Texas v abortion

[Schadrach]

It does seem like it would also be easy to report a lot of conservative lawmakers and such since it seems like its rather common for them to have abortions and try and keep it under wraps.

Hell, just sue the governor and the state government for maintaining the roads. I guarantee you every abortion that happens involves the road system to facilitate it. Likewise for the power companies. I'm sure Uber doesn't thoroughly vet that no person they arrange a driver for is going to get an abortion, so throw them in the pile too.

If the Dems had any balls, they'd pack the Supreme Court with progressive Justices and end the Republican rule of terror on the rule of law and human rights.

That's cute, it's like you think the Dems are actually progressive. Both parties are beholden to the donor class, the Republicans push their interests forward and the Democrats exist so you think you have a choice in the matter - they play face to the Republicans heel while the donor class wins regardless of who takes office.

if we just decide 'you made your bed, now sleep in it'.

...that's literally reproductive rights for men, in a nutshell. Including ones who sired the child because they were sexually assaulted.

Can you find a site with the actual wording or punishments and such? I've looked around and haven't been able to find anything that definitively answers what the law is and what the punishment is.

Texas SB8 | 2021-2022 | 87th Legislature

Bill Text (2021-05-19) Relating to abortion, including abortions after detection of an unborn child's heartbeat; authorizing a private civil right of action. [Effective on 9/1/21]

legiscan.com

Do you really think banning religion is an easier solution than sex ed?

It would be at least as useful, in the long run. Por que no los dos?

Anyone noticing the underlying note of "People should be punished for being sexually active" in one side of this back and forth?

Right, one side says "People should be punished for being sexually active" the other says "Women should not be punished for being sexually active".

 

[Avnger]

Right, one side says "People should be punished for being sexually active" the other says "Women should not be punished for being sexually active".

Where in this thread has anyone even so much as hinted that men should be punished for being sexually active? If you agree that hasn't happened, why purposely distort one side as "women should not be punished for being sexually active" rather than the true argument being made of "people should not be punished for being sexually active"?

 

[Casual Shinji]

...that's literally reproductive rights for men, in a nutshell. Including ones who sired the child because they were sexually assaulted.

Okay, and?

 

[Worgen]

 

[McElroy]

Okay, and?

Quoted the wrong person?

 

[Casual Shinji]

Quoted the wrong person?

Aborted.

 

[Trunkage]

I think abortion is a tricky situation because I bet just about anyone would say killing fetus is bad (just generally) regardless if an hour old or 9 months old so I can see why some people are very much against abortion. I don't really have a firmly planted position, though in cases of rape and situations that endanger the woman's health makes perfect sense to me. It's the rest that's a pretty grey area for me with most likely different nuances in each case. I'm against regulating stuff based on personal beliefs so to me the abortion debate I can go either way on and I can see why others would feel strongly one way or the other.

You know what I also see as bad? Parents not wanting kids. Then they abusive, or neglectful or just hand them over to paedophiles.

It's like the homeless kids in India. They go on the street begging. But the money the get from begging goes to the parents (or 'guardian'' i.e. someone whose using them). And the best way to earn money is to chop of an arm or leg. Because who doesn't feel sorry for a disabled kid? And then they get to go home to be raped by their guardian.

Forcing a kid to live with a parent that doesn't love them and will just abuse them is not something I'm into. When lefties say, 'Republicans love the child in the womb, hate the child when they're out,' this is what they mean. You're only caring about one part of the timeline

 

[SilentPony]

So some journalist asked Secretary Psaki why Biden is against the Texas abortion ban when the Bible say its wrong and he's a practicing Catholic.
And she gave the wrong answer in my opinion. She said Biden respects a women's right to choose.

WRONG. Who the fuck cares about women and a fetus in this? In the macro I mean.

The correct answer should have been "The President, like all proper Americans, understands the US is not a theocracy and that no religious text should ever be used as the basis for law"
Full stop. That's it, that's the end of the argument. The idea of women and their right to choose, that's a distraction from the real issue. I don't care if the Bible says every Wednesday is free ice cream and blowjobs day, you can't use it as the basis for a law. Just full stop

 

[happyninja42]

The correct answer should have been "The President, like all proper Americans, understands the US is not a theocracy and that no religious text should ever be used as the basis for law"
Full stop. That's it, that's the end of the argument. The idea of women and their right to choose, that's a distraction from the real issue. I don't care if the Bible says every Wednesday is free ice cream and blowjobs day, you can't use it as the basis for a law. Just full stop

Except the religious right DO think you can use it for a basis of law. And in fact, have done that very thing, on every level of government. This is a prime example of it. So while, ideally, that's what should be said, the reality is the conservative, religious shitbags, WANT a theocracy, they want THEIR theocracy. And they have been pushing, for decades, in subtle and overt, and nefarious ways, to make that a reality. They've been spreading their "religious freedom" bullshit as a legal justification to do ANYTHING they want, because they can tie their religion to every aspect of life (just look at some of the ridiculous anti-mask reasons, literally quoting the bible as to why they don't have to wear masks), and since if you shut them down, they can then scream religious persecution (which they are also doing), they get a get out of jail free card for any accountability for the barbaric shit they are trying to make the law of the land.

And they are winning.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

So while, ideally, that's what should be said, the reality is the conservative, religious shitbags, WANT a theocracy, they want THEIR theocracy. And they have been pushing, for decades, in subtle and overt, and nefarious ways, to make that a reality.

I once saw a video clip of a Republican voter shouting "It's freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion!" Some people apparently believe that "religious freedom" means freedom for them to impose their religion on the rest of us.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

You know what I also see as bad? Parents not wanting kids. Then they abusive, or neglectful or just hand them over to paedophiles.

It's like the homeless kids in India. They go on the street begging. But the money the get from begging goes to the parents (or 'guardian'' i.e. someone whose using them). And the best way to earn money is to chop of an arm or leg. Because who doesn't feel sorry for a disabled kid? And then they get to go home to be raped by their guardian.

Forcing a kid to live with a parent that doesn't love them and will just abuse them is not something I'm into. When lefties say, 'Republicans love the child in the womb, hate the child when they're out,' this is what they mean. You're only caring about one part of the timeline

That's why I said there's a bunch of nuance in the debate. Killing unborn life is bad. But is it still bad if the end results are better basically (pro or anti consequentialism)?That's why I said I'm not for regulation when it should probably be a case-by-case basis and then that's too much bureaucracy in there (probably a trial every time or something). It ends up being more of a personal belief thing IMO, and I'm wholly against anyone forcing personal beliefs on others.

 

[Trunkage]

That's why I said there's a bunch of nuance in the debate. Killing unborn life is bad. But is it still bad if the end results are better basically (pro or anti consequentialism)?That's why I said I'm not for regulation when it should probably be a case-by-case basis and then that's too much bureaucracy in there (probably a trial every time or something). It ends up being more of a personal belief thing IMO, and I'm wholly against anyone forcing personal beliefs on others.

The other trouble I see is that you cannot predict a who is going to be a good parent. You have to rely on individuals and them being self aware

 

[Phoenixmgs]

The other trouble I see is that you cannot predict a who is going to be a good parent. You have to rely on individuals and them being self aware

I feel it's more of a morality debate and what side of consequentialism you're on. I think an act itself is either bad or good regardless on the consequences because you can't really predict the future. I'm a deontologist as far as ethics and morality goes. Some kids turn out great that have bad parents and some turn out bad with good parents. Parenting is also rather subjective too. You can also go even further with it like saying it's OK to kill a one year old because the parents have been bad and the child has a very low chance of having a good life. Why is it OK to kill a fetus because of a potential non-loving parent (some people change once the child is born) but not OK to kill a one year old with a parent who's demonstrated not loving their kid? I don't really see that much of a difference there besides the baby being out of the womb, the argument is basically the exact same. Morally, I'm against abortion because deontology but it's not something I feel comfortable forcing on others with different beliefs because I get all the different points of view and they do have validity. Like weighing down a teenager with the responsibility of a baby can result in both having bad lives. Some feel the good outweighing the bad makes something moral and some don't. It was basically Thanos' argument in the MCU, though that was a pretty poor example of it and his way to fix it was extremely short-sighted (assuming people would not overextend resources again).

 

[Kwak]

What's so hard about 'if you want to have children, do so and we'll help you can raise healthy loved children, if you aren't ready for that don't and we won't make it hard for you not to.'
Everybody's quality of life goes up, society benefits and the world is a slightly better place.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Everybody's quality of life goes up, society benefits and the world is a slightly better place.

You've identified what the problem is in the eyes of Republicans. They need people to feel superior to, to point at and say "you are bad and you should suffer". A just and fair society robs them of that.

 

[happyninja42]

I once saw a video clip of a Republican voter shouting "It's freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion!" Some people apparently believe that "religious freedom" means freedom for them to impose their religion on the rest of us.

Yep, and those "some people" are conservative republican christians.

 

[Worgen]

New Texas Law Allows Private Citizens To Hold Pregnant Women Hostage Until Birth

AUSTIN, TX—In an ongoing effort to completely eliminate the right to an abortion in the state, the Texas Legislature passed a new law Thursday that allows private citizens to kidnap and detain any pregnant woman or girl until she reaches full term and gives birth. “The sanctity of life can only...

www.theonion.com

 

[Trunkage]

New Texas Law Allows Private Citizens To Hold Pregnant Women Hostage Until Birth

AUSTIN, TX—In an ongoing effort to completely eliminate the right to an abortion in the state, the Texas Legislature passed a new law Thursday that allows private citizens to kidnap and detain any pregnant woman or girl until she reaches full term and gives birth. “The sanctity of life can only...

www.theonion.com

Stop printing truthful things, Onion.

 

[Kwak]

Yep, and those "some people" are conservative republican christians.

What does abortion and religion even have to do with each other?

 

[Trunkage]

I feel it's more of a morality debate and what side of consequentialism you're on. I think an act itself is either bad or good regardless on the consequences because you can't really predict the future. I'm a deontologist as far as ethics and morality goes. Some kids turn out great that have bad parents and some turn out bad with good parents. Parenting is also rather subjective too. You can also go even further with it like saying it's OK to kill a one year old because the parents have been bad and the child has a very low chance of having a good life. Why is it OK to kill a fetus because of a potential non-loving parent (some people change once the child is born) but not OK to kill a one year old with a parent who's demonstrated not loving their kid? I don't really see that much of a difference there besides the baby being out of the womb, the argument is basically the exact same. Morally, I'm against abortion because deontology but it's not something I feel comfortable forcing on others with different beliefs because I get all the different points of view and they do have validity. Like weighing down a teenager with the responsibility of a baby can result in both having bad lives. Some feel the good outweighing the bad makes something moral and some don't. It was basically Thanos' argument in the MCU, though that was a pretty poor example of it and his way to fix it was extremely short-sighted (assuming people would not overextend resources again).

To stop abortions, you have to go to 1984 levels of invasion of privacy and turning citizens against each other.

But we are always told it is worth because of 'morality'. If this was any other issue, you wouldn't accept this.

You wouldn't accept non gun owning citizens to be allowed to bream into gun owners home or work and report them to the government If they owned one. You wouldn't allow woke people entering your house or work and reporting if you called someone a homo. You wouldn't allow a private citizen to come to you work or home and demand all religious symbols be removed. You wouldn't allow private citizens break into your home to make sure you dont have Mein Kempf or Das Kapital.

You sure wouldn't allow a bounty to be given out for reporting poeple like this