Texas v abortion
- Thread starter Trunkage
- Start date
Yeah, that's a 'line' worthy of discussion.
If the guy basically ran the place well and was a decent person to his staff it feels mighty unfair to terminate him over this opinion. On the other hand any woman working there would undoudtebly feel uncomfortable knowing that their boss thinks they are not allowed this choice.
There probably wasn't any other option left though after that tweet, seeing as people were already pulling out of contracts with them. I don't know if a rectification/apology from the guy would've helped much. Don't really know how to feel about this, maybe he was actually just a pretty nice guy, but then I've also seen plenty of very nice people suddenly express some extremely disturbing views.
Don't know how funny this is for the people in Texas, but it just popped into my head.
To be fair, Texas courts can think they have a very long reach.
Several years ago, two Texans bought Liverpool Football Club. They bought it by sort of mortgaging the club: borrowing and putting those debts onto the club itself. However, they had made a big mistake and screwed the finances of LFC, ending up with the club's creditors forcing the owners to accept conditions that the board could sell the club to other owners without their permission. This eventually occurred - an interested buyer arrived and the board recommended sale, which the Texan owners resisted with much absurdity and hijnix (it was so entertaining I followed the livestream). It ended up at the British High Court. The High Court duly declared that everything was good and proper, the Texan owners had clearly legally signed away their rights to block a sale and the club could therefore be sold (at a deliciously huge loss to the Texans - I think well over $100 million).
At which point - gobsmackingly - they went to a Texan judge who declared an injunction blocking the sale despite it being completely outside Texan jurisdiction.
To say the British High Court judge was not amused would be an understatement. He informed the Texans and their legal team that they had 24h to remove that injunction otherwise every single one of them would be up for contempt of court. Unsurprisingly, very shortly after, the Texan judge removed his injunction.
And that's what you get for trying to cozy up to a racist and sexist jackass. I do thank you for that little news. It gave me a laugh.
Here's an interesting interview
Some interesting fact I didn't know
The 14th amendment made sure that the constitution was applied to states, where previously it only was applicable to the federal government
This was NOT done immediately. So, for example, the first amendment did not have to be follow by the state governments until the supreme court ruled on it in the 1920s
Similarly, the states did not have to provide an attorney until the 1960s
People in NY could not sue to get rid of the Stop and Frisk policy as they could not prove they definitely would be hurt by a police officer due to Stop and Frisk. Even if they got hurt previously
This Dean suggests there is nothing stopping Abbott from making a law where a citizen criticizing Abbott could be sued by another citizen. He can get around any constitutional mandate
Some interesting fact I didn't know
The 14th amendment made sure that the constitution was applied to states, where previously it only was applicable to the federal government
This was NOT done immediately. So, for example, the first amendment did not have to be follow by the state governments until the supreme court ruled on it in the 1920s
Similarly, the states did not have to provide an attorney until the 1960s
People in NY could not sue to get rid of the Stop and Frisk policy as they could not prove they definitely would be hurt by a police officer due to Stop and Frisk. Even if they got hurt previously
This Dean suggests there is nothing stopping Abbott from making a law where a citizen criticizing Abbott could be sued by another citizen. He can get around any constitutional mandate
On a side note for your world politics for the day.
Abortion tourism making a comeback?
Abortion tourism making a comeback?
Surprised no-one posted it yet but the Satanist Church is challenging the Texas law as infringing their religious rights lol
www.independent.co.uk
Satanic Temple takes legal action against Texas abortion law and says members exempt
Religious group says its members should be exempt for religious reasons
www.independent.co.uk
So Mexico is more progressive than Texas on this issue?
Then again a lot of places are more progressive than Texas, period.
Yeah but being pipped at the post by Mexico? That place is one of the strongholds of the Catholic faith, something like 89% of the country's religious are Christian, and 78% of that are Catholics. That's a hell of concession for such a religiously conservative country to make.
So now that Governor Abbott has announced Texas will be ending all rape, tacitly admitting he had the power to end rape this whole time and didn't, is it fair to hold him criminally negligent for every rape that's happened in Texas since he took over?
It doesn't have to be one of those, because you can deliver a child and have other people take over from there, but 1 is a pretty good option, generally speaking.
The status quo you defend is as old as western civilization. Roe v. Wade was a sad and shallow rationalization for why we should follow the same traditions as people centuries ago with essentially no knowledge of medical science. The idea that a fetus isn't a human being is the old and outdated belief, a belief that is inevitably going to be beaten by medical science, and the more capable people become at ending a pregnancy without ending the life, the closer we come to the 100% ban of killing fetuses.
Really? Because there are quite a few more kids in need of adoption than there are families looking to adopt already.
It's also utterly unrealistic in real-world scenarios, as we know.
No, there aren't. There is at all times an order of magnitude more families wanting to adopt than there are children to adopt (in the US*). There are older children stuck in the foster system, mostly either because their parents have only temporarily lost custody or because they have unique issues that any random family isn't equipped to manage, but there are dozens of hopeful would-be parents for every infant adopted. The average wait time is in years, without counting that the majority of people who consider adopting a baby give up on it.
*The UK is different, because for some reason your government has decided to make both giving away and adopting a child into miserable, arduous processes.
That's because people only want to adopt infants.
There over a hundred thousand non-infants wanting to be adopted that these "concerned would-be parents" don't give two shits about
Look, you figure out a way to remove a fetus from a person *without* killing it, at every stage of development, *and* you make it so doing so isn't a burden on the person wanting to do so, *then* you can ban abortion.
Not one minute sooner. Bodily autonomy is paramount
There over a hundred thousand non-infants wanting to be adopted that these "concerned would-be parents" don't give two shits about
Look, you figure out a way to remove a fetus from a person *without* killing it, at every stage of development, *and* you make it so doing so isn't a burden on the person wanting to do so, *then* you can ban abortion.
Not one minute sooner. Bodily autonomy is paramount
I would say, knowing how humans work, that 1 isn't very good at making sure 2 becomes the norm.
I am way more interested in preventions rather than cures. But 1 is like have a vitamin C tablet to stave off a cold. Somewhat effective