Texas abortion ban to take effect Wednesday; pro-aborts seeking last-minute block

a reply to: Sookiechacha
Let's just go with the tried and true..

It was god's will for that baby to be born like that and die such a early and painful death.

It was also god's will that that baby over there be aborted.

Whatever happens, the good, the bad, it is his divine will.

a reply to: dandandat2

Those terms mean exactly the same thing

Really? So, I guess "pro-life" is the same thing as "forced birther"?

This in turn allows me to understand the position other people might be in and while I might disagree with them I can still have a dialog with them in the hopes of working out our differences or at least finding a compromise.

Its unfortunate that more people don't feel this way; the world would be a more peaceful place. "I'm right and your wrong" is the bases of all conflict we see today.

There is no compromise for the religiously motivated. People can have opinions and closely held beliefs about immortality, souls, death, Heaven and Hell, etc. What they cannot do is legislatively impose those beliefs on others.

The idea of a fetal soul in a spiritual world should have no bearing on what happens in the physical world. Nature doesn't care about souls. It "rains" on the pious and the wicked equally.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: dandandat2

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Tempter


I don't care what your view on abortion is, this law privatizes fascism, fosters vigilantism and encourages stalking and harassing individuals that the government can't.

You know the best way the left can get back at the right for this? Pass the same kinda laws for the unvaccinated and unmasked. Allow private citizens to sue the unvaccinated and unmasked for putting their lives in danger.

Not equivalent. In this case the unmasked/unvaccinated folks are supposed to represent the women seeking an abortion, right? First of all, there is zero risk of anyone catching pregnancy from a pregnant woman seeking an abortion.

Under this Texas law, she can't be sued. Only people that seek to aid her in getting an abortion can be sued. So, in your unvaccinated/unmasked scenario, vigilante bounty hunters seeking a $10,000 payoff would have to sue the people that aided and abetted the individual in NOT wearing a mask and NOT getting the vax. That isn't realistic because nobody else can help you not get vaxxed or aid and abet your choice to not wear a mask.

I wasn't making an argument of equivalency; if that was my intent I would have explained the equivalency.

My argument was to put forth the next logical progression in the zero sum game being played by the more vocal minority on the extremes of our political spectrum in this country.

The only direct equivalency I can draw between the two subjects is that one group of people are seeking to deny the personal choice of another.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: dandandat2

Those terms mean exactly the same thing

Really? So, I guess "pro-life" is the same thing as "forced birther"?

Yes they are.

There is no compromise for the religiously motivated. People can have opinions and closely held beliefs about immortality, souls, death, Heaven and Hell, etc. What they cannot do is legislatively impose those beliefs on others.

The idea of a fetal soul in a spiritual world should have no bearing on what happens in the physical world. Nature doesn't care about souls. It "rains" on the pious and the wicked equally.

Its interesting how you phrase your own personal opinions in such absolute terms. It remindeds me of uncompromising religiously motivated people.

Good job on throwing away the GOP's guaranteed victory next year Texas. After the Supreme Court's decision last night, more states are going to follow Texas' path. Plus with the Mississippi case scheduled to go before the court next year, abortion is going to be the hot button topic for the midterms.

By seemingly achieving victory on the abortion issue, the GOP are going to see a decline in turnout from voters who vote specifically on that issue. Meanwhile, the Dems are going to be galvanized to get out and vote.

And if the Dems actually make gains in 2022, you can bet that this will also be used as an impetus to pack the court.

Texas may have single handedly brought on all the things the Right dreads with one bone-headed, fascist, law.

So once again I say good job Texas.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254

By seemingly achieving victory on the abortion issue, the GOP are going to see a decline in turnout from voters who vote specifically on that issue. Meanwhile, the Dems are going to be galvanized to get out and vote.

With this being such a poison topic for the GOP; one has to wonder how they have gained enough support to pass these laws in Texas and the other states that follow suit.

And if the Dems actually make gains in 2022, you can bet that this will also be used as an impetus to pack the court.

This is probably true; the Democrats often use wedge issue to turn the political process on its head. But for some reason they act surprised when their own tactics are used against them.

For example the blue prints for these abortion laws came from similar laws Democrats used to further their environmental policies. I wonder if they thought they where being fascist when they used them.

I think we can safely assume everyone here has actually read the bill, yes?

Just in case though, here is the link to the PDF

Main takeaways seem to be that abortions are still allowable until a fetal heartbeat is detected (depends on the case, but typically around 6 weeks). And, exemptions past the detection of a fetal heartbeat are granted for medical issues, rape, and incest. Dont see that last part mentioned much, but its probably just because Im silly.

Whether or not one still has an issue with it is something else, but not quite as it seems to be being sold by many. Still some odd things in the bill itself, but there ya go.

In the face of newer technologies like this, I do believe there is a conversation to be had here.

If we are going to put a threshold on it, I dont believe it should be at all based in something that will change rapidly with technology. This would exclude any arguments based on dependence upon the mother. Similarly, Im not entirely convinced that fetal heartbeat is necessarily the best threshold for it either.

But pretty much all of it may be a moot point sooner than anyone thinks.. and then it would be a discussion that is shaped by society itself and its ability to run things like adoption. Fortuitously, this is even a discussion that we can have here and now! Because that system isnt so great. It also starts to bring in general poverty, hunger, etc. which are pretty easily solvable already too.

So, not too long from now, most arguments around it will be rendered impotent (heh), and will shift to more general problems like population and general technology.

a reply to: dandandat2

Its interesting how you phrase your own personal opinions in such absolute terms. It remindeds me of uncompromising religiously motivated people.

Yep. I am uncompromised, in that I will not allow someone else's superstitious beliefs have any kind of leverage over my decisions and choices. And yes, religious zealots that seek to legislate or force their beliefs on others are uncompromising.

I speak from experience. Case in point. When my big sister was 18, she came home pregnant from a black man, and exchange student from Kenya, she had fallen for. We're white. My Christian parents, along with the church deacons and pastor, "counseled" her to abort, based on the religious belief and races shouldn't mix, that's an abomination. The baby will be born striped like a Zebra, or spotted like a dog! (Pure ignorance and intolerance). And, they insisted that the child conceiver out of wedlock would be destined to Hell because it would be inheritantly "ungodly". So, she got the abortion and they shipped her off to bible school.

6 years later, I come home pregnant from a Columbian immigrant, and I got the same lecture. He's a foreigner, unequal yokes! Conceived in sin, the child will be cursed and is destined to Hell. Besides, the world is about to end, the apocalypses is coming, and we don't want to give Satan any more souls to take to Hell. If you decide to not to abort, you're alone and on your own, We won't help you, we won't babysit, we won't acknowledge your baby as family!

It didn't work on me, and now I have a 46 year old caring, loving and genius smart daughter!

Yes, I am uncompromised, in that religious zealots will not force me into doing something against my better ideals or change my mind, that a woman's autonomy, and her right to make her own reproductive choices, are hers and only hers.

a reply to: dandandat2

Don't get me wrong, there are people that support these laws. The thing is, do you really think issues voters are going to turn out and vote when the issue they care about is no longer on the platform?

The only reason the GOP picked up the religious vote in the first place is due to abortion issue. What happens to that large section of the GOP's voter base that were simply voting GOP because of the abortion issue if abortion is no longer an issue?

a reply to: Serdgiam

Main takeaways seem to be that abortions are still allowable until a fetal heartbeat is detected (depends on the case, but typically around 6 weeks).

Which is a flagrant violation of Roe V Wade.

And, exemptions past the detection of a fetal heartbeat are granted for medical issues, rape, and incest.

Medical issues? Yes. Rape and incest? Nope. It's not in there.

In the face of newer technologies like this, I do believe there is a conversation to be had here.

Regular people can barely afford their insurance deductible. How much will it cost to transfer an unwanted embryo and bring to term in an artificial womb?

Nah, this science if more for rich people who would rather forego the messiness of a surrogate.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Serdgiam

Medical issues? Yes. Rape and incest? Nope. It's not in there.

Fascinating..

It is though.

There are even exemptions for the weird "make the mother listen to the heartbeat stuff." Meaning, victims of sexual assault, etc. are not subject to this.

Perhaps we are reading something different, eh?

The rest of your reply receives 1.37 shrugs out of 10

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Yes, I am uncompromised, in that religious zealots will not force me into doing something against my better ideals or change my mind, that a woman's autonomy, and her right to make her own reproductive choices, are hers and only hers.

Notice how the white old men making the laws, let the male component of pregnancy skate and lay all the burden on the woman?

This tactic by the GOP hasn't worked in the past; I wonder why they think it will work this time....

a reply to: Serdgiam

It is though.

No, it isn't.

If I'm incorrect, please cite where in the bill this exemption exists. Because I'm not seeing it.

There are even exemptions for the weird "make the mother listen to the heartbeat stuff." Meaning, victims of sexual assault, etc. are not subject to this.

Perhaps, but they're still subject to the 6 week ban.

Abortion rights advocates say the legislation is among the most “extreme” measures nationwide and does not exempt people pregnant because of rape or incest.

www.texastribune.org...

And, what you're ignoring is the truly fascist part of the bill, the part that says Texas law enforcement is forbidden to enforce the ban and prosecute violators. It deputizes private citizens to harass, threaten and sue into oblivion, anyone who might have helped a woman seeking abortion, by providing transportation, housing, financial support and/or medical services, etc.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: dandandat2

Its interesting how you phrase your own personal opinions in such absolute terms. It remindeds me of uncompromising religiously motivated people.

Yep. I am uncompromised, in that I will not allow someone else's superstitious beliefs have any kind of leverage over my decisions and choices. And yes, religious zealots that seek to legislate or force their beliefs on others are uncompromising.

I speak from experience. Case in point. When my big sister was 18, she came home pregnant from a black man, and exchange student from Kenya, she had fallen for. We're white. My Christian parents, along with the church deacons and pastor, "counseled" her to abort, based on the religious belief and races shouldn't mix, that's an abomination. The baby will be born striped like a Zebra, or spotted like a dog! (Pure ignorance and intolerance). And, they insisted that the child conceiver out of wedlock would be destined to Hell because it would be inheritantly "ungodly". So, she got the abortion and they shipped her off to bible school.

6 years later, I come home pregnant from a Columbian immigrant, and I got the same lecture. He's a foreigner, unequal yokes! Conceived in sin, the child will be cursed and is destined to Hell. Besides, the world is about to end, the apocalypses is coming, and we don't want to give Satan any more souls to take to Hell. If you decide to not to abort, you're alone and on your own, We won't help you, we won't babysit, we won't acknowledge your baby as family!

It didn't work on me, and now I have a 46 year old caring, loving and genius smart daughter!

Yes, I am uncompromised, in that religious zealots will not force me into doing something against my better ideals or change my mind, that a woman's autonomy, and her right to make her own reproductive choices, are hers and only hers.

Hey listen I get it; you had awful parents... lots of people find themselves at odds with their parents; its a almost a universal fact of life.

I don't understand how this fact is an excuse for you to emulate the parts of your parents personality you profess to dislike. But emulating one's parents is also a near universal fact of life; so it makes sense even if its not an excuse.

a reply to: dandandat2

Hey listen I get it; you had awful parents...

This is true, but they were only parroting what their Pentecostal Christian church leaders were preaching every Sunday.

I don't understand how this fact is an excuse for you to emulate the parts of your parents personality you profess to dislike.

By defending a woman's choice I am NOT emulating my parents or their Christian handlers.

BTW, what they and the church did, way back then, is illegal today. It's illegal to coerce or threaten a woman into an abortion.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: dandandat2

Don't get me wrong, there are people that support these laws. The thing is, do you really think issues voters are going to turn out and vote when the issue they care about is no longer on the platform?

The only reason the GOP picked up the religious vote in the first place is due to abortion issue. What happens to that large section of the GOP's voter base that were simply voting GOP because of the abortion issue if abortion is no longer an issue?

You just pointed out that the left are going to use this issue to galvanize their base; that they may even use it as an excuse to pack the court.

That sounds to me like the right has something to galvanize their base over as well.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: dandandat2

Hey listen I get it; you had awful parents...

This is true, but they were only parroting what their Pentecostal Christian church leaders were preaching every Sunday.

I don't understand how this fact is an excuse for you to emulate the parts of your parents personality you profess to dislike.

By defending a woman's choice I am NOT emulating my parents or their Christian handlers.

It wasn't your stance on abortion where I draw the comparison between your parents and your self.

It was the zealous nature with which you hold your opinion as being more righteous than other people that I draw the comparison.

But to tell you the truth I never met your parents; so it may be unfair of me to draw that comparison. And I only know you from the adversarial nature of this message board; perhaps you are more compromising in real life than you appear to be from your messages here.

this action by texas is a dangerous precedent that threatens our whole political process, i have a feeling they just tipped the balance keeping our democratic institutions working correctly and an unprecedented wave of attacks on democracy are about to occur across the south once they notice what texas did to usurp the supreme courts authority.

a reply to: Vasa Croe
Good for you

An all female group of judges need to decide this.

If you do not have a uterus, you should have no power to enact laws on those who do.