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

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: dandandat2
Just wondering...
Why are yous so upset over the possibility of the dems packing the court when the republicans have already gone to such great lengths to pack it?

Umm we need to at least have common definitions.

You are entitled to your own opinion; but you can't just make up facts.

In the history of our country "Packing the court" has never ever meant appointing justices that share the same political ideology of the party in power of the presidency nor the senate.

The definition of "Packing the court" is and always has been:

to increase the number of justices on a court and especially the United States Supreme Court causing the ideological makeup of the Court to shift

www.merriam-webster.com...

The republicans have not increased the number of justices on the United States Supreme Court in recent times. Their have been 9 justice on the court since 1869.

The last major attempt to pack the court occurred under the FDR presidency. FRD attempted to pack the court in order to have a better chance that his new deal policies wouldn't be found to be unconstitutional. Thankfully members of his own Democrat party stopped him from packing the court. Back than political parties had more integrity; putting the country ahead of party.

Given the proper definition of the term I would be "upset" if either political party attempted to pack the Supreme Court. Unfortunately it is some extremist Democrats who have been contemplating doing so in recent times. However I am hopeful that the more moderate Democrats will stand up to such a disastrous policy if it ever where to be close to happening.

originally posted by: knoxie
a reply to: dandandat2

I disagree. Being pro- choice is the one political topic I have in common with my republican friends and family. My BFF has two boys. We had a passionate discussion yesterday on how awful this is, especially the bounty crap.

My parents and my husbands parents are both staunch republicans but very anti-religious believe it or not. Both very much pro- choice. Obviously antidotal, but still this whole bounty crap isn’t gonna sit well with folks, IMO.

This thread alone is telling.

Eight flags on a supposed “win”for republicans and their anti- abortion stance. Lol

I can not argue against your anecdote; I am sure you are correctly portraying the sentiment your family feels on the topic.

But perhaps my anecdote puts yours in a different prospective. My family is mostly made up of Democrats, and those who might be more "conservative" are New York city metro conservatives as opposed to Texas conservative. I don't know of any of them who think this is such a big deal. Sure they have opinions this way or that; but this topic isn't going to drive them to the polls to vote Democrat in order to save themselves from the big bad republicans in Texas.

You can find people who hold a verity of opinions on any topic. This train of conversation started with the ascertain that this Texas law was a tremendous poison pill that the republicans forced themselves to swallow... I just don’t see it.

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: dandandat2

originally posted by: jrod
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.

And only the Military should get to decide if society goes to war?

All politicians dance to the MIC tune. Who do you think decides if the US goes to war. hint...it's not the taxpayers

the word "naïve" springs to mind here....

That truth is an emergent property of our current lobbying system. While it is wrong; Its a far cry different than putting it into law that only the MIC gets to decided on military action.

a reply to: dandandat2


I absolutely believe it’s a poison pill. That’s my opinion. Yours is different and only time will tell.

I find it very hard to believe a pro-choice voter being okay with neighbors, friends, enemies, ex’s, people hard up for cash inserting themselves into others personal privacy for monetary gain. Lol

Again, this thread leads me to believe it’s not a popular ruling. But hey, it could be a new career path for some.

a reply to: dandandat2
My bad.. for some reason that defination just doesn't stick in my head.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

I already said that I was uncompromised when it comes to defending, and uncompromised in my opposition to those that fight against the rights we've been speaking of.

There's a difference in having an opinion, and seeking to force that opinion on the unwilling. Nobody is trying to force abortions on anyone. On the other hand, Texas IS forcing women, and young girls, to carry unwanted children to term, right now!

And your opponents are uncompromised when the defend against the murder of the most vulnerable people in our society. They believe you are forcing abortion on the unborn child.

They can just as easily paint your zealous behavior as being dangerous and antithetical to human rights as you can theirs.

You want to defend a woman's human right to choose what happens to their body.

They want to defend a babies human right to not be murdered.

If neither side is willing to put what they can never agree on aside and attempt to find compromises elsewhere than we will forever be locked in this back and forth ideological battle.

You claim to care about the fate of these women in Texas. So I have to ask why are you so intent on walking down a path that will forever put them in a state of ping pong relating to laws around abortion? You will never illuminate your opposition (unless you take much more drastic measures).

I guess some times "being right" is more important than the practical consequences of constant strif.

I'm not screaming. Are you?

I was speaking metaphorically; my apologies for not being more clear.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: dandandat2
My bad.. for some reason that defination just doesn't stick in my head.

No apologies necessary.

a reply to: knoxie
You are assuming that the average voter knows, or cares to know, what some state law in tx says.
Women in NY can feel really secure in their reproductive rights I think. Roe has been enshrined in their state law. They might not be paying that much attention to the laws passed in the deep south.

originally posted by: knoxie
a reply to: dandandat2


I absolutely believe it’s a poison pill. That’s my opinion. Yours is different and only time will tell.

Agreed

I find it very hard to believe a pro-choice voter being okay with neighbors, friends, enemies, ex’s, people hard up for cash inserting themselves into others personal privacy for monetary gain. Lol

Again, this thread leads me to believe it’s not a popular ruling. But hey, it could be a new career path for some.

It definitely will be a new career path for some (assuming the law holds up in court)

I doubt many 'pro-choice voters are ok' with the new rule. The question is whether it is enough to change how they would normally vote.

This topic has been used as a wedge issue for decades; the Texas law is a new chapter in a very old book.

In order for the texas law to be a poison pill in the next set of elections cycles it has to be powerful enough to change the way people will vote ... and I just don't see how it will.

a reply to: dawnstar

No doubt in my mind it will be a galvanizing issue.

Bounties on women. In America.





Florida and South Dakota are ready to follow suit.

originally posted by: knoxie
a reply to: dawnstar

No doubt in my mind it will be a galvanizing issue.

Bounties on women. In America.

And a good portion of those women are opposed to abortion.

news.gallup.com...

originally posted by: loam

originally posted by: sunkuong
a reply to: Xtrozero

2021 and we still want someone to dictate what other people can and cant do

The irony.

a reply to: dandandat2

You can be opposed to abortion AND be horrified by the idea of vigilante system.

a reply to: dandandat2

And your opponents are uncompromised when the defend against the murder of the most vulnerable people in our society. They believe you are forcing abortion on the unborn child.

That's what I said. "There is no compromise for the religiously motivated." Right after you said "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."

They want to defend a babies human right to not be murdered.
If neither side is willing to put what they can never agree on aside and attempt to find compromises elsewhere than we will forever be locked in this back and forth ideological battle.

If abortion is murder, how can there be a compromise? If it's murder at 20 weeks, it's still murder at 6 weeks. It's murder anytime after conception.

There is no compromise to be had.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

If abortion is murder, how can there be a compromise? If it's murder at 20 weeks, it's still murder at 6 weeks. It's murder anytime after conception.

There is no compromise to be had.

Well that is the problem. What is reasonable and what is not... It is a very hard thing to come to the agreeable solution. There are some that suggest preventing pregnancy is wrong, so you should only have sex to have children and anything else is wrong, so using a rubber or the money shot is wrong.

So what would work and could be a middle road? Is pulling the babies head halfway out and then sucking the brains out OK as the other end of the extreme? Somewhere there needs to be a middle.

A part of that is how much do tax payers pay for someone's behavioral actions? There needs to be a middle ground there too.

a reply to: dandandat2

Any decisions should be based on truth..
And I am sorry but...
A "heartbeat" is usually present around the 5th or 6th week AFTER the first day of their last period. I don't know how many times I pointed that fact out and still people were saying that oh, 6 weeks is plenty of time.. really., probably around half of that time has passed before the sexual act has occurred.

How many abortions occur in that last few weeks or the 3rd trimester? Let alone the day before the baby would have been born? My guess is that the number isn't any higher than the number of young teens who end up pregnant because of sexual abuse. If the number is meaningless as far as the pregnant children then it is also meaningless for those late term abortions. Which be the way are expensive as all heck and heavily restricted. And ya, when trump spoke up about late term abortions and quite frankly gave a very distorted picture, there were a few women who spoke up and told their stories. I have read some of those stories. Have you? I think there was only one I ran across that I question the justification of.

If taxpayer money is going for abortions then it is because of those exemptions.. ya know, life health of mother, fetal abnormalities, rape and incest. The only other possibility is maybe a state might decide to appropriate some of their state revenue.
Medicare, medicaid, title 10 (or whatever title it is) pays for services given. The provider has to state what service was given and gets a reimbursement only if that service is covered. But still, year after year, people claim this... heck, planned parenthood had had there books opened for investigation more times that any other business, organization, church group that is recieving govt funds to provide services.
And, the misinformation goes on and on.

You build your castle on a faulty foundation and it is liable to collaspe with you in it.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: dandandat2

And your opponents are uncompromised when the defend against the murder of the most vulnerable people in our society. They believe you are forcing abortion on the unborn child.

That's what I said. "There is no compromise for the religiously motivated." Right after you said "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."

They want to defend a babies human right to not be murdered.
If neither side is willing to put what they can never agree on aside and attempt to find compromises elsewhere than we will forever be locked in this back and forth ideological battle.

If abortion is murder, how can there be a compromise? If it's murder at 20 weeks, it's still murder at 6 weeks. It's murder anytime after conception.

There is no compromise to be had.

There can be compromise on all topics. Compromise comes in the form of laws that all can agree to live with even if they don't get all that they want.

Clearly in this case there is a distinction being made between 6 weeks and conception.

I wonder what else can be compromised on if all parties where to sit down and talk rather than finding creative ways to shut each other down.

a reply to: dandandat2
Most do have some limit though. Ask them if they believe 13 year old girls should be denied and abortion. They may not be as pro life with that one..
Ask them if the mother of that 13 year old should be sued into financial ruin, have the girls plight discussed on internet forums like this one, her confidential medical records made public..
The family harassed by bounty hunters...
Well wonder what kind of answer you would get then.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: dandandat2
Most do have some limit though. Ask them if they believe 13 year old girls should be denied and abortion. They may not be as pro life with that one..
Ask them if the mother of that 13 year old should be sued into financial ruin, have the girls plight discussed on internet forums like this one, her confidential medical records made public..
The family harassed by bounty hunters...
Well wonder what kind of answer you would get then.

If you are correct; it sounds like there is a lot to compromise over.

I wonder what would become of these laws if the pro-life camp didn't feel they need to fight for every inch they get.

A proclamation that there will be no compromise forces people to choose sides and hunker down.

Yet if people decided to collectively blink; real legislation can be had.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: dandandat2

Any decisions should be based on truth..
And I am sorry but...
A "heartbeat" is usually present around the 5th or 6th week AFTER the first day of their last period. I don't know how many times I pointed that fact out and still people were saying that oh, 6 weeks is plenty of time.. really., probably around half of that time has passed before the sexual act has occurred.

How many abortions occur in that last few weeks or the 3rd trimester? Let alone the day before the baby would have been born? My guess is that the number isn't any higher than the number of young teens who end up pregnant because of sexual abuse. If the number is meaningless as far as the pregnant children then it is also meaningless for those late term abortions. Which be the way are expensive as all heck and heavily restricted. And ya, when trump spoke up about late term abortions and quite frankly gave a very distorted picture, there were a few women who spoke up and told their stories. I have read some of those stories. Have you? I think there was only one I ran across that I question the justification of.

If taxpayer money is going for abortions then it is because of those exemptions.. ya know, life health of mother, fetal abnormalities, rape and incest. The only other possibility is maybe a state might decide to appropriate some of their state revenue.
Medicare, medicaid, title 10 (or whatever title it is) pays for services given. The provider has to state what service was given and gets a reimbursement only if that service is covered. But still, year after year, people claim this... heck, planned parenthood had had there books opened for investigation more times that any other business, organization, church group that is recieving govt funds to provide services.
And, the misinformation goes on and on.

You build your castle on a faulty foundation and it is liable to collaspe with you in it.

Agreed; neither side of this debate is immune to rigidity.