then the judiciary can overturn the new law.

Nothing more nothing less? What about the constitution? Have we done away with that now?

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. Decided simultaneously with a companion case, Doe v. Bolton, the Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that right must be balanced against the state's two legitimate interests in regulating abortions: protecting prenatal life and protecting women's health. Arguing that these state interests became stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the trimester of pregnancy.

The Court later rejected Roe's trimester framework, while affirming Roe's central holding that a person has a right to abortion until viability.[1]

I don't mean to patronize but what do you mean by "the law should reflect the will of the people -nothing more, nothing less". How do you reconcile that with Constitutional law and precedent? Do those two things go out the window if the will of the people contradicts them?

 

[Caper]

Conservatives are all about freedom, except for women.. women need regulations on what they can do with their vaginas.

It's the killing of humans a lot of conservatives don't like. To many (including me) a 20 week old fetus is human.

 

[thaiboxerken]

It's the killing of humans a lot of conservatives don't like. To many (including me) a 20 week old fetus is human.

Human, yes. Human being. No.

 

[RandFan]

It's the killing of humans a lot of conservatives don't like. To many (including me) a 20 week old fetus is human.

You are entitled to an opinion as are all of the other conservatives. That's why we have to fight evolution because a lot of conservatives don't base their decisions on science but religion and feelings. To them evolution and climate change are nonsense. But that's the whole point of the JREF. We want to educate people about science and get people to make informed choices based on skepticism, critical thinking and science.

To most of us who think the life of a thinking, feeling pregnant woman should take precedent over a mass of tissue that doesn't have the neurological capacity sufficient to suffer. Conservatives are fine if a woman who can suffer, suffers. And of course there is zero evidence that banning abortions will do much but put poor women's lives at risk.

Rich women can fly to California, have their abortions and get a Martini down at the beach. Great excuse for a vacation.

 

[RandFan]

It's the killing of humans a lot of conservatives don't like. To many (including me) a 20 week old fetus is human.

Human, yes. Human being. No.

Many if not most of them certainly don't give a damn about the lives of the children born into poverty with little hope for a future.

 

[Caper]

To most of us who think the life of a thinking, feeling pregnant woman should take precedent over a mass of tissue that doesn't have the neurological capacity sufficient to suffer.

I disagree with you that a fetus does not have the neurological capacity to suffer. And I don't think many people at all don't think a mother shouldnt have the right to abortion if her life is in danger.

 

[xjx388]

Nothing more nothing less? What about the constitution? Have we done away with that now?

I don't mean to patronize but what do you mean by "the law should reflect the will of the people -nothing more, nothing less". How do you reconcile that with Constitutional law and precedent? Do those two things go out the window if the will of the people contradicts them?

The Constitution is the will of the people. As soon as it stops being so, it will be amended or, in the most drastic case, thrown out.

 

[RandFan]

I disagree with you that a fetus does not have the neurological capacity to suffer.

Your citations are missing. It would be nice if you could do more than tell us what you think and feel. This is a skeptics site. Yes, you are entitled to an opinion and you are entitled to share it. But do you have a reason why others should agree with you?

And I don't think many people at all don't think a mother shouldnt have the right to abortion if her life is in danger.

Again with the think. Do you live in a world where reality is simply what you think it is? You didn't start posting at JREF yesterday. Do you understand what skepticism and critical thinking are? I'm not trying to provoke or patronize you but it would be nice if you could offer something more than speculation.

 

[RandFan]

The Constitution is the will of the people. As soon as it stops being so, it will be amended or, in the most drastic case, thrown out.

Actually no. If that were the case then the Judiciary would not have had to reverse DOMA.

It's easy to pass a law based on majority sentiment. To pass an amendment takes a lot, lot more. It must first be ratified after two-thirds of the House and Senate approve of the proposal and send it to the states for a vote. Then, three-fourths of the states must affirm the proposed Amendment.

That's a hell of a lot more difficult than passing a law. And you did not address my points about the fact we live in a republic. You failed to address tyranny of the majority. If what you are saying is true we would not need legislators. We would only need a plurality of votes for anything.

No, it most definitely not simply the will of the people.

 

[xjx388]

Your citations are missing. It would be nice if you could do more than tell us what you think and feel. This is a skeptics site. Yes, you are entitled to an opinion and you are entitled to share it. But do you have a reason why others should agree with you?

As we have established already, there are no citations to be had. Science does not deal in philosophical lines. This isn't like exposing psychics where the evidence is strongly against psychic phenomena.

Again with the think. Do you live in a world where reality is simply what you think it is? You didn't start posting at JREF yesterday. Do you understand what skepticism and critical thinking are? I'm not trying to provoke or patronize you but it would be nice if you could offer something more than speculation.

All we have is "think." Unless you can come up with a citation that establishes a definite line between "being," and, "non-being," then all you are doing is speculating as well.

 

[Corsair 115]

It's the killing of humans a lot of conservatives don't like.

Unless it's the killing of a convicted criminal, in which case it's perfectly fine to kill a human. (To be fair, there are those who are pro-life and oppose capital punishment.)

 

[RandFan]

As we have established already, there are no citations to be had. Science does not deal in philosophical lines. This isn't like exposing psychics where the evidence is strongly against psychic phenomena.

There are lots of citations to be had in favor of viability. You admitted that if given a choice between a brain donor and a recipient you would choose to be a donor. It's one of the few if not the only organ in the body that individuals would choose to be the donor. We know that without sufficient cognitive abilities a fetus cannot feel or think. Unless you believe in a soul, which there is no evidence for, then viability is the scientifically sound delineation. The rest is superstition and speculation.

All we have is "think." Unless you can come up with a citation that establishes a definite line between "being," and, "non-being," then all you are doing is speculating as well.

There is no "definite line". We might as well say that we cannot be sure if mid-afternoon is day because we don't have a definite line between night and day. We might as well say we don't know the difference between a child and an adult because we cannot say exactly when a child becomes an adult.

Absent the ability to suffer and absent superstition and speculation it is unreasonable to force a women who can suffer and who is not ready for a child to carry a fetus if that fetus cannot think or suffer.

 

[xjx388]

No, it most definitely not simply the will of the people.

Sure it is. If the Constitution ever fails to represent the will of the people, the people can amend or replace it. No one said it would be easy to do either one.

In the meantime, congress can craft new laws that based on judicial action. The president can veto those laws. The judiciary can overturn them. That is the defense against tyranny of the majority.

 

[RandFan]

Sure it is. If the Constitution ever fails to represent the will of the people, the people can amend or replace it. No one said it would be easy to do either one.

I think there is some misscomunication between you and I. Define "will of the people". 100%? 90%? 51%? Simply saying "will of the people" doesn't mean much. It's vague.

In the meantime, congress can craft new laws that based on judicial action.

What if the legislature votes contrary to 51% of the people. And what if the will of the people to throw the legislature out is less than 50%? I would say that is NOT the will of the people. I would say that "will of the people", while important, isn't all that there is.

The president can veto those laws. The judiciary can overturn them. That is the defense against tyranny of the majority.

That's what I just got through saying. Are you reading what I'm writing?

 

[Regnad Kcin]

What nonsense.

In my opinion (one who has no dog in the hunt), he's got you.

Your observation...is just you trying to bastardize language to justify your nonsensical ramblings.

The ramblings are quite sensible. Neither are they ramblings.

 

[uke2se]

It's the killing of humans a lot of conservatives don't like. To many (including me) a 20 week old fetus is human.

I don't buy it. Killing of humans is normally supported by conservatives (death penalty).

 

[DavidJames]

I don't buy it. Killing of humans is normally supported by conservatives (death penalty).

not to mention guns with as few restrictions as possible and invading countries for bogus reasons.

The elephant in the JREF room, invisible and or denied by most JREF Republican sympathizers is the stranglehold the religious right have over their party.

 

[Mister Earl]

I don't buy the religious right's argument. One, it's not theologically supported, despite their claims. Two, it is absolutely not beneficial to society. Three, it would not and could never stop abortion. Instead it will drive abortions "underground" where women will have to get care from places that are seedier and more likely to cause them serious harm.

I believe the whole anti-abortion scheme has a different purpose. I think it's a ham-fisted attempt to bolster a flagging voting bloc. Couples who have children they did not plan for tend to be poorer. Children are expensive these days. Poorer families tend to turn towards religion as a coping mechanism. Religious families tend to vote towards publicly religious politicians, regardless of whether or not they actually live up to the tenants of that religion.

I think that is what is at play here. A callous move designed to assure continued political control at the expense of the quality of life of their people. It sickens me.

 

[funk de fino]

Conservatives are all about freedom, except for women.. women need regulations on what they can do with their vaginas.

And they say the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has womens rights issues

The GOP are cavemen on this issue, pure and simple